Zoos: do we still need them?
Text by Tim Jackson, Photographs Stock.xchng.
Source: This article was taken from the December 2010 issue of Africa Geographic.
As a child, science editor Tim Jackson remembers going to the zoo with his parents.
A whirl of animals and bright colours, it was an adventure for a young boy growing up in the Far East, and he barely noticed the dingy surroundings and small, heavily barred cages that were de rigueur at the time. Today, he and his five-year-old daughter are regular visitors to South Africa’s zoos.
Things have changed to be sure – the bars have gone, everything is clean and none of the predators is pacing up and down, Yet, the polar bears are thousands of kilometres from home, their enclosure a millionth the size of the area they would range over in the wild.
The few elephants are a motley bunch compared to the tight-knit family groups that wander the Kruger National Park or Okavango Delta. Any way you look at it, more than 9 000 animals are being kept in unnatural conditions in the middle of a city. Have things really moved on?
In this instant gratification era of the Internet and natural history television, do we still need public displays of live animals? Tim Jackson talks to some of the people involved with – and opposed to – zoos, and explores whether they have relevance in modern society.
So what exactly draws people to view wild animals?
The 2010 Soccer World Cup may have attracted 3.1 million visitors through its stadiums’ turnstiles, but along with Africa’s game reserves, the continent’s zoos welcome almost three times that number each year. It’s a question I put to author and analytical psychologist Ian McCallum, who is deeply interested in the animal-human interface. ‘One characteristic we value highly in animals is that they are what they are – utterly authentic,’ he says. ‘As humans, we long for that authenticity and sense of self. Being able to have some sort of encounter with them is important for our own sense of being.’
Seeing wildlife in its natural environment is one thing, but bring up the subject of zoos at a dinner table and reactions will always be mixed. Keeping animals in cages is hardly a new idea. In fact, Africa lays claim to the earliest recorded zoo.
(About 5500 years ago the ancient Egyptian capital of Hierakonpolis was home to a menagerie that included elephants, hippos, hartebeest, baboons and African wild cats.) Modern zoos really took off in the 18th and 19th centuries, when animal displays were opened to all and public education and support for scientific endeavour became founding principles.
In Africa, there are currently 200 zoos of all kinds operating in 48 countries. Many are a legacy of the continent’s colonial past – the Uganda Wildlife Education Centre and South Africa’s National Zoological Gardens in Pretoria are good examples. Recent incarnations include the Two Oceans Aquarium, conceived as a tourist attraction by the developers of Cape Town’s V&A Waterfront, and less obvious organisations, such as Butterfly World and Cheetah Outreach in South Africa, which are also registered members of the African Association of Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZAB).
Given that such a broad range of institutions call themselves (or are classified as) zoos, what exactly is a zoo? Collins English Dictionary offers this basic definition: ‘a place where live animals are kept, studied, bred and exhibited to the public’. But that tells only part of the story.
We’re a very misunderstood organisation,’ says Stephen van der Spuy, CEO of the public-funded Johannesburg Zoo, which dates from 1904 and houses 2 000-plus animals over its 54 hectares. ‘People think the only thing we do is keep animals in cages. Zoos should be moving, as we are, towards working as conservation organisations that are based at a zoo.’ The point he makes is that the institutions, as well as the public, need to think outside the box – or walls in this case – when considering what zoos are all about.
It’s been difficult for zoos to shed their ‘animals in cages’ stigma. In the 1980s, faced with the growing power of animal welfare concerns and falling visitor numbers and revenue, many European and US institutions were forced to reinvent themselves. In 1995, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) published The World Zoo Conservation Strategy. The updated version, released in 2005, called for zoos and aquariums to become directly associated with conservation programmes in the wild; to develop conservation capacity through the training of wildlife professionals; to encourage their visitors to support field projects; to communicate their achievements to the public; and to adhere to stringent animal welfare standards.
