26 February 2010
Animals in captivity
I was so sad to see/hear in the news that a captive orca in the Sea World, Orlando, facility was responsible for the death of his trainer. This is not an isolated incident; captive animals do occasionally kill their caretakers. In fact, this orca, Tilikum, has made previous human kills. My heart goes out to the family, friends, and colleagues of this trainer who lost her life when Tilikum either attacked or tried ‘playing’ with her. My heart also goes out to Tilikum and the countless other intelligent creatures who are held captive for the entertainment of human beings.
Since childhood, I, like so many others, have enjoyed visiting zoos to see exotic animals. Over the past several years, though, I became (and remain) torn about the ethics of this. Zoos often provide a sanctuary for injured and abandoned animals ‘rescued’ from the wild or from private collections. Many zoos are involved in breeding programs to increase the numbers of endangered animals and, so, are trying to do some good in their own way. Even when zoos have significant acreage, however, and can provide their animal attractions with relatively spacious yards, this does not mean that the animals have enough space to ensure their mental and emotional health and well-being. The effect of captivity on animals who normally range across broad sections of terrain in the wild is a matter of scientific observation; for instance, large cats confined to small spaces develop neurotic habits, such as pacing for hours along a certain path, and primates will sometimes begin to sit for long periods during which they rock themselves, act despondent, and remain disengaged from their group and their caretakers.
Captive animals often develop behaviBoural problems, taking their frustrations out on their human caretakers, on their fellow captives, or even on themselves. The development of psychological problems can be especially marked in those animals who exhibit a significant levels of intelligence (as measured by human standards), such as: elephants, ‘higher-level’ primates (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, etc.), and sea mammals (dolphins, porpoises, orcas, etc.). Think of the developmental damage/limitations observed in humans who have been confined and neglected during their formative years and who have been denied ‘normal’ social contact and interaction, as well as experiences and instruction that most of their peers receive during a comparative period. Even with professional care, therapy, and instruction provided in later periods, these individuals never attain the same level of social, psychological, or cognitive development as those who have more normative upbringings. I am thinking of one girl, in particular, whose mother was complicit in the abuse perpetrated by her husband on their daughter. ‘Genie’ was chained, naked, to a potty chair in a dark room for the first twelve (I think) years of her life, with verbal communication and both emotional and physical affection withheld from her. Once she was rescued, she spent the rest of her life either in the care of specific researcher/therapists or in the confines of a group home because she was not able to progress to a level of functional self-sufficiency necessary to allow her to live alone (don’t even get me started on the culpability of the researchers who fought over who was going to get the next chance to use this poor child as a guinea pig for their current pet theory, instead of actually focusing on helping her).
Like humans, many of the animals most susceptible to the detrimental psychological effects of confinement are naturally adapted to roaming across long distances. What is even more significant is that, like humans, most of these animals are social creatures, living in tight-knit herds, packs, pods, and other family- or social-groups. Beyond basic requirements of survival, such as food provision tactics, these groups are the source of vital aspects of social support, both in early developmental stages and across the lifetime of these beings: instruction and guidance, discipline and approbation, comfort and affection, physical contact and emotional presence…
If an elephant is the sole representative of his species at a zoo, how healthy can his mental state remain? How much actual improvement does the presence of one other elephant represent? Consider the natural hierarchy that exists in elephant herds in nature; the females are the core of herd stability and well-being. Even rogue elephants, who wander alone in nature for long periods of time, can suffer from what amount to psychiatric disorders as a result of their solitude.
If a dolphin and a handful of her compeers are made to exist in a concrete tank that takes mere moments to traverse, how stable can her behaviour be expected to remain? Consider, especially, that pods of dolphins and other sea mammals can be individually identified because of the patterns of their ‘speech.’ When an aquarium purchases or captures a new animal for their collection, that creature is effectively forced into a situation where it must form a bond with a group with animals who may be the same species but who speak a different language–or, at the very least, a substantially different dialect. Imagine being an English-only-speaking human person who was thrown into an inescapable situation where your only companions spoke either Russian or English with the thickest and most indecipherable of Irish brogues (and some Gaelic thrown in for good measure).
How can we accurately measure the harm done to these captive animals who are deprived of their freedom and the support of a sufficient family of fellows? Do the educational and research benefits of zoos and aquariums outweigh the negative ethical ramifications of confining animals, whether captured or bred for the purpose? Is the existence of a zoo justified by its potential to teach children and adults to value life in a less species-centric manner? Who is qualified to make these judgments? For the moment, I am trying to make ethical decisions about each individual location, based on its purpose and its provision for and care of its animal charges. Aquariums with intelligent sea mammal attractions? No. Circuses with elephant performers? Absolutely not. Zoos? Perhaps–after doing some research into their facilities. Large animal sanctuaries, where herds of animals are free to range across large tracts of land? How wonderful!
