The dilemma of what to do with surplus animals has been a significant ethical issue as zoos have become victims of their own successes in animal breeding. Animals are living longer in zoos and having more babies, resulting in surpluses of many species. The capacity of zoos to accommodate many of these, such as baby tigers and lions and myriad hoofed animals, has been stretched to the limits in many locations. In some cases the offspring of certain prolific species have been humanely destroyed at birth, but this can cause dismay to zoo personnel and the general public because it may be viewed as contradicting zoos’ ethical positions on revering and nurturing life.
Part of the proposed solution to the care of these unwanted animals has been the proliferation of so-called animal sanctuaries or rescue societies. Unfortunately, this randomly spawn assortment of organizations has also been had its share of humane problems. Often started by individuals with sparse resources and credentials, some have themselves turned out to be part of the animal industry problem, housing animals in substandard conditions and on occasion breeding and disseminating exotic animals into private hands for profit. Overdue efforts are underway to improve the credentialing of legitimate sanctuary operations in the United States.
New emphasis is being placed on controlled breeding and contraception. The American Association of Zoo Veterinarians has a standing group named the Reproduction and Contraception Committee. Coordination of breeding is taking place in a cooperative fashion as various groups have formed within the American Zoo and Aquarium Association to manage certain species as collective populations in order to promote genetic diversity. Founded in 1971 as an autonomous organization, after years of affiliation with park management associations, the AZA has greatly expanded the scope of its interests and concerns over the past thirty years. It includes subgroups on captive breeding, field conservation, education, and, in 1980, zoo and aquarium facility accreditation. By 2003 it had 208 member facilities in North America, out of a total of an estimated 2,300 animal operations that represent themselves to be a zoo of one sort or another. Its stated mission is “to promote the welfare of zoological parks and aquariums and their advancement as public educational institutions, as scientific centers, as natural science and wildlife exhibition and conservation agencies, and as cultural recreational establishments dedicated to the enrichment of human and natural resources.” Other players in the zoo profession internationally include the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), renamed in 2000 from its former designation as the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens, which first organized in 1946 and now numbering two hundred member institutions. The European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA), headquartered in Amsterdam, has 289 institutional members.
Despite the unpleasantness of the subject of euthanasia, it is a necessary topic for inclusion in a veterinary-oriented book on zoos. The term itself means “good death,” which to me suggests that it should involve the least amount of pain and discomfort possible. This will mean different things to different people, and zoo personnel can be as conflicted about the indications and justifications as uninformed outsiders might be. In general, it is the practice of killing a hopelessly sick or injured animal as an act of mercy. The technology of euthanasia itself is sufficient to assure a humane process in most cases. Most are carried out using a lethal dose of potent anesthetic agents.
Often, however, the decision to euthanize an animal may involve a largely subjective judgment of an animal’s state of well-being, and considers their discomfort level against the realistic prospects for constructive recovery and quality of life. In practice, an animal’s condition leading up to the actual decision to kill it humanely can result in significantly more discomfort than any act of euthanasia, and involve pain and discomfort both from the illness or injury itself, as well as from stressful treatments. A decision whether to euthanize should be largely a medical judgment, although human sensitivities, personalities, and politics certainly weigh heavily into the process. Zoo staff members occasionally lobby for the continued treatment and surgery of marginal and painful cases where the prognosis is poor or even hopeless. In the interest of maintaining harmony in the ranks, there are probably times when redundant, unpromising, and even painful treatments have been continued by the medical staff to preserve people morale. Perhaps part of the concerns that promote this sometimes questionable practice relates to avoiding ad hominem aspersions of insensitivity on the part of medical caregivers. In these cases one can only hope that professional judgment will prevail over sentiments that serve the concerned person(s) more than the suffering animal. Such confusion may be avoided to a significant degree by developing euthanasia policy criteria on what constitutes “quality of life” in general and open discussions with staff that focus first on the animals’ well-being. Simply because a procedure is technically feasible should not by itself be sufficient justification to carry it out. With such fundamentals in place, judgments on euthanasia can become more uniform and judicious, and, more important, better serve the humane interests of the animals involved as well as their caregivers.
During the 1980s, in an effort to address the surplus animal problem, one zoo director proposed that zoos should not artificially rear certain species and thereby compound their dilemma with marginal or unwanted individuals. Misappropriating a concept from biologist Charles Darwin, he advocated that, “just as in nature,” either they prevailed on their own—the survival of the fittest (in captivity)—or were left to their own devices or euthanized. This policy drew upon the premise that zoo animals should be managed on the basis of populations, which is the norm in wildlife management practices, and minimize the consideration given to individuals. The staff reaction to this new policy was chilly and the public was appalled, prompting a local and industry-wide controversy about surplus animals which continues today. Many felt that it was the inadequacies of the artificial environment of the zoo that was mostly responsible for these failures to thrive, not flawed survival propensities. Fairly or not, some regarded these practices as Kevorkian in style; they were reversed in that zoo’s subsequent administration.
