ARE ZOOS A NECESSARY EVIL?
Sean Byrne
Professor Keefer
2 August 2000
   
 
 As a child I can remember when I misbehaved the absolute worst punishment 
  my parents could inflict: I would be banished to my bedroom, the length of time 
  depending on the seriousness of the "crime." It seemed that every possible want 
  and desire I had while being punished was related to an activity just outside 
  the confines of that bedroom. The hours seemed like days and the time spent 
  "locked" in my room was unbearable. When I look back on those "torturous" days 
  of my childhood, I can't believe what the big deal was. If I hadn't been punished, 
  most likely I probably would have spent my free time in my bedroom anyway. Who 
  was I kidding, locked in a room with a TV set, all of my toys and comic books, 
  who could possibly consider being confined to this "habitat" as punishment? 
  
  
  While I wasn't "confined" for more than a day or two or put on display for other 
  kids in the neighborhood to observe, I can see a resemblance to the animals 
  that are locked up in their "rooms" at the zoo. While their rooms have most 
  of the same things as their natural habitats, it is the thought that they do 
  not get to leave after Mom or Dad has finally broken down and absolved them 
  of their crime. This is their life for the foreseeable future. They haven't 
  misbehaved and they certainly did nothing worthy of being punished for. What 
  right do we have to exert our authority over other non-human species? Shouldn't 
  animals be afforded the same basic rights as you and I? It is my belief that 
  despite their professed concern for animals, zoos remain more "collections" 
  of interesting "items" than actual havens or simulated habitats. Zoos teach 
  people that it is acceptable to keep animals in captivity, bored, cramped, lonely 
  and far from their natural homes.
  
  More than 2,300 years ago, the philosopher Aristotle wrote that men were by 
  nature superior to woman and that slaves lived for the sake of their masters. 
  A century later, the Greek Stoic Chrysippus claimed that horses and oxen existed 
  so they could labor for us and that "as for the pig, that most appetizing of 
  delicacies, it was created for no other purpose than slaughter, and God, in 
  furnishing our cuisine, mixed soul in with its flesh like salt" (Wise 10). It 
  is the belief that non-human animals are somehow made for our benefit that causes 
  us to treat animals the way we do. Our DNA and that of chimpanzees are more 
  than 98.3 percent identical. Scientists now believe that humans and chimpanzees 
  may differ by only several hundred genes out of approximately 100,000. A mere 
  fifty genes may control differences in our cognition. If Aristotle and Chrysippus 
  were aware of how similar we are to chimps, would they still have held their 
  beliefs? If most people today were cognizant of this fact, would they still 
  feel comfortable putting animals in zoos?
  
  Zoo conditions can range from being a fairly accurate although drastically smaller 
  version of an animal's habitat to small, cold, sterile "cages" where little 
  thought or feeling for the animals' mental or physical condition is given. Animals 
  who naturally live in large herds or family groups are often kept alone, and 
  their natural hunting and mating behaviors are virtually eliminated by regulated 
  feeding and breeding regimens. Because of their close confinement, animals get 
  little or no mental or physical exercise. Virginia McKenna, star of the movie 
  Born Free and now an active campaigner on behalf of captive animals: "It is 
  the sadness of zoos which haunts me. The purposeless existence of the animals. 
  For the four hours we spend in a zoo, the animals spend four years, or fourteen, 
  perhaps even longer - if not in the same zoo then in others - day and night: 
  summer and winter� This is not conservation and surely it is not education. 
  No, it is entertainment. Not comedy, however, but tragedy". 
  
