talkpolitics | Lessons from America: the proper zoo policy

Entry tags:

Lessons from America: the proper zoo policy

We have probably all heard by now about the controversial decisions at the Copenhagen zoo to put down a giraffe and feed it to the lions in front of the visiting children, and to subsequently put down a few lion cubs because they were planning to introduce a new adult male lion to the zoo, and they were concerned that he would have killed the cubs anyway. People were naturally appalled. There were lots of discussions about animal rights, the treatment of animals in the zoos, etc. Even some satire.

Now there is a new story that I am sure is about to cause all hell breaking loose once more,

Bern zoo faces flak over second bear cub death

...And there is of course a pre-story to that:

Bern zoo under fire after bear eats baby cub

Another act of inhumane treatment of animals, I am sure many would argue. And they would be right, to a point. However, if we are to look at the problem a bit closer, we may begin to realise that there is more to those two stories than just that. Indeed, it seems the problem runs much deeper than most of the audience is probably suspecting. Because one or two cases like these could be possibly interpreted as incidental acts of cruelty and poor judgment/management - but when there is a wide-spread tendency, there must be a systematic flaw in the, well, system. And as it turns out, there really is:

How many healthy animals do zoos put down?

Apart from the side point that is being made in the article, namely that, while this problem tends to affect animals of almost all species, but only the "large and charismatic" ones tend to make the headlines, there is also the central part of the problem:

""We do it when it's necessary," [Copenhagen Zoo's Scientific Director] says. "If I should take an average over 10 years - it could be probably something like 20, 30 [per year]."

"That figure includes some smaller animals, not just the big "charismatic megafauna" that have the potential to make headline news. At the larger end of the scale, Copenhagen Zoo has put down leopards, tigers, lions, bears, antelopes and hippos in recent years, as well as the young giraffe, Marius."

And this is obviously not just in Denmark. The various breeding programmes around Europe include such necessary actions like the so called "management euthanisation", and not just of ill animals. The overall number is really staggering: 3-5 thousand annually. But why? What is causing this? Is it rampant mismanagement? Or something else?

Well, turns out the European zoo association (EAZA) has adopted a "breed and cull" policy, at least for a number of species, which often results in huge surpluses of animals that cannot be possibly accommodated by the international zoo system, no matter how much the exchange of animals is intensified between zoos.

In the meantime, most American zoos extensively use the practice of contraception to prevent such a surplus, and have thus been able to control their populations for the most part. The conclusion is inescapable: the two zoo systems (Europe and America) have adopted two very different approaches to population management, and the most reasonable way to decrease the probability of healthy animals being killed due to overpopulation or under controversial pretexts like in these recent cases, is to adopt the American approach. Otherwise the problem will not only stay, it will be getting more serious with time.

There is probably at least one positive effect from this recent stream of unpleasant news coming from around the European zoos. It is that these cases may have finally triggered a debate about the proper treatment of animals in an artificial environment that the European public should have probably had a very long time ago.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm not seeing why lions eating giraffes is somehow shocking. Or why anyone should be offended. Seriously. Your link is the biggest nothingburger in history. I don't know what they normally feed the lions, maybe horse or cow, maybe pigs, but whatever it is I guarantee you it was just as alive once as the giraffe. My cat brings me dead birds other small animals all the time. If he was the size of a lion he would, no doubt, bring me a gazelle or a baby giraffe. What are we supposed to be teaching our children about what lions eat? Don't children deserve to know that lions aren't vegans?

Yes yes, really, why not bring those kids to a porn show? Sex is part of life as well, is it not? Hell, why not bring them to a public rape, that's part of life too. Maybe a shoot-out? I'm really not seeing why anyone should be offended. Don't children deserve to know and see all these things first-hand, after all? How else would they learn that people are not nicey-nicey all the time?

You aren't actually comparing a top predator eating its natural prey to pornography or crime, are you? Because lions are supposed to eat giraffes. People aren't supposed to rape or murder. A lion eating a giraffe is being nice, nice to the other lions. In the wild, if the giraffe doesn't die, the lion does. Would you rather illustrate this fact by showing children a slowly starving lion?

