A Postzoo Future: Why Welfare Fails Animals in Zoos

ABSTRACT

Discussions on the welfare of nonhuman animals in zoos tend to focus on incremental improvements without addressing the underlying problem of captivity. But alterations to the conditions of zoo captivity are irrelevant for animals. Real zoo reform will involve working to completely change the landscape. We offer six necessary reforms to bring zoos into a more ethical future: (1) Shut down bad zoos, now; (2) stop exhibiting animals who cannot and never will do well in captivity; (3) stop killing healthy animals; (4) stop captive breeding; (5) stop moving animals around from one zoo to another; and (6) use the science of animal cognition and emotion on behalf of animals.

KEYWORDS:

• Zoos
• freedom
• captivity
• reform
• ethics

Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen (2004) once said, “It is difficult to think about the excellence or the limitations of a society, or the rightness or wrongness of social arrangements, without invoking—in one way or another—freedoms of various kinds and their fulfillment and violation in the societies under scrutiny” (p. 7). Sen talked about freedom as the “focal variable” in thinking about human social arrangements that most closely achieve a state in which humans can flourish. Freedom is also the state in which nonhuman animals can flourish and should function as the focal variable in talking about the ethics of animals in captivity in zoos. Yet freedom is exactly what zoos deny their animal “residents.”

Instead of talking about freedom and captivity, discussions such as those that took place at the Fourth Global Animal Welfare Congress held in May 2017 at the Detroit Zoo often focused attention on what are called “welfare” improvements. These welfare interventions seek to improve the lives of animals in captivity by reducing sources of stress (e.g., the sensory assault of constant noise, the presence of human visitors, the boredom and frustration caused by having little or nothing of relevance to do) and by adding “enrichments” such as plastic toys or food puzzles to animals’ cages. Yet “welfare” is becoming an increasingly suspect term in the world of animal advocacy—and for good reason (Bekoff & Pierce, 2017). When you see the word “welfare,” you can be pretty sure that something unpleasant is being done to animals, and we, their guardians, are working to offset the suffering we are imposing. At its best, “zoo animal welfare” is a way of addressing some of the superficial moral problems facing zoos; at their worst, welfare discussions are little more than “humane washing.” In either case, we never truly get down to the root of the problems that zoos face.

Captivity effects

What is the root of the problem? Captivity itself.

The fact that an entire literature is dedicated to so-called captivity effects should leave us in no doubt that being caged causes major problems for individual animals. The vast empirical database on captivity effects spans from behavioral problems observed in various species held in zoos and other captive environments to evidence of neurobiological and physiological changes induced by conditions in captivity. It even extends to a robust data set on the harms of captivity for human prisoners of war and under conditions of incarceration. (There is a good reason why solitary confinement is considered by the United Nations to be a violation of basic human rights.) These captivity effects, which are similar in humans and other animals, include long-term activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, repetitive and abnormal behaviors indicative of psychological trauma (called stereotypies), changes to immune function, brain morphology, reproductive behaviors, circadian rhythms, and so on. Prolonged captivity clearly imposes profound suffering. There is no way around this reality.

The basic moral principle we might draw from looking at the scientific database on how captivity affects animals, then, is this: It is prima facie unethical to hold animals in prolonged captivity, because captivity imposes suffering and it is wrong to deliberately impose suffering on a sentient creature. Clearly, zoos exist on a morally tenuous foundation.

In situ ethics

One option is to ignore ethics and simply admit, unabashedly, that ethics is not that important. We can be up front about the fact that we are exploiting animals, that we are causing them to suffer physically and mentally, that we do not know how to fix the innumerable problems at hand, or that we simply do not care enough to about animal well being to stop supporting and participating in zoos.

Fortunately, some of the leading zoo directors and administrators around the globe have expressed a commitment to doing better for animals. Indeed, if it were not for a concern about ethics, zoo leaders would not have taken the time and trouble to travel to Detroit to talk about animal welfare in the first place. Some seem willing or eager to discuss the challenges captivity presents to individual animals and want to learn about the huge and growing scientific literature dedicated to understanding and addressing the harms that captivity imposes on animals.

Yet still, despite a commitment to ethics, the discussion among participants at the Detroit Symposium never really veered into the challenging moral terrain of captivity and freedom. Instead, attention was centered on what one might call an in situ ethical response to zoos: to ignore the ethical problem of zoos and focus on ethics within zoos. In situ ethics that centers on zoos and animals in zoos consists of trying to address the welfare concerns raised by holding animals captive. If we dedicate ourselves to understanding exactly what captive conditions are least aversive to animals and how we can optimize their good experiences while minimizing the bad, then we are well on our way to being ethical.

But these steps are only a beginning because this sort of in situ response fails to address deeper moral problems. It keeps us in a holding pattern, like an airplane that must wait to land until the fog has cleared. We move around in slow circles over our target, and we have been in this holding pattern for decades now. It is time to stop circling around the problems at hand and discuss them head on.

