Aranda 1

Justin Aranda

Professor Greg McClure

Writing 39C - Animal Rights

26 January 2019

A Look at the Effects of Captivity on Zoo Animals

In this literature review, I will be reviewing three different scholarly sources that revolve

around the issue of poor treatment of animals in captivity, specifically in zoos. I will first provide

historical context for the problem and proceed to summarize the various sources I have chosen to

use to help inform the reader about the current status of animal welfare within captivity. Then I

will compare and contrast the different sources’ ideas to analyze the issue. By the end of this

review, I will have provided the reader with enough context and evidence for them to develop a

better understanding of the problem in zoos. But more importantly, it will bring attention to an

issue that has plagued hundreds of thousands of captive animals for over 200 years and counting.

Since the establishment of the first zoological park, popularly known as zoos, in 1793,

zoos have struggled to maintain the welfare of animals they keep in captivity (National

Geographic). Zoos were created with the intent to help scientists grasp a better understanding of

animal behavior and anatomy. With zoos, researchers concentrated an array of different animals

into one area which allowed them to easily examine and test those animals. However, due to the

researchers’ lack of knowledge of the animals they were examining, they didn’t know how to

properly take care of them. This resulted in the animals being crammed into small metal cages

and forced to endure poor treatment by their keepers (Philips). Lacking proper care and essential

needs for life, a majority of these captive animals would end up dying within just months of

being brought to zoos. Yet as time progressed, researchers learned how to better the longevity of
 Aranda 2

the animals they studied but not the quality of life the animals lived (Jamieson). This issue has

proven to be a struggle that modern zoos still face today. Small adjustments and fixes to the

design and ethics of zoos have been made over the decades, but no major changes have been

made to improve the welfare of captive animals.

Recently though, with great advancements being made in technological and

psychological research, humans have revealed that most animals have some form of

consciousness and similar cognitive structures/capabilities to humans (The Cambridge

Declaration on Consciousness). With the release of this information, the public and scientific

community have begun to question the ethics and methodology of the testing and captivity of

animals. Additionally, events such as the killing of Harambe in the Cincinnati Zoo, and the

release of informative documentaries like Blackfish, have sparked an outcry over social media

calling for better treatment of animals in captivity. The issue of poor animal welfare in captivity

has never been relevant in our society because we as humans have never fully understood (and

we still don’t) how other animals function and behave. Not until now, with the release of these

recent findings and events, has the public finally become more aware of this issue and started to

advocate their concerns for captive animals.

The first text I will be reviewing is titled, Against Zoos which was written by Dale

Jamieson in 1985. Jamieson is currently a professor of environmental studies and philosophy at

New York University and has focused his research on those two subjects since the beginning of

his professional career (NYU). Against Zoos begins with defining what a zoo is and giving a

brief yet important history lesson on zoos in the past. He explains the current definition of zoos

as a public place where individuals can go to see animals for educational and recreational

purposes. This definition of zoos as a place for people to learn is countered when he reveals what
 Aranda 3

inspired the idea of zoos. According to Jamieson, zoos were inspired by the Romans who had a

fascination with capturing exotic animals and having them compete in gladiator arenas. This led

to the collection and slaughter of tens of thousands of animals. This would go on for decades and

rulers would keep high quantity collections of animals to assert their power. Not until the

eighteenth century were zoos officially established in Vienna, Madrid, and Paris. Zoos are now

found all over the world ranging from “roadside menageries run by hucksters, to elaborate

zoological parks staffed by trained scientists” (Jamieson,). After establishing the history of zoos,

Jamieson begins to critique zoos. He first states that the four most important reasons why zoos

exist are because they serve as “amusement, education, opportunities for scientific research, and

help in preserving species.” Using data from sources like the Zoological Society of London,

International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, and more, Jamieson disproves all four

reasons that support zoos. For example, when disproving the educational value of zoos, he

provides information from a study that reveals that zoo-goers are significantly less knowledge

than hunters, backpackers, and others that claim to be knowledgeable in animals. Additionally,

those same zoo-goers expressed prejudice against certain animals based on the way they were

presented in zoos. Jamieson does a good job of backing up all of his arguments with either a

scientific study or paper which allows him to be a credible source of knowledge. Following this,

he makes the claim that since zoos lack any real benefits for the animals, keeping them in

captivity is a moral injustice due to all the negatives that come with captivating a wild animal.

He explains this injustice by examining the history of chimpanzees in zoos. From the 19th to

20th century, zoos would acquire chimpanzees who would die very quickly after their arrival.

Not until 1930 did scientists finally realize that their mortality rate was so high because the

chimpanzees were highly susceptible to human respiratory diseases. Additionally, these

 Aranda 4

chimpanzees would be housed “in cramped, cold cells and fed unpalatable synthetic food.”

