X Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2018

Zoos: an idea whose time has come and gone

It’s been many centuries since the Aztec emperor Montezuma (1398 n- 1469) first caged jaguars and monkeys for the public’s entertainment and, thus, commissioned the first zoo. Zoos go by several different official names. They can be called “animal parks,” “menageries,” or “zoological gardens.” Despite the different names, each offers visitors the chance to view animals that are confined in an enclosure. There is a common opinion, that having a zoo gives people an opportunity to learn more about animals and nature, as the modern zoo plays a critical role in education children and families about the different animals with whom we share this planet. They say, it is a way to engage children in science, bring families together, and help save certain animal species that are close to extinction.

However, keeping animals in cages does nothing to foster respect for animals. Study after study, including by the zoo industry itself, has shown that most zoo visitors simply wander around the grounds, pause briefly in front of some displays, and spend their time on snacks and bathroom breaks. One study of visitors to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., showed that visitors spent less than eight seconds per snake exhibit and only one minute with the lions. Researchers concluded that “people … treat the exhibits like wallpaper.” In fact, numerous studies have shown that exhibiting animals in unnatural settings may undermine conservation by leaving the public with the idea that a species must not be in jeopardy if the government is being used for display and entertainment.

Actually, instead of providing lifetime care, zoos often trade, lend, sell, barter, and warehouse animals they no longer want — despite knowing that many species form lasting bonds that are important to their long-term health and happiness. Removing animals from established social groups and forcing them to adjust repeatedly to new routines, different caretakers, and unfamiliar cagemates is disruptive and traumatic.

Zoos limit the natural behavior patterns of animals, including migration and in many cases, flight. Animals who would shun contact with humans in nature have no way to escape routine contact with them. Many develop neurotic and self-harming behavior (called “stereotypies” or “zoochosis”) that are rarely, if ever, observed in the wild. Primates may throw feces and eat their own vomit. Some birds pluck out their own feathers. Elephants often sway back and forth. Tigers pace incessantly, and polar bears are often seen swimming endless figure-eights.

Aquatic animals suffer, too. A study conducted by the Captive Animals’ Protection Society concluded that 90 percent of public aquariums studied had animals who showed stereotypic (neurotic) behavior, such as repeatedly raising their heads above the surface of the water, spinning around an imaginary object, and frequently turning on one side and rubbing along the floor of the tank.

Zoos defend their breeding programs under the pretext of conservation, but many of the species that are being bred aren’t endangered or threatened. Baby animals bring visitors through the gates. Very few, if any, of the captive-bred species that do face extinction in the wild—including elephants, polar bears, gorillas, tigers, and chimpanzees—will ever be released back into their natural environments to bolster dwindling populations. Captive breeding replenishes zoos’ animal inventories and lure in patrons.

Many countries around the world have no laws whatsoever to protect captive animals. In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) licenses animal exhibitors and is supposed to enforce the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). But permits are issued to nearly anyone who fills out an application and sends in a fee. While most local authorities do have the legal power to enforce state cruelty laws for animals suffering in zoos, the vast majority simply refuse to take action, passing the buck to the USDA.

Still, there are many ways to learn about and appreciate animals without supporting zoos. Nature documentaries abound in which animals are shown behaving naturally in their rightful homes. For example, IMAX theaters offer films such as Born to Be Wild 3D, which documents the lives of orphaned orangutans and elephants and the work of the extraordinary people who rescue and raise them — saving endangered species one life at a time.

Similarly, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park was the first undersea park combined with the adjacent Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (USA), encompasses 178 nautical square miles of coral reefs, seagrass beds, and mangrove swamps. You can swim there with the animals—in their home and on their terms.

North America’s only natural freshwater “aquarium” located in St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada is arranged approximately in the same way - it has nine panoramic glimpses into a real diverted brook, where brown trout swim freely in and out of the viewing areas, which include deep and shallow ponds and a fast-flowing “riffle” where the fish spawn in the fall.

Obviously, zoo can be an integral part of our community and world with the right approach. Each key point deserves consideration so that a personal decision regarding zoos can be reached. That way they can be more than entertainment.

The pros and cons of zoos often come from two very different points of view. From a legal standard, animals are often treated as property. That means they have little in the way of rights, so a zoo seems like a positive place to maintain a high quality of life. For others, the forced enclosure of any animal feels like an unethical decision. Wild animals, it is said, are meant to be wild.

Список литературы:

PETA [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/zoos/ - Загл. с экрана

VITTALLA [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://vittana.org – Загл. с экрана

Код для цитирования: Скопировать