Aranda 1

Justin Aranda

Professor Greg McClure

Writing 39C - Animal Rights

25 February 2019

A Proposed Solution to the Poor Treatment of Captive Animals

Imagine, you and your family visit your local zoo and decide to check out the polar bear

exhibit. As you watch the polar bear behind the large glass panes, you notice it starts to pace

back and forth in its enclosure. Bored by the bear’s unamusing and repetitive behavior, you usher

your family to move on to the next exhibit. Next up is the tiger exhibit, and when you see their

enclosure, it’s filled with luscious grass, a big pool, and a plethora of different toys. Yet, you see

the tigers doing the same thing as the polar bear, pacing back and forth in their enclosure. You

might see this and start to wonder why you wasted fifteen dollars on a trip to see a bunch of

boring animals. But in actuality, you paid to witness the long-term effects of captivity on a wild

animal. Since the establishment of zoos in the 18th century, they were built with the intent to

help human beings develop a better understanding of animal’s anatomy and behavior. But doing

so has come at the expense of the animals being studied. Hundreds of thousands of animals have

been injured or killed since the dawn of the zoo all in the name of science. However, with the

knowledge obtained through over 200 years of research on animals, scientists and zoologists

have only made minor improvements to the methodology and design behind zoos. Additionally,

there are a lack of laws and regulations that hold zoos accountable for their actions and protect

the welfare of captive animals. Laws such as The Animal Welfare Act of 1966, and The

Endangered Species Act of 1973 are examples of the few laws that have been implemented to

help protect animals, but more needs to be done. There are numerous factors that contribute to
 Aranda 2

the mistreatment of animals in zoos, but the main factor is the idea that wild animals are being

forced into captivity. Animals are sentient beings that are being taken from their natural habitats

and forced to be put on display for human entertainment. To end the suffering of animals and

ensure that no other animal is mistreated or taken advantage of, zoos and other similar facilities

should be banned entirely.

Fortunately for animals, there has recently been great advancements in technological and

psychological research. Recent findings 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 prominent in our society because we as humans have never fully understood 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.

Against Zoos is a report written by Dale Jamieson in 1985 that gives a brief history on the

creation of zoos and analyses the arguments for and against zoos. Jamieson is currently a

professor of environmental studies and philosophy at New York University and has orientated his

research towards those two subjects since the beginning of his professional career (NYU).

Against Zoos begins by detailing how zoos were inspired by the animal collections held by

emperors to flaunt their status. According to Jamieson, zoos were inspired by the Romans who
 Aranda 3

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 over hundreds of years.

The history that inspired zoos reveals why animals lack an ethical or moral code in place to

protect them from physical or psychological harm. Animals were seen and treated more as a

utility than a living creature, and as a result, the practice of mistreating animals was continued

and accepted practice because humans didn’t know any better. Because of human’s ignorance of

the complexity of animals, we treated animals poorly and accepted that practiced until we

learned otherwise. The article progresses and Jamieson begins to critique the ethics behind zoos.

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.

This proves to be true because when implementing the idea of captivity, someone or something

must endure suffering. In this case, the things that suffer are the wild animals kept as prisoners in

zoos.

Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores is a 2003 study conducted by Ros Clubb and

Georgia Mason. Clubb, a scientific officer at the RSPCA, and Mason, a professor at the

University of Guelph, observed the effects of captivity on carnivorous animals. 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 theory, 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.
 Aranda 4

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 Francisco Zoo, one of the most accredited urban zoos

in America. Although the enclosure seems large, the size of this bear’s enclosure is about one

millionth the size of a polar bear’s average home range in the wild.

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
 Aranda 5

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

because the enclosures won’t be able to provide the animals with adequate living space. Looking

at what this study found, these larger animals will never be happy in any type of modern

enclosure because they aren’t meant to live their life entrapped by walls. No change to aesthetic

or content within an enclosure will match the positive changes of simply expanding the size of

the enclosures. These animals are built to travel miles upon miles every day, but instead, they are

forced to live a life without purpose or nuances.

A Postzoo Future: Why Welfare Fails Animals in Zoos is a paper 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 paper 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
 Aranda 6

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.

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.