Zoo Ethics

The Challenges of Compassionate Conservation

Jenny Gray

• Publisher: CSIRO PUBLISHING
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781486306985
• eBook ISBN: 9781486307005
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Industry

Well-run modern zoos and aquariums do important research and conservation work and teach visitors about the challenges of animals in the wild and the people striving to save them. They help visitors to consider their impact and think about how they can make a difference. Yet for many there is a sense of disquiet and a lingering question remains – can modern zoos be ethically justified?

Zoo Ethics examines the workings of modern zoos and considers the core ethical challenges that face those who choose to hold and display animals in zoos, aquariums or sanctuaries. Using recognised ethical frameworks and case studies of 'wicked problems', this book explores the value of animal life and the impacts of modern zoos, including the costs to animals in terms of welfare and the loss of liberty. It also considers the positive welfare and health outcomes of many animals held in zoos, the increased attention and protection for their species in the wild, and the enjoyment and education of the people who visit zoos.

A thoughtfully researched work written in a highly readable style, Zoo Ethics will empower students of animal ethics and veterinary sciences, zoo and aquarium professionals and interested zoo visitors to have an informed view of the challenges of compassionate conservation and to develop their own defendable, ethical position.

1

Introduction to applied ethics and zoos

In ‘Are Zoos Morally Defensible?’ Tom Regan concludes ‘not that zoos as we know them are morally indefensible but rather by admitting that we have yet to see an adequate ethical theory that illuminates why they are not’.¹

Do you remember your first visit to the zoo? You probably visited the zoo with your parents or your school. At the gates you may have danced from foot to foot, excited at the thought of seeing real, live, wild animals so close to home. You rushed through the gates with a map in your hands that promised exotic experiences and amazing animals. At some point you would have come face-to-face with a magnificent creature, a tiger, lion or gorilla, and stared, mesmerised. Looking into their eyes you find yourself connecting with an intelligent being and wondering what they think or feel.

Then you grew up and stopped visiting the zoo, your infatuation with animals replaced by other humans, cars and mortgages. Until, with children of your own, paging through children’s books, you reconnect with the animals that grace the pages, from aardvark to zebra. As your own children begin to recognise and love animals, you remember the zoo and you return to a place loved from your childhood, eager to introduce your children to magnificent animals in a beautiful setting.

At the zoo you find that much has changed. The old cages are gone, replaced with new habitats. Fewer animals occupy larger spaces. Conservation messages have replaced zoological trivia. Campaigns urge you to change your behaviours and request your support. The anthropocentric shows and performances have also gone, replaced with keeper talks and displays of natural behaviours. But many things remain the same: the school groups still pour through the gates, parents share stories and ice-cream with their children, and tigers pace.

As an adult visiting a zoo, at some time you will have looked into the eyes of an animal and wondered if it is right that we contain wild animals. You see the joy that your children get from the experience and understand the conservation work that zoos undertake, yet you know you would not like to be treated the way that we treat animals. You imagine a lion would be happier in the wilds of Africa behaving in the ways that lions have evolved to behave, instead of sleeping in front of thousands of screaming children.

Zoos reflect the often contradictory relationships that people have with animals, rejecting blatant welfare atrocities, defending our right to use animals for our own ends, and yet feeling that something may be amiss in the ways that we treat and use animals.

Public zoological gardens emerged over the last 225 years, some as exhibits of imperial power, some from a private passion for animals, some as a public good and some as commercial undertakings. At their most basic all zoos contain animals in a relationship of vulnerability and dependence, and provide people access to see the animals for their enjoyment or education. Today, zoos are enormously popular. It is estimated that over 700 million people visit zoos each year.² Good, modern zoos are vastly different from zoos of 100 years ago. As cultural institutions, zoos have observed changes in knowledge and sentiments and have adapted and changed. Zoos have advanced our knowledge of animals and their needs, they have improved facilities, and they have applied rigour to improving animal welfare. With their passion for animals, zoos have been on the forefront of conservation efforts aimed at protecting and saving the rare animals of the world.

Book outline

Moral philosophers formulate theories of the good, the virtuous and the right, set out in general terms.³ It falls to applied ethics to bridge the gap from the general terms to practical, everyday challenges. In addition to the recognition and application of general moral principles, arguments in applied ethics need to be supplemented by empirical data and organisational experience. This book is an exercise in applied ethics, examining a common everyday experience, a visit to the local zoo, and the daily operational tasks of maintaining a collection of animals in ways that permit people to see and interact with them, testing these actions against a variety of ethical frameworks and general ethical principles. The core of this exploration is to consider the good, modern zoo, and ask, ‘Are even the best zoos ethically and morally defensible?’ No single ethical theory does all the work to either condemn or defend zoos; rather each theory highlights different important considerations.