The 2010 Soccer World Cup may have attracted 3.1 million visitors; Africa’s zoos and game reserves welcome three times that number each year
African zoos have been slow on the uptake. ‘South African zoos are about 20 years behind their European and American counterparts,’ claims Wendy Willson of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA). Van der Spuy is one of the first to admit that even some of the continent’s better zoos lag behind. ‘Only in about the past five years,’ he says ‘have we moved away from the “stamp collection” approach to one of keeping species that require conservation or are important in education.’
In 2010 PAAZAB completely rewrote its operational standards to fall in line with WAZA, and director Dave Morgan is adamant that zoos have a role to play in conservation. ‘Part of PAAZAB’s standards states that every animal in a zoo has to have a conservation purpose,’ he says. ‘It’s not good enough to stick an animal in a cage and label it – that’s not conservation.’ He points to the contribution that zoos make to projects in the wild. ‘A recent survey by WAZA showed that zoos contribute US$350-million to field conservation every year.’
But the claim that zoos contribute to species conservation has its detractors. The Born Free Foundation is one. ‘In reality, only a small percentage of species held in zoos are classified as endangered or threatened,’ says CEO Will Travers. ‘The majority of the animals are rated by IUCN as “least concern” or are not rated at all’
Internationally, zoo breeding programmes have kept alive the hopes of a number of species declared extinct in the wild
The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) is also doubtful about the keeping of wild animals in captivity. ‘We believe that habitat protection, anti-poaching efforts and other in situ activities are key components to the long-term conservation of wild animals and biodiversity. Creating and maintaining a stock of wild animals in captivity does not, in itself, further these objectives,’ says Cindy Milburn, the organisation’s senior adviser.
To date the keeping of animals by African zoos seems to have had little direct impact on their conservation status. Even the Wattled Crane Recovery Programme, one of Johannesburg Zoo’s flagship projects, has yet to see birds returned to their original habitat. Van der Spuy explains, ‘Most of our conservation projects were only initiated in the past five years.’ Internationally, zoo breeding programmes have kept alive the hopes of a number of species declared extinct in the wild. Here too, though, full rein traductions have still to be completed.
Perhaps, instead, the onus is on zoo animals to act on behalf of their wild counterparts. ‘Our animals are ambassadors,’ says Clifford Nxomani, director of South Africa’s National Zoological Gardens. ‘They are the link between the public and the species in the wild.’ That ambassadorial role is fundamental to getting across the conservation message. ‘In a perfect world we wouldn’t need any zoos or aquariums, as conservation wouldn’t be an issue,’ says Judy Mann, Director of uShaka Sea World in Durban. ‘But you will never love something unless you experience it, and the only way to make people understand is for them to have an intimate experience. Sea World brings the marine environment alive.’
‘Zoos need to educate people about animals and their habitats,’ says Nxomani. Great emphasis is placed on South Africa’s learners, who account for a third of visitors to the National Zoological Gardens. At Johannesburg Zoo the figure is even higher – about 40 per cent of its visitors are from local schools.
You could argue that, with its vast protected areas, Africa should be able to offer an intimate wildlife experience that doesn’t require the presence of a zoo. But Africans are becoming increasingly isolated from their wild places. In 1900 fewer than five per cent lived in cities. By 2000 over a third had become urbanised and by 2015 that figure will climb to almost half. Given that many of these inhabitants live in poverty, the only connection they are likely to have with this continent’s magnificent animals is via a zoo. ‘I’d hazard a guess that 80 per cent of Johannesburg’s population have never been to a nature reserve and don’t have access to TV channels like Discovery,’ says Van der Spuy. ‘How else are we going to shape their minds except through education?’
It’s a compelling theory, but in practice many zoos fall short, citing funding challenges. Even Van der Spuy feels that Johannesburg Zoo, a wealthy institution by African standards, could do better. ‘The effect we have here is phenomenal, but we just don’t have enough staff for the volume of schoolchildren coming through,’ he admits. ‘At the moment it’s a financial problem to get better displays up.’
