 |
| Copyright © 2004 International Institute of Anthropology Copyright © 2004 Adam Wilkins |
 |
| Our Weakest Link by Adam Wilkins (Westminster College, Salt Lake City, Utah), e-mail: rupertshaw@hotmail.com |
| I hate the zoo. I always have. Ever since I was a young boy I have always been uncomfortable with seeing those beautiful, and majestic creatures locked up in cages like criminals. They are locked up for nothing more than the sheer amusement of human beings. I believe that the act of putting animals in zoos is an inhumane and barbaric practice. It is inhumane for the numerous accounts of abuse and torture through physical and mental abuses. And it is a barbaric practice for the act in its self. By putting wild creatures on display so gawking people can take a closer look at them, all the while pretending that they are doing not only us a service, but they are doing the animals a service, to me is just inherently wrong. First and foremost zoos are a business. Money is their main priority. How can they exist if they do not pay the bills, and make enough money to stay in business? According to Against Zoos by Dale Jameson, it costs approximately 75,000 to 250,000 dollars to run a decent herbivore exhibit. Since most zoos typically are in the red year after year, due to declining ticket sales, they have to find ways to cut corners, and formulate creative ways to make ends meet. However, when corners are cut and creative solutions are formulated it is the “attractions” (what zoo attendants call the animals) that are on the losing side of the scale. One popular way for zoos to acquire extra money is to sell their “surplus animals” to smaller unaccredited zoos, and wild hunting farms. According to Dominion by Mathew Scully, the AZAA (American Zoological and Aquarium Association) prints an annual magazine called “Animals Finders Guide”. In the guide the association advertises various “surplus” animals from accredited zoos that are available for sale to the highest bidder. Scully even mentions that some zoos breed surplus animals to try to make their ends meet. Sadly according to Scully the San Jose Mercury News reported that in 2000 38% of all animals in accredited zoos in 2000 were sold to various locations. (Scully 64) Hunting farms are an unfortunate legal way for hunters to enjoy the kill of a big game animal. Most Hunters prefer to hunt “used” zoo animals to the accredited wild animal reserves in Africa for their slower running and maneuverability on the hunt. Smaller roadside zoos and animal parks are another benefactor of the wild animal market. However, due to laxed regulations and minimal enforcement of those regulations that do exist, smaller zoos have to continue to turn to the “Animal Finders Guide” to have a steady supply of their exhibits. The AZAA strictly forbids their accredited zoos to buy “used” animals. However, there is no regulation on the selling of “surplus” items to any one with a wild animal exhibition license. According to Introduction to Animal Rights by Gary L Francione, “From 50 to 80 percent of al large animals found in roadside zoos originate in the breeding programs of large zoos.” (Francione 24) In fact According to A Different Nature by David Hancocks out of the 2,000 plus wild animal exhibition licenses that are issued by the United States Department of Agriculture only 9% (186) are issued to accredited zoos (Hancocks 182). Therefore smaller zoos or anyone who can afford the license fee can have their very own “used” Chimpanzee of rhinoceros of their very own. There is another reason for the over breeding of wild zoo animals. Babies are cute and old sickly animals are not. Old animals do not bring out the crowds and the money like baby animals do. Once a baby animal is born it is immediately marketed and shown on parade for guests to pay an extra dollar to take a look at the baby animal. As soon as the animal grows up they are sold, and the zoo eagerly waits for the next tourist attraction to be born. Unfortunately due to the high turnaround of the exhibits, zoos are able to cut corners on the funding to maintain the health of the animals, and improve the cages and “habitats” that the animals live in. According to PETA the animals are uncomfortably crammed, some instances two to three times the maximum limit, into the over filled cages. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animas) In all actuality most animal habitats are too small, and dangerously under safety code for the animal or animals that are being displayed. Zoos claim that they provide a naturalistic habitat. A place that guests can observe the animals in a non-intrusive manner. However most habitats are not naturalistic, rather they are no more than a prison for the animals to reside in while they serve their time. They can range from large “naturalistic” habitats to steel cages. Most zoo habitats contain plastic trees and concrete jungles that house the most majestic creatures on the planet. They are given fancy names and bright colors to convince the public that they are not a cage. For instance at the Atlanta zoo the steel prison that houses the felines is lovingly called the “Lion Experience”. Another example of false advertising has been discovered by David Hancocks. He describes the “Primate Forest” at Utah’s Hogle Zoo as nothing more than “Five sawed tree stumps on a hillock of broken rocks” (Hancocks 141) The Primate Forest is just another example of zoos creating a false “naturalistic setting”. The Hogle Zoo is one of the most under funded zoos in the nation. They are in desperate need of improvements to their habitats. However, when the opportunity was given they had their own priorities of what was needed to be improved. According to the March 5 issue of the Salt Lake Tribune, An 8 Million dollar grant was given to the Hogle Zoo by the AZAA for required “animal and park needs.” However, instead of using the funds to help improve the habitats of the animals, most of the grant money was used to improve the entrance and playground of the park. Very minimal improvements were done to the habitats. Unfortunately it is just another example of what the zoos hold dear. That they would rather improve guest services rather than the non-paying animals being exhibited. Zoos are very successful in duping the public to believe that they provide a “naturalistic” setting rather than the classic steel cage that they unfortunately forced