Other zoos have had straightforward policies of euthanizing surplus animals of certain species, more often males, at birth, although this always remained a delicate and low-profile activity. Zoos have now turned extensively to various forms of controlled breeding, such as separating animals during fertility periods, selectively sterilizing individuals through ovariectomy and vasectomy, and various forms of chemical birth control. The San Diego Zoo was the first to use the Norplant contraceptive implants to control births in orangutans from material supplied by the World Population Council. We placed them under the skin of the females on their upper arms, and the implants were effective. An important part of breeding programs for endangered species also involves the collection and cryopreservation of sperm, ova, and embryos in order to conserve valuable genetic material for future breeding programs.
In response to public qualms and concerns about animal welfare in zoos, professional groups began to work to develop standards for their member organizations. In 1981 the American Zoo and Aquarium Association launched the Species Survival Plan (SSP), and cooperative animal breeding programs began to flourish in American zoos. There was new emphasis on self-sustaining captive populations and the management of genetic diversity. Focusing particularly on rare and endangered species, and directed through studbooks and breeding consortia, the ultimate goal is to manage these resources as collective rather than strictly private resources. Another significant advance of the 1980s was the initiation of a program of zoo accreditation, with the goal of elevating the standards of AZA member institutions. The American Association of Zoo Veterinarians has also established standards for programs of veterinary care in zoos.
All improvements to zoos aside, the scope of worldwide environmental degradation as opposed to the limitations of zoos’ capabilities does not offer realistic hopes that their efforts will make the critical difference for most spe
cies. Zoo publicity efforts and an optimistic press have sometimes suggested such a grand role, and this has probably served to lull some of the public into a false sense of complacency, relying too much upon the potential of zoos as safety nets for species extinctions.
Only a relative handful of zoos have extensive conservation initiatives taking place in the field, where animal extinctions are actually occurring. However, the numbers of extension research projects and conservation collaborations are growing and involve zoo personnel on many levels. The consciences of zoos have been transformed in many ways over the past fifty years, and their ethical evolution seems to be securing roles for them as bona fide wildlife conservation and education organizations.
17. WHAT A ZOO SHOULD BE
And Ought Not Be
What should the mission of zoos be, and how can these priorities integrate and reconcile themselves with issues of conservation, education, entertainment, and ethics? Don’t expect universal agreement—consensus involving the highly emotion-laden realm of animals is unlikely and unrealistic. Every zoo must decide on the scope and character of its own mission, based on the inclinations and commitment of their managing boards and available resources. One thing that is very clear, however, is that today’s visitors expect more of zoos‘ animal care and exhibit efforts both in front and behind the scenes. The types of exhibits shown in the following illustrations are now the expected norms for zoological gardens or conservation parks. There is simply no option of maintaining the status quo or turning back to the past.
In 1841, Punch magazine delivered the following account of the summer weekend scene at London’s Surrey Zoological Gardens, all elements of which can still be found within zoos today:
Wild beasts in cages; flowers of all colour and sizes in pots; enormous cabbages; Brobdignag apples; immense sticks of rhubarb; a view of Rome; a brass band; a grand Roman cavalcade passing over the bridge of St. Angelo; a deafening bark of artillery, and an enchanting series of pyrotechnic wonders, such as Catherine-wheels, flower-pots, and rockets; an illumination of St. Peter’s; blazes of blue-fire, showers of steel filings, and a grand blow up of St. Angelo. . . . Such are the entertainments provided by the proprietor. . . . Numerous picnic parties were seated about on the grass; sandwiches, bottled stout, and (with reverence be it spoken) more potent liquors seemed to be highly relished, especially by the ladies. Ices were sold at a pastry-cook’s stall, where a continued feu-de-joie of ginger-pop was kept up during the whole afternoon and evening. In short, the scene was one of complete al fresco enjoyment; how could it be otherwise? The flowers delighted the eye; Mr. Godfrey’s well-trained band charmed the ear; and the edibles and drinkables aforesaid the palate. Under such a press of agreeables, the Surrey Zoological Gardens well deserve the name of an Englishman’s paradise.
There is no off-the-rack “mission garment” available for every zoo to wear. Each must be custom-crafted according to priority soul-searching. I see this as a multitiered exercise whereby smaller and medium sized municipal zoos have their primary purpose focused more locally, providing hands-on, tangible educational resources for teachers and community organizations, and connecting with pragmatic, regional conservation issues. Occasionally they may enter into joint ventures with other zoos and conservation groups on projects outside of their communities. It is both pretentious and impractical, however, for every zoo to assume the mantle of international crusader in the quest to thwart species extinction. Each, however, can be valuable information resources for their constituents on these issues.
