Freedom in Captivity: Managing Zoo Animals According to the ‘Five Freedoms’
Animal welfare is a complex matter that includes scientific, ethical, economic and other dimensions. Despite the existence of more comprehensive approaches to animal welfare and the obvious shortcomings of the ‘Five Freedoms’, for zoological gardens the freedoms still constitute the general guidelines to be followed. These guidelines reflect both, an ethical view and a science based approach. Analysis reveals that the potential ineptitude of the ‘Five Freedoms’ lies in the manifold perceptions that people have of other animals. These perceptions are biased by our own (mammalian) umwelt, which is intertwined with different cultural attitudes towards other species (e.g. humanistic, moralistic, ecologistic). Perceptions of animals may be held simultaneously by different interest groups and may often be incompatible, thus often making it difficult to follow the ‘Five Freedoms’ in practice. We aim to recognise and consider the multiplicity of factors that, besides animal subjectivity, are relevant in understanding this hybrid environment. The moral value and practical applicability of the ‘Five Freedoms’ are sometimes undermined by prioritising some freedoms over others and by species bias. Both are characteristic phenomena of the zoo as a hybrid environment where other species are managed by humans. Given deficiencies are further amplified by humanistic and moralistic attitudes that people hold.
KeywordsZoological gardens Hybrid environment The ‘Five Freedoms’ Animal management Predator-prey relations
The research for this paper was supported by the institutional research grant IUT02-44 and by the individual research grant PUT1363 “Semiotics of multispecies environments: agencies, meaning making and communication conflicts” from the Estonian Research Council.
- Acampora, R. R. (2010). Metamorphoses of the zoo: animal encounter after Noah. United Kingdom: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
- Adams, W. M. (2004). Against extinction: the story of conservation. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- American Zoo and Aquarium Association (1992). Guidelines for reintroduction of animals born or held in captivity. URL: https://www.aza.org/assets/2332/aza_guidelines_for_reintroduction_of_animals.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2017.
- Association of Zoos and Aquariums (2017). Animal welfare committee. URL: https://www.aza.org/animal_welfare_committee. Accessed 23 Feb 2017.
- Barnard, C. J., & Hurst, J. L. (1996). Welfare by design: The natural selection of welfare criteria. Animal Welfare, 5(4), 405–433.Google Scholar
- Barongi, R., Fisken, F. A., Parker, M., & Gusset, M. (Eds.). (2015). Committing to conservation: the world zoo and aquarium conservation strategy. Gland: WAZA Executive Office.Google Scholar
- Beck, B. B., Rapaport, L. G., Stanley, P., Mark, S., & Wilson, A. C. (1994). Reintroduction of captive born animals. In P. J. S. Olney, G. M. Mace, & A. T. C. Feistner (Eds.), Creative conservation: Interactive management of wild and captive animals (pp. 256–286). London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
- Camp, M. J. (2014). Teaching captive-reared pygmy rabbits important life skills. URL: https://appliedbehavior.wordpress.com/behavior-projects/captive-rabbits/. Accessed 27 Jan 2017.
- Cushing, N., & Markwell, K. (2011). I can’t look: disgust as a factor in the zoo experience. In W. Frost (Ed.), Zoos and tourism: conservation, education, entertainment? (pp. 167–178). Bristol: Channel View Publications.Google Scholar
- Farm Animal Welfare Council (1979). Farm animal welfare council press statement. URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121007104210/http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/fivefreedoms1979.pdf. Accessed 26 Aug 2017.
