Zoos: Entertainment or Source for Humanity?

One of the first zoological gardens, very similar to the modern zoo, was established in London in 1826 (Baratay 285). We have come a long way since those early gardens the animals have more comprehensive veterinary care and personalized nutrition, and zookeepers receive extensive training to keep the animals happy and healthy. Despite these advances, animals in captivity are still suffering due to a lack of emphasis on animal welfare. Animal welfare is difficult to define; it varies in behaviors of animals dependent on location, species, and the animals themselves, so it has been dealt with just enough to solve the base problems and cast aside. Officials are dismissing any kind of further regulation, even though there is growing evidence that animals have the capacity to feel both physical and emotional pain. The discourse surrounding the lack of attention to animal welfare is woefully inadequate, either academically or conversationally outside the field. For better or for worse, animal cruelty has been thrust into popular culture through organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). These organizations could arguably even be turning people away from this important concern. Animal welfare brings into question possibilities most do not want to consider: humans are not the only sentient beings capable of experiencing emotional and mental distress. The existing texts and discussions that surround animal welfare are based heavily on stasis, encompass epideitic discourse, and seek to change the audiences presuppositions about the topic. Because of the stigmas attributed to animal welfare, this issue doesnt have a strong enough policy to create and enforce the changes that are necessary to make a difference for animals in captivity. A change needs to be made on the national and federal levels and steps can be taken on the parts of animal welfarists, citizens, and policy makers that are beneficial and economical. While a significant amount of text exists in the field, most are hypotheses and studies or layman critiques of the current system. Scientifics articles and papers often employ the rhetorical strategy of stasis by opening with broad statements about animal welfare and funneling down into more specific arguments about why behavioral husbandry can have a strong impact on the behavior of an animal in captivity (Melfi, et.al 254). Terry Mapel only uses one example of how the environment around the exhibits and the set-up of the exhibits affect the behavior and

mentality of two tigers and three lions (96). Several cases of mental distress and abnormal behavior in captive animals lead back to sterile living environments (Croke 34). These abnormal behaviors can include hair pulling, bulimia and other unordinary eating habits, granulomas, selfmutilation to the point of permanent harm, and in more extreme cases, ritualistic behavior including obsessive pacing, regurgitation and re-ingestion, rocking, and head bobbing (Croke 32). To find what will alleviate these stereotypies a repetitive or ritualistic movement, posture, or utterance scientists such as Anna Claxton have conducted studies and written argumentative papers about the importance of human-animal relationships (HAR). They are integral to the development of desirable behaviors in captive animals, because these positive personal relationships allow the animals to cope with stressful situations. Most discourse follows the classical division of stasis: conjecture, definition, quality, policy, and objection. This is a very methodical format, which is exactly what most of these texts are academic papers containing studies and data. This appeals to the audiences ethos, regardless of whether the reader is a fellow scientist or a member of the educated public searching for further readings on the subject of animal welfare. It would be difficult to find a more ethical piece of rhetoric than the lists of cases of unsuccessful welfare tactics and studies proving strong animal husbandry programs are necessary to promote the happiness and healthiness of the captive animals. The first of the five divisions, conjecture (the facts), is seen repeatedly in scholarly articles. Several case studies are available to prove a broad range of claims about animal welfare. These open with a claim and use subsequent steps to support it. The next division is the definition stage, in which the author defines the main term in the argument. Among these terms is environmental enrichment, which is a means of providing the animals with objects and games that stimulate them mentally (Claxton 2). Environmental enrichment (EE) also includes the human-animal relationship, the necessary bond between an animal in captivity and its handler (Claxton 1). One of the most important but often overlooked systems in animals and humans is circadian rhythm. Circadian rhythms are the biological clocks that allow humans and animals to function normally and can trigger certain negative behaviors when the rhythms is not tailored specifically to each individual species (Berger 2). Hierarchal speciesism is the belief that because humans can walk, talk, and have organized government and society, they are somehow more important and need not be concerned with lesser species (Bekoff 4). All of these definitions serve to differentiate between animal welfare and cruelty, and they attempt to