In terms of common exhibit animals, zoos must collaborate in breeding programs to assure the availability of animals for all bona fide zoos. This involves planned breeding, genealogic management, and cooperation. The public has come to believe, often through the enthusiastic media-relations efforts of zoos and overreaching by the press, that the reintroduction of captive-bred animals into the wild is a key function of zoos, reminding me of the misguided adage that “the louder you sing, the better you sound.” In reality, however, few animal species and fewer zoos will be involved in such efforts. The principal limiting factor for most species in the wild is the lack of undisturbed natural habitat, not the lack of viable breeding stock.
Zoos have played vital roles in several extreme cases, such as the near extinction of the American bison (Bronx Zoo), Arabian oryx (Phoenix Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park), and California condor (Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Wild Animal Park), where the captive propagation of repository stock has been critical to their survival and the subsequent reintroductions into newly protected and managed habitats. From a world population of twenty-two birds in 1982 when captive-breeding efforts began, ten times as many California condors now exist. More than eighty condors are living in the wild under watchful human eyes and have begun to hatch and rear chicks on their own. On the other hand, human-imposed and natural obstacles have continued to plague reintroduced California condors, as they crash into high voltage power lines, consume carrion contaminated with lead from hunters’ bullets, and fall prey to indigenous golden eagles and coyotes. Human activities, including settlement, livestock overgrazing, and shooting, have continued to affect oryx populations in their reintroduction areas in Jordan. A second self-sustaining oryx population has been now been established in the Mahazat as-Sayd region of Saudi Arabia.
The prairie grasslands, one of America’s largest ecosystems that immigrants met upon their arrival to the Midwest, has now been almost entirely replaced by farms, factories, roadways, and residential settlements. American bison once numbered in the millions and were on the near-certain road to extermination in the 1870s when mass-market hunters sold their hides for $1.25, their tongues for $.25, and their hindquarters for $.01 per pound. In the early 1900s, New York’s Bronx Zoo played a key role in propagating the survivors of this slaughter and saving this species from extinction. Captive-born stock was used to reestablish free-ranging populations. Sadly, far more people have seen video images of African lions in their authentic savanna habitats than of our American bison on natural prairie lands. The remnants of the herds of millions of bison that once roamed those seas of grass are now limited to comparatively token populations in several confined seminatural settings and on ranches. There is every reason to believe that the spectacular wildebeest migrations in East Africa could meet the same fate.
Giant pandas, forest elephants, bonobos, gorillas, Jentink’s duikers, pygmy hippos, or the Somali wild ass? Which species will be next? No humans are alive who saw the last dodo bird or the last quagga, a relative of South Africa’s plains zebras. The only quagga ever photographed alive was a mare in the London Zoo, and the last one died in Amsterdam’s Artis Zoo in 1883, several years after the quagga was presumed to have become extinct in the wild. Efforts are afoot today, via DNA technology and selective breeding, however, to re-create the quagga (or at least a look-alike) from living plains zebras. This is an intriguing prospect, but one that rings somewhat hollow as countless other animal species face extinction in our own time.
What about the lesser ones that most of us have never even heard of? The clues can be found by examining the Red Data Book of the World Conservation Union, which maintains the doomsday list of species that appear to be on the path to oblivion. The number of basket cases for conservationists to work on is overwhelming. The primary focus should be more on the conservation of entire ecosystems, rather than the more common species-by-species approach—yet funding for conservation programs is often species-oriented.
Releasing captive-born wildlife into the wild calls for substantial financial and logistical commitments. For example, the resources required for programs such as golden lion tamarin (a tiny, golden-colored primate species) reintroductions in South America have been significant. Animals must be taught to feed themselves, climb trees, and avoid predators and a host of other obstacles that were not mastered in their captivity in zoos. Moreover, they require long periods of artificial feeding and postrelease management. It has been found
to be more cost-effective to capture and release wild-born tamarins to establish new populations because of these labor and logistical obstacles. California condors destined for release into the wild are now put through short courses in power line avoidance. For many species, a significant period of gradual release and adaptation requires long-term commitments, unlike restocking practices used with hatchery-reared trout and salmon, which are pumped from a tanker truck into a lake or stream and left to their own devices.
Placing zoo animals into an area where indigenous populations are already present may interfere with existing populations and pose risks in introducing diseases that could jeopardize the welfare of the animals in the wild that the introductions are intended to bolster. Of all the mammalian types, the hoofed animals, especially open-country grazers, seem most naturally inclined to readaptation into the wild without intensive rehabilitation. Some years ago I was involved in discussions on the proposed release of captive chimpanzees into a Liberian rainforest. These animals had been used as research subjects, and most were captured years before as babies. They were to be released into habitat with an existing wild chimp population and in relative proximity to human settlements. The potential for disrupting existing populations and for disturbing rural agricultural activities weighed heavily against the proposal, and it was rejected. It was later learned that a caretaker in the chimp colony had contracted tuberculosis, which had gone undetected, and eventually caused several cases in colony animals. This example only reinforces the concerns that animal reintroductions must also consider the effects of introduced microflora and pathogens that accompany animals, which could decimate existing wild populations.
Life at the Zoo Page 30