- Fedigan, L. (1992). Primate paradigms, sex roles and social bonds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6, 187–205.Google Scholar
- Hediger, H. (1950). Wild animals in captivity: an outline of the biology of zoological gardens. New York: Dover Publisher.Google Scholar
- Hediger, H. (1969). Man and animal in the zoo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
- Herzog, H. A., & Galvin, S. (1997). Common sense and the mental lives of animals: an empirical approach. In R. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (pp. 237–253). New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
- Hosey, G., Melfi, V., & Pankhurst, S. (2009). Zoo animals: behaviour, management and welfare. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kellert, S. R. (1989). Perceptions of animals in America. In R. J. Hoage (Ed.), Perceptions of animals in American culture (pp. 5–24). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Kleiman, G., Thompson, K. V., & Baer, K. C. (Eds.). (2010). Wild mammals in captivity: principles and techniques for zoo management (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lacy, R. (1995). Culling surplus animals for population management. In B. Norton, T. Maple, & E. Stevens (Eds.), Ethics on the ark: zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation (pp. 187–194). Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarson, S., Appelby, M., & Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science — working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97, 37–49.Google Scholar
- Maran, T., Tønnessen, M., Magnus, R., Mäekivi, N., Rattasepp, S., & Tüür, K. (2016a). Introducing zoosemiotics: philosophy and historical background. In T. Maran, M. Tønnessen, & S. Rattasepp (Eds.), Animal Umwelten in a changing world (Zoosemiotic perspectives) (pp. 10–28). Tartu: University of Tartu Press (Tartu Semiotics Library; 18).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Maran, T., Tønnessen, M., Magnus, R., Mäekivi, N., Rattasepp, S., & Tüür, K. (2016b). Methodology of zoosemiotics: concepts, categorisations, models. In T. Maran, M. Tønnessen, & S. Rattasepp (Eds.), Animal Umwelten in a changing world (Zoosemiotic perspectives) (pp. 29–50). Tartu: University of Tartu Press (Tartu Semiotics Library; 18).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Meehan, C. L., Mench, J. A., Carlstead, K., & Hogan, J. N. (2016). Determining connections between the daily lives of zoo elephants and their welfare: an epidemiological approach. PLoS One, 11(7), 1–15.Google Scholar
- Mellor, D. J. (2016a). Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the ‘Five Freedoms’ towards ‘A Life Worth Living’. Animals, 6(21), 1–20.Google Scholar
- Mellor, D. J. (2016b). Moving beyond the ‘Five Freedoms’ by updating the ‘Five Provisions’ and introducing aligned ‘Animal Welfare Aims’. Animals, 6(59), 1–7.Google Scholar
- Mullan, B., & Marvin, G. (1987). Zoo culture. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Nordenfelt, L. (2006). Animal and human health and welfare: a comparative philosophical analysis. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
- Nöth, W. (1998). Ecosemiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 26, 332–343.Google Scholar
- OIE (2016). Terrestrial animal health code, 25th ed. URL: http://www.rr-africa.oie.int/docspdf/en/Codes/en_csat-vol1.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2017.
- Rabin, L. A. (2003). Maintaining behavioural diversity in captivity for conservation: natural behaviour management. Animal Welfare, 12(1), 85–94.Google Scholar
- Rollin, B. E. (1992). Animal rights and human morality. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
- Rothfels, N. (2002). Savages and beasts. the birth of the modern zoo. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- New Scientist (2004). Feedback 183(2461): 72. URL: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18324616-200-feedback/. Accessed 20 Dec 2016.
- Spedding, C. (2000). Animal welfare. London and Sterling: Earthscan Publications Ltd..Google Scholar
- Tapper, R. (1988). Animality, humanity, morality, society. In T. Ingold (Ed.), What is an animal? (pp. 47–62). London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
- Turovski, A. (2000). The semiotics of animal freedom: a zoologist’s attempt to perceive the semiotic aim of H. Hediger. Sign Systems Studies, 28, 380–387.Google Scholar
- United Kingdom Acts of Parliament (2006). Animal welfare act, Chapter 45. URL: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/pdfs/ukpga_20060045_en.pdf. Accessed 21 Jan 2017.
- Veasey, J. S., Waran, N. K., & Young, R. J. (1996). On comparing the behaviour of zoo housed animals with wild conspecifics as a welfare indicator, using the giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) as a model. Animal Welfare, 5, 139–153.Google Scholar
- Walker, M., Diez-Leon, M., & Mason, G. (2014). Animal welfare science: recent publication trends and future research priorities. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(1), 80–100.Google Scholar
- Zoo Licencing Act (1981). URL: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/37/pdfs/ukpga_19810037_en.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2017.