Zoo Biology 15:187-192 (1 996)

BOOK REVIEWS

The Role of Zoos in Conservation and Their Responsibilities for the Well-Being of Wild Animals A review of Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare and Wildlife Conservation, edited by Bryan G. Norton, Michael Hutchins, Elizabeth Stevens, and Terry L. Maple. Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995, 330 pp., $32.50, cloth.

This book resulted from a workshop organized by the American Zoo and Aquar- ium Association (AZA) which had the aim of examining the ethical issues associated with captive breeding programs in zoos from both the conservation and social con- texts.

Most zoos, with a few notable exceptions, were originally established as me- nageries which attempted to keep in captivity as many different kinds of large, exotic species of animal as possible for the entertainment of the public. Modern zoos, however, keep wild animals in captivity to promote their conservation through cap- tive breeding, to educate the public on their biology and conservation status, and to carry out research which can lead to a better understanding of their biology and needs. At the other extreme are the animal advocates who believe that it is unethical to keep wild animals in captivity for any reason. They believe that captivity infringes on the rights of the individual wild animals and cannot be justified, and that animals should be left to fend for themselves in the natural habitat, even at the risk of the species becoming extinct. Furthermore, both animal rights advocates and some scientists are sceptical as to whether captive breeding can really play a significant role in the conservation of species, and that money and efforts might better be concentrated on preserving natural habitat rather than removing animals to artificial confinement. Even where habitat becomes available, the success of reintroduced animals requires enormous efforts and large sums of money which might have been directed at habitat preservation.

Basically, the modern zoo ethic is that many wild habitats are doomed and that the extinction of fauna leads to a reduction in biological diversity; from these pre- mises, zoos believe that they should form a modern ark to preserve endangered species. This means that the well-being of individual animals may have to be com- promised, in terms both of depriving them of their freedom and their genetical management. The positions of zoos and the animal rights lobby are diametrically

0 1996 Wiley-Liss, lnc.

188 Poole

opposed, but this book effectively explores the middle ground which is of concern to both zoo managements and moderate animal welfarists.

Ethics on the Ark examines the ethical issues of both welfare and conserving species in very considerable detail, and faces up to the real problems of keeping wild animals in captivity to conserve endangered species, educate the public, and carry out useful research. The book is divided into four parts, and the chapters represent the views of each author on particular issues which are often in agreement, but their opinions are sometimes in conflict. The editors wisely do not try to resolve these disparate opinions, but leave it to the reader to decide on the merits of the different arguments. In this review, I shall briefly select what I regard as the particularly important and original points made by the different authors.

Part 1 is on the future of zoos. Conway points out that there are some 1,700 zoos in the United States ranging from petting zoos in shopping malls to large scientific institutes, and that less than 10% of them are members of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association and, therefore, committed to conservation. He emphasizes that good zoos will continue to be needed in the future because of the increasing popu- lation pressure from humans on the populations of wild animals, and that the AZA has made a coordinated effort to achieve the three major objectives of modern zoos, namely, conservation, education, and research. Maple believes that zoos will adopt new roles in future, advising on ecotourism, animal rescue, and the encouragement of more research on wildlife.

Hancocks complains that zoos place too much emphasis on large exotic species, and advocates a much greater concentration on local fauna. Even small rodents, such as the grasshopper mouse, are worthy of the attention of zoo visitors. Zoos should not simply duplicate animal collections and should not confuse the size of an animal with its intrinsic interest. Hancocks argues that zoos are not the place to breed endangered species, which would do better in specialist facilities inaccessible to the public. Zoos tend to be interested in forest destruction elsewhere and ignore the problems on their own doorstep; they should encourage the preservation of whole ecosystems and not just large animals. Regan discusses the philosophical and ethical aspects of zoo conservation. He explains the three major philosophical approaches: The utilitarian takes everyone’s interests into account, including the animals. The rights view argues that animals are not there just to serve humans and that we have no right to deprive a wild animal of its freedom or manipulate individuals for the benefit of others. The rights view asserts that extinction of a species is preferable to moving the last sur- viving animals into captivity. Finally, the approach of holism believes that actions are right if they promote the diversity and harmony of the biotic community. The suf- fering or death of individual animals is not significant; however, holists put humans in a different category, which is irrational in that it conflicts with the theory. All three approaches are flawed and Regan suggests that a further moral justification must be put forward to defend zoos.