For Will Travers, however, it’s not about a lack of money. ‘It’s the vision that is bankrupt,’ he says, giving as an example the London Zoo, which spent US$8.3-million on a half-hectare enclosure to house four gorillas on the grounds that it would generate support for great ape conservation. Three years later, the total sum of public donations is just US$94000. ‘There are 10000 or more zoos worldwide and any cost-benefit analysis would surely conclude that the education benefit to visitors is minimal, the conservation dividend to wild animals is tiny and the welfare of millions of animals is compromised for what is little more than “entertainment” that is out of touch and out of time,’ he says.
Conservationist and photographer Karl Ammann takes issue with the education argument as well. ‘It’s a fallacy that zoos are some kind of fantastic education facility. We do not take children on Sunday to prison to see inmates in their cells. Animals in bare cages behaving unnaturally cannot possibly be a basis for education.’
If poor animal welfare is the ugly face of zoos, animal trafficking is its dark underbelly
Back to the wild
Captive breeding is part of zoo programmes, yet how many of the rare and endangered species involved actually get to taste freedom? The answer is not many. One organisation looking to change that is Back to Africa (www.backtoafhca.co.za), which works to return captive populations to their African origins as part of breeding projects on the continent, with the aim of restocking national parks where numbers have dwindled. Flagship projects include the return of the world’s last four fertile northern white rhinos from Europe to 0l Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya, and the release of several eastern black rhinos into Tanzania’s Mkomazi Game Reserve.
Director Hamish Currie comments: ‘The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums encourages zoos to become involved in conservation projects in the wild, and there are many doing exactly that. However, very few captive-breeding programmes plan for reintroductions to the wild, and most zoos do not have reintroduction programmes in their budgets.’ He continues: ‘Sadly our operations have met with opposition from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, which feels some of our projects are at odds with its breeding policies. Breeding programmes are essential to maintain good genetic integrity of zoo populations, so we are making every effort to work with them.’
A captive-breeding programme is also just one aspect of a successful return to the wild. ‘It’s pointless to simply hand captive animals back to poachers,’ says Clifford Nxomani, director of South Africa’s National Zoological Gardens. ‘You need to create alternative livelihoods for people. Habitat is a more difficult problem.’ Notwithstanding the challenges posed by securing habitats, the zoo community has played a role in a number of dramatic species ‘rescues’.
Mauritius Kestrel
In 1974 there were four individuals – of which just one was a female – in the wild due to the loss of forest habitat and the use of DDT pesticides. Risking almost everything, the Jersey-based Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust removed and successfully hatched a clutch of eggs, rebuilding the species almost from scratch. Conservation for the species has moved on to the next stage and its focus has returned to Mauritius, where the population is now estimated to be between 800 and 1000 birds.
Scimitar-horned oryx
The scimitar-horned oryx was once widespread across North Africa, from Mauritania on the Atlantic coast to Sudan on the Red Sea. Today it is extinct in the wild – the last confirmed sightings date back to 1988 – a victim of drought, loss of habitat, overhunting and competition with domestic livestock. A global captive-breeding programme has seen numbers in captivity rise to some 6 000 animals in zoos, private collections and ranches round the world. Since 1985 they have been reintroduced into protected areas in Tunisia, Morocco and Senegal.
Kihansi spray toad
The Kihansi spray toad is one of the world’s rarest amphibians and the only African species for which conservation breeding is practised. In 1996 there were an estimated 20 000 living in the wild. Today there are thought to be none – a result of the hydroelectric dam that destroyed their tiny two-hectare range below the Kihansi Falls in Tanzania. In a far-sighted move in the late 1990s, 500 spray toads were collected and taken to US zoos to provide assurance colonies. About 5 000 now live at Toledo Zoo and 1500 reside at the Bronx Zoo.
