I’m sure many people are aware of the orcas at SeaWorld, about how horribly they are treated. Of course, there are other cases that are much less publicized, such as some zoos in Indonesia, where animals are starved and forced to perform.
This brings to light an inherent conflict that zoos experience: animal welfare.
It is important to maintain a high standard of animal welfare, and practical purposes – healthy animals are essential for conservation, research and education – is one reason why. But perhaps a more important reason is that it is simply the right thing to do. Animals are living creatures, and they deserve to be treated with respect, and that entails proper living conditions, where welfare is not compromised.
“Ueno Zoo” by The Kids and Kahlie, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Unfortunately, there still exists many instances where animal welfare in zoos is less than desirable, and I’ve had my own experience with that. When I visited the Ueno Zoo in Tokyo, Japan in 2015 (check out this blog post for more info), I left feeling really sad. Some memories include the penguins mentioned in the blog post, a lone zebra (which normally live in herds) in a small enclosure, and seals with no shade from the blistering sun.
Living conditions of animals are key when considering animal welfare, especially factors like how natural it is, or if there is sufficient space. Another factor to consider is the “visitor effect” that animals may experience, where the presence of visitors may affect animal behavior in certain ways, and may even raise stress levels (Sherwen et al., 2019).
“Caged” by betawolf311, licensed under CC BY 2.0
This brings up a key question: are animals that are kept in zoos fated to live terrible lives with poor standards of welfare, or can there be things done to look after their welfare?
Source from Zoo and Aquarium Association website
Well, one way to ensure animal welfare in zoos in through accreditation. There are various institutions for zoos and aquariums, ranging from the global level, to regional and national levels. Some associations, like the Zoo and Aquarium Association Australasia (ZAA) require members to go through an accreditation process; and to maintain the accreditation status, members have to be assessed every 3 years.
But other institutions like the World Association of Zoos and Aquarium (WAZA), do not require members to go through an accreditation process, which is a cause for concern. The result? World Animal Protection (WAP) found that 75% of WAZA members offer at least 1 animal-visitor interaction, which is against WAZA guidelines, and may force animals to do unnatural and uncomfortable things.
Without a proper accreditation process, we can’t be too sure if member zoos actually ensure quality animal welfare, and even zoos that do not may gain membership. This poses a problem, as the public may support member-zoos, without knowing that animals in those zoos may be inappropriately treated.
Another troubling issue is the fact that only a small proportion of zoos are such associations mentioned above. If members of WAZA can mistreat animals, I wonder what zoos that are not members of any associations, and hence unregulated might be doing to their animals.
As such, it is important that in working towards conservation, zoos must also ensure that their animals are well taken care of, and we will explore that in the next post, so stay tuned!
Cheers!
Jeng Wei
References:
Sherwen, S. L., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2019). The Visitor Effect on Zoo Animals: Implications and Opportunities for Zoo Animal Welfare. Animals, 9(6), 366. doi:10.3390/ani9060366
Featured image: “Three Go Up” by Chad Sparkes, licensed under CC BY 2.0
yalinikmr October 16, 2020
Hey Jeng Wei!
It was really interesting to read this post, as well as the last one. Although it’s important to be pragmatic and see that zoos can bring a lot of benefits, I can’t help but feel sympathy for the animals in these enclosures. As for the issue of animal welfare in zoos, what do you think about the Singapore Zoo? Singapore is very small and does not have an incredible breadth of biodiversity, these zoos are one of the only ways locals can see and learn about animals. The Zoo also claims to hold themselves to a high standard, having received accreditation from even ZAA. However, local organisations like ACRES still criticise their shows and training of animals. What is your opinion of our local zoo?
~ Yalini
Jeng Wei October 16, 2020 — Post Author
Hi Yalini!
Thank you so much for dropping by! Indeed, I find it tough not to feel sympathy for the animals, despite the contributions that zoos make to conservation. Wildlife Reserves Singapore and its 4 zoos are widely regarded as one of the best in the world, and probably for good reason. It is no simple feat to be accredited by both the Zoo and Aquarium Association of Australasia AND the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, and that definitely says something good about the various zoos in Singapore. Besides that, WRS has also contributed in captive breeding of endangered species, successfully breeding 25 species that are listed as threatened by IUCN’s Red List.
