Abstract
This chapter illuminates a variety of issues that speak to the question of whether ‘captivity for conservation’ can be an ethically acceptable goal of the modern zoo. Reflecting on both theoretical disagreements (animal protectionists versus wildlife conservationists) and practical challenges (the small percentage of endangered species actually exhibited in zoos, disappointing success of reintroduction programs), the paper explains why the ‘Noah’s Ark ’ paradigm is being replaced by an alternative ‘integrated approach.’ It explores the changes in the zoo’s core tasks that the new paradigm implies. And it pays special attention to the changes that would have to be made in zoos’ collection policies: connection with in situ projects, emphasizing local species and the local biogeographical region, exchange of animals among zoos and between zoos and wildlife, and a shift towards smaller species. Finally the question will be addressed whether the new paradigm will achieve a morally acceptable balance between animal welfare costs and species conservation benefits.
This is a reprint from the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (2015), 335–351.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A famous example of the clash over programs to eradicate invasive species is the controversy about the feral pigs in Hawaii, between the Nature Conservancy and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). While conservation biologists have argued that the pigs should be killed and removed because they threaten Hawaii’s biodiversity, animal activists argued that it is wrong to harm and kill the pigs because they are sentient animals (Woods and Moriarty 2001).
- 2.
According to Dale Jamieson “the notion of a species is an abstraction; the idea of its welfare is a human construction. While there is something that it is like to be an animal there is nothing that it is like to be a species” (Jamieson 1995, p. 61).
- 3.
For a recent contribution to the animal ethics/environmental ethics debate, see McShane (2014).
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Jamieson calls his brand of utilitarianism ‘progressive consequentialism’ (Jamieson and Elliot 2009).
- 8.
The list cites 1,140 species of mammals, 1,313 species of birds, 847 species of reptiles, 1,948 species of amphibians, and 2,110 species of fish.
- 9.
Invertebrates are almost absent in zoos (see the section on Collection policy options).
- 10.
Furthermore, many of the successful reintroductions have their own history of struggle and strife. Take, for example, the Black-footed ferret (McCarthy 2004, p. 196/7). In 1986, the Black-footed ferret population had diminished to a mere 18 individuals, but thanks to a captive breeding program, more than 220 now roam the prairie of the US state of Wyoming. The program was not, however, entirely plain sailing. When the kits were released they were far too blasé to make themselves scarce when predators such as eagles, coyotes and badgers arrived on the scene. The researchers tried to resolve this problem by building a mock predator. They attached wheels to a stuffed badger, which would win fame as RoboBadger. The only way the ferrets could escape RoboBadger was to find a burrow. The researchers then tried to increase the ferrets’ aversion to RoboBadger by firing rubber bands at them.
- 11.
- 12.
A recent and also very promising strategy to tackle the problem of limited space concerns the creation of walkways between enclosures that allow animals greater freedom of movement. Building a network of trails, in particular top tree trails, gives animals the opportunity to rotate between various interconnected display and off-display areas. Animals may spend mornings in one area and afternoons in another. This design strategy was first applied in Philadelphia Zoo, with only 42 acres a relatively small zoo. http://theconversation.com/zoos-of-the-future-break-down-the-enclosure-walls-26605
- 13.
Edward O. Wilson once said that it cannot be stressed enough “that, as a whole, invertebrates are more important than vertebrates for the conservation of ecosystems. If invertebrates were to die out, I fear that the human race would survive for just a few months” (Wilson 1987, p. 345).
- 14.
Jamieson even blames zoos for being deeply implicated in causing the problem that they purport to be addressing; they undermine the case for preserving wild nature by taking more and more animals out of the wild (Jamieson 1995, p. 62).