Children should know where meat comes from. And they should understand that life on the African savanna is most certainly not like the Lion King, nor is life in the woods like Bambi, nor life in the sea like Finding Nemo. My children have watched me butcher fish, deer, pheasants, ducks and geese. When they get older I hope to take them with me and increase their knowledge. Indeed, I hope someday to be there when they take their first bird, if it is something they want to do. There is nothing about it that should be shameful.

Edited 2014-04-08 20:41 (UTC)

In the wild, if the giraffe doesn't die, the lion does

Is the zoo "the wild", pray tell?

life on the African savanna

Is the zoo the "African savanna"?

Would you rather illustrate this fact by showing children a slowly starving lion?

Where does this sudden passion for false dichotomies emerge from? Either show the kids how a lion eats a giraffe, or you'll have to show them how a lion starves to death? Is that it? The dichotomy that you're so desperate to craft here?

Your children can watch whatever the bloody hell you want them to watch. The zoo is not the place for that.

Who's talking about shame here? Dude, you sound helplessly confused.

Edited 2014-04-08 21:02 (UTC)

If a zoo is not a place for spectacle then why does it have visitors? Spectacle is why they exist.

Parents who want to avoid being uncomfortable should avoid going to the zoo with kids. Unlike the very safe and sterilized environment we create for children, zoos are "au natural".

It seems like some parents would prefer if the kids see the animals in zoos, but could avoid seeing their animal private parts.If these private parts are being used for any reason it can provoke children to ask questions that parents find very uncomfortable answering.

It's rather boring to watch zoo animals sleeping stoic. Better when animals are active. Better when they are playing, or peeing, or pooping, or eating or breeding or fighting or... but most of those activities can make parents squeal to avoid children's questions. Yet still they come to see the funny monkeys.

While zoos offer their contribution to science of conservation and zoology, they are providing this spectacle. In zoology there are reasoned arguments for and against sterilization, hormones and other means of birth control. I would not be surprised if providing spectacle weighed in the decision not to sterilize. Blood always sells tickets.

But just because it makes people uncomfortable doesn't make it wrong. There isn't a reasonable argument against the cull, the educational dissection in front of school kids, or the feeding lions meat from their own native ecology.

"Spectacle"? "Native ecology"? The zoo is not a circus, and neither is it a gladiator arena. It isn't a safari reserve, and neither a setting for an Animal Planet documentary. What the hell is wrong with you people?

If people wanted "au natural" in zoos, they'd be putting prey into the cages of predators all the time. They aren't.

This isn't about comfortable and uncomfortable. This is about doing the proper thing in the appropriate place.

Yes, the zoo is a circus. They are public attractions for visitors to gawk, point and stare. Education isn't at the forefront of the zoo experience.

Yes people do want "au natural" in zoos. The Bronx zoo, the London zoo, etc have all replaced traditional steel bar cages with replica environments with fauna, flora and trees in the landscaped animal enclosures.

"Au natural" is achieved by instead of the traditional full on tranquillized tigers and bears in cages, now the sedation is much more subtle, subduing undesirable behaviours.

Yes this is all about the public's comfort. The proper thing can't happen in a zoo environment, it's a conflict of interest.

(no subject)

ddstory.livejournal.com - 2014-04-10 14:49 (UTC) - Expand

In that case maybe we should let the kiddies watch inmates get executed too? You know the cycle of life and death. That's certainly a valuable teaching experience for everyone. And who knows when school children may need to dress a dead giraffe, instead of just telling them what lions eat, versus showing them.

Don't children deserve to know that lions aren't vegans?

Heavens forbid they think that, and start getting some really crazy ideas!
But please no "graphic" sex education in our schools, because you know, priorities.

Frankly, if we are going to be executing people, I think it should be public. We should have the courage of our convictions. But then, I don't think we should be executing people in part because we aren't willing to do it publicly. I don't have a problem with children learning about life and death.

Children already get crazy ideas from movies like Bambie and the Lion King. Wrapping meat in small cellophane trays does not change the fact that it is a part of what was once a living, breathing creature. If some of those children are turned into vegans because of the giraffe, that's OK by me. If some of them decide to become big game hunters, that is OK, too.

I don't have a problem with graphic sex education, as long as it is age appropriate.

You are acting like slaughtering an animal and feeding it to other animals is somehow shameful or cruel or dirty. I don't get it. If you own a cat, what do you think comes in those little cans? What do you think that kibble started out as? House cats are carnivores exactly like lions. You are no different than the zoo keeper, you just have sterilized the results and outsourced the gross parts to others. Own it.