In August 2010, as part of the Amphibian Ark project, a shipment of 100 toads was returned to a breeding centre in Dar es Salaam, with the eventual goal of reintroducing these tiny amphibians to their former home.
Many protagonists have dedicated themselves to achieving improved standards of animal welfare. These revolve around the so-called ‘five freedoms’
Many protagonists, however, accept that zoos exist and have dedicated themselves to achieving improved standards of animal welfare. These revolve around the so-called ‘five freedoms’: food and water; a suitable environment; health care; an opportunity to express the most normal behaviour possible; and protection from fear and distress. These freedoms are enshrined in PAAZAB’s code of ethics, as is the threat of expulsion should a member organisation not uphold them. But many African zoos simply don’t meet the standards required and, according to Ammann, part of the problem is a lack of funds. ‘Countries in third-world settings, where people are starving, cannot afford to divert resources to animal welfare,’ he says.
Another stumbling block is the issuing of permits. ‘In South Africa, it’s easy to open a zoo,’ says the NSPCA’s Wendy Willson, ‘All you need is a permit from the province, and zoos often open their doors before getting one. And none of the permit conditions takes animal welfare into account.’ The resulting number of fly-by-night facilities is a growing concern.
PAAZAB is working on these legislative problems and is in negotiation with South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs to upgrade the present regulations (the South African National Standard 10379: zoo and aquarium practice). As Morgan points out though, ‘PAAZAB is not a law enforcement agency, it’s not a watchdog. These regulations are about minimum standards; zoos are about best practice. But if you are convicted of animal welfare issues you will be kicked out of our organisation.’
He cites the case of abuse against the ‘Tuli’ elephants taken from the wild by African Game Services in 1998 and the wildlife exporter’s subsequent eviction from PAAZAB. To date, it is the only institution to be expelled for animal cruelty.
PAAZAB sees part of its mandate as improving zoos, including those like Egypt’s notorious Giza Zoo, which was evicted from WAZA in 2004 for, among other things, using chains to restrain elephants, too small enclosures and the inhumane killing of two gorillas thought to be infected with the Ebola virus.
Giza, however, is still a member of PAAZAB, a situation that Morgan defends. ‘We can only effect change at places like Giza as part of our membership. Excluding them would do nothing,’ he argues. To this end, the organisation sent six South African specialists to the zoo in March 2010 to lead an extensive retraining workshop.
Even when animal enclosures are well maintained and mimic nature as closely as possible, some of the higher-functioning species – elephants specifically -suffer from stress as a result of being in captivity.
Karl Ammann doesn’t buy the argument. ‘Are they watchdogs or greenwashers?’ he asks with feeling. ‘If there are no audits by independent third-party experts, stipulations for changes, deadlines, sanctions and public pronouncement if the management is not able or willing to live up to promises, Giza is simply given a fig leaf behind which it can hide and maintain its status quo. This is what is happening.’
‘Don’t tar everyone with the same brush. I am very, very against bad zoos, but good ones should be encouraged’ Judy Mann, uShaka Sea World
Nxomani admits that there are problems with facilities such as Giza, but supports Morgan. ‘African zoos are a bit of a struggle,’ he says. ‘But we need to work together with them. The biggest limitation is a lack of resources. Facilities require developing, and animal husbandry and welfare needs to be looked at.’
One approach is to create a link between African zoos and their more affluent cousins elsewhere. Addis Ababa Lion Zoo is a case in point. In 2006 the zoo made headlines after it was found to poison lion cubs each year, claiming it did not have the space or money to look after them. Its lion enclosures, while meeting minimum standards, also did not comply with international recommendations for species-appropriate accommodation.
Today the zoo partners with Leipzig Zoo in Germany, which is facilitating a move to a larger, more appropriate location in the city. Similar partnerships exist between the Zoological Society of London and Kumasi Zoo in Ghana, and the Bristol Zoo and Mvog Betsi Zoo in Cameroon. These arrangements are the exception, however, and most of Africa’s zoos remain estranged from the greater community.