References
Baker, A. 2007. Animal ambassadors: An analysis of the effectiveness and conservation impact of ex situ breeding efforts. In Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation, ed. A. Zimmermann et al., 139–154. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, B. 1995. Reintroduction, zoos, conservation, and animal welfare. In Ethics on the Ark, ed. B. Norton, et al., 155–163. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Bowkett, A.E. 2008. Recent captive-breeding proposals and the return of the Ark Concept to global species conservation. Conservation Biology 23(3): 773–776.
Byers, O., C. Lees, J. Wilcken, and C. Schwitzer. 2013. The one plan approach: The philosophy and implementation of CBSG’s approach to integrated species conservation planning. WAZA Magazine 14: 2–5.
Callicott, J.B. 1980. Animal liberation: A triangular affair. Environmental Ethics 2: 311–338.
Conde, D.A., N. Flesness, F. Colchero, O.R. Jones, and A. Scheuerlein. 2011. An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science 331(6023): 1390–1391.
Conway, W. 2003. The role of zoos in the 21st century. International Zoo Yearbook 38: 7–13.
Conway, W. 2011. Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo biology 30: 1–8.
Davey, G. 2006. Visitor behavior in zoo: A review. Anthrozoos 19(2): 143–157.
Dickens, M.J., D.J. Delehanty, and L.M. Romero. 2010. Stress: An inevitable component of animal translocation. Biological Conservation 143: 1329–1341.
Dickie, L.A., J.P. Bonner, and C. West. 2007. In situ and ex situ conservation: blurring the boundaries between zoos and the wild. In Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation, ed. A. Zimmermann et al., 220–235. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fa, J.E., S.M. Funk, and D. O’Connell. 2011. Zoo conservation biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Falk, J.H., et al. 2007. Why zoos & aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos & Aquariums.
Gewin, V. 2008. Riders of a modern-day Ark. PLoS Biology 6(1): 18–21.
Gusset, M., and G. Dick. 2011. The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biology 30: 566–569.
Gwynne, J.A. 2007. Inspiration for conversation: moving audiences to care. In Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation, ed. A. Zimmermann et al., 52–62. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hancocks, D. 2001. A different nature. The paradoxical world of zoos and their uncertain future. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hanson, E. 2002. Animal attractions. Nature on display in American zoos. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hargrove, E. (ed.). 1992. The animal rights/environmental ethics debate. The environmental perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hatchwell, M., and A. Rübel. 2007. The Masola rainforest: a model partnership in support of in situ conservation in Madagascar. In Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation, ed. A. Zimmermann et al., 205–219. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hatchwell, M., A. Rübel, L.A. Dickie, C. West, and A. Zimmermann. 2007. Conclusion: The future of zoos. In Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation, ed. A. Zimmermann et al., 343–360. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchins, M. 2003. Zoo and aquarium animal management and conservation: Current trends and future challenges. International Zoo Yearbook 38: 14–28.
IUCN. 2000. Guidelines for the placement of confiscated animals. Switzerland: Gland.
IUNC. 2002. Technical guidelines on the management of ex situ populations for conservation. Switzerland: Gland.
IUCN. 2014. Guidelines on the use of ex situ management for species conservation. Version 2.0. Gland, Switzerland.
Jamieson, D. 1985. Against zoos. In In defense of animals, ed. P. Singer, 108–117. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Jamieson, D. 1995. Zoos revisited. In Ethics on the Ark, ed. B. Norton, et al., 52–66. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Jamieson, D., and R. Elliot. 2009. Progressive consequentialism. Philosophical Perspectives 23: 241–255.
Kaufman, L. 2012a. To save some species, zoos must let others die. New York Times, May 27.
Kaufman, L. 2012b. Zoos struggle to breed endangered animals. New York Times, July 5.
Keulartz, J., and C. Van der Weele. 2008. Framing and reframing in invasion biology. Configurations 16(1): 93–115.