Those evil, crazy, pervert Bambie and Lion King, anathema for them.

To the stakes! To the stakes I say! It's showtime everybody! Let's get real and see how real life and death looks like.

(Can't help recalling the "She turned me into a newt" scene).

A beautiful Medieval world you want to live in.

Really, I'm not sure what's so bad with young children being innocent (especially regarding the Lion King).

No way! Children better learn to kill, or else they'll be killed! It's either they, or them!

I meet too many adults who won't eat venison, or rabbit, or duck, not because they don't like the taste or because they are convinced vegetarians, but because Walt Disney taught them that Bambi, Thumper and Donald were their friends.

As I said, pretty clearly I thought, I oppose capital punishment. But, if a society is going to have it, I think the society should have the moral courage to look it in the eye and see it for what it is. Like wars in far off lands, it is easy to be in favor of something very unpleasant that you never have to do yourself.

Some children never grow up, do they?

I blame Disney.

Dude, just admit it and look the truth in the eye. You wanna see them stakes, is all. All that sizzling flesh, mmmm!

Frankly, if we are going to be executing people, I think it should be public.

While I wasn't surprised you'd favor it, I certainly don't. While there are legal requirements for witnesses in place already, and that's more than adequately covered in all executions now. The idea of public executions would lead to deterrence is as laughable as the idea capital punishment deters crime too.

You are acting like slaughtering an animal and feeding it to other animals is somehow shameful or cruel or dirty. I don't get it.

I don't. But let's not pretend there isn't something wrong with this picture, since the concept of Zoos are largely seen by the general public as conservation parks for animals that are threatened in the wild at varying levels. I'm pretty sure the public understands animals can be food for predators (including children); so the notion of zoologists and staff are unnecessarily euthanizing beautiful animals because they can't figure out won't neuter them IS what's really absurd here

If you own a cat,

But I don't.

Edited 2014-04-08 21:49 (UTC)

But think of the ratings! Ratings better then Superbowl! Your next execution might be sponsored by Pepsi

Zoos are not conservation parks. While they do contribute to the science of conservation, they earn their existence by being places for spectacle. We visit zoos to gawk and stare and if we learn something too that's pure bonus. But we go to be entertained. We hit the glass to prod the animals into moving for us, because otherwise we're not being entertained enough by a sleeping gnu.

European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) avoids the contraception approach because preventing animals their natural mating ritual can lead to serious behavioral issues and destructive behavior. In some cases, the use of birth control may lead to issues in the reproductive tract such as infection and cancer. So European zoos allow their animals to mate and raise their young in order to try and maintain more “normal” behavior in their adults, and euthanize the offspring when they grow up. (http://www.policymic.com/articles/81807/10-things-you-should-know-about-why-a-healthy-giraffe-was-put-down-and-fed-to-lions)

Neutering zoo animals poses it's own risks.

Zoos are not conservation parks.

When ecology emerged as a matter of public interest in the 1970s, a few zoos began to consider making conservation their central role, with Gerald Durrell of the Jersey Zoo, George Rabb of Brookfield Zoo, and William Conway of the Bronx Zoo (Wildlife Conservation Society) leading the discussion. From then on, zoo professionals became increasingly aware of the need to engage themselves in conservation programs, and the American Zoo Association soon said that conservation was its highest priority. Because they wanted to stress conservation issues, many large zoos stopped the practice of having animals perform tricks for visitors.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo)

From the mid-20th century these zoos have been finding ways to help conserve wild animals and their habitats, and the animals in our zoos now fulfil a number of roles, from education to ambassadors for their species. Some of the species we keep are now extinct in the wild and would have disappeared completely without zoos.

London Zoo's mission statement: Introducing the Modern Zoo. (http://www.zsl.org/education/introducing-the-modern-zoo)

Neutering zoo animals poses it's own risks.

Good that's not only the only option (although putting the animal down is the ultimate risk, by comparison.) American zoos have their animals on birth control pills, and has even some beneficial side effects.

