Whither Zoos? An Inescapable Question

ABSTRACT

As a founding coeditor of the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science and a member of the International Advisory Committee of the Center for Zoo Animal Welfare and Ethics (CZAWE), I welcome this opportunity to publish for the third time (see earlier issues Volume 16, Number 4 [2013] and Volume 18, Supplement [2015]) selected proceedings from the Fourth Global Animal Welfare Congress of the Detroit Zoological Society’s CZAWE. I have the honor of presenting a brief overview of the congress, entitled “Zoos and Aquariums as Welfare Centers: Ethical Dimensions and Global Commitment,” which was held May 3, 2017, through May 6, 2017.

KEYWORDS:

• Zoo
• wildlife sanctuary
• wildlife park
• extinction

Locating the zoo as an institution

A wide-screen view within which the Fourth Global Animal Welfare Congress of the Detroit Zoological Society’s Center for Zoo Animal Welfare and Ethics (CZAWE)and the work of the center more generally are located reveals a formidable set of forces in which the success of the event’s mission must be evaluated. Together, these forces constitute a current crisis and further impending catastrophes. We are witnessing the beginnings of dramatic climate change and are in the midst of the “Sixth Great Extinction,” both clearly primarily products of human activity—hence the designation of the current geologic era as the “Anthropocene.” From a biocentric perspective, equally daunting is the historically unprecedented shift in biological proportionality as the biomass of humans and nonhuman animals who have been domesticated now greatly eclipses that of wildlife. In response to this and related developments, environmentalists and conservationists are putting in place a new strategy that morphs the concept of “wilderness”—the idea that sections of the biosphere can be segregated and maintained as pristine areas untrammeled by a human footprint—into that of “wildness” as a shared human and wildlife space within which the latter can thrive and fulfill their natural being. Examples of these efforts are “rewilding” both former agricultural land through reforestation and silvopastoral production systems and current urban and suburban areas through “wild-scaping” and “greening” that replace the ubiquitous lawn with practices that facilitate the creation of (really recognition of) interspecies communities.

On a personal note, as I write this article, I am looking out the window of a hotel in Beijing, China, a city of 21 million human inhabitants. Because of air pollution, I can only see as far as 2 yards to 300 yards. After a week in the city and two days at the Great Wall, a distance of 60 miles from the city, I have yet to observe one wild ground vertebrate. Again, from a biocentric perspective, our human adaptive capability, as we obligingly don our individual masks to filter the very air that we breathe, clearly here is a liability.

Another force within which we must place zoos is the emergence of animal protection as a social justice movement. A brief history of that contemporary movement (earlier efforts in the 19th century were largely eclipsed by the World Wars) reveals focal shifts from animals in science to companion animals to animals in agriculture, to, currently and largely in response to the developments described earlier, wildlife.

A third force is the emergence in the past three decades of a significant body of research in the multidisciplinary field of human–animal studies (also known as animal studies or anthrozoology) that is a counterpart of the animal protection movement, as well as related research in cognitive ethology, comparative psychology, and neuroscience. These developments in scholarship create a compelling basis for and really a demand to reexamine institutions that involve animals from the wild in captivity.

Each of these developments represent countervailing challenges that are largely external to zoos. A final “location” is the history of the zoo itself. Like any other social institution, zoos have a significant history of change: from their beginnings as the private menageries of royalty, to their symbolic use as bragging rights of the fruits of imperialism, to an add-on to the municipal gardens largely open to the leisure class, to a site of public entertainment, and to current claims of education and conservation. A generous reading of this history suggests in this case some measure of the potential for constructive adaptability to changing times.

The Center for Zoo Animal Welfare and Ethics and the present proceedings

The questions of the future of zoos and, in the present context, of the role of the CZAWE in shaping that future are inescapable: Is the CZAWE through its research, training sessions, and these symposia positioned to be a formative current that shapes the maelstrom of these forces, or will it be an ephemeral eddy in an increasing “monospecies”—that is, human and denatured world?

With the Fourth Global Animal Welfare Congress, the idea (and aspiration) that zoos and aquaria are (or should be) welfare centers is close to a consensus view. This view is a further development of the themes of earlier symposia that introduced the idea of welfare in contrast to care (e.g., “from good care to great welfare”). From an adjunctive role secondary to education and conservation remits, adequately providing for the welfare of individual animals is fast becoming a sine non-qua, a requisite condition.

