WHAT'S THE ANIMAL RIGHTS POSITION ON ZOOS?
By Claudette Vaughan

Dr John Wedderburn is well known in the Asian animal rights and welfare movement. He’s vegan. He set up the first ever Vegan Society in Hong Kong. Originally of Scottish descent, he was one of the first foreigners to go undercover in the Chinese Dog-Meat markets to report back. Recently we asked Dr Wedderburn what is the animal rights position on zoos? Here’s his answer.

Abolitionist: What is an animal rights understanding of zoos?

Dr John Wedderburn: The world needs animal rehabilitation centres and animal sanctuaries but not zoos in the ordinarily accepted use of the word. A "zoo" is usually taken to mean a place where non-human animals are put on show for the benefit of humans - this kind of exploitation has no place in an equitable world.

Abolitionist: Are Zoos Cruel?

JW: Where one individual is placed in the absolute power of another individual, abuse and cruelty usually result. Instances of cruelty can be easily found in most zoos.

Abolitionist: Should nature documentaries, films and slide shows, latest technology and the internet suffice to teach people about animals in a non-disruptive way?

JW: In a word, yes!

Abolitionist: What about the “Zoos” full of rescued animals like Steve Irwin's. All those animals are rescued animals, joeys included. Can we judge all with the same brush?

JW: As I said above, it depends on your definition of the word zoo. I have not been to his zoo but it appears that what he ran was actually a sanctuary, not what would usually be thought of as a zoo.

Abolitionist: Do Zoos have true educational value?

JW: Unfortunately most of the messages that the public pick up from a visit to a zoo are bad messages - such as keeping animals in captivity is fun, stereotypical pacing is normal and amusing, etc. They rarely learn to empathise with the animals and come to realise that the animals' suffering is as important as their own.

Abolitionist: Do Zoo's really address wildlife habitat issues?

JW: Very rarely do zoos have any genuine conservation value. A few, such as the Bronx Zoo, do excellent research and manage viable projects to conserve natural habitat - but unfortunately very few zoos pay more than lip-service to conservation. For most zoos, conservation ideas are a gimmick they use to increase profits.

Abolitionist: What is an animal rights view on captive breeding programmes?

JW: A programme that is designed genuinely for the benefit of the individual animals would be approved by animal rights supporters but too many of the programmes are exploitative in nature and there is never any real hope of the animals being returned to live a normal life in the wild. Personally I would rather be extinct than see myself and my progeny condemned to life in a prison, living at the whim of zookeepers. Many people do not realise that the "Zoo Tiger" is NOT an endangered species.

Abolitionist: What happens to the so-called "surplus" animals or the "excess" animals born out of artificial insemination and other unnatural conditions? Modern day captive breeding programmes in zoos use artificial insemination techniques, caesarean section deliveries and ultrasounds etc. What are the ethics in all of this do you think John?

JW: Vast amounts of money and brainpower have been poured into trying to breed animals in captivity. Some, such as the tiger, breed easily in zoos but others, such as pandas and elephants, do not. That money and brainpower should be put into conservation of habitat where the animals, if left undisturbed, will continue to breed in the way they have done throughout the millennia.

Abolitionist: Are ordinary zoo animals miserable?

JW: If individual animals are given habitats within the zoo in which they can express all their natural behaviours, they can live good lives. Unfortunately this is rare. Most of the public consider that a good zoo is one where large numbers of animals are easily seen - thus the general belief that the San Diego Town zoo is one of the best. Actually it is one of the worst as far too many animals are crammed together in misery (just look at their faces if you don't believe me!) The San Diego Wild Animal Park in Escondido is much closer to being a good zoo as it has space. I should point out here that the bigger the animal the more difficult it is for a zoo to provide satisfactory accommodation. Even the San Diego Wild Animal Park has not nearly enough space for some of its species. I have seen zoo "exhibits" for small animals such as meerkats and naked mole rats which have been hard to fault and in which the animals are probably living as good lives as they would in the wild. But nowhere does there exist a zoo large enough to house large mammals such as elephants, whales, polar bears, jaguars, etc.

Abolitionist: Should ordinary zoos be relegated to the ranks of vestiges from times past? Are they archaic and out-lived their usefulness, not unlike circuses?

JW: Zoos have their uses as profit centres, prestige makers and entertainment venues. But none of these uses is compatible with a philosophy of animal rights where exploitation of one species by another is no more acceptable than the exploitation of one race by another.

What is there new to say??? I say close the worst zoos, desex all the animals in the zoos that are left and accept only rescued animals. But who is going to listen? There is no money to be made from my opinion and plenty to be made from continuing exploitation.

I have been to two zoos in the last two weeks. One is the best I have visited and one is way at the bottom of the list.

The Indira Gandhi Zoo in Visakhapatnam in India is superb. Whenever I hear of a "good zoo" I make a point of visiting it but I am always disappointed. The San Diego Zoo is grossly overcrowded. The National Zoo in Washington is like a mental asylum. The London zoo is a disgrace.

I usually say there is no such thing as a good zoo but the Indira Gandhi is exceptional. The Senior Vet at the zoo told me that his zoo is intended for sanctuary, conservation and NOT for entertainment. This philosophy is obvious from the moment you step through the gates until the moment you leave. There is no money spent on beautifying the paths and installing facilities for humans - everything is geared for the animals. This is the absolute opposite from the vast majority of zoos which can be described as "beautiful parks, pity about the miserable animals".

Then this week I found myself with a couple of free hours in Shenzhen in China. This is a city I pass through often as it is the gateway to China from Hong Kong but I rarely have time to stop. It is a wealthy city but possesses a dreadful, exploitative zoo called the Xili Lake Safari Park and Zoo, this was my 5th visit and I hope my last. In 1994 I went with Virginia McKenna of the Born Free Foundation - she was beside herself with unhappiness, constantly calling out "unacceptable, unacceptable". My friends ask me why I insist on visiting zoos when I always come away miserable and depressed. The answer is quite simply because I cannot ever forget the looks on those miserable and depressed inmates.

Most people who dislike the zoo concept avoid going to them but I believe we should make ourselves go to look in the animals' eyes, feel their misery and become motivated to try to do something to help. As on previous visits to this zoo there were many examples of gross cruelty but there were two animals which really got under my skin. One was an adolescent Orang Utan peering through thick dirty perspex from a small room in a lock-up. The other was an old blind Snow Leopard mewing piteously on his exposed featureless concrete slab. I wished I hadn't seen them and I don't know how I shall be able to help but I have to try. They should never have been taken from their native habitat. They are both shy animals by nature, the one living deep in the forest and the other high in mountain wilderness. What kind of twisted logic did some zoo director use to justify their purchase? Ambassadors of their species? Captive breeding?

The Ocean Park in Hong Kong is a most revered institution but it is planning to bring Polar Bears to this tropical city and to wild-catch Killer Whales from Indonesian waters. They will do it because they have the money and the willingness to twist logic.

The Editor has asked me to write a few paragraphs on the future of zoos. Ocean Park has the formula - bring in lots of unusual animals in open display, preferably doing tricks, get Macdonalds and KFC to provide food, build loads of rides and amusements and paint on thick layers of environmental and conservation messages to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Unfortunately there is no money to be made out of genuine conservation and sanctuaries - these would need to be funded by beneficent governments supported by enlightened taxpayers. The future is bleak.

The Orang Utan and Snow Leopard mentioned above? Everyone I speak to agrees that something should be done but I have as yet found no individual or organisation who is willing to put in the time, money and effort required to save them from their fate of rotting slowly under human gaze.