Reflecting on the treatment of chimpanzees in zoos helped Jamieson reveal the horrible truths

about zoos and the way would treat and view animals. Jamieson concludes his paper by stating

that zoos teach us a false perception of the natural world and they house animals but don’t know

how to properly care for them. He believes that in order to save the animals and stop the

spreading of false information, zoos should be abolished.

The second source I will be analyzing is Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores

written by Ros Clubb and Georgia Mason in 2003. Clubb, a scientific officer at the RSPCA, and

Mason, a professor at the University of Guelph, recorded a report on the effects of captivity on

carnivores animals, specifically in zoos. The report begins by addressing the dangers of not

allowing animals to develop naturalistic behavior patterns. Without proper development of these

patterns, animals can experience stress, frustration, or have an impairment of the development of

certain brain areas. The report establishes that this lack of development in naturalistic behavior

patterns is due to the fact that animals are put in captivity, especially carnivorous animals with

wide-ranging lifestyles. To prove this, Clubb and Mason conducted a study that observed the

mean frequency of pacing, a stereotypic behavior seen in caged animals that is believed to be

induced by the small confinements of enclosures. They took this data from 35 different species

of captive carnivores along with their infant-mortality rates and compared it to data from the

same 35 species of carnivores but ones that were not held in captivity. The results of the study

uncovered a lot about the effects of captivity on carnivores. It was revealed that observing the

home range size compared to the natural home range size of carnivores could predict the

development of the pacing behavior. An example of a carnivore lacking adequate housing space

can be seen below in Figure 1. The figure shows the size of the polar bear enclosure at the San
 Aranda 5

Francisco Zoo, one of the most accredited urban zoos in America. Although the enclosure seems

large, the size of this bear’s enclosure is merely a fraction of a fraction of the home-range polar

bears have in the Arctic Circle and has caused this polar bear to develop the pacing behavior

(Faunalytics).

Figure 1. Image shows a polar bear from the San Francisco Zoo in his enclosure. A polar bear, whose natural habitat
is the Arctic Circle, is instead given a cement filled enclosure with a tiny pool.
The Living New Deal. “San Francisco Zoo - San Francisco CA.” Living New Deal, 2018, livingnewdeal.org/projects/san-francisco-
zoological-gardens-san-francisco-ca/.

The study concluded that carnivores with typical large home ranges in the wild will develop

habits of pacing due to their small confinements and lack of development of naturalistic behavior

patterns. This would mean that carnivores kept in zoos or similar structures would suffer greatly.

The report concludes by stating that in order to prevent these large-range carnivores from
 Aranda 6

suffering in zoos, either the design of their enclosures needs to greatly improve or the housing of

these types of carnivores should be banned entirely.

The last source I will be reviewing is A Postzoo Future: Why Welfare Fails Animals in

Zoos written by Jessica Pierce and Marc Bekoff. Pierce, a professor at the University of

Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities, and Bekoff, an emeritus professor at the

University of Colorado, wrote this article in October of 2018 (University of Colorado). The

article discusses the current improvements made to help the welfare of animals within zoos and

calls for a complete reform on the design of modern zoos. The article begins with a discussion on

freedom and the effects of captivity. They believe that the main problem with captivity is

“captivity itself” (Pierce and Bekoff). They point out that numerous studies have revealed that

captivity can lead to negative behavioral, physiological, psychological, and neurobiological

effects on the animals. From a moral standpoint too, zoos are immoral because “captivity

imposes suffering and it is wrong to deliberately impose suffering on a sentient creature.”

Following this, the report begins to critique and question the ethics behind using and captivating

animals. Pierce and Befoff establish that people focus on the lack of ethics within zoos rather

than the lack of ethics with zoos themselves. They believe that the reason life for animals within

zoos isn’t improving is simply because these animals are being held in captivity. Acknowledging

this issue, the report then offers six different solutions to this issue. They call for the banning of

zoos, exhibiting animals that don’t do well in captivity, killing of healthy animals, captive

breeding programs, and moving of animals from zoo to zoo. All of these reforms would do away

with modern zoos and would, as a result, end the suffering animals face in captivity. The report

ends by asking that the discoveries made about animal cognition and behavior be used to better

the lives of the animals.