I haven’t visited the Singapore Zoo in a while, so I’ll probably reflect more on my experience in the River Safari, which I briefly covered in a previous post. Overall, I came out with rather mixed feelings. I certainly appreciated the design of the enclosures, as it does resemble the natural habitat of the animals, which is definitely important when it comes to animal welfare. Perhaps the best example would be the Flooded Forest, which houses the manatees, but other enclosures like those of the river otters are decent too. Unfortunately, one of the most memorable sights was a parrot pecking at the net keeping it in, which seems to suggest that it was trying to break out of its enclosure, and that really made me sad. Furthermore, despite the well-designed enclosures, I can’t help but feel sad for the animals within, thinking about how they may live their entire lives confined to a space that can never truly replicate their natural habitat. Even now, I find it difficult to find an appropriate middle ground between the work that zoos do, and the welfare of the animal; but I still have the opinion that to some extent, zoos are a necessary evil (which is saddening to me). Despite that, I think River Safari and WRS deserve some credit for the good work that they do, but it doesn’t mean that they cannot do better.
With regards to animal shows and training, I must say I definitely do not agree with it. While it is certainly amazing to see the abilities that some animals have, I think that it is something that is unethical and violates the rights of the animals. One big reason is that animals are forced to do something that is outside of their natural behavior, and that is wrong to me. More importantly, it treats animals as tools of entertainment, which is unacceptable, as they are living creatures and should not be treated as such. Overall, I think that WRS is doing quite a good job, but of course there is room for improvement moving forward, which I will be discussing a little bit of in the next post, so look forward to that! Hopefully I gave a good explanation of my perspective, and thank you so much for the great questions!
Cheers!
Jeng Wei
yalinikmr October 18, 2020
Thank you so much for your response! I really cannot agree with you more, especially the part about animal training and shows! Makes you think, maybe ZAA and EAZ must not only make sure their guidelines are being observed correctly but also consider making stricter rules that do not allow for these shows to happen.
~ Yalini
Joanna Coleman October 22, 2020
Hi Yalini & Jeng Wei,
Great conversation.
In late 2012, I visited Night Safari, and attended its show, which included trotting out a grey wolf (not sure why a tropical Asian zoo has such an animal). It also included a schtick with a raccoon that had been trained to sort recyclables. There was also a segment in which they brought out a very large snake and chose audience members to come up and pose for photos with it, including pressuring a person who was clearly afraid to do so. There was also a part where they somehow (I don’t quite recall) suddenly pointed out the existence of an animal in the audience in a way that startled a lot of ppl.
And while I’ve never been to Jurong Bird Park, as you know, there are daily shows in which birds perform for an audience, not to mention direct interactions between people and birds.
So if both of those things (animal shows & interactions) are problematic from a welfare standpoint, how do you reconcile the practices of WRS with the stance that it is a responsible zoo ?
I’m not saying it isn’t one. I’m just asking the question.
jc
Jeng Wei October 22, 2020 — Post Author
Hi Dr Coleman!
I don’t really remember my experiences with animal shows in zoos, but the last one I watched was a dolphin show at Churaumi Aquarium in Okinawa. Throughout the show, as much as I appreciated how amazing the dolphins are, I couldn’t help but think about how unnatural it is. A distinct memory was when the false killer whale (I just now found out that it was a false killer whale they had, I thought it was a porpoise at the time haha) came onto land, and was trained to spit out fish fed to it if it was only one fish, and would only eat the fish if it was the entire bucket (there is a video demonstration here). I read somewhere that having dolphins come onto land is bad, due to the lack of buoyancy of water on land which causes a greater force to be exerted on their bodies on land; and I also wondered what it took to train the false killer whale to perform that ‘trick’. I might have sidetracked a little bit, but I think all animal shows are inherently wrong and should cease.
In the case of WRS, I still think that the aspect of animal shows is something that can be improved on. This is just me speculating, but perhaps the way that WRS is responsible when it comes to animal shows is that animals are not physically harmed during the show or during trainings, and as such the welfare isn’t compromised to too great of an extent. Still, getting animals to perform and be in close proximity to humans, which they most likely would not experience in nature is something that I feel is morally wrong. On a side note, I found out that holograms have been used by a German circus to replace live animals (check it out here), so perhaps zoos in the future can work towards incorporating those elements as replacements of animal shows.
Cheers!