to live in. The cages not only house but they contain and control the creatures as well. The book Animal Equity by Joan Dunayer paints a chilling portrait of the sacrifices that zoo creatures are forced to experience all in the name of the almighty dollar. She explains that the zoo schedule is determined not by what is the best for the animal, but it is determined by the paying guests. The zoos are open during the rain and sleet. They are open during hot and cold temperatures. They are open morning and night. Basically they are open no matter what. Dunayer states that “In winter 2000 two Grevy zebras…died from the cold. Fed an inadequate diet, they…had no body fat to protect them from low temperatures …one was eight…the other was one.” (Dunayer 76) To zoos a day that the zoo is closed is a day wasted. It is lost revenue. They believe that if the customers can make it to the zoo they will be open. Not only does bad weather play no part in determining when the animals are put on display, but time plays no factor in determining the schedule of the park. According to Dunayer the animals are on display morning, noon and night. “ In zoos, most elephants are chained sixteen to seventeen hours a day. (Dunayer 79) The animals do not get a coffee break or a sick day or even an Easter vacation their schedule is determined by the paying public. Unfortunately if sick days for animals were allowed there would not be much of a display. Poor health concerns, due to the inadequacy of the shelters is a common and poorly treated occurrence. The empty and sterile habitats the animals are contained in cannot provide the mental and physical needs of the animals. There are many neurotic activities that the confined animals display. The confinement of the animals can cause mental stress on the animals thus causing abnormal behaviors. According to Francione “Animals …often display neurotic stress-induced behaviors such as pacing, head bobbing, weaving back and forth, and through feces at each other...and prevents normal behaviors like sex and childbearing.” (Francione 24) The habitats themselves can cause a vast array of physical health concerns to the animals. Because of the large amplified nature of the cages or habitat rooms, the talking and various noises that the patrons make next to the habitat can cause the creatures to loose some or all of their sense of hearing. Due to the constant shining of the flood lighting on the habitats, (some days for 16 hours at a time) some animals can even loose part or all of their sense of sight. Cleanliness also is a very serious health problem. Due to the sterile and predominately concrete flooring of most animal habitats, the animals cannot properly dispose of their waste. Instead of the waste decomposing naturally or soaking into the ground the waste stays on the flooring. At times the problem can get so severe that according to Francione “Some animals develop ulcers, and other infections in their feet from standing in urine and excrement” (Francione 24) Inadequate diet is another major health concern for most displayed animals. Due to the constraint of being confined to a particular cage or habitat the animal lacks the general exercise or physical activity that helps with the digestion of food. The animals therefore become dangerously over weight. Since fat lazy animals do not grasp the guests attention they are purposely under fed in order to keep their weight down. Drugging the animals is a common occurrence for accredited zoos. According to Dunayer most zoos tranquilize their largest animals on a regular basis in order to “train” and contain them for their own and the guests security. They are at times tranquilized for days at a time to give the animal, as one zoo official stated, “ Time to adjust to their environment.” Some zoos even give their animals Prozac to calm their mental stress (Dunayer 78) Instead of giving a natural life, or habitat the zoos drug the animals so that their stress is more manageable. Unfortunately Prozac and tranquilizers can cause a loss of appetite for the animals, which also leads to the inadequate diet. Another health concern arises again do to budget restraints. Zoos cannot hire an adequate veterinary staff. In order to be sure that the animals have the very best treatment a zoo would have to hire a specialist for each animal displayed. However that is a un realistic goal for zoos that have up to a hundred different species. Modern zoological veterinarians are trained in general veterinary medicine. But when a un common ailment attacks an animal on display the veterinarian may not fully know how to treat the problem. Since the zoo might not have enough money to bring in a specialist the problem may either be overlooked or not even treated at all. Some people argue that even with all of the gross aspects of zoos they are essential to the preservation of endangered species. When in all actuality, according to PETA most animals in the zoos are not endangered. For the few zoos that do have a captive breeding program they are not very successful in the re release of animals into the wild. According to Francione “Of the more than the thousand species housed in zoo breeding programs, only about fifty have been involved in programs intended to increase populations in the wild” (Francione 24) It is also more expensive to keep endangered animals in zoos. According to Dunayer “ it costs 46 times as much to keep one African elephant in a zoo as to safe guard sufficient natural habitat for that elephant and countless other inhabitants” (Dunayer 84) For cash strapped zoos it is not a wise business move to keep endangered animals in captivity. Endangered species are preserved and protected in animal reserves where they are allowed to flourish in their own natural environment, away from the interference of unnatural cages and abuse. To simply display an animal when we know it is endangered, and deprive them of their own natural state by locking them and throwing away the key for the sheer amusement for humans is counter productive to the preservation of the species. It hurts more than it helps. Another argument in favor of keeping zoos is that they are essential to our general acquisition of knowledge to the science and biology of the animal kingdom. What I ask is gained from zoos that we do not already know? The only scientific research that is gained by animals in captivity is how do animals in