Against Zoos (which are for us and not in the main, for the animals confined to them)

Menagerie, artist unknown, Laing Art Gallery

“A menagerie is a collection of captive animals, frequently exotic, kept for display; or the place where such a collection is kept, a precursor to the modern zoological garden. The term was first used in 17th-century France, in reference to the management of household or domestic stock. Later, it came to be used primarily in reference to aristocratic or royal animal collections. The French-language Methodical Encyclopaedia of 1782 defines a menagerie as an ‘establishment of luxury and curiosity.’ Later on, the term referred also to travelling animal collections that exhibited wild animals at fairs across Europe and the Americas.

A menagerie was mostly connected with an aristocratic or royal court and was situated within a garden or park of a palace. These aristocrats wanted to illustrate their power and wealth, because exotic animals, alive and active, were less common, more difficult to acquire, and more expensive to maintain. The aristocratic menageries are distinguished from the later zoological garden (zoos) since they were founded and owned by aristocrats whose intentions were not primarily of scientific and educational interest.” [….]

While the menagerie is indeed “a precursor to the modern zoological garden,” I mention this only because there are a few features of zoos today that are still held in common with royal menageries, but the reader should not infer a genetic fallacy here as there is much in the best zoos, that is, those accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), an independent non-profit that awards accreditation to zoos that meet the highest standards in animal care and welfare, that differ in significant ways from this precursor. For example, those zoos that meet these standards (‘Of the approximately 2,800 animal exhibitors licensed by the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] across the country, less than 10% are AZA [Association of Zoos & Aquariums]-accredited.’) have agendas and programs that involve scientific research (including preservation of species and biodiversity), public education (e.g., educating the public to care for all animals, not just those in the wild, as well as the natural world, thus not just wilderness), and conservation efforts (which includes ecosystems), among other characteristics that distinguish them from the menageries of yesteryear. In the words of Irus Braverman, “[t]he various states of the zoo’s evolution are more than relics of the past,” even if zoos “contain physical evidence of the cage phase” and other “traces” of their “convoluted history.”

*          *          *            

“… [W]e should not just focus on ending pain and suffering, though that is urgently important. We should also imagine what needs for friendship and community each type of animal has, what needs for free movement, for pleasure, and for using their faculties in a happy way. This would utterly transform the idea of a zoo, if zoos persist at all. And I think fortunately some forward-looking research-oriented zoos, in which group I count the Lincoln Park Zoo, are already asking all the right questions. Law can do much more to regulate conditions in zoos.”— Martha C. Nussbaum

“… [T]here is a moral presumption against keeping wild animals in captivity. What this involves, after all, is taking animals out of their native habitats, transporting them great distances, and keeping them in alien environments in which their liberty is severely restricted. It is surely true that in being taken from the wild and confined in zoos, animals are deprived of a great many goods.” — Dale Jamieson

“What life span is normal for that species in the wild? What is the physical condition of the healthy animal? What human [or nonhuman] acts invade or impair the bodily integrity of that sort of animal? What types of movement from place to place are normal and more pleasurable for that sort of animal? What sensory and imaginative stimulation does this animal seek, and what is it to keep the animal in an unacceptably deficient sensory environment? What is it for this sort of animal to live in a crippling and intolerable fear or depression, or with a lack of bonds of concern? What type of affiliation does this animal seek in the wild, what sorts of groups, both reproductive and social, does it form? What types of communication does the animal engage in, using what sensory modalities? What is it for the animal to be humiliated and disrespected? What is it for the animal to play and enjoy itself? Does the animal have meaningful relationships with other species and the world of nature? What type of objects does the animal use and need to control if it is to live its life?” — Please see: Court of Appeals of the State of New York—In the Matter of a Proceeding under Article 70 of the CPLR for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Order to Show Cause, THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT, INC., on behalf of HAPPY, Petitioner-Appellant, – against – JAMES J. BREHENY, in his official capacity as Executive Vice President and General Director of Zoos and Aquariums of the Wildlife Conservation Society and Director of the Bronx Zoo and WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, Respondents-Respondents. BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE PROFESSOR MARTHA C. NUSSBAUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANT

*          *          *

I am, in principle, against the existence of zoos. The reasons for this opposition are owing to arguments made by Dale Jamieson in a quite prescient collection of his writings, Morality’s Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature (Clarendon Press, 2002). In particular, they come from two consecutive chapters, “Against Zoos,” and “Zoos Revisited” (the latter consists of replies to critics of the former essay). A fundamental if not axiomatic premise of his overall argument is that the freedom or liberty animals enjoy or experience in the wild is denied them in captivity, thus he believes “there is a moral presumption against keeping animals in captivity.” Presumptions are rebuttable, as Jamieson well appreciates, so there is more to the argument than this. Although I am against the existence of zoos, I would not call for their immediate abolition. I will later post on specific arguments made by Jamieson, but for now I want to share the concluding remarks to each of the aforementioned chapters:

“Zoos teach us a false sense of our place in the natural order. The means of confinement make a difference between humans and animals. They are there for our pleasure, to be used for our purposes [e.g., entertainment or recreation and education; sometimes, in fact rather infrequently, for scientific research, such as studies in anatomy and pathology; and species preservation for endangered species, although numerous and often insuperable problems face these captive breeding programs]. Morality and perhaps our very survival require that we learn to live as one species among many rather than as one species over many [this need not entail us ignoring or downplaying some significant differences between human and nonhuman animals, although we have learned over time that these differences are not as strong nor as numerous as we once believed]. To do this, we must first forget what we learn at zoos. Because what zoos teach us is false and dangerous, both humans and animals will be better off when they are abolished.”

Jamieson does not expect zoos to disappear anytime soon, and concedes that there “is a great difference between good ones [i.e. zoos] and bad ones;” furthermore, he believes the “best zoos in the future will be indistinguishable from small [animal or wildlife conservation] parks” with a “naturalistic environment” [which ‘should not be confused with a natural environment’]. Thus Jamieson states that if we continue to “keep animals in captivity,” bearing in mind that these creatures “are in our custody through no wish or fault of their own,” “then we must conform to the highest standards of treatment and respect,” “for the animals themselves have no voice in human affairs, and as nature recedes their voices become ever more silent.” I should note that in examining the indices of several well-known books on zoo ethics, not one of them has anything by way of responding directly to Jamieson’s arguments (although I cannot claim to have read all the relevant literature).

Recommended Reading (this list will be expanded in one or more later posts):

• Baratay, Eric and Elizabeth Hardouin-Fugier. A History of Zoological Gardens in the West (Reaktion Books, 2002).
• Braverman, Irus. Zooland: The Institution of Captivity (Stanford Law Books/Stanford University Press, 2013).
• Jamieson, Dale. Morality’s Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature (Clarendon Press, 2002).
• Mullan, Robert and Garry Marvin. Zoo Culture (University of Illinois Press, 1998).
• Rothfels, Nigel. Savages and Beasts: The Birth of the Modern Zoo (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002).

Relevant Bibliographies

• Animal Ethics, Rights, and Law
  
• Beyond Capitalist Agribusiness: Toward Agroecology and Food Justice
• Ecological and Environmental Politics, Philosophies, and Worldviews

The Non-Human Rights Project (NhRP) is here.

Comments

[Patrick S. O'Donnell]

Thank you for the links. I have read the brief by Tribe, Colb, and Dorf and will look at the rest of the material later, as the one I shared from Nussbaum was simply illustrative of the kinds of problems and questions that arise more generally, thus I did not go into all the possible arguments, responses, etc. As for the AZA, that is a comparative judgment, as one might think of all those zoos and aquariums (the overwhelming majority) who are not members and thus are not bound to any formal commitments in this regard whatsoever. In this case I hold to the maxim that something is better than nothing and at least the Detroit Zoo retained its accreditation. And as I am against zoos in principle, I will find myself critical of the AZA on this or that, for example and especially, the exhibition of elephants at a zoo that is far smaller than, say, a national reserve park or a properly sized and humane sanctuary. Again, thanks for commenting and providing our readers with informative had helpful material related to our topic.

[Kevin Schneider]

Thank you for this. If you have not done so already, might I suggest reviewing the other amicus briefs in Happy's case, both for and against her right to bodily liberty (all are available here in chronological order: https://www.nonhumanrights.org/client-happy/). I would flag in particular the brief of Catholic theologians in support, as well as another by Buddhist theologians. I would also take notice of those amicus briefs filed against Happy's case, in particular that of the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (which will be posted as soon as the court accepts it); I think you will find that their reputation for "upholding the highest standards" is indeed undeserved. Note also that the AZA threatened to revoke the certification of the Detroit Zoo when it decided to close its elephant exhibit on ethical grounds and sent its elephants to sanctuary almost 20 years ago (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna6058403).