Another subtheme of this symposia is a greater focus on ethical issues construed to include not only the ethics undergirding welfare, but more radically, the ethics of keeping animals in captivity. If we accept the now widely shared view that virtually all wildlife is currently subject to some constraint and human-based control, then the loss of freedom to which captive animals are subjected is relative. How can we enhance that freedom, and how can we develop and implement policies that recognize its limits? For individuals of some species, it means accepting that zoos as currently constituted cannot adequately provide for their welfare. Can zoos help contribute to reducing recent dramatic losses of biodiversity and the growing biological disproportionality? Is the centrality of the welfare remit consistent with such efforts? If taking animals from the wild is no longer acceptable, can we sustain zoo populations by rescuing and rehabilitating animals in need and, as importantly, restricting zoos to indigenous animals?

The papers presented at the symposium continue to emphasize the affective and emotional aspects of welfare, in addition to the more traditional discourses on health and behavioral repertoire. How can we understand, assess, and enrich the subjective experience of captive exotic animals? Suggestions come under the shibboleth, “Know your animal” and the application of the precautionary principle when in doubt about a particular capacity.

Finally, from the papers and discussion of them, it is clear that the field of animal welfare science in the area of zoo and aquaria is gaining momentum and sophistication and is increasingly open to and informed by advances in the conceptualization of and methods of welfare assessment and by ethical theory. As importantly, the zoo community has embraced a more progressive set of attitudes and beliefs—the usual backbench of troglodytes notwithstanding. This field then serves the critical function of providing an empirical basis for discussing the future of the zoo. As I have highlighted here and as we all now recognize, that discussion is daunting and timely as the forces of history, politics, economics, and values all weigh in on the more general question of our relationships with the other animals who share this world with us.

The future of zoos

With regard to the future of zoos, many ideas are on the table ranging from radical transformation to tinkering on the edges that does not challenge the status quo. On the radical side, buttressed by recent literature on the ethics of captivity, zoos as we know them would cease to exist. However, the long history, current popularity, and economics of zoo and aquarium enterprises make this option unlikely: There are 175 million paying visitors annually in the United States. Several ideas taken together represent transformation, if not abolition, and describe two somewhat distinct trajectories.

The first trajectory, the zoo as sanctuary, involves replacing exotic animals with indigenous animals and primarily populating the zoo with animals who have been rescued and/or animals in need of rehabilitation. This idea would limit populations to animals already adjusted to the local climate and would largely eliminate welfare issues related to transport. As sanctuaries, zoos would also prohibit reproduction as a way of sustaining populations. Finally, from a historical perspective, the zoo as a sanctuary would be a full-stop end to the imperialistic legacy of zoos.

Related to or at least consistent with the idea of the zoo as a sanctuary is a shift from featuring megafauna, particularly large mammals, to mesofauna and even microfauna, particularly amphibians and invertebrates. The “great welfare” of these animals is relatively easily provided, and certainly, they are in need of help as their populations are declining dramatically. (I was amazed at the lack of insects in Beijing and its environs). Finally, the use of technology that allows for greater access to animals, both actual and virtual, lessens the stress on animals and likely increases the educational value of exhibits. Many of these ideas are already being implemented.

In the second transformative trajectory, zoos morph into wildlife, conservation, or zoological parks. In effect, the architecture of the zoo as a wildlife park reverses the role of human and nonhuman animals. Animals have the run of the zoo, while visitors are constrained and confined. Again, the beginnings of this change are already happening. Individuals of some nonhuman animal species have the relative freedom to roam within the perimeter of the zoo, while humans are limited to mechanized movement. Another change, not yet realized, would be locating these wildlife parks adjacent to wildlife reserves to combine the rescue and rehabilitation functions of the zoo as a sanctuary and the animal-centered park. In response to the recent debate about whether zoos are the best site for conservation efforts, this relocation would allow for the predominance of in situ approaches to conservation.

Although the remarks here argue the inevitability of change, of course, the future of zoos is unforeseeable. We could do worse than fall back on theories of change for general guidance. One current theory is the threshold model of change (Nathan, 2013). In its terms, there currently is a balance between the desire for and the fear of change that has created a logjam preventing the major revisioning necessary to meet the several forces at play. The theory argues that a “triggering event” is required to break that logjam. Although the theory does not elaborate on the attributes of such an event, we might wonder if these symposia and their published proceedings just might …

I hope you enjoy this special supplement issue of the journal, and we invite comments of up to 500 words for publication in subsequent issues.