captivity act and function. If we have no animals in captivity we would have no reason for the science. Confined animals do not teach us how they act in real life. Zoos only teach us how locked up animals behave and look like. We do not see them hunt, live, play, work in their own natural environment we only see how a captive animal is fed, sleeps has neurotic episodes in an un natural environment. According to Dunayer most people do not learn from the displays anyway “At thirteen U.S. zoos the average length of time that visitors watched various mammals ranged from fourteen seconds…to less than two minutes.” (Dunayer 81) People are not stopping to learn about the animals from the “educational” plaques that accompany the display. They convey general information about the animal. They tell us how tall they are, what they eat, where they live etc., information that anyone can read in an encyclopedia. What is actually learned by the display? All we want to do, and can do, is just learn their anatomy. We just to “see it.” When the Discovery Channel, and wild animal preserves are available throughout this country, and open to the public, it is clear that there are more humane ways to learn about animals without degrading them as amusement. There is however something that zoos try to teach. They teach our society that it is okay to treat animals inhumanely. They teach us that we are ultimately superior, and that we have the right to treat them as we see fit We are learning, and hypocritically passing down to future generations that it is not right to treat other human being with out humanity, but treating other living creatures inhumanely is not a concern. There is an old saying that goes “You are only as strong as the weakest link in the chain” That statement means no matter what you or others do, the weakest aspect of a situation is who you really are. Never more is this statement true than putting animals in zoos. We as a culture try our hardest to be fair and right to those who need our help. We fight wars to end injustice in other countries. We give billions of dollars in aid to various charities. But no matter how hard we try to do other great things, the weakest link still remains. What does this say about us as a people? It says, that we only care about our own species. And that any thing that can benefit human beings is all right, as long as it does not hurt other human beings. It is a dangerous road to follow. According to Dunayer “In a study by Arizona state University…evidence indicates that “displaying animals in zoos detracts from their inherit dignity in the eyes of the public.” (Dunayer 82) If we think that they are a sub species we can treat them as a sub species. In other countries that aspect of zoos is in full bloom. According to Hancocks “ At the Siu Ling Park…visitors are given a stick to jab the monkeys. In many of Chinas zoos, visitors routinely and contemptuously spit on the animals.” (Hancocks 182) If that is the present, where are zoos headed in the future? Is it possible that we will advance our observations of creatures even further? Is it possible that we will have anatomy observations? What if we can take a look at the insides of a chimpanzee or elephant because it will help us learn more about the creature? It is a far-fetched idea, but how would it be different than what we are doing right now. There are people combating the message that zoos are broadcasting. They are sharing a message with the public that we need to give dignity to all living creatures. One such person is Virgina McKenna as she stated for PETA “It is the sadness of zoos which haunts me. The purposelessness existence of the animals. For the four hours we spend in a zoo, the animals spend four years, or fourteen, or perhaps even longer.” (PETA 1) Ms. McKenna’s work was popularized in the movie Born Free, a movie that shows the way animals need to be treated. It is a movie that promotes that animals need to be free in their own natural environment, able to roam around the plains of Africa able to do what ever comes naturally. Not be required to put on a show for gawking tourists. It is the sadness she sees because she knows what they are like on the outside. When they are not only Born Free, but remain free. She knows that they are better adjusted in their own natural environment, and can cope with what ever comes their way. But more importantly they are at home. They have a purpose other than just being on display, simply because they are different than what we are. Imagine for instance if you were to be caged, dragged form your own home, and put on display all day every day for the rest of your life. Bad day, sick, tired, none of those factors matter. Your life has been reduced to being on display, to that particular slab of concrete and bars, for the rest of your life. What purpose would you find in that? Animals are different than humans, but they do have feelings. Pain, sadness, boredom are inherit in all living creatures. Do we just assume that those feelings are a moot point? Do the animals in confinement miss their home their family, feel embarrassment? We need to be humane and realize that we are not the only ones on the feeling market, and that all creatures’ great and small feel the same way. We need to realize that we cannot fully be a caring and just species, if we act barbarically to those who cannot speak for, or help themselves. Only together we can stop the barbaric practice of caging innocent creatures, and finally grow into the people that we think we are. References Dunayer, Joan Animal Equality: Language and Liberation. Derwood, Maryland. Ryce Publishing 2001 Francione, Gary L. Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? Philadelphia. Temple University Press 2000 Hancocks, David A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of zoos and their Uncertain future. London, England. University of California Press 2001 Jamieson, Dale. “Against Zoos.” In Defense of Animals. Ed. Singer, Peter New York, New York. Harper and Row Publishers 1986 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) “Zoos are Prisons.” The Rights Of Animals Ed. Roleff, Tamera L, Hurley, Jennifer A. San Diego, California Greenhaven Press. 1999 Robinson, Daimar “Forum Letter” Salt Lake Tribune 5, March 2004 Local Edition. Scully, Matthew. Dominion: The Power of Man, Suffering of Animals, and the Call To Mercy. New York. St. Martins Press 2002 |