|
Animals For Entertainment
69. Don't zoos contribute to the saving
of species from extinction?
70. Don't animals live longer in zoos than they would in the
wild?
71. How will people see wild animals and learn about them without
zoos?
72. What is wrong with circuses and rodeos?
73. But isn't it true that animals are well cared for and wouldn't
perform if they weren't happy?
74. What about horse or greyhound racing?
Additional topics: My friends are going to
the circus
#69 Don't zoos contribute
to the saving of species from extinction?
Zoos often claim that they are "arks", which can preserve
species whose habitat has been destroyed, or which were wiped out in the
wild for other reasons (such as hunting). They suggest that they can maintain
the species in captivity until the cause of the creature's extirpation
is remedied, and then successfully reintroduce the animals to the wild,
resulting in a healthy, self-sustaining population. Zoos often defend
their existence against challenges from the AR movement on these grounds.
There are several problems with this argument, however. First, the number
of animals required to maintain a viable gene pool can be quite high,
and is never known for certain. If the captive gene pool is too small,
then inbreeding can result in increased susceptibility to disease, birth
defects, and mutations; the species can be so weakened that it would never
be viable in the wild.
Some species are extremely difficult to breed in captivity: marine mammals,
many bird species, and so on. Pandas, which have been the sustained focus
of captive breeding efforts for several decades in zoos around the world,
are notoriously difficult to breed in captivity. With such species, the
zoos, by taking animals from the wild to supply their breeding programs,
constitute a net drain on wild populations.
The whole concept of habitat restoration is mired in serious difficulties.
Animals threatened by poaching (elephants, rhinos, pandas, bears and more)
will never be safe in the wild as long as firearms, material needs, and
a willingness to consume animal parts coincide. Species threatened by
chemical contamination (such as bird species vulnerable to pesticides
and lead shot) will not be candidates for release until we stop using
the offending substances, and enough time has passed for the toxins to
be processed out of the environment. Since heavy metals and some pesticides
are both persistent and bioaccumulative, this could mean decades or centuries
before it is safe to reintroduce the animals.
Even if these problems can be overcome, there are still difficulties
with the process of reintroduction. Problems such as human imprinting,
the need to teach animals to fly, hunt, build dens, and raise their young
are serious obstacles, and must be solved individually for each species.
There is a small limit to the number of species the global network of
zoos can preserve under even the most optimistic assumptions. Profound
constraints are imposed by the lack of space in zoos, their limited financial
resources, and the requirement that viable gene pools of each species
be preserved. Few zoos, for instance, ever keep more than two individuals
of large mammal species. The need to preserve scores or hundreds of a
particular species would be beyond the resources of even the largest zoos,
and even the whole world zoo community would be hard-pressed to preserve
even a few dozen species in this manner.
Contrast this with the efficiency of large habitat preserves, which
can maintain viable populations of whole complexes of species with minimal
human intervention. Large preserves maintain every species in the ecosystem
in a predominantly self-sufficient manner, while keeping the creatures
in the natural habitat unmolested. If the financial resources (both government
and charitable), and the biological expertise currently consumed by zoos,
were redirected to habitat preservation and management, we would have
far fewer worries about habitat restoration or preserving species whose
habitat is gone.
Choosing zoos as a means for species preservation, in addition to being
expensive and of dubious effectiveness, has serious ethical problems.
Keeping animals in zoos harms them, by denying them freedom of movement
and association, which is important to social animals, and frustrates
many of their natural behavioral patterns, leaving them at least bored,
and at worst seriously neurotic. While humans may feel there is some justifying
benefit to their captivity (that the species is being preserved, and may
someday be reintroduced into the wild), this is no compensating benefit
to the individual animals. Attempts to preserve species by means of captivity
have been described as sacrificing the individual gorilla to the abstract
Gorilla (i.e., to the abstract conception of the gorilla). --JE
Back to Questions
#70 Don't animals live
longer in zoos than they would in the wild?
In some cases, this is true. But it is irrelevant. Suppose a zoo decides
to exhibit human beings. They snatch a peasant from a less-developed country
and put her on display. Due to the regular feedings and health care that
the zoo provides, the peasant will live longer in captivity. Is this practice
acceptable?
A tradeoff of quantity of life versus quality of life is not always
decided in favor of quantity. --DG
Back to Questions
#71 How will people
see wild animals and learn about them without zoos?
To gain true and complete knowledge of wild animals, one must observe
them in their natural habitats. The conditions under which animals are
kept in zoos typically distorts their behavior significantly. There are
several practical alternatives to zoos for educational purposes. There
are many nature documentaries shown regularly on television as well as
available on video cassettes. Specials on public television networks,
as well as several cable channels, such as The Discovery Channel, provide
accurate information on animals in their natural habitats. Magazines such
as National Geographic provide superb illustrated articles, as well. And,
of course, public libraries are a gold-mine of information.
Zoos often mistreat animals, keeping them in small pens or cages. This
is unfair and cruel. The natural instincts and behavior of these animals
are suppressed by force. How can anyone observe wild animals under such
circumstances and believe that one has been educated? --JLS
"All good things are wild, and free." --Henry David Thoreau
(essayist and poet)
SEE ALSO: #69-#70
Back to Questions
#72 What is wrong with
circuses and rodeos?
To treat animals as objects for our amusement is to treat them without
the respect they deserve. When we degrade the most intelligent fellow
mammals in this way, we act as our ancestors acted in former centuries.
They knew nothing about the animals' intelligence, sensitivities, emotions,
and social needs; they saw only brute beasts. To continue such ancient
traditions, even if no cruelty were involved, means that we insist on
remaining ignorant and insensitive.