Part 2 of the book discusses the targets of protection. Jamieson points out that in spite of protest, zoos will not go away so we need to do everything to ensure that they are satisfactory. Zoos should become more like small parks, and many game parks in habitat countries are already fenced. Zoos will also have to face the tension between public support for preserving species and the need for entertainment. Ani- mals in zoos are refugees from a holocaust and, in captivity, there is a conflict between individual animal welfare and population survival. Jamieson believes that

Role of Zoos in Conservation 189

more of an attitude of partnership is needed between individual humans and wildlife. Vrijenhoek takes the opposite view that the individual wild animal is not important, it is simply a vehicle for genetic diversity, and that species are dynamic and not static entities. He also questions the commonly held belief that hybrids between subspecies are undesirable. It seems likely that some, but not all, subspecies have adaptive value, whereas others may simply have arisen by chance because populations were separated for a long period of time. Vrijenhoek concludes that, as most problems arise from increases in human populations, human reproduction should be restricted by govern- ment policies.

Geist is concerned with ecological problems such as ozone depletion, deserti- fication, pollution, global warming, and warfare, which makes an ark necessary. He emphasizes the importance of companionship between people and wild animals, as individuals, which can be rewarding for both. Norton also believes that wild animals have ontological value, but that we cannot be concerned with the individual welfare of those in the wild, and must accept responsibility for those in captivity. In spite of this, it may be ethical to sacrifice individuals for the well-being of the species because the aim of a wild animal is to perpetuate its species. In addition to his general concern with species survival, however, Norton regards the level of the animal’s self-aware- ness as relevant to its treatment.

Part 3 is concerned with captive breeding and wild populations. Koontz con- siders the ethical aspects of acquiring wild animals for captive breeding and empha- sizes the importance of a relevant moral attitude. If animals are to be acquired by a zoo, those responsible must consider the conservation impact of their removal from the wild, the likelihood of success of breeding them in captivity, and the humaneness of capture methods, and must ensure that proper care will be available for them. The aim in captive breeding should be to preserve 90% of the original genetic diversity in the population and, to justify acquisition, the species must be threatened with ex- tinction. Wild animals may also be brought into captivity to increase the genetic diversity of an existing zoo population or as an act of rescue where habitat has been depleted or destroyed. Koontz provides a useful checklist of procedures which should be observed when wild animals are to be acquired. Eudey emphasizes that it is a human responsibility not to destroy natural environments and that we, in the devel- oped world, should take more responsibility in terms of financial support for habitat preservation in developing countries. Great care must also be taken with regard to sources of wild animals, to ensure that they do not originate from unscrupulous dealers. The ethics of acquiring wild animals requires a careful assessment of the merits of both in situ and ex situ conservation.

Beck discusses reintroductions and points out that only 1 1 % of 145 reintroduc- tion projects were successful in terms of establishing self-sustaining wild populations. However, not all of the others were failures and some were making encouraging progress. Because reintroduction may be hazardous for the individuals concerned, the question must be asked as to whether it is humane. Reintroduction may be ethically justifiable if the risk to an individual is likely to be compensated for by the gain in conservation. Beck discusses methods of optimizing the reintroduced individual’s chances of surviving by training it in survival techniques so that its ability to live in the wild approximates that of an equivalent member of a wild population. Preparation for release into the wild must aim to optimize both individual welfare and the success of the reintroduction program. Loftin puts the arguments for and against captive

