Apropos Ken Kawata’s remarks on the Blog is this 1952 photo from a CFA gathering that included two of the world’s foremost zoo professionals, Dr. William Mann, director of the National Zoo, Washington, (seated at the far left wearing glasses) and Dr. Tadamichi Koga, Japan’s Mr. Zoo, long time director of Tokyo’s Ueno zoo and Ken Kawata's mentor. (second one standing on the right, prominent in his tie).
As Ken mentioned in his piece, this was from a time when zoo directors and curators were very friendly to circuses and appreciative of animals in the circus.
Dr. Mann was a very active member of CFA and circuses often called on him about animals, animal regulations, etc.
Other US zoo directors and curators from this period and earlier who were sympathetic to circus animals and/or sold and traded animals to and with circuses included - - - George Vierheller (St. Louis zoo – he operated wild animal shows at the zoo), the Beans –father and son (Brookfield zoo), Belle Benchley (San Diego zoo), Sol Stephan (Cincinnati zoo), Lee Crandall (Bronx zoo), Fred Ulmer (Philadelphia zoo), George Speidel (Milwaukee zoo), Dan Harkins (Boston zoo), Cy DeVry (Lincoln Park, Chicago), Fletcher Reynolds (Candler’s Briarcliff zoo, Atlanta, Cleveland zoo and a one time President of AZA), William Blackburn (National Zoo and one time Barnum animal man), Edmund Heller (Milwaukee and San Francisco zoos), Roland Lindermann (Catskill Game Farm), several directors of the Memphis zoo, and Theodor Schroder (Detroit zoo and one time polar bear trainer on RBBB and elsewhere).
Among more recent zoo men sympathetic to circus animals were Clayton Freiheit (Denver Zoo, a CHS member) and Frank Thompson (Jacksonville zoo). Thompson is now retired and Freiheit is now deceased (big loss - -one fine chap was he). But their ranks are thinning as Kawata pointed out. Many zoo directors of today will not consider selling or loaning an animal to a circus or receiving one from a show. Such has become politically incorrect. To use their vernacular, it offends the “ethics of the ark,” as such are promulgated and enacted by the AZA. To exercise independence is to risk loss of AZA accreditation and incur the wrath of the public as fueled by a biased press.
Precisely this same situation exists in Australia - even among zoos which would never have got a start were it not for donations of animals from circuses to them in their formative years.
My comment which was censored:
Steve and Richard,
Are we forgetting for a moment that that association may have had a financial benefit back in an era when the sale of animals was very lucrative, given the losses by both institutions? If a zoological institution has a new mission and guidelines of what is acceptable, that doesn't make them wrong. Maybe we are comfortable with an institution that had no mission, has no standard, did what it wanted given the transient nature of it, and have a hard time with an institution that did change, and has a clear mission. If I am a member of any organization, and it has rules and regulations I must abide by them. I left the Arabian industry for a number of years, as I didn't like what was being done in the name of showing. While not perfect, they have done an incredible turnaround, with new standards and ethics and I now chose again to be a part of making it even better. AZA was not formed by the friends of the Zoo, it was formed by professionals within the industry who were concerned. The state of Asian zoo's of old is well documented. I can't speak to Ueno Zoo today, but in 1981 it was far from world class.
Steve, Are you suggesting that the donated animals were anything more then old or difficult individuals, and the zoos or the forming of a new zoo offered an outlet for getting it off the feed bill?
Wade Burck
Posts
2 comments:
While I would certainly agree that AZA's position over the past twenty years concerning "animal rights" has been weak kneed, I've never bought the argument that zoos have somehow done "the circus" wrong. Historically the common ground between circus and zoos eroded as zoos improved husbandry and circuses did not. Certainly not every circus, but some. The animals we share the most common interest in are elephants. And elephants remain the bridge between the two institutions. But I would argue that so long as we tied camels to side of a truck for days at a time, or stake ponies to picket line rather than erecting fencing, or can't be bothered with the basics... We don't have much in common with zoos anymore. If we're looking to broaden our common ground again, we're going to have to clean up our own house first.
Ben
Wade - yes I am suggesting just that. While zoos have sometimes been our equivalent of your "southern solution" this is not always the case. And while, back in those days of mutual co-operation between zoos and circuses, there was a commercial consideration to many gifts, this was not necessarily a bad thing. It was just two businesses working for their mutual advantage. It was in the circus world's interest to have zoos breeding animals which could then go on to a circus career. I'm talking mainly cats, primates and some ungulates here. After their circus career they could then go back to a zoo and still be of breeding age - thus perpetuating the cycle of transactions.
This spirit of mutual co-operation has broken down partly for the reasons that Ben has outlined - but not wholly. It is true that zoos improved husbanry protocols more quickly than circuses a couple of decades ago. It is equally true [in this country] that circuses then got a move on and even overtook the zoos for a while. The circus industry developed it's own set of species specific husbandry Standards long before the zoo world did.
Unfortunately, while all this was happening, the zoo world became more and more dominated by academics who could not, or would not, recognise the advances made in circus animal husbandry. The end losers have been our animals.
Post a Comment