Saturday, September 26, 2009

A very open minded, honest Zoo review by Terry L. Stawar, Ed.D.

www.newzoo.org/.../34

The inhuman zoo

Although attendance is reportedly down a little, about 175 million people visit zoos annually. I have mixed feelings about these places, being both attracted and repelled by them.

They are undoubtedly fascinating, and perhaps even educational, but they also possess an uncomfortable resemblance to prisons, concentration camps and junior high schools. Sociologist Erving Goffman called such settings — “total institutions” — “places where all aspects of life are subordinated to the authorities of the organization.”

Most zoos define their mission as promoting education, research and conservation. And in these times of shrinking natural habitats, no one can dispute the worthiness of preserving biodiversity. Many zoos have marketed themselves as the equivalent to Noah’s ark, although some animal rights groups maintain that DNA banks may be a more realistic, cost effective and humane solution.

While I’m no animal rights fanatic — I eat meat, wear fur-lined gloves and have actually yelled at a dog or two in my life — I can understand advocates’ concerns about the exploitation of animals and their quality of life. And there remains the question about the necessity of exhibiting captive animals at all.

I was taken to the famous St. Louis Zoo often as a child and every spring my elementary school was transported there for the day. The big draw was the animal show, which rivaled any circus. The star attraction was a chimpanzee, Mr. Moke, who was billed as the world’s only talking chimpanzee.

Mr. Moke was the stage name for a East African chimp named Moko. I heard him actually say “no” and “momma,” although not very clearly. He was more adept at jumping through hoops and riding small bicycles to the delight of us third-graders. A curious thing happened to Mr. Moke in 1959. His former owner wanted him back and when the zoo refused to sell him, he abducted the chimp.

“Talking Chimpanzee Kidnapped!” read the enviable St. Louis headline and the story made the pages of Life Magazine. When the chimp was returned two years later, it was learned that during his absence, he had co-starred, incognito, in the Jerry Lewis movie, “The Bellboy.”

My wife, Diane, says that when she was a little girl, her mother would meow to the lions and tigers at the zoo and the big cats would answer her back. I remember my own father teasing the chimps and once they answered him back, by flinging excrement at him. It wasn’t quite the same.

Since that time, zoos have improved at lot, with their larger, natural-looking environments for animals. Early this summer, we visited the New Zoo outside of Green Bay, Wis., and I was impressed by how spacious it was. However, the small underfunded parks bother me.

We visited one of these facilities recently while on vacation. The small, shoddy cages and tiny exercise areas were sad. There was a lot of boredom-induced rocking and pacing, but I couldn’t help it, I was just anxious to return to our hotel room, which wasn’t much larger than the animal cages.

In this zoo, you could feed all of the animals, which didn’t seem right. Ponies would come right up to you and kick the fence repeatedly, demanding to be fed — like prisoners banging tin cups on the bars of their cells. There is something demeaning about a noble black bear being reduced to panhandling for peanuts.

Some animal rights group had unsuccessfully tried to get the chimpanzee in this park sent to a chimpanzee sanctuary in Florida. According to the park’s literature, the chimp was raised as a pet and thought of himself as a human. He might miss his favorite TV shows and human friends if placed in a sanctuary. We caught a glimpse of him — rocking back and forth.

There is always a temptation to anthropomorphize animals — imposing human motives and feelings to them. For example, the owner fed this chimp hamburgers and french fries, which I suspect is not part of its natural diet.

Time Magazine just reported that the Jane Goodall Institute is pressing for legislation to prohibit people from owning primates as pets.

Goodall says, “Very rarely can they [private individuals] give them a good life.”

Jeffrey Masson’s book, “When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals,” clearly demonstrates what anyone who has ever had a pet already knows, that animals are more than nonfeeling automations. But to consciously try to humanize them seems more for our amusement than for their benefit.

The Louisville Zoo is accredited, but fewer than 10 percent of the 2,400 animal exhibitors licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture have been surveyed by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or AZA. According to the AZA, accreditation increases public confidence that an institution meets standards; signifies excellence in animal care, conservation and education; and distinguishes accredited facilities from ‘roadside zoos.’”

I have always thought that the best of part of visiting the zoo was hauling around a toddler and pointing out the animals. Aside from this, however, how are zoos doing in their public education mission?

Dale Marcellini, a curator at the National Zoo, found that visitors’ conversations rarely dealt with the animals and when they did, the majority of comments were derogatory. The exhibits were simply background.

Most of the time in the zoo was taken up by walking — 60 percent — and eating — 10 percent — leaving less than a third of the total time for resting, using the bathroom, shopping and actually viewing animals.