  If it were not enough to take animals and keep them in captivity, many zoos 
  over the years have been cited for numerous violations of animal cruelty to 
  the animals entrusted in their care. In December 1999, a video exposé 
  showed Sissy, an elephant at the El Paso Zoo, restrained by all four legs, being 
  repeatedly beaten by zoo workers with large wooden bats. Soon after the video 
  was released, the El Paso City Council voted unanimously to allow Sissy to retire 
  to an Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee. The zoo director was forced to resign, 
  and the USDA charged the zoo with violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act 
  (which the zoo decided to settle out of court). Several years ago as reported 
  in the Los Angeles Times, the San Diego Zoo was the scene of a similar horrific 
  act. An African Elephant being transferred to the Zoos Wild Animal Park was 
  chained, pulled to the ground, and beaten with ax handles for two days. "You 
  have to motivate them," say San Francisco zookeeper Paul Hunter of elephants, 
  "and the way you do that is by beating the hell out of them" ( Fritsch).
 The life of boredom that goes along with captivity often causes animals to 
  engage in abnormal and self-destructive behavior known as "zoochosis". You're 
  most likely to find this word used by animal rights activists in reference to 
  what they see as the degrading effect of zoos on the animals they contain. The 
  Internet website World Wide Words describes 
  the term : "Many animals, especially the large carnivores, become deeply depressed, 
  even psychotic, as the result of captivity. Symptoms of zoochosis include nervous 
  pacing, head rocking, and self-mutilation. The problem is perhaps most acute 
  with polar bears, which have proved especially difficult to keep sane, and which 
  often show disturbed behavior such as swimming for hours in small circles. The 
  Central Park Zoo in New York had to call in an animal psychologist to find ways 
  to give its polar bear, Gus, a more varied and challenging environment".
  
  It was with this knowledge that I decided to make a trip to the zoo I had most 
  frequented as a child, the Staten Island Zoo. I always remembered having a great 
  time at that zoo and thought it might make for some interesting observations 
  now that I am an adult. I started to remember some of the things that made the 
  experience so fun for me. There was a petting zoo where children could feed 
  and interact with various animals like goats, deer and horses. They had a cool 
  Reptile House with a wide variety of lizards and snakes and a African Savannah 
  exhibit showcasing many of the wild animals from Africa such as monkeys, lions 
  and tigers. With all those animals behind its doors, you might think this zoo 
  sounds pretty big zoo, right? Well as I recently discovered, the Staten Island 
  Zoo, which opened its doors in 1936, is situated on only eight sprawling acres 
  of parkland. Yes, only eight acres of land. For a size comparison, Washington 
  Square Park in New York City, which is not a very large park, is approximately 
  ten acres. That's not a lot of land for a zoo that hosts over 637 different 
  animals.
  