Even when welfare standards are high, for some species, life in captivity is undeniably stressful. A 2008 survey of 4 500 elephants in zoos revealed that they die younger (zoo-born females live an average of 16.9 years; those in the wild make it to 56), are fatter, with the attendant health risks, and breed less than their wild counterparts. When captive elephant cows do give birth, the bewildered mothers sometimes kill their newborns – a phenomenon that is almost unheard of in free-roaming herds.
If poor animal welfare is the ugly face of zoos, animal trafficking is its dark underbelly. ‘Credible zoos just don’t collect animals from the wild,’ says Nxomani. ‘The only reason to do so would be ultimate rescue, where a species is doomed to extinction in a wild situation.’ Nonetheless, the fact that zoos can legally trade captive-bred animals does appear to serve as a front for unscrupulous animal dealers and institutions willing to break the rules.
One of the most well-publicised examples was that of the ‘Taiping Four’. As chronicled in the March 2008 issue of Africa Geographic, four young gorillas were captured in Cameroon, then smuggled to Nigeria’s Ibadan Zoo in 2001, which falsified documents claiming they were born there (despite the fact that it had one resident gorilla), and sold them on to Taiping Zoo in Malaysia.
After an international outcry and a sustained IFAW-led campaign, the gorillas were finally returned to Cameroon, where they now live in a sanctuary.
General consensus is that it was only the species’ high priority that brought the case to international attention and that ‘laundering’ animals in this way is rife.
‘Institutions that sell captive-bred wildlife or their parts help create a market for wildlife and wildlife products,’ says IFAW’s Cindy Milburn. ‘Such practices provide incentives for illegal hunting and can be a cover for illegal trade in wild-caught animals, including endangered species.’
Kelly Marnewick, manager of the Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Carnivore Conservation Programme elaborates: ‘There are some facilities that have obtained permits to operate as a commercial exhibitor (or zoo) but are actually wildlife traders. This means that they adhere to the minimum requirement for permit conditions that classifies them as a zoo, but many of their activities are those of a commercial trader.’ She continues, ‘Take cheetahs. They are listed under Appendix I of CITES, which means that you can’t trade wild cheetahs. It is, however, possible to trade second-generation captive-bred cheetahs and, with nothing to force breeders to prove parentage, the breeder simply declares that the cheetahs are captive bred. Without genetic screening, you have to rely on the establishment’s word.’
A word on fish. Both the Two Oceans Aquarium and uShaka Sea World stock their aquariums from the seas. ‘At the Two Oceans we don’t breed, as it’s generally very difficult. A lot of fish come from the wild,’ says Two Oceans director Pat Garratt. ‘On land the only wild animals are in parks, so you would be taking from protected stock. In the ocean you are taking a few of countless millions being harvested daily and displaying them.’
So, where does that leave us?
Will Travers is unequivocal about his organisation’s stance: I simply don’t believe that zoos can serve the best interests of animals and people. Without a fundamental shift in direction, I guarantee we will still have hundreds, even thousands, of dismal, impoverished zoos that perpetuate gross animal suffering and do nothing to inspire people to protect and conserve wildlife on the conservation frontline – in the wild.’ Others, like Judy Mann from uShaka Sea World, claim a middle ground. ‘Don’t tar everyone with the same brush,’ she urges. ‘I am very, very against bad zoos, but good ones should be encouraged.’
One thing is clear: as long as millions of people – myself included – continue to vote with our pockets and pay to experience the awe-inspiring animals on display, whatever our motivation, zoos will continue to thrive.
|
Subscribe to Africa GeographicIf you enjoyed this article and would like to read more about the outdoors, wildlife environmental concerns, why not subscribe to this award-winning publication? Give a Gift SubscriptionLooking for a gift for someone who loves nature and the outdoors? Let them receive this wonderful magazine from you every month. Latest Issue of Africa geographicSee what’s in the latest exciting issue of Africa geographic. |