create a stronger understanding of what welfarists are trying to achieve. The quality division of stasis relates to questions in the discourse. Specifically for animal welfare, this means questioning the policies regulating animal welfare in zoos and aquariums. Most scientists agree the current policy is not sufficient to promote welfare and suggest improvements that can be made. As for the division dealing with policy, many of the texts offer suggested actions that can better the care for animals and provide plenty of critique, but few state or cite the specific requirements and best practices of current policies. Both parties agree the policies in place and the quality of regulation in ineffective and concede that while it is an unattainable goal to ensure every animal is content, it is enough to keep most animals healthy, physically and mentally. Very few of the available articles or research studies actually enact a change in the policies for enforcing animal welfare, making them a part of epideitic discourse. Epideitic discourses are concerned with either praise or blame in the present and do not generally lead to action. Such discourses form attitudes and affirm critiques instead. Both scientific research and critics seek to blame current policies, because they do not support the mental wellbeing of the animals held in captivity. For example, Vicki Croke does not place the blame on any single entity. She simply reports her experiences in several zoos across the country and how their staff cares for their animals, good or bad. Croke also provides a brief history of zoos, including their Victorian origins and original purposes for ease of comparison with todays techniques. She points out specific zoos that are not successful in various aspects of enrichment and habitat structuring. However, she does not seem to point out the specific laws broken or that require revision. The texts in the world of animal welfare form negative reactions and apprehension toward regulatory committees and attempt to spark more empathy for animals and the injustices being committed against them, a tactic most authors hope will incite action. Authors like Mark Bekoff and Alina Lilova are trying to change the audiences presuppositions about animal welfare. Most of the public believe animal welfare and animal cruelty are the same, in part due to organizations such as PETA and the ASPCA that churn out anti-animal cruelty rallies and information packets with a heavy pathetic appeal to guilt American consumers into caring about the animal products they consume and the resulting mistreatment of animals. Unfortunately, the distinction between the two terms is often difficult to determine. Scientists and welfarists alike have attempted to provide a definition for animal welfare and have so far been unsuccessful. Their best definition is the physical and psychological

wellbeing of the animals, specifically pertaining to their behavior and stress levels. All concerned parties would welcome a change in the regulations under zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and zoos protected by the Animal Welfare Act that currently enforce animal wellbeing. Activists such as Bekoff feel the issue is bigger than the lack of animal care in zoos and aquariums. It is the fact humans dont view non-human animals as equals, and this is a fundamental moral dilemma that must be rectified before progress can be made (3). Bekoff argues humans rely on animals for too much to see them as anything more than a means to an end, whether that end is to test products to be used for human consumption or as a form of education and entertainment. Changing the audiences presuppositions may be difficult, because humans are taught from a young age to feel superior to all other species, and this is affirmed as they grow older. For example, the Bible teaches children God created the animals to provide for man, and the idea that man is responsible for caring for the animals is often overlooked. Humans are also made to feel superior through tradition and the media. Game is still hunted for sport instead of a food source, despite growing misgivings, and not only are the more acceptable deer, squirrels, and bears being hunted heavily, exotic game such as African elephants, Siberian tigers, and many more are being hunted into extinction. Changing the audiences ideas may be a struggle due to the fact that most of the texts arguing strongly for policy changes come from overseas, especially in the United Kingdom, which does little to force change in America. This is why it is so important to raise awareness in the United States. By doing this, more people can pursue and being about change in the policies for animal welfare. Evidence supports the fact that animals feel empathy, and can and do experience mental distress. Repetitive motions such as pacing back and forth and head-shaking, selfmutilation by picking at skin, cutting flesh with sharp objects, hair-pulling, violence toward other animals in the exhibit, their handlers, and even spectators, and self-imposed isolation are all signs of mental duress (Croke 34). These behaviors can cause lasting physical and emotional damage. If an animal has become violent as a result of boredom or a disruption in routine, then it could be forced into further isolation, which can magnify these effects and cause the animal severe and lasting harm. This behavior is what all parties involved with captive animals would like to prevent. Distress can come from numerous outside stressors, including: problems with the sizes and conditions of cages, moving from zoo to zoo without acclimation time built in, and little enrichment in the exhibits (Croke 34).