 
The Staten Island Zoo had not seemed to change one bit from my last visit over twenty years ago. The sights, sounds and smells I encountered upon entering the gates brought back many vivid memories for me. I picked up a copy of the zoos' brochure and proceeded to map out my trip. My first stop was a cage situated on the lawn about 8 to 10 feet high just inside the entranceway of the zoo. Inside the cage were two beautiful Snowy Owls who somehow seemed oblivious to the noise of the cars driving bye the zoo not 15 feet away. The sign outside the cage gave very little useful information and the only thing I learned was that these owls were very far away from their natural home in the Arctic. It wasn't until I had done my own research that I discovered some interesting things, including the fact that these owls are the official birds of Quebec. If the zoo is going to cage these birds thousands of miles away from their natural habitat under the guise that they are educating the public, then they're going to have to do a much better job.
 I then made my way to the Serpentarium, which is a fancy name for the Reptile 
  House. Upon entering the "house" the first animals on display were small turtles, 
  lizards and snakes in tanks the size of a shoebox which were in turn placed 
  inside of an artificial rock wall to give the appearance of being "natural" 
  exhibit. Beside the nameplates next to each animals cubicle there was no information 
  at all to help me better understand these creatures. Were they close to extinction, 
  were they endangered, or did their natural habitats consist of a solitary life 
  in a small glass box with mysterious faces peering in on them all day? Most 
  likely not, but you would never know by this zoos' emphasis on "education". 
  The alligators were always one of my favorites, so I was looking forward to 
  see what changes if any had occurred to the exhibit over the years. I'm not 
  sure if it was just my bad memory, but the cage actually looked a lot smaller 
  than I remembered it. There were four large alligators confined to a space no 
  bigger than a small office. The zoo curators seem to have gone that extra mile 
  for detail by painting the walls "swimming pool" blue, just like in the Everglades. 
  I looked for one of those doors that you usually see in the cages that allow 
  the animals to move into another holding area, but no such luck, this was it. 
  I'm sure the kids went home content with the knowledge that the alligator' natural 
  habitat looks like the kiddy pool at the YMCA as opposed to the beautiful Everglades.
 Under the guise of research and against my better judgment I begrudgingly 
  carried on with the tour. Next stop, the African Safari. I was always fond of 
  visiting the monkeys and even as a child I felt a sadness about their existence 
  in captivity because of their close resemblance to humans. I can't say I was 
  surprised by what I saw when I entered the exhibit. There were two Spider Monkeys, 
  which happen to be endangered species sitting in a "simulated habitat" which 
  consisted of a few tree branches, and a rope. The monkeys just lay there looking 
  bored beyond belief as children yelled, pointed and knocked on the glass. While 
  the cause to save endangered animals is a noble and necessary one, is the trade 
  off that animals are sentenced to live in an alien environment that bears no 
  resemblance to their natural habitat, with no hope of being returned to the 
  wild acceptable? The sight of endlessly pacing and bored animals makes me wonder 
  just how fortunate they are to be protected.
 The pictures of the animals from the zoo brochure all seemed to look like 
  the "headshot" photos that models use or the class photo that you used to get 
  when you were in school. There was absolutely no trace of the tiny cages that 
  they inhabit or the bored and unmotivated existence that they are living. Judging 
  by the brochure it seemed that everything was just fine at the Staten Island 
  Zoo. Why wouldn't it be, the zoo is a New York City owned facility and is supported 
  in part by annual appropriations from the Department of Cultural Affairs. The 
  Staten Island Zoo is also one of 184 accredited members of the American Zoo 
  and Aquarium Association. The AZA, which was established in 1924, represents 
  virtually every professionally operated zoological park aquarium, oceanarium 
  and wildlife park in North America. What exactly does it mean to be accredited 
  by the AZA? According the AZA website: "The accreditation process was designed 
  to evaluate zoos and aquariums in order to bolster public confidence by certifying 
  that an institution meets certain standards. Every zoo and aquarium must be 
  accredited in order to become a member of AZA. The accreditation process also 
  includes a peer review every five years to verify the maintenance of high standards 
  required for continuation of membership." Unfortunately, the AZA only provides 
  direction on ethical issues involving animal health and welfare. What that basically 
  means is that by keeping their animals in such small quarters, the Staten Island 
  Zoo is breaking no laws, and is in full compliance with the AZA and its guidelines. 
  I'm sure the Staten Island Zoo and its employees genuinely care for the animals 
  they are entrusted with, most people who work at zoos do. But in my opinion 
  to knowingly subject these animals to such unsuitable habitats is unacceptable.
 I begin to realize that obtaining an interview with a zoo curator or employee 
  was going to be difficult. My e-mail requests were all declined and during my 
  visit to the Staten Island Zoo I was told the personal were too busy. While 
  I'm pretty sure that all the zoos I had contacted really were busy, I couldn't 
  help but think that as soon as I mentioned the words "research paper" a red 
  flag went off in their heads that said "Do not talk to this person, nobody writes 
  a positive research paper on zoos!". But I'm sure that's just my active imagination. 
  I still wanted to talk to someone who felt differently about zoos. Someone who 
  did not see the small cages but instead saw only the beautiful animals inside. 
  Someone who loved those animals and simply enjoyed that they were there, for 
  all the world to see. I decided to interview some children that I know who love 
  zoos and would not be shy about telling me why. 
  
  I spoke to two young girls, ages 8 and 9 who love animals and like to frequent 
  zoos. When asked what it was about the zoo that was so appealing, their answer 
  was quite simply that they love to see animals, especially animals from different 
  parts of the world. By visiting the zoo, they learned about animals feeding 
  habits and where it was that these animals' natural habitats were. As to why 
  the animals were in the zoo, one child stated that were it not for the zoo the 
  animals would most likely be killed and the other child felt that animals should 
  be collected for everyone to see. The San Diego Zoo and the Bronx Zoo were favorites 
  because of their large natural looking animal habitats. They also realized that 
  the animals' zoo homes did not really resemble their natural habitats and that 
  in the smaller exhibits where the animals were in close proximity behind bars, 
  the animal was most likely unhappy and sad. 
 As a child and even now as an adult, I share a lot of the girls' views on 
  animals and zoos. I have found in my research that there are good zoos that 
  do serve a useful purpose to both animal and man. The San Diego Zoo and the 
  Bronx Zoo are two examples of zoos that offer spacious, realistic and species 
  sensitive habitats while also educating and informing the public of its endangered 
  species. The San Diego Zoos work to protect, preserve and hopefully one day 
  restore endangered animals to their natural habitats is commendable. But it 
  is the animals that are not in danger of being extinct that are kept in zoos 
  that concerns me. Yes, the chance to view animals that you might never be afforded 
  the opportunity to view is exciting for many people. But look at it this way, 
  most people will never get the chance to visit the Great Wall of China, simply 
  because it's too far and too expensive to travel there and view it. Does not 
  mean it should be disassembled and put on display all over the world so people 
  can enjoy it? There are numerous people, places and cultures that most people 
  will never meet or experience. Should we put them all in a traveling road show 
  so we can observe them at our convenience? Certainly not, so why is it all right 
  to take animals from their natural habitats and put them on display for our 
  enjoyment? 
  