New York Times: When Babies Don’t Fit Plan, Question for Zoos Is, Now What? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/science/zoos-divide-over-contraception-and-euthanasia-for-animals.html)

Hmm, you point out the strange dual nature of the American Zoo. On the one hand conservationist (to the extent of the preservationist) role that zoos play. With zoo keepers not only caring for the animals, but better learning about the animals. If not for zoos some species of tigers (for example) would all be extinct.

On the other hand zoos rarely release captive breeds back into the wilds. In fact they American zoos limit their breeding to numbers that zoos can accommodate. And most zebra (for example) are not penning the endangered breeds in zoos, but more commonly keeping the more common (cost effective?) plains/savannah zebra in direct contrast to mission statements.

It is pretty obvious that the stated priority of zoos to hold conservation as priority #1 is great optics. However this goal can't be achieved without cash flow. Cash flow comes only through having animals on exhibition. The daily spectacle visitors expect is what generates ticket sales, donations and all other forms of revenue.

Fact is most conservation that works is pretty straight forward obvious. Stop encroaching human development into wild lands and the wildlife will take care of itself. We don't need zoos to tell us that.

Last year I saw 8 rhinos in Nepal. 2 were baby rhinos. A few years ago the Nepali government closed all tourist resorts within Chitwan Park as well as the roads and all other manmade facilities (except for ranger stations which are got to by canoe or elephant). When tourists (like myself) do visit the park now they don`t actually enter the park but remain in a buffer zone perimeter surrounding the park. The park is reserved for the wildlife; rhinos, tigers, slothbears, monkeys, deer, marshmugger crocodiles, etc. This conservation effort has resulted in one single rhino poaching in 3 years!!! (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140312-nepal-chitwan-national-park-wildlife-poaching-world/) The census numbers of both rhinos and tigers are up quite dramatically.

No matter how ambitious zoos may want to be, they do not replicate even a fraction of this success. No matter how large and "natural" zoo enclosures try to be these enclosures are un-natural. Animals know they are captive. Even if lions are fed crazy sized slabs of prime rib every day they have to sense they are missing out on what makes them lions. The thrill of the hunt, the kill, the feast on (possibly unsanitary) gazelles is their raison d'etre.

Zoos may publicize that their priority is conservation, their efforts scientific, and for the most part that's true. One school of scientific zoology has learned when to vaccinate the animals, and when to breed, and when to feed them hormones and when to separate them, and how to keep them stimulated, and which ones are candidates to be released back into the wilds, etc. And all this is pretty awesome. And nearly all of this is done on public exhibition, on display in captivity. And it's all very scientific for the spectacle of it.

But this European school of scientific zoology, specifically Copenhagen, has re-analyzed their way of doing things. Is the role of a zookeeper really to sedate polar bears so they'll calm the fuck down? Is zoo conservation really about castrating ibex's so they'll stop attacking each other? I thought the scientific maxim was about learning and educating. Science is kind of meaningless if they don't teach what they've learned. And what do they teach the willing public? "This is a kangaroo. He comes from Australia. We have to have to feed them hormones otherwise they breed worse then rabbits." which is all well and good but isn't very deep. Maybe it satisfies the public who any looking at the kangaroo only because it's en route to the Zoo's McDonald's/roller coaster/candy floss vendor. But for anyone who is interested in more then a passive way... "This is a giraffe, the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant. It is an ungulate mammal that chews it's cud like camels and cows. Giraffes have two horn-like structures called ossicones, which are formed from ossified cartilage, covered in skin and fused to the skull at the parietal bones. Would you like to see these up close?"

Edited 2014-04-10 02:08 (UTC)

You say zoos are not conservation parks, and yet, just a couple of comments earlier you essentially advocate for an "au natural" approach for the sake of making zoos less "boring". Conservation parks place animals in an environment as close to their natural habitat as possible. They run and fight and poop and have sex and chase each other, and yes, kill each other and eat each other. This is what happens inside a conservation park. So which is it? If the zoo should be more "au natural", then shouldn't animals be killing each other and eating each other in the zoo as well? And if yes, then why are zoos nothing like that? (Well, most of them).

Edited 2014-04-09 18:24 (UTC)

Are zoos really conservation parks? No, they are still curiosity displays. Zoos are cages filled with freaks like a circus side show. Want to see the bearded lady? The dog faced boy? The world's tallest man? The lizard man's skin condition?