The size of the cages and exhibits has garnered some attention and has the potential to make at least a small impact. According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the United States Animal Welfare Act, the minimum requirement for a 55-pound chimpanzee is a five-by-five foot enclosure. The size increases only with every 100 pounds an animal weighs. This means that a 55-pound chimp and a 140-pound chimp could be allotted the same amount of living space. While this requirement is often overlooked in favor of much larger enclosures, it is not required in any official capacity to do so. This is one of the laws that require serious review and revision. It has been proven that, like humans, animals become distraught when their patterns are disrupted. Zoo animals are moved around, either on loan to other zoos or temporarily housed as repairs are made to their exhibit. These moves are rushed and the animals dont have time to properly settle before they are moved again. There is also the chance the animal will not get along with the other animals in the habitat. The biggest problem is the disruption of the animals circadian rhythms. Animals behave according to weather, light, and sleep patterns in the wild, and it is difficult to recreate these conditions in captivity. Animals sleep much more in captivity than they would in the wild, because light and weather patterns are so radically different than what to which theyve adapted (Berger 32). This irregularity can be resolved by ensuring lights are an appropriate brightness and alternately turned up and down, depending on the species needs, keeping temperatures and weather conditions close to what they would be the animals natural environments, and eliminating unnecessary travel. Perhaps the most important factor that affects animals in captivity and the area that begs the most improvement is environmental enrichment (EE). EE is the amount of mental and physical stimulation in the habitat with the animals (Claxton 11). This can range anywhere from toys and puzzles to simulating actual food-gathering techniques from native environments. For example, chimpanzees created some of the first tools by using sticks to gather ants from anthills, and some zoos have incorporated similar mechanisms in their exhibits to help garner this type of evolutionary behavior. This type of habitat manipulation is a technique all zoos should implement by recreating the natural surroundings. According to Claxton, the principle goal of EE focuses upon the identification and provision of the appropriate stimuli necessary for the physiological and psychological well-being of a wide range of animals (9). She stresses EE

is essential not only for the animals themselves but for the public understanding of how animals truly behave. The public heavily influences how zoos operate in that they systematically determine how long the zoos stay open, where they are built, and how much funding is allocated. But its often put into question how much of an impact as a learning tool these operations really have. The AZA acknowledges in its own executive summary little to no systematic research has been conducted on the impact of visits to zoos and aquariums on visitor conservation knowledge, awareness, affect, or behavior. To combat this, some zoos are incorporating interactive exhibits and designing area to appeal to a wider audience. The Pittsburgh Zoo and Aquarium displays posters with a QR code that allows smartphone users to scan it and be directed to a website that provides information about the zoo itself and the animals it houses. They have also placed colorful, descriptive posters on the level of smaller children outside most exhibits so the information is easier to read. However, these teaching tools still had more words and facts on them than most five- to ten-year-old children have the attention span to take in. One new idea that is rapidly gaining ground is the creation of virtual zoos that will use computers and hightech equipment to observe the animals in their natural habitats and even use computer-generated images to simulate the natural behaviors of animals (Masci 360). It is unlikely conventional zoos will be replaced with virtual ones any time soon, so in the meantime it would be beneficial to keep the easy-to-maintain animals, such as otters, zebras, giraffes, flamingos, kangaroos and similar mammals in zoos and keep the exhibits as interactive as possible. For the animals that are harder to keep happy and healthy in captivity elephants, polar bears, wolves, giant pandas, and the more solitary primates it would be best to create sanctuaries and provide remote access through progressive technologies. It is surprisingly difficult to find legislation on anything more than minimum cage requirements, number of lights in enclosures, feeding times, and physical health related to weight and obvious defect. Most laws require the animals in captivity not be in clear danger of becoming ill due to neglect on the part of the zookeepers. Through the combined efforts of the federal governments Animal Welfare Act and the AZA, laws can be put into action to regulate animals mental wellbeing. It will be a challenge, though, to develop the appropriate methods to assess welfare in captive animals. The physiological and behavioral tests used to detect stress, such as heart rate, concentration of epinephrine, and activity and movement, can vary in different