But the cruelty does exist and is inherent in these spectacles. In rodeos,
there is no show unless the animal is frightened or in pain. In circuses,
animals suffer most before and after the show. They endure punishment
during training and are subjected to physical and emotional hardships
during transportation. They are forced to travel tens of thousands of
miles each year, often in extreme heat or cold, with tigers living in
cramped cages and elephants chained in filthy railroad cars. To the entrepreneurs,
animals are merely stock in trade, to be replaced when they are used up.
--DVH
David Cowles-Hamar writes about circuses as follows in his "The
Manual of Animal Rights": Not surprisingly, a considerable amount
of "persuasion" is required to achieve these performances, and
to this end, circuses employ various techniques. These include deprivation
of food, deprivation of company, intimidation, muzzling, drugs, punishment
and reward systems, shackling, whips, electronic goads, sticks, and the
noise of guns...Circus animals suffer similar mental and physical problems
to zoo animals, displaying stereotypical behavior...Physical symptoms
include shackle sores, herpes, liver failure, kidney disease, and sometimes
death...Many of the animals become both physically and mentally ill. --DG
The American rodeo consists of roping, bucking, and steer wrestling
events. While the public witnesses only the 8 seconds or so that the animals
perform, there are hundreds of hours of unsupervised practice sessions.
Also, the stress of constant travel, often in improperly ventilated vehicles,
and poor enforcement of proper unloading, feeding, and watering of animals
during travel contribute to a life of misery for these animals.
As half a rider's score is based on the performance of the bucking horse
or bull, riders encourage a wild ride by tugging on a bucking strap that
is squeezed tightly around the animal's loins. Electric prods and raking
spurs are also used to stimulate wild behavior. Injuries range from bruises
and broken bones to paralysis, severed tracheas, and death. Spinal cords
of calves can be severed when forced to an abrupt stop while traveling
at 30 mph. The practice of slamming these animals to the ground during
these events has caused the rupture of internal organs, leading to a slow,
agonizing death.
Dr. C. G. Haber, a veterinarian with thirty years experience as a meat
inspector for the USDA, says: "The rodeo folks send their animals
to the packing houses where...I have seen cattle so extensively bruised
that the only areas in which the skin was attached was the head, neck,
legs, and belly. I have seen animals with six to eight ribs broken from
the spine and at times puncturing the lungs. I have seen as much as two
and three gallons of free blood accumulated under the detached skin."
--JSD
Back to Questions
#73 But isn't it true
that animals are well cared for and wouldn't perform if they weren't happy?
Refer to questions #72 and #74 to
see that entertainment animals are generally not well cared for.
For centuries people have known that punishment can induce animals to
perform. The criminal justice system is based on the human rationality
in connecting the act of a crime or wrongdoing with a punishment. Many
religions are also based, among other aspects, on a fear of punishment.
Fear leads most of us to act correctly, on the whole.
The same is true for other animals. Many years of unnecessary and repetitive
psychology experiments with Skinner boxes (among other gadgets) have demonstrated
that animals will learn to do things, or act in certain ways (that is,
be conditioned) to avoid electric shocks or other punishment.
Animals do need to have their basic food requirements met, otherwise
they sicken and die, but they don't need to be "happy" to perform
certain acts; fear or desire for a reward (such as food) will make them
do it. --JK
SEE ALSO: #14,
#51,
#72,
#74
Back to Questions
#74 What about horse
or greyhound racing?
Racing is an example of human abuse of animals merely for entertainment
and pleasure, regardless of the needs or condition of the animals. The
pleasure derives primarily from gambling on the outcome of the race. While
some punters express an interest in the animal side of the equation, most
people interested in racing are not interested in the animals but in betting;
attendance at race meetings has fallen dramatically as off-course betting
options became available.
While some of the top dogs and horses may be kept in good conditions,
for the majority of animals, this is not the case. While minimum living
standards have to be met, other factors are introduced to gain the best
performances (or in some cases to fix a race by ensuring a loss): drugs,
electrical stimuli, whips, etc. While many of these practices are outlawed
(including dog blooding), there are regular reports of various illegal
techniques being used. Logic would suggest that where the volume of money
being moved around is as large as it is in racing, there are huge temptations
to massage the outcomes.
For horses, especially, the track itself poses dangers; falls and fractures
are common in both flat and jump races. Often, lame horses are doped to
allow them to continue to race, with the risk of serious injury.
And at the end of it all, if the animal is not a success, or does not
perform as brilliantly as hoped, it is disposed of. Horses are lucky in
that they occasionally go to a home where they are well treated and respected,
but the knackery is a common option (a knackery is a purveyor of products
derived from worn-out and old livestock). (Recently, a new practice has
come to light: owners of race horses sometimes murder horses that do not
reach their "potential", or which are past their "prime",
and then file fraudulent insurance claims.) The likely homes for a greyhound
are few and far between. --JK
Race horses are prone to a disease called exercise-induced pulmonary
hemorrhage (EIPH). It is characterized by the presence of blood in the
lungs and windpipe of the horse following intense exercise. An Australian
study found 42 percent of 1,180 horses to be suffering from EIPH. A large
percentage of race horses suffer from lameness. Fractures of the knee
are common, as are ligament sprain, joint sprain, and shin soreness.
"Steeple chasing is designed to make the horses fall which sometimes
results in the death of the horse either though a broken neck or an "incurable"
injury for which the horse is killed by a veterinarian." --David
Cowles-Hamar
SEE ALSO: #72-#73
Back to Questions
|