Keulartz, J., and J. Swart. 2012. Animal flourishing and capabilities in an era of global change. In Ethical adaptation to climate change, ed. A. Thompson, and J. Bendik-Keymer, 123–144. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kreger, M.D., M. Hutchins, and N. Fascione. 1998. Context, ethics, and environmental enrichment in zoos and aquariums. In Second nature. Environmental enrichment for captive animals, ed. D. Shepherdson et al., 59–82. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Leader-Williams. N., A. Balmford, M. Linkie, G.M. Mace, R.J. Smith, M. Stevenson, et al. 2007. ‘Beyond the ark: conservation biologists’ views of the achievements of zoos in conservation. In Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation, 236–254. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lees, C.M., and J. Wilcken. 2009. Sustaining the Ark: The challenges faced by zoos in maintaining viable population. Zoo Yearbook 43: 6–18.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. London: Oxford University Press.
Mace, G.M., A. Balmford, N. Leader-Williams, A. Manica, O. Walter, C. West, and Zimmermann, A. 2007. Measuring conservation success: assessing zoos’ contribution. In Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation, ed. A. Zimmermann, 322–342. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Marino, L., S.O. Lilienfeld, R. Malamud, N. Nobis, and R. Brogliod. 2010. Do zoo and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American zoo and aquarium study. Society and Animals 18: 126–138.
McCarthy, S. 2004. Becoming a tiger. How baby animals learn to live in the wild. New York: Harper Perennial.
McShane, K. 2014. Individualist Biocentrism vs. Holism Revisited. Les Ateliers de l’Ethique/The Ethics Forum 9(2): 130–148.
Minteer, B.A., and J.P. Collins. 2013. Ecological ethics in captivity: Balancing values and responsibilities in zoo and aquarium research under rapid global change. ILAR 54(1): 41–51.
Redford, K., D. Jensen, and J. Breheny. 2012. Integrating the captive and the wild. Science 338: 1157–1158.
Regan, T. 1995. Are zoos morally defensible. In Ethics on the Ark, ed. B. Norton, et al., 38–51. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press.
Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rolston, H. 1988. Environmental ethics. Duties to and values in the natural world. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Sagoff, M. 1984. Animal liberation and environmental ethics: Bad marriage quick divorce. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 22: 297–307.
Sandler, R.L. 2012. The ethics of species. An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection. New York: Basic Books.
Singer, P. 1979. Not for humans only: The place of nonhumans in environmental issues. In Ethics and problems of the 21st century, ed. K.E. Goodpaster, and K.M. Sayre, 191–206. Notre dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Soulé, M. 1990. The Onslaught of alien species, and other challenges in the coming decades. Conservation Biology 4(3): 233–239.
Soulé, M., M. Gilpin, W. Conway, and T. Foose. 1986. The Millenium Ark: how long a voyage, how many staterooms, how many passengers. Zoo Biology 5: 101–113.
Stanley Price, M.R., and J.E. Fa. 2007. Reintroductions from zoos; a conservation guiding light or a shooting star? In Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation, ed. A. Zimmermann et al. 155–177. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sterling, E., J. Lee, and T. Wood. 2007. Conservation education in zoos: An emphasis on behavioral change. In Zoos in the 21st century. Catalysts for conservation, ed. A. Zimmermann et al., 37–50. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tribe, A., and R. Booth. 2003. Assessing the role of zoos in wildlife conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8: 65–74.
Wilson, E.O. 1987. The little things that run the world (the importance and conservation of invertebrates). Conservation Biology 1: 344–346.
Woods, M., and V. Moriarty. 2001. Strangers in a strange land: The problem of exotic species. Environmental Values 10: 163–191.
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 1993. Executive summary of the world zoo conservation strategy—the role of the zoos and aquaria of the world in global conservation. Gland: WAZA.
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 2005. Building a future for wildlife—the world zoo and aquarium conservation strategy. Gland: WAZA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keulartz, J. (2016). Captivity for Conservation? Zoos at a Crossroads. In: Bovenkerk, B., Keulartz, J. (eds) Animal Ethics in the Age of Humans. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44206-8_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44206-8_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44205-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44206-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)