 With the use of the Internet, it is now possible to experience animals undisturbed 
  in their simulated habitats. Most zoos now feature Virtual Zoo Exhibits on their 
  websites that allow viewers to experience the sights and sounds of the animals 
  without the intrusion of humans. Unfortunately, most of the current Virtual 
  Zoos offered are more like commercials designed to entice you to visit the "real" 
  zoo. The concept however shows promise. A website based in Italy offers Internet 
  viewers pictures of hundreds of animals complete with sound and background information 
  that is more extensive than some zoos. In Henderson, Nevada students and teachers 
  at Brown Junior High created there own Virtual Zoo as well. Students from all 
  over the world are encouraged to enjoy and even participate in the maintenance 
  of the "zoo". Granted, while this is not the same as seeing animals live and 
  in person, it is the attempt to satisfy the public appetite for viewing animals 
  and respecting the animals rights that I find so encouraging. Hopefully, someday 
  animals will be able to be observed by people while peacefully existing in their 
  own natural habitats.
  
   
 
 Ultimately, the only way to save endangered species and in turn eliminate 
  the only useful purpose of a zoo is to save their habitats and address the reasons 
  people kill them. Groups such as the Born Free Foundation, an international 
  wildlife charity believe that wildlife belongs in the wild and is dedicated 
  to the conservation of rare species in their natural habitat, and the phasing 
  out of traditional zoos. The Born Free Foundation was founded by the actors 
  Virginia McKenna and Bill Travers following their starring roles in the classic 
  wildlife film 'Born Free'. Born Free works to change animals' lives for good, 
  to investigate cruelty and neglect, and to raise awareness about wildlife issues. 
  Animal Rights groups such as PETA, while often extreme in their views and methods, 
  work tirelessly to expose zoo abuses which result in media exposure and worldwide 
  concern and action. But as a result of the research I've done, I believe that 
  the public and everyone who has a love for animals needs to become involved 
  too. As I was leaving the Staten Island Zoo I noticed a sign at the exit that 
  stated the zoo was currently being remodeled (for aesthetics, not size) and 
  they apologized because their larger animals such as the lions and tigers were 
  currently in other zoos until the work was done. I didn't know whether to laugh 
  or cry that this zoo that I thought too small was actually missing a good portion 
  of its animals. I decided that I now had an emotional attachment to the issue 
  of zoos and instead of just writing a research paper and forgetting about it, 
  maybe I should take my own advice to get involved and write a letter of complaint 
  to the AZA about the Staten Island Zoo.
  
  
 Works Cited
Born Free Foundation 2000. Born Free Foundation < www.bornfree.org.uk 
  >
Brown JHS Virtual Zoo. March 1998. Clark County School District.
< www.ccsd.net/schools/brown/zoo/index.html >
Fritsch, Jane "Elephants in Captivity: A Dark Side," LA Times 5 Oct. 1998
McKenna, Virginia. Beyond the Bars, 1987
Peta Action Alerts. June 2000. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 
  www.peta-online.org
  
Smith, Val & Kimberly. Personal Interview. 27 July 2000.
World Wide Words. Ed. 2000. Michael B. Quinion. www.quinion.com
Wise, Steven, Rattling the Cage : Toward Legal Rights For Animals. New York: 
  Perseus, 2000. 
Zoo Animals To Go. June 2000. Mecury Center <www.mercurycenter.com> 
  
Zoocheck. June 2000. Zoocheck Canada < www.zoocheck.com 
  >
  
Zoo in the Wild Editrice del Vascello. 2000 Editrice de Vascello
<http://www.naturalia.org/ZOO/welcome.html>