The book is organised in a way that allows for an exploration of the major ethical theories – animal welfare, animal rights, consequentialism, virtue ethics, and environmental ethics. Following a description of a theory I apply it to zoo operations, exposing the support, concerns and challenges embedded within each one. It would be overly ambitious to cover all ethical frameworks in detail in a book focused on applying ethics to zoos. However, I have tried to introduce the key elements of the main ethical theories that have pedigree with respect to animals. I would encourage scholars in ethics to read more widely and form their own views on the usefulness and applicability of various ethical frameworks.

The journey has highlighted the challenges of applying ethical theory to real situations and the limitations of each approach, reinforced in the discussion of real situations in the separate section ‘Wicked problems’ on p. 211. Along the way I have developed a sense of the ethical zoo, a zoo that may adequately meet the rigours of most ethical theories. While purely an intellectual construct, the concept of an ethical zoo provides a guiding light for zoo practitioners struggling to decide on the best course of action. In answering the core question I conclude that the best zoos may be ethically defensible. But I run ahead of my discussion.

The logical place to start is by looking at zoos, in particular modern zoos and their core operations (Chapter 2). The term zoo is used to include many versions of facilities that hold and display animals to a viewing public, including zoos, sanctuaries and aquariums. While people love and visit zoos they seldom have time or access to understand the complexities that are involved in zoo operations. Old practices are stuck in our memories and influence perceptions, so it is important to set the scene of current practices.

After examining the phenomenon of the zoo, I consider the moral disquiet with zoos (Chapter 3) and the importance of such disquiet. Mostly it is the conditions for the animals that give grounds for concern. While the use of animals in zoos is neither as significant nor as impactful as other uses of animals, at its core zoos use animals in ways that have the potential to cause pain or suffering and as such there are grounds for moral disquiet. Even if pain and suffering are not present, zoo animals are still used, and in itself that raises moral concerns.

The most widely accepted and agreed moral principle with respect to the treatment of animals is that sentient animals have an interest in their own welfare, and a discussion on animal welfare provides a good starting point to consider the obligations of those who hold and work with animals. Animal welfare (Chapter 4), at its most simple, demands that animals should not experience unnecessary pain and suffering. For well-run zoos and aquariums, pain and suffering should not be an integral part of operations. In fact, zoos sell a promise of access to healthy, happy animals. While it is challenging and complex to meet that promise, it is arguably possible to eliminate unnecessary pain and suffering from zoo operations without destroying the core value proposition of zoos, which is to see animals up close in a human-constructed environment.

The interests of animals are, however, far broader than animal welfare. Animal rights theory (Chapter 5) considers other morally important interests that animals may possess, and holds that animals are the kinds of beings that should be treated with respect for their autonomy and should be afforded the basic rights to life, liberty, and freedom from pain and suffering. Zoos hold, own and use animals, constraining their freedom and deciding all important aspects of an individual animal’s life: their partners, their actions, and even when to terminate their lives. The moral consideration of animals requires that zoos should act in ways that are consistent with the best interest of each individual animal, acting not as an owner but rather as a guardian for the individual. While easy to articulate, this approach requires an understanding of the interests of each individual. However, most animals at zoos are currently treated as if there is a consistent species-level view of interests (elephants like swimming, for example) rather than at an individual level. A standard view of any system of rights requires the ability to handle conflicting rights, and animal rights are no different. Within zoos there are conflicts between animal and human rights, the rights of different individuals in a group and the rights of an individual conflicting with the survival of a species. Where rights conflict, we can draw on general rights principles to discover the best course of action.

Consequentialism (Chapter 6) considers the moral value of an action based on the consequences or outcomes against an agreed value system. It is proposed that zoos and aquariums provide experiences for both humans and animals and that these experiences may be positive, neutral or negative. Considering experiences as the value system, or consequences, of zoo operations, I am able to apply consequentialism to assess zoo operations. An analysis of the positive and negative experiences generated at Melbourne Zoo is used to show the impact of a large, modern zoo. Even including the negative experiences of animals, Melbourne Zoo shows a net positive experience. Yet there are challenges for consequentialism, particularly when the party that enjoys the benefits is not the party that bears the cost, and the party that carries the cost is unable to consent, as is the case in zoos.