190 Poole

breeding and evaluates the success of some reintroduction programs. As the well- being of the individual animals is also important, Loftin argues that many reintro- duction programs may not be necessary and only appear to succeed because human pressure has been reduced through educating the local people. Sometimes the wild population would have recovered without the addition of any captive-bred individu- als. He concludes that, in spite of limited success, if there is no alternative to extinction in the wild, we have to try to breed animals in captivity and attempt to reintroduce them when conditions are favorable. Hancocks makes the point that zoos often use the possibility of future reintroduction as an excuse for captive breeding and conservation. He takes the view that this is mostly wishful thinking by zoos, and a much more realistic approach with greater humility is needed.

Lacy discusses the ethics of culling surplus animals and points out that all animals die. Culling can be justified because it makes the limited space in zoos available for other, more valuable individuals and thus may serve the purposes of conservation breeding. In practice, however, zoos are reluctant to kill some animals which are no longer of value for conservation. For example, they seldom cull hybrid orangutans or dolphins, but often keep them for many years. Clearly, there is a strong element of anthropomorphism in these decisions. Zoos cannot avoid having some excess animals, such as postreproductives. However, every time an animal is bred the zoo is responsible for it, so that a surplus of animals should be avoided to prevent unnecessary culling. Lindburg and Lindburg suggest that superfluous animals can be minimized by management at a national level. They also recommend that zoos phase out nonessential species and find alternative uses or low cost facilities for surplus animals; this will involve liaisons with other organizations, including those of animal rights advocates, to discuss common issues. Finally, Wagner points out that with regard to euthanasia of surplus zoo animals, there are no moral absolutes and ethical perceptions differ according to religion and society.

Part 4 of Ethics on the Ark concerns good stewardship. Maple, McManamon, and Stevens affirm that animal welfare is of paramount importance. They believe that zoos should elevate the roles of science and education of the public, and provide facilities for the animals to carry out species-typical behavior. Wuichet and Norton point out that animal welfare is not explicit in any of the four current goals of zoos, namely, conservation, education, science, and recreation. They suggest that zoos should adopt a fifth directive, “individual animal welfare. ” Hutchins et al. consider that the ethical considerations in zoo and aquarium research relate to the aims of increasing understanding of the biology of wild animals to help us to conserve them. While most zoo research will not be stressful to the animals, nonsentient alternatives which may be available for some kinds of biomedical research are impracticable. However, zoo research, unlike most medical research, directly benefits the animals’ own species or a closely related one. Like laboratory animal scientists, biologists carrying out zoo research should weigh the likely significance of the research in terms of any compromise to the welfare of the animals involved, and institutional ethical committees should be established to consider the justifiability of research proposals. Fouts supports the need for research in zoos but warns against arrogance. He affirms that scientists, like physicians, should first “do no harm” and adds the warning that “we make darn sure that we do some good for the animal we are to study.” Scientists should embrace their ignorance and approach the study of their fellow animals with humility and reverence.

Role of Zoos in Conservation 191

Allen considers public relations; she agrees to disagree with the animal welfare critics who want instant solutions, and argues that zoos “need to fight smart, not dirty.” Zoos should apply the M A code of professional ethics, which will correct weaknesses in the ranks, and they should also actively campaign to close bad zoos which reflect unfavorably on the whole zoo industry. Zoos can meet the desires of the public only up to a point; they should be candid with the public on whatever it is able to assimilate, and not be intimidated by animal activists. Allen emphasizes that zoos should not all be similar and that the welfare of animals should not be compromised for promotional events. The final chapter is by Caras on the view from the American Society for the Protection of Animals (ASPCA). He points out that, however much zoos would like to, they cannot outlaw “cuteness” or many visitors will not come, and pleasing them can be advantageous because animals such as dolphins have acted as ambassadors and increased the public’s concern for their well-being in the wild. The view of captivity that “in here is bad and out there in nature is good” is mistaken because nature is not only full of hazards, but is not a static picture. Changes occur in nature, so that it is dynamic. Likewise, animals in accredited zoos should not be treated cruelly, but it is inevitable that animals will on occasion be afraid in both the wild and in captivity. Advocates of animal welfare and animal rights may be thorns in the flesh to zoos and cause pain, but the function of pain is to tell us when something is wrong. However, Caras warns zoos against arguing with obsessives, who are people not amenable to rational argument. It is worth talking only to those who are open to discussion, reason, and compromise.