species and change from year to year and even day to day (Berger 82). If more funding is put toward research in this field, researchers can find what is and isnt typical and have a better gauge for each species held in zoos. This seems like a hefty sum and a large project for a small part of the economy, but it is important to remember a few things. As stated, not every animal can be helped. Some are too far gone, some have inherited disorders that prevent them from behaving normally, and some outright refuse treatment. Similar to the law of diminishing returns, at a certain point it becomes too costly and less beneficial to save every animal. If a prevention method can be developed, however, the cost would be justifiable. This one step can cause a ripple effect: if the animals are happier, the people watching the animals are happier, and more of the public can learn how animals behave in the wild, or at least something close to it. From here it would not be too much of a leap to ascertain people would begin to think more about the animals in their natural habitat and become more mindful of their environmental impact. It also wouldnt be a leap to guess the teaching people about the feelings animals display and how similar they really are to us can teach them to be more compassionate to animals, and perhaps even other humans. A big change to promoting animal welfare needs to be brought by the zoos in America and around the world. Zoo officials need to network and communicate with each other about what techniques, EE supplements, human-animal relationship building exercise and light and food regulations work for which animals. The zookeepers and veterinarians also need to be taught what to look for: some dont even know what animal welfare is. In a recent study by V. Melfi and his colleagues, sixteen delegates from across the United States with varying jobs within their respective zoos and sanctuaries and varying degrees of husbandry use in their facilities were sent to a workshop for animal husbandry. Through a series of questionnaires and hands-on learning workshops, the delegates learned new techniques to take back with them and share with their colleagues (Melfi et. Al 277). After the workshop, many felt comfortable with the term animal welfare and developed new ways they could help their charges. If these workshops were more common and widely available or even mandatory, the reach of animal welfare could be astounding. If animals could produce physical tears to cry, they could. They experience boredom, loneliness, depression, sadness, anger, embarrassment, and other emotions previously believed to be exclusive to humans. Because we have captured them and bred them in captivity, it is our job

responsibility to take the best care of them we can. It is not enough to feed them and give them artificial trees to play with; we need to interact with them more fully, make them feel more at home, and give them mental stimulation. The crux of implementation of the necessary improvements is education. The public and the government need to be made aware this is an issue, it is a big one, and it is happening now. The zookeepers and other attendants to the animals need to realize this issue is one they can solve and they have the tools to do it. The condition of animal welfare in America can only be fixed by changing the most prominent emotion seen in humans that we used to think was the only emotion animals had: apathy.

Works Cited

Bekoff, Marc. Why Good Welfare Isnt Good Enough: Minding Animals and Increasing Our Compassionate Footprint. Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences 10 (2008): T1-Y14. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Apr. 2012. Berger, A. Activity Patterns, Chronobiology and the Assessment of Stress and Welfare in Zoo and Wild Animals. International Zoo Yearbook 45.1 (2011): 80-90. Academic Search Complete. Web Mar. 2012. Claxton, Anna M. The Potential of the Human-Animal Relationship as an Environmental Enrichment for the Welfare of Zoo-Housed Animals. Applied Animals Behaviour Science 133.1/2 (2011): 1-10. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. Croke, Vicki. The Modern Ark The Story of Zoos: Past, Present and Future. New York: Avon, 1997. Print. Lilova, Anna. Why Even Bother? Web log post. Animal Welfare Education Network.Wordpress 18. Jan. 2012. Web. 4 Apr. 2012. Masci, David. Zoos in the 21st Century. CQ Reseacher (28 Apr. 2000): 353-76. Web. 2 Apr. 2012. Melfi, V., and Hosey, G. Capacity Building for Better Animal Welfare. International Zoo Yearbook 45.1 (2011): 274-81. Academic Search Complete. Web. 28 Mar. 2012. Terry L., Maple, et al. Environmental Effects on the Behavior of Zoo-Housed Lions and Tigers, with a Case Study on the Effects of a Visual Barrier on Pacing. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10.2 (2007): 95-109. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2012.