In defense of the zoos

Last month, Phil and I went to the Lowry Park zoo in Tampa. It was uncrowded the day we went, what with it being the Monday after Thanksgiving and all, so we had much of the place to ourselves. We were the only ones in front of the white tiger habitat. The mother padded around on paws as big as dinner plates; you could see the muscles under her coat rippling, smooth and powerful as waves under whitecaps. The cubs were gangly, but their thin limbs still contained a promise of menace.

"That poor silly magician never had a chance," I murmured appreciatively.

Last Friday, Phil and I took our younger nephew to the Oakland Zoo. We arrived not long after it opened, so the animals were still lively, relaxed in their unexamined state. We passed the tiger habitat. One tiger was bounding up and down, pouncing on branches and amusing itself; the other flopped on its back and began arching and wriggling appreciatively. It was almost like watching a cat -- except it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the tiger could take you out with a well-aimed cuff.

This week, I have been reading all about the terrible tragedy at the San Francisco Zoo ("Tiger Kills One San Franciso Zoo Patron, Injures Two Others," SFChron, Dec 25, 07).

The terrible tragedy I refer to is the destruction of the Siberian tiger Tatiana. These animals are rare, and the emerging accounts suggest she died because she acted like what she was ("SF Zoo's Tatiana Acted Her Part As An Alpha Predator, Experts Say," SFChron, Dec 27, 07) once she had been goaded by someone or several people ("Trail of Blood Apparently Led Escaped Tiger to Victims," SFChron, Dec 27, 07).

One of the more infuriating side effects of this whole thing has been to listen to the vox populi natter on about how this proves zoos are bad things and animals are better off in the wild, yada yada. To which I say: balderash, bosh and buffaloshit.

There are bad zoos and mediocre zoos, but there are also very good zoos, and the one thing all these zoos do is sustain the possibility that someone will look upon an animal utterly unlike anything they're likely to run across in everyday life, and they'll decide, "Yes -- I think it's worth giving a damn about a living being, even when it doesn't affect me directly." Zoos impart an important truth, early on: we are not alone on this planet, and there are marvelous creatures that can live and do things we can't. But the one thing we can do is be aware of how precious every species is, how vital to others -- and to preserve what we can. Zoos reconnect us to the primitive fear and wonder our ancestors had; they reconnect us to our roots.

And zoos are often responsible for keeping animal species going when they'd die in the wild. I'm currently reading Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, and he mentions that the Korean DMZ has become an important -- albeit inadvertent -- ecological refuge for species that are losing their homes across the rest of Asia. This narrow, uninhabited slice of Korea is all some species have left.

Safer in the wild? Only when man's not around. Consider the terrible casualties that war has visited on gorilla populations. Or consider what's happening on America's rural roads: bears and people die when the former get in the way of the latters' cars ("As Cars Hit More Animals on Roads, Toll Rises," NYT, Dec 22, 07).

Zoos are keeping some species alive and thriving. If the accounts in the Amy Sutherland's Kicked, Bitten and Scratched are to be believed (and I see no reason why not), zoos don't do this because they like subjugating animals to human whim. They don't do it because they disrespect animals. They do it because they respect what different species are, and can do, and they want them -- and us -- to thrive by the virtue of their existence.

So -- go, zoos! Take time soon to go to your local zoo soon. Support it. Without it, how can we understand what else lives on this pale blue dot? Or how they make us more fully human?

Comments

[Roger]

What? You came to Tampa and didn't look me up? For shame! :)

[Elise]

I am not against zoos. Some zoos contribute to important conservation efforts.

However, I find it interesting that you brought up white tigers in your first paragraph, because in my opinion white tigers highlight what is wrong with zoos. Here is a link that details "the white tiger fraud": http://www.bigcatrescue.org/cats/wild/white_tigers.htm . One thing that I dislike about zoos is that they often purport to be educational, and yet promote the myth that these white tigers occur naturally when in fact they are the result of severe inbreeding.

[Lisa S.]

Elise, thanks for your viewpoint. In my entire post, you'll notice that I didn't link white tigers to breeding or conservation efforts.

