1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
|
\input mla8.tex
\numberfirstpage
\clas{AP Lang}
\name{Holden} \last{Rohrer}
\prof{Jones}
\header
\title{The Morality of Zoos}
Zoos, in their modern form, began to gain popularity after the Age of
Exploration, during the Colonial Era. Explorers, or colonizers
searching for exploitable goods, like spices, people, weapons, or rare
animals. In the original conception, zoos were in no sense a
conservationist or educational institution. Rather, they were a tool
for profit and entertainment of the aristocracy. As those colonial
justifications became less just, ``conservation and animal welfare''
became the new explanations (Source B). There is limited educational
value and rarely any meaningful conservation being done by zoos despite
their owners' noble intentions, so they shouldn't be perpetrated for
the sake of the animals but for entertainment value---meaning that
conservation should continue in the wild and zoos should focus on
entertainment value without harming the animals.
Captive species' educational value is often tied to their
conservational value. Zookeepers believe that if an animal is visible
to the public, the public will believe in keeping that animal alive.
According to PETA and Zoocheck Canada, viewers' attention is
characterized by ``wandering the grounds,'' spending less than eight
seconds on minor exhibits and no more than two minutes even on major
ones (elephants), on average. So the purported awareness value is
limited if any. The conservational value is similarly overestimated
unless zoos are talking about ``writing a check,'' which a Houston Zoo
director claims isn't in the spirit that zoo directors claim
(Source C).
It's clear that directors and staff like Barongi care about the animals,
and that they want to preserve animals' welfare inside and out of zoos,
but flaws inherent to the institution---its focus on entertainment value
(being financially motivated by increased viewership) and internal
rather than external conservation efforts---mean that these wishes can't
be realized. In certain cases, like organizations which only take in
injured animals and avoid further breeding (because, according to Source
A, captive-bred species are rarely released back into the wild),
allowing visitors is completely reasonable but is better treated as a
side effect than a sole purpose. The Seoul Zoo's case of releasing a
captured bottlenose dolphin into the wild is exceptional, Source B
saying ``interest surrounding the release was unprecedented.'' If
release of captive-bred animals (not just return of originally wild
animals) were the norm to bolster wildlife populations, zoos would be a
much more moral institution. But this is not the case.
According to Source A, the animals are mentally damaged by captivity,
developing ``neurotic and self-harming behavior,'' which is unfortunate.
But not all animals suffer from these outcomes, and in many cases, the
income brought in by visitors---if used towards conservation efforts
in the wild---is worth the harm. The direction that zoos are attempting
to move in, towards ``pushing [patrons] to donate to the cause,''
following the AZA recommendation to spend a notable part of their
budgets on field conservation. These trials are valuable to actual
conservation but don't go far enough. Zoos can't just be pushing
messages about conservation to patrons if those patrons aren't paying
attention; zoos could, for example, exhibit the change they've made in
the wild instead of a live exhibit or embrace more closely the
entertainment role they've taken on by limiting the number of species
they hold in captivity and especially creatures like the polar bear
or elephant which fare much worse in captivity (Source A).
Zoo directors have good will for the animals they claim to serve, but
the current financial, cultural, and logistic state of zoos doesn't
realize the majority of their goals. Animals would fare better if zoos
focused less on captive animals in the way zoos do now and more on
actual wildlife---to take advantage of the popularity of zoos and
aquariums for the benefit of the animals.
\bye
|