Clearly, there is an urgent need for all individuals in zoos to be treated better, and it is an immediate ethical responsibility of everyone working in or for zoos. But even the best welfare in the world will not make zoos ethically benign or even acceptable. What we need is a paradigm change. Zoos need to radically reform and likely will not look anything like today’s zoos. This reform will not be easy. Doing the right thing rarely is.

Reforming ‘zoos’

Reform 1: Shut down bad zoos as soon as possible

The majority of places calling themselves “zoos” are horrific, and there is no excuse for allowing them to exist. Even prominent leaders in the field of zoo management recognize the problem of bad zoos. Bernard Harrison, past director of the Singapore Zoo, was asked in a recent interview if he agreed with animal advocates that zoos should not be keeping animals in captivity (Chai, 2017). “Seriously,” he said. “I couldn’t agree with them more. If I could, I would shut down 90% of the 10,000 zoos in the world. The world is full of horrible stink holes that call themselves zoos” (Chai, 2017). Jenny Gray, chief executive officer of Zoos Victoria and author of a book titled Zoo Ethics: The Challenges of Compassionate Conservation, wrote:

Unfortunately, the bulk of zoos in existence today still fall short of meeting the requirements of ethical operations. At best, 3% of zoos are striving to meet ethical standards, with perhaps only a handful meeting all the requirements. (Gray, 2017, p. 208)

Based on these numbers, the first important reform then is to shut down around 90% to 97% of all zoos in the world—every zoo that cannot meet rigorous standards for animal welfare. This step would lead us part of the way toward reconceiving what a “zoo” is and ought to be. Closing the door on bad zoos is, of course, much harder than it sounds and will require years of dedicated work. Leading zoo directors must more vocally and aggressively speak out against bad zoos. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums must commit to much more rigorous standards of welfare and should stop accrediting zoos that only marginally make the grade. It will mean less revenue for these governing bodies; it will also mean greater credibility, greater accountability, and fewer concerns about compromising moral principles.

As we close the door on bad zoos, there will be an urgent need to find places for the animals from these zoos to spend the rest of their lives. Indeed, housing animals from the wild in captivity will sometimes be the only option for their survival. This will be the case not only for those animals rescued from inhumane zoo conditions, but also for those who were born in captivity and do not possess the skills necessary to live in the wild and for those whose habitats have been destroyed by human encroachment or climate change or whose existence in the wild is profoundly challenged by human violence. There may then be a legitimate role for sanctuaries where wild animals can live under human protection and with the closest possible approximation to their wild lives.

Reform 2: Stop exhibiting animals who cannot and never will do well in captivity

Simply saying “no” to captivity for some species when the deprivations of captivity are too profound is another way zoos can make meaningful moral progress. We already know that certain species simply do not and cannot thrive in the zoo setting: elephants, bears, wolves, whales, dolphins, chimpanzees, orangutans, lions, and tigers, just to name a few.

By evaluating the empirical database and continuing to add research and use the results, we can make judgments about which species of animals can have reasonable freedoms and well being in captivity and which cannot. Following on the work of Georgia Mason (2003, 2008), for example, zoos might strongly consider phasing out the exhibition of wide-ranging carnivores in favor of species that seem, for whatever reason, to do well in captivity, such as snails. Understanding what factors weigh against captivity (e.g., large home-range size, particular foraging behaviors) will eventually help us work toward zoos in which a relatively good state of well being is possible for all animals within them.

Unfortunately, these same “charismatic” species who suffer most are also the ones the public clamors to see (or who, at the very least, zoo directors believe the public clamors to see and about whom they encourage the public to get excited). Zoo directors need to change the way they talk to the public about animals, and they need to help redirect the public’s interest. One of the common themes at the Detroit meeting went something like, “Well, we have to do X or Y or have X or Y species because this is what the public really wants, and the public is one of our main stakeholders and provides the money that then drives conservation programs.” This statement may be true, to some extent. However, zoos are responsible for nurturing public opinion about animals in zoos, and they do indeed create a buzz around certain animals.

We realize that closing certain exhibits is going to be difficult, but zoo directors should not underestimate the buy-in they will get from the public if clear explanations focusing on animal well being are provided. More than a decade ago, the Detroit Zoo permanently closed its elephant exhibit. Concerns over lost revenue were unfounded: The zoo did better, financially. Detroit has instead funneled its energy and money into creating exciting alternatives. One of these alternatives is a snail exhibit. Although it could be argued that we are simply shifting the burden of captivity onto smaller, less ethically provocative creatures like snails and that snails, like elephants, would surely prefer freedom to captivity, we are told the snails are doing well. Snails are small and have a small home range, and the zoo houses them in carefully designed spaces that meet their needs.

An even more interesting angle taken by Detroit Zoo has been to create innovative exhibits that replace animals with technology, such as the three-dimensional animal documentary experience and the virtual safari. If zoos are mainly for children (and, as the paying addendum, the parents), these interactive exhibits have the potential to be more fun and more educational than traditional zoo animal exhibits without the collateral damage of real animal lives. Zoos could remain open to the public, could play up the theme park narrative even more aggressively than they already do, and could even more creatively make use of the entertainment technologies available. In the meantime, the live animals could be quietly removed and allowed to live out their natural lives in peace and privacy in more sanctuary-like settings. Zoos with live animals could become a thing of the past.