I'd ask you this: does promoting the white tiger "myth" undo all the other conservation and breeding efforts that zoos sustain? Or can that be looked at as one unfortunate or aberrant example?

*

Roger ... I had no idea you were even still out there! ;)

Next time, I promise. Also, you need to show up more in the comments -- I've missed you.

[Polly]

You know, when I heard that the tiger had earlier mauled a keeper from its enclosure, I was like, how did that happen? When I lived in NYC, I saw a tiger feeding at the Bronx Zoo, and trust me, it was set up so that the keepers stayed VERY far away from any place the tigers might be able to reach--and for good reason! Everyone watching the feeding was quite impressed by how strong, quick, and obviously lethal tigers are. I think the SF Zoo has a lot to answer for, even if those kids were harassing the tiger--you have to be prepared for the possibility that at least some of your visitors will be idiots.

[JulieT]

I totally agree with you, Lisa. We have an excellent zoo just 10 minutes away, so we have an annual membership and take the kids there at least once a week when the weather is warm. This zoo has made major changes since I was a kid, creating habitats for the animals that are as close to natural as possible, and focusing heavily on conservation education for children. My kids have learned so much about animals they would never otherwise have any exposure to.

Here's an example of how nice this zoo is: My four-year-old was reading a book that showed zoo animals in cages, and she said, "Look at this! That's silly--animals don't live in cages."

[Siobhan]

I totally agree, Lisa. I think it's disingenuous at best to assign human desires for freedom to animals - pretty much living in the wild is stressful as shit. The rates of kills for cats is really, really low - I believe cheetahs maybe are successfull 5-10% of the time.

Life in the wild ain't roses and sunshine. Zoos at least can keep animals alive, contribute to conservation efforts, and educate people.

I'm pro-regulated zoo, all the way.

if people would just stop anthropomorphizing animals so much, we'd all be in a much better place.

[Elise]

Lisa, of course white tigers do not undo all the other conservation and breeding efforts that zoos sustain. That is why I stated at the beginning of my post that I am not against zoos. I just find it really puzzling that zoos continue to house white tigers, considering the consequences for the animals.

[ginger]

I feel bad for animals that are accustomed to a certain degree of range, though. Elephants, for example, range over miles of territory daily. Some of that is undoubtedly that they can't meet their nutritional needs any other way, because wild life indeed kind of sucks, but it still must be pretty difficult to adjust to life in a quarter-acre or less, and to the loss of stimulus. Moreover, it's been a real problem in the Northwest that our climate is not safe for elephants and some of the big savannah cats, so outdoor enclosures aren't a great option, either. It makes it hard to justify zoos with animals from radically different environments, but if zoos can't show us the diversity of life, then what?

I am also vehemently against both anthropomorphism and cuddleism - top-level predators can be attractively furry, intelligent, and engaging, but they are not cuddly snugglepuffs for humans. Not only is their emotional state largely alien to us, but their capacity to kill unexpectedly is an inherent survival characteristic, and it's life-threateningly stupid to assume a human is safe with them.

[Lisa S.]

Elise, I see your point. I am glad I've seen white tigers, and I'll be sorry if/when they go, but genetic viability should be more important -- you're right.

(This is why I watch the cheetah program with such interest.)

*

Ginger, your comments viz elephants are at the heart of something I wrestle with personally. I love seeing elephants -- the animals just plain make me happy. But as I've learned more about the health problems they have in zoos, I feel so much more guilty about seeing them. I feel for zoos too -- on the one hand, they're under pressure to provide the best possible homes for animals, and in some cases, that may mean saying, "No, the weather here doesn't work for [an animal]." But on the other, they're dependent on public awareness and money from attendees to survive, and it's hard to compete without the crowd-pleasers.

[Kerry]

Anyone in the Cleveland area? The Cleveland Metroparks Zoo does a Polar Bear Special in January--any day the forecasted temperature is below 32 degrees, they drop the prices to something absurd like $5 for adults and $3.50 for most kids.