Finally, there is an Appendix which sets forth the guidelines sent to participants prior to the conference on which this book is based. It presents the main concerns and questions asked by the organizers; but although the book is based on this briefing, it does not follow it exactly. There is some merit in reading the Appendix before the rest of the book, however, because it sets the scene.

Ethics on the Ark succeeds in covering an extremely wide field most compe- tently, and faces up to most of the ethical problems in zoos. There are, however, a few points which I feel might have received more attention. While accepting that the book is limited by its briefing to the zoo scene in a developed country, much emphasis is placed on educating the public in conservation issues. However, where zoos keep large exotic species, much of this effort may be of limited value because the zoos in question are reaching a public remote from the real conservation problems. Educating Americans or Europeans does not solve the problems of an Asian farmer whose crops have been raided by elephants or whose livestock have been killed by a tiger. As several authors have pointed out, zoos are most effective when associated with in situ conservation, and there is a strong argument that education programs should concen- trate more on local conservation, particularly in developing countries.

A further issue which was not discussed in detail was the way in which tropical endangered species may be removed to zoos in temperate climates for captive breed- ing. This has sometimes been done without sufficient consideration that animals, such as elephants, may thrive and breed better in a climate to which they are adapted and where the kind of natural vegetation on which they normally feed is available.

This book succeeds in raising some very important conservation issues: first, whether the zoo as an ark will ever be able to reach a land where its animals can disembark; second, how easy it will be for these animals to live in the wild after generations in captivity and whether it will be practicable to rehabilitate them; and

192 Poole

third, the danger that concentration on captive breeding may divert efforts from saving habitat, so that we may end up with only a living museum of “interesting” animals such as tigers and Asian elephants with nowhere to go. Finally, it may well be that zoos should concentrate on local conservation, educating the public, solving problems on their doorsteps, and exchanging information on their successes and failures. Those in rich countries would then display exotic animals only to educate the public to donate funds to help zoos and wildlife reserves in poor ones.

Ethics on the Ark raises a number of animal welfare issues. Many authors emphasize the importance of high standards of care to ensure the well-being of zoo animals. However, there is sometimes a conflict between the welfare of individual wild animals and the management of captive populations for species survival. This is further complicated by the regard for wild animals as individuals held by both care givers and many members of the public. This makes the killing of zoo animals to free space for others a serious problem for some species. The suggestion that special conservation breeding centers should be established, which would be closed to the public, is an interesting one. In such “wildlife farms” animals would presumably be managed as stock, thus removing individual animal survival from the public arena. However, managers would still be faced with difficult decisions. The idea that zoos should add to their four objectives “individual animal welfare” is an important one, particularly because visitors are becoming increasingly alert to poor animal welfare in zoos. If zoos want to attract visitors in the future, I suspect that welfare will have to play a much more important role. A public convinced that animals are well cared for and happy in zoos will continue to visit and support them, particularly if the zoo adopts an active role in promoting conservation.

In this brief review I have been able to select only what I regard as points of particular interest, and hope that this has given readers of Zoo Biology a taste of the character of Ethics on the Ark. This book is a most important contribution to animal welfare and should be read by zoo professionals, conservationists involved with captive breeding, those concerned with the ethical justifiability of zoos, animal wel- farists, and anyone with an interest in the role and future of zoos. It should also stimulate further debate and discussion of these difficult and fascinating problems of animal welfare and conservation.

Trevor Poole Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Hertfordshire, England