Reform 3: Stop killing healthy animals

The case of Marius, a healthy two-year-old giraffe who was killed at Copenhagen Zoo because his genetic material was redundant, has raised in stark fashion the question of whether and when zoos should dispatch healthy animals. “Management euthanasia” (a muddled metaphor, offensive euphemism, and oxymoron all rolled into one) is common practice at many zoos. Zoos do not really euthanize so-called surplus animals as they claim, but rather, they “zoothanize” them because either their bodies or genetic material are no longer needed (Bekoff & Pierce, 2017). Although not all zoos would be bold enough to publicly kill and dismember a large charismatic and named individual such as Marius, all zoos engage in some zoothanasia. When pressed on the issue of killing healthy animals, zoo directors will often claim that it is “necessary” or will use some displacement strategy such as, “It’s a complicated issue.” But it really is not complicated at all. Zoos should not kill healthy animals, and if zoo management practices “require” the killing of healthy animals, then these practices need to change. Now.

Reform 4: Stop captive breeding programs

If zoos adopted some basic moral imperatives such as not killing healthy animals, it would then inform discussions about breeding practices. If captive breeding programs lead to the “necessity” of killing healthy animals, then instead of fretting about the ethics of what to do with these healthy animals, zoos should simply stop creating the conditions under which animals are put in the uncomfortable and usually fatal position of being surplus in the first place. “Hard decisions” such as killing Marius are not forced upon zoos; zoos themselves create these moral conundrums and can alter their practices so that such situations simply do not arise.

Reform 5: Stop moving animals around from one zoo to another

Zoo directors provide numerous explanations for why animals must be lent out like library books among various institutions. Using animals as breeding machines is good for business or, they claim, essential for conservation. Sometimes, a given animal is brought in for an exhibit; sometimes, they are brought in for their DNA; and sometimes, it is because one zoo has a surplus and another has a deficit of a given type of animal and each need to balance their exhibits. Whatever the justifications, it does not really matter. They all fail on moral grounds. Moving animals around is extraordinarily stressful, both for the animal being moved and for the animals with whom the new arrival is housed. Animals form social attachments to one another, and they grow comfortable with their surroundings, just like we do when we live in one place for an extended period. Displaced animals suffer. There is no good animal welfare-based reason for all the trading and moving, and if zoos are going to become moral institutions, animal-based reasons must drive practice. If animals in zoos really are “residents,” which is the current term of art within zoo management circles, then we should consider their home zoo as just that—their home.

Reform 6: Use the science of animal cognition and emotion on behalf of animals

We had both assumed, earlier in our careers, that the scientific study of the emotional and cognitive lives of animals would lead to a sea change in how humans treat animals—how could it not? Once people see that animals are intelligent and feeling creatures, just like us, they will not in good conscience be able to inflict suffering and deprivation.

Yet as the years have passed and we consider the situation of animals in our world, it seems as though the accumulating research into the inner lives of animals has done nothing to help their situation. We call this the “knowledge translation gap.” This gap is nowhere more evident than in the realm of zoos. Despite everything we have learned in the past several decades about what animals think and feel and want, conversations about zoo ethics and welfare have not really evolved. We may have better welfare standards and we may be asking better questions about how to improve the lives of animals confined to zoos, but we have not yet begun to challenge the acceptability of captivity itself. Nor have we really taken to heart the reality that all the welfare enhancements in the world will not provide animals with what they most want, which is freedom to live their own lives. Somehow, all the scientific gains have not translated into practice.

Our recent book, The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age (Bekoff & Pierce, 2017), was our attempt to figure out why science is failing animals. The brief answer is that the study of animal emotion and cognition has been channeled into animal welfare science. And “welfare science” is not science in the service of animals, but rather science in the service of human industry. Good animal welfare just is not and never will be good enough for the animals themselves.

The science of animal well being that we developed in The Animals’ Agenda focuses on individual animals and would not allow animals to be used and abused in the way that welfarism allows. Welfarism puts human needs first and tries to accommodate animals within the “human needs first” framework. Well being broadens the question of “what individual animals want and need” beyond the welfare box and tries to understand animal preferences from the animals’ point of view. For example, welfarism asks whether elephants would prefer one acre or three acres; well being challenges the idea that elephants should be in cages in zoos in the first place, because they cannot have true well being or “good lives” under such conditions—no matter how many welfare modifications we make.

All in all, even so-called “good” zoos have a lot of work to do to give their residents better lives. And, it is important to recognize that a “better life” is not necessarily a “good life.” Meetings such as the one at the Detroit Zoo certainly are steps in the right direction; however, the hard questions must be addressed openly and squarely, and we cannot assume that it is just fine to keep animals in cages and move on from there.