 Aranda 7

After reviewing all three sources, it can be inferred that based on the past and current

reports on zoos, the effects zoos have on animals are causing some of the animals to mentally

suffer. Using Jamison’s document from 1975 and comparing it to the Clubb and Mason’s study

(2003) along with Pierce and Bekoff’s paper from 2018 allow us to realize that the problems in

zoos are still the same since 1975 and haven’t been improved in any drastic way. These problems

have been addressed and proven to be an issue for years, yet nothing major has been done to

resolve them. Additionally, there is a common theme amongst all three sources. The biggest

problem with zoos is the captivity aspect. Improving the way animals should be treated in zoos,

the size of their enclosures, the food they are feed, or the alternative stimulation they receive

should not be the focus of the discussion for improving animal welfare. The focus should be

directed towards the fact that wild animals are being put into captivity. I conclude that the

evidence provided by the three sources raises many questions about the ethics and practices in

zoos. Questions like, can we provide wild animals with an enclosure that will properly replicate

their natural environment? Is keeping animals in display cages for the benefit of humans worth

the years of suffering those animals have to endure? With evidence revealing the truth about the

effects of zoos on animals, how much longer will it take for there to be major reform with the

way zoos are designed?

 Aranda 8

Works Cited

Cless, Isebelle T, and Heather A Voss-Hoynes. “Polar Bears, Zoos, And Repetitive
Pacing.” Faunalytics, Faunalytics, 16 Mar. 2017, faunalytics.org/polar-bears-zoos-
repetitive-pacing/.

Clubb, Ros, and Georgia J Mason. Animal Welfare: Captivity Effects on Wide-Ranging
Carnivores, vol. 425, Nov. 2003, p. 473.,
www.researchgate.net/publication/9069205_Animal_Welfare_Captivity_effects_on_wide
-ranging_carnivores.

Ros Clubb and Georgia J. Mason wrote the report, Animal Welfare: Captivity effects on
wide-ranging carnivores in 2003. Clubb, a scientific officer at the RSPCA, and Mason, a
professor at the University of Guelph, constructed a report that revealed the alarming effects of
captivity on carnivores animals, specifically captive animals within zoos. The authors of the
report are the ones that conducted the experiment that is analyzed in the report, so they
thoroughly explain the study they conducted and its results in the report. This source is an
example that shows the negative effects of zoos on animals. The data and analysis found in this
 Aranda 9

source support the reasoning against zoos in the other two sources I am going to analyze. This
source is essentially an example of the main different sources that have used to reveal this issue
within zoos.

Fravel, Laura. “Critics Question Zoos' Commitment to Conservation.” National Geographic,

National Geographic, 2 Oct. 2018, www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2003/11/news-
zoo-commitment-conservation-critic/.

Jamieson, Dale. “In Defense of Animals.” Against Zoos, 1985, pp. 108–117.,
www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/jamieson01.htm.

Dale Jamieson, a professor at the University of New York wrote the paper “Against
Zoos” which was published in 1985 in Peter Singer’s book called “In Defense of Animals.” The
piece details the negative effects of zoos on the welfare of animals and discusses how through
the abolition of zoos, animals won’t have to suffer any longer in zoos. The piece refers to a
multitude of credible sources to support his article and some of those sources are “International
Journal for the Study of Animal Problems” or “New York Zoological Society.” This piece is
very important to the issue I am researching because this paper serves as proof that the
mistreatment of animals in zoos was a struggle in the past and is still a struggle now. It shows
how the problem was addressed in 1980s, yet in the 2010s, the problem still persists.

Jessica Pierce & Marc Bekoff (2018) A Postzoo Future: Why Welfare Fails Animals in
Zoos, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 21:sup1, 43-48, DOI:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888705.2018.1513838

The article A Postzoo Future: Why Welfare Fails Animals in Zoos written by Jessica
Pierce and Marc Bekoff. Pierce, a professor at the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics
and Humanities, and Bekoff, an emeritus professor at the Univerity of Colorado, wrote this
article in October of 2018. The article discusses why zoos are failing the animals they house and
it suggests different fixes and changes that could be made by zoos to better the welfare of the
animals they have. This article lists numerous credible pieces of evidence that it uses to support
their arguments and suggest solutions. Some of those sources are Nobel Prize-winning economist
Amartya Sen, or the Fourth Global Animal Welfare Congress in May 2017. This source connects
mainly with first source because this source discusses a lot of the same issues as the other source.
Having two sources that support and address the same problem 40 years apart shows the lack of
concern and care for the issue. Additionally, the second source acts as evidence that supports the
reasoning in this article.

Philips, Keri. “The Ethical Evolution of Zoos.” ABC News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation,
21 Oct. 2015,
www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/the-ethical-history-of-zoos/6869776.

New York University School of Law. “Dale Jamieson.” NYU l Law, New York University
School of Law, 2019,
its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=25471.
 Aranda 10

University of Colorado Boulder. “Marc Bekoff.” History, Univeristy of Colorado Boulder, 16

Apr. 2015, www.colorado.edu/ebio/marc-bekoff.