[ginger]

(On a related note, Lisa, I bawled my head off once at a TV program - maybe some retrospective of National Geographic Specials? I don't remember - that showed the reunion of two female elephants who had been performers together decades before. They bent the steel bars of the gate trying to get to each other! They wouldn't let go of each other once they were together. I know that flies in the face of my rejection of anth. and cud., but the person who could watch that without projecting a bit is a cold bastard indeed. Elephants, man, I'm really gonna miss them when they're gone. I shouldn't feel any worse about them than I do about endangered insects, but - elephants have long lives, and they seem so aware that they're in trouble, unlike, say, green pitcher plants.)

Anyway. Yeah. The worst thing about it is that elephants are so close to extinction that zoo populations and conservation efforts might really matter.

[Lisa S.]

I don't think it's anthropomorphizing to be open to the idea that some non-human species are capable of emotional intelligence. So basically, this is me saying that yeah, elephants have complex emotional lives. So do lots of primates, and plenty o' cetaceans. And the last time I was at Monterey Bay Aquarium, one of the folks there was telling us that they're pretty convinced the octopuses are also pretty intelligent and have their own emotional reactions to things.

Anyhoodle ... it's tough, advancing the idea that other species have feelings too, because you have to make the distinction that those species' feelings and reactions aren't going to be just like ours. Heck, people can't even grasp the idea that different members of THEIR species have different emotional responses to one situation.

[cirocco]

Thanks for this post, Lisa--I struggle sometimes with my love of zoos vs. my concern for conservation and animal welfare. If I respect the rare and beautiful forms of life with which we share this planet, how can I justify removing them from their environments and caging them? I just do my best to support responsible zoos and decry ones that are more or less animal jails.

I saw an awesome video once on the web. A woman had climbed over the first safety ring around a polar bear cage to "get a better picture." The inner ring's bars were widely-spaced enough for the bear to reach through, grab one of her legs, pull it into the cage, and start mauling it. You could hear all three major bones snapping like kindling. I don't mean it was "awesome" in that the woman deserved what she got (of course not, she was just being momentarily dumb), but in the sense that if she hadn't gotten immediate medical attention, it looks as though she might have died--even though all the bear could reach was a single leg. It happened so fast.

They should show that video to people waiting in line to buy zoo tickets so they respect what they're dealing with. Sure, some kids would get so scared they'd refuse to go in, but those kids make too much noise in the Nocturnal House anyway.

[Antoinette]

When I saw Mike Rowe on "Dirty Jobs" feeding the tigers at the San Francisco zoo, I did boggle at how close the zoo workers were to the cats at feeding time. It seems one of those tigers was Tatiana, who mauled a zoo keeper a year or so ago, and was the tiger involved in this incident.

The tiger grotto there apparently was built in 1940, which predates years of developments in zoo enclosures. I know bringing zoo enclosures up to date can be hugely expensive, but 67 year old enclosures should probably not still be in operation. I hope the San Francisco zoo works to resolve their obvious safety issues, for the sake of the workers and the animals.

I respect the work (most) zoos do in conservation and education, but it makes me sick to see wild animals in cages. I don't visit zoos anymore. If I had kids, I'd probably relent and take them for the educational experience, but just for myself it's too uneasy a form of entertainment.

[Polly]

I respect the work (most) zoos do in conservation and education, but it makes me sick to see wild animals in cages.

Maybe it's just the zoos I visit, Antoinette, but it seems like you rarely see animals in cages nowadays--the zoos really seem to have made the move to creating wild-like habitats for the animals. Even if there is a physical cage, it's quite large and the interior is landscaped so that the animal can have privacy. It seems to work--I remember as a kid seeing a lot of what was clearly zoo psychosis (repetitive movements, animals running in the exact same pattern all day long, etc.), and I rarely see that these days.

I bawled my head off once at a TV program - maybe some retrospective of National Geographic Specials? I don't remember - that showed the reunion of two female elephants who had been performers together decades before.

Ginger, I cried when I read that elephant poachers will shoot to wound the first elephant, because that elephant will call for help and the rest of the band will rush over to assist, and then the poachers can kill them all.

We're not the only social animals out there, and elephants in particular are highly social. This article from the NY Times is a fairly depressing examination of the social pressures on elephants that are caused by poaching and habitat destruction.