Visitors averaged only eight seconds per snake and one minute looking at the lions.

In the London Times last year, primatologist Goodall described the Edinburgh Zoo’s new primate enclosure as a “wonderful facility,” saying that the animals are probably better off than those in the Congo, where they are commercially harvested for food.

However, in her more recent interview, she criticizes facilities where animals lack a proper social group. She believes such animals don’t have things to do and can’t educate anyone, because they don’t behave normally. You might as well look at a photo or a stuffed example ... because you won’t see any natural behavior.”

I remain conflicted, but I think I’ll at least stop visiting nonaccredited zoos, such as the one Diane and I saw upstate a few years ago. The lions and tigers were covered in sores and displayed those depressing stereotyped self-stimulating movements. Too bad we can’t teach those animals to say “no,” like Mr. Moke.

5 comments:

Jim A. said...

Good article, fair comments.

A little Moke background: Moke was sold to the STL Zoo so his trainer (don't remember his name) could buy a gorilla and train it. (You could do such things in the 1950s). The trainer did get back to the Zoo and "chimpnap" Moke. There was a long legal battle and Moke returned to star in the chimp show for a few years. He also appeared on Wild Kingdom with Marlin Perkins were he was called W.K. The STL Zoo chimp show drew great crowds and greatly helped the Zoo's fame and economy -- but it wasn't very educational. You could observe that chimps can wear clothes, ride bikes and ponies, and often near the end of the season the big ones start fights and don't want to work. Animal shows today, as a whole, are much better about have at least some educational component.

I'm just a part-time attraction host and certainly not a shill for the company but the way Disney presents animals at Animal Kingdom is far better than zoos of the past. There are hosts that give a few sentences of information (or more) about the animals as opposed to "hoping" guests will read the signs. Having people around not only provides information, it improves guests behavior (e.g., not yelling at animals). Several zoos have much the same system with good docents. It works, people don't have to read but they have to listen. Is it perfect, no. I tell new hosts on the Pangani Trail to consider that most guests went to Magic Kingdom and Epcot before they came here and they probably didn't come to hear about conservation. But if we do our part, along with great exhibits, we'll get a few more people interested in animals and their conservation. Zoos can still have a place.

Wade G. Burck said...

Jim,
Good honest,been there done that, stuff. There is a far greater competition for peoples attention and ultimately their funds today, and doing something different is the only way to be successful. There sure is a need for zoo's, and I think the great ones were helped a lot when there was a distinction made between "zoo" and "roadside zoo." That is just a sad fact of life that the great circus's were just never able to unlump themselves from.
What did W.K. stand for, do you know?
Wade

cwdancinfool said...

Wade, this is just a guess, but perhaps W.K. stood for Wild Kingdom?
Jeannie

Jim A. said...

Answer to the easy question: As suggested, W.K. stood for the show's title, Wild Kingdom. After Moke, as Jules Jacot would say, "tore-up his contract", he was replaced by Little Pierre. Pierre came from the Paris Zoo and was the star of the chimp show for years.

I have no answer for why great circuses could separate themselves from the "roadside" versions. Zoos started to separate themselves from their roadside cousins in the early 1970s. AZA watched over the Code of Ethics. Zoos also began to "police" themselves with accreditation. Circuses are more of a business. Most cities have only one zoo but several circuses (not counting other touring shows) may appear in the area. The Dollar played a larger role. I also thought that there's a benefit in letting people see your animals out of the ring. Ringling does that now in many cities. If people can't see the animals they usually assume the worst. Yes, many friends told me their animals are private property and they don't have to display them all the time (even though they provided good animal care). Many more factors as to why circuses missed the boat. There certainly isn't an easy answer to the circus problem. Maybe "just a day late and a dollar short."

Wade G. Burck said...

Jim and Jeannie,
Son of a gun. I assume it was the abbreviation for Wesley Kramer. I think you answered the "what happened" with the words "cousin" and "Code of Ethics" and "they don't have to". 1970 was about the time the animal rights movement started rocking and rolling. Being a newbie and fresh out of a town in 1976, I suggested to a generational circus animal trainer that we better keep an eye on these folks, and he scoffed because nobody could "tell them what to do, and they had done it this way for 150 years. There never was, or has been a serious suggestion of a standard/Code of Ethics. I feel it is because of the above mentality, and most everybody is "cousins". Zoo folks like Marlin Perkins, and others, may have drug their feet into the grave, if their uncle or cousin, sons or daughters were operating the road side zoos, that they wisely distanced themselves from. And you sure don't set a good example of "policing yourself" when you are protecting or revering bandits as shining examples of excellence. Most can see through that fallacy as they are not their "cousins".
Wade