A question remains. Even if the positive experiences exceed the negative experiences, what do zoos say about the virtue of humans in societies that support zoos and aquariums? Virtue ethics (Chapter 7) is getting a revival in terms of its ability to shed new light on complex ethical situations. While not delivering a strong case for or against zoos and aquariums, the virtue ethics discussion adds to the ethical assessment of zoos and the people who work in zoos and visit zoos.

Environmental ethics (Chapter 8) provides additional support for the role and importance of zoos in the 21st century. Environmental ethics touches on both ethics and morality in new and novel ways. Environmental ethics asks us to consider if a life well lived allows for the destruction of environments and the extinction of species, arguing there is loss of value in our lives if we live in a world devoid of diverse creatures. Environmental ethics also asks that we consider not only the treatment of other humans, but also that of other sentient and even non-sentient beings. Zoos have unique skills that can be harnessed to deliver species support and, in the worst cases, insurance populations. While zoos strive to save endangered species, ironically it is the endangered species that may well provide the ethical support for zoos of the future.

Ethical theory and discussions are interesting, but it is in the application of theory to real situations that we are most challenged. It is easy to talk about concepts such as euthanasia or killing in self-defence until we are faced with a real, breathing being. Thus I have included a section of ‘wicked problems’ at the end of the book, real situations that may be familiar, to test your ethical thinking. These problems represent the real-world issues faced by people who work in and with zoos and aquariums. I don’t give simple answers; I hope that through reading this book you will feel empowered to have an informed view on the problems and avoid a purely emotional response. I hope you will be able to develop your own defendable, ethical position.

Zoos bring people and animals into contact. They allow us to look into the eyes of tigers and gorillas, and confront us with some of the moral and ethical questions of our age, such as what makes for a good life, and how we should we treat animals and their environments.

Zoos face increasing challenges and must continue to evolve, taking into consideration changing attitudes to animals and our increased understanding of the capacities of animals. To remain relevant and ethically defensible there must be a commitment to respect the interest of each animal held by a zoo, including interest in positive welfare, life and choice. Zoos must become real guardians for the animals in their care and avoid thinking and acting as owners of living property.

For some species this may not be possible. It is plausible that zoos and aquariums are unable to meet the needs of individual, complex animals. Humans are learning so much about the cognitive and mental aspects of animals that we will no doubt see the sphere of concern for life and liberty expand, and with it a contraction of the permissible use of certain animals, governed or overseen by rigorous evaluations or accreditation of standards. In these cases zoos and aquariums will be forced to reconsider the acceptability of holding large, complex animals, and in the wider world we would hope to see a commensurate level of protection offered to wild populations.

However, for the majority of species, zoos are able, with time, effort and attention, to create environments that support positive animal welfare states, including choice and variation. Once they have met the needs and preferences of individual animals, zoos are able to deliver benefits to threatened species through breeding programs and their conservation work.

Finally, while we think of animals when we think of zoos, it is people who benefit most from zoos. Zoos are adept at delivering benefits to people, from entertainment to deep life-long emotional connections. Ethical zoos must focus on maximising the benefits they deliver to people, the people who work in zoos, the people who visit zoos and the larger community that the zoo serves. Zoos provide an opportunity for urban people to know amazing animals, to learn, to wonder, and to share their love with their children.

The next time you enter the gates of a zoo, perhaps you will pause and consider that you are taking an action that is charged with moral and ethical content. I hope that as you view some of the animals that share our planet, you may reconsider the complex relationships we have with animals and how we need to change our attitudes and behaviours in order to ensure that we continue to share the planet with a diverse and awe-inspiring animal kingdom.

Endnotes

1. Regan T (1995) Are Zoos Morally Defensible? In Ethics on the Ark (Eds BG Norton, M Hutchins, EF Stevens, TL Maple). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, p. 38.

2. Gusset M, Dick G (2011) The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biology 30, 566–569.

3. Frey RG, Wellman C (2005) A Companion to Applied Ethics. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, p. 1.

2

The modern zoo

I have to remind myself that some birds are not meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright. And when they fly away the part of you that knows it was a sin to lock them up does rejoice. But still that place you live in is that much more drab and empty that they are gone.¹

Introduction

A life without animals may be a deprived life. Humans are animals, and we need to experience and interact with other animals to understand ourselves, others and our place in nature. We relate to animals in complex ways. Intui...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Photo Ark
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction – of beetles, people and zoos
• Terminology
• 1 Introduction to applied ethics and zoos
• 2 The modern zoo
• 3 The moral disquiet with zoos
• 4 Animal welfare
• 5 Animal rights beyond welfare
• 6 Consequentialism
• 7 Virtue theory
• 8 Environmental ethics
• 9 Conclusion
• Wicked problems
• Index