Some zoos are admittedly better then others. The zoo in Lucknow India is way past it's prime. The vast Toronto Zoo has 5000 animals of 450 species, over 287 hectares (710 acres). Amazing. In the old zoo they stuck Winnie the Pooh, a black bear from Winnipeg in the sparse steel bar cage of the London Zoo. Now-a-days the public expects a more natural environment. So now bears in the SanDiego Zoo have bears on display with greenery. But what's the difference?

Zoos havn't changed all that much. The same two things are always still listed on the signage of every zoo enclosure. The name of the animal and where it comes from. Hippopotamus amphibius, Africa There might be some interesting trivia about the beast hippopotamus is responsible for more deaths in the wild than lions, tigers or crocodiles and that's the extent of the general public's education. You read that, stare at it for a while then throw it a peanut and move on. Yeah, it's real educational. Occasionally there will be a zoo keeper with a little speech, then answering questions with a friendly smile as they feed the fruit bats dangling from a well positioned au natural branch.

But where's the conservation aspect? Raising money for stopping the seat hunt in Tulattavik? Or is it the aquarium display of Arowana fish saved from extinction? Maybe it's the toys they throw in with the red pandas to keep them stimulated?

I don't understand your question. I guess it be kinda fun to throw all the animals in one giant 5000 acre lot and see which ones remain after a few years. But that would see a lot of the animals get eaten, probably most of them. Firstly half of the public would be outraged. The other half would love the spectacle of all the action but then I suppose the populations would dwindle like throwing in all sorts of aquarium fish in one aquarium without any regard to compatibility. But the fact that zoos don't do that doesn't make them conservation parks. It just makes their business model more successful.

http://www.lionsafari.com/ has been around since I was a kid. I havn't been there since I was a kid. There are lions and giraffes and monkeys and you can drive through it all in your own car and get to "meet" all the different animals. Not sure how all the animals are separated or why they don't all get eaten.

(no subject)

airiefairie.livejournal.com - 2014-04-10 06:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

allhatnocattle.livejournal.com - 2014-04-10 14:06 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

airiefairie.livejournal.com - 2014-04-10 14:47 (UTC) - Expand

The idea of public executions would lead to deterrence is as laughable

Did I say executions would be a deterrent? As I said, I am not in favor of capital punishment at all, in practice. I just think the current closed system is more evidence that it is not something that society wants to do, or should do.

But let's not pretend there isn't something wrong with this picture

It depends on what you mean by "wrong." Do you mean morally wrong? Or do you mean merely "unfortunate." It is definitely unfortunate, regrettable, when any animal is killed. Conservation often means that surplus stock has to be destroyed. A healthy deer population on the East coast depends on humans culling the herd since we've eliminated most of the other top predators in the area. A zoo's responsibility requires it to keep its population healthy, not just breeding stock but also socially for the herd and economically for the zoo. Once they determined that the giraffe couldn't be bred they could have neutered it, but that may have caused other conflicts or been, frankly, too expensive or even dangerous. Could they have sold him or even gifted him to another zoo? Maybe. But that has costs, too. From my point of view, it is a matter of opinion whether or not this euthanasia was necessary. To me, the zoo made its case and then proceeded in an ethical way. Would silently burying the giraffe have provided better optics, better press? Maybe. But dissecting the remains in an educational way and then feeding the meat to the lions is not wrong. Your prejudice is showing when you say "beautiful animals." What about ugly animals? The emotions and aesthetics of the event seem much more important than practical facts.

I agree with everything you've said in this post.

They taught their children that people kill and chop up giraffes and feed the carcasses to captive lions. Maybe it will be a nice add on lesson for habitat destruction.

How do you know they weren't mentioning habitat destruction the whole time? How do you know that the main point was to show how sad it was that these lions never get to hunt, never get to taste the food they would in the wild? Of course, they don't die young, get trampled to death by an adult giraffe or get driven out of the pride when they become to old or hurt to hunt, either, so....

How do you know they weren't mentioning habitat destruction the whole time?

Would make a reasonable backdrop for it.

Of course, they don't die young, get trampled to death by an adult giraffe or get driven out of the pride when they become to old or hurt to hunt, either, so....

Basically my point. We miss a lot with captivity.

"There behind the glass, lies a real blade of grass, be careful as you pass. Move along, move along" - elp.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only