Jeng Wei
jolee2001 October 19, 2020
Hi Jeng Wei!
I agree with your comment that animal shows and trainings should not be encouraged. That’s because we are interfering with the natural habits and lives of the animals. However, I can’t help but question why is it that though we don’t encourage animal shows and trainings in zoos, we find it alright to train our domestic pets (eg. dogs, cats, rabbits) and even send them for competitions?
– Jo
Jeng Wei October 19, 2020 — Post Author
Hey Jo!
Thanks for stopping by! That’s a great question, and a tough one! Personally, I think a main difference is in the relationship between human and animals in both cases. In zoos, humans are usually just a caretaker (though there can be exceptions, where caretakers forge close bonds with animals), and are just there to look after the needs of the animals to ensure its welfare and survival; whereas pets are perhaps something more, and more often than not seen as a friend. Another big difference is that many of the pets that we keep are no longer considered “wild”, as they have been domesticated. As such, they are more adapted to living with humans, and are way more accustomed to human interactions, which involves training them. Because of that, I think it is more acceptable to train pets, but it has to be done in a manner that doesn’t compromise their welfare. According to this paper, certain methods of training may even help to strengthen the bond between the human and the dog, which will then help to improve the welfare of the dog. I think this is quite a complex matter, but these are my thoughts on it.
For competitions, I think they take it a step too far, as again, pets may be seen as tools of entertainment. Furthermore, I think that there is an inherent beauty to all pets, regardless of their capabilities, and no competition should be done to decide whose pet is “better”. A quick google of “dog beauty pageant” actually yields some images that I find slightly disturbing, but that is just one way I find dog competitions to be disturbing. Hopefully I’ve answered your questions, and thanks for commenting!
Cheers!
Jeng Wei
amiraamani October 20, 2020
Hello Jeng Wei! Thank you for the interesting read :0
Zoos often have shows/performances which include animals doing stunts and unnatural actions. However, some zoos claim that a more ethical method to train the animals is by conducting a reward-based training system whereby if the animal were to perform a certain act properly, it would be given a treat. What are your thoughts on this training system?
Thank you and hope to hear from you soon 🙂
Jeng Wei October 20, 2020 — Post Author
Hello Amira!
I’m glad you enjoyed the post, and thanks for leaving a comment! That’s a question I have never thought about, I must say. Certainly, using a reward-based training system is far superior to using a punishment-based one, as no physical harm is inflicted on the animal. If the animal is still forced to perform, be it through coercion or enticing it with treats, I still believe that the animal is forced into doing something unnatural, and is treated as entertainment. This, I feel is wrong, as animals shouldn’t be treated as tools of entertainment and should not be forced into a behavior they wouldn’t naturally exhibit, and this holds true regardless of training method.
On that note, I think an interesting perspective might be if caretakers train animals, but not for them to perform. As I’ve shared in my reply to Jo’s comment right above your comment, dogs may respond positively to certain types of training methods, which strengthens the bond between the dog and the owner. This is probably not a phenomenon exclusive to dogs, as certain social animals like elephants and chimpanzees have been observed forging close relationships with their caretakers. If zookeepers were to train and interact with them (although, this may be more like playing with them rather than training, so I may have gone off topic here haha), and forge closer bonds with the animals, this may be beneficial to the welfare of animals. Of course, this is just my opinion.
I hope I’ve answered your question, and I hope to see you here soon! 😀
Cheers!
Jeng Wei
Joanna Coleman October 22, 2020
Hi Jeng Wei,
Even though this post isn’t really environmentally-related (for the most part), it evidences a lot of the other key skills required in this assignment and is written in your usual, engaging way.
And it certainly sparks an interesting discussion.
Out of curiosity, have you checked out Amanda’s blog ? It’s all about the line between animal welfare and conservation concerns. She might have some interesting perspectives on this post, and you might find interesting stuff in her blog.
jc
Jeng Wei October 22, 2020 — Post Author
Hello Dr Coleman!
I guess I sidetracked quite a bit, but I think that when discussing zoos, it is impossible to leave out the aspect of animal welfare. Regardless, thank you so much for your comment, it really means a lot to me! I have checked out Amanda’s blog, and I found it really interesting! But I must admit it has been a while since I dropped by, so I’ll definitely check it out again soon and refresh myself on her earlier posts too!
Cheers!
Jeng Wei