Rambling Thoughts On Zoo Animal Collection

+Model
ZOOGA-3591; No. of Pages 14 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Zool. Garten N.F. xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

http://journals.elsevier.de/zooga
Rambling Thoughts on Zoo Animal Collection and

Conservation: A Historical Perspective
Gedankengänge zur Tierbestandentwicklung und zum
Naturschutz in zoologischen Gärten: Eine historische
Perspektive
Ken Kawata
23 Arielle Lane, Staten Island, NY 10314, USA
Received 28 January 2013
Abstract
Zoo animal collections have gone through a variety of changes in recent decades. While an increas-
ing number of species may be establishing self-sustainable populations, early specimens of some
animal groups were captured and transported in wasteful and unacceptable methods, a part of history
that should not be forgotten. Selection of species has shifted from individual to group decision-making
processes, reflecting a different type of personnel now in charge. The fact remains, however, that zoos
continue to present a popularity-driven, skewed representation of the animal kingdom to the public.
Wildlife conservation has been one of the main purposes for zoos as well as zoo associations, both in
Europe and America. In actuality, the concept of conservation is subject to individual interpretation
and this is where a clear definition of the zoos’ role could become rather vague. An important and
worthwhile task for zoos is conservation education. To counteract deep-rooted anthropomorphism in
the public’s mind is not easy, yet it is a necessary step to raise citizens’ environmental awareness. The
ultimate results of conservation education include changing daily habits, as well as participation in
grass-roots conservation movements, by citizens.
Keywords: Animal collection; Breeding; Captivity; Capture; Conservation; Education; Zoo history
Zoos have gone through rapid and far-ranging changes in the last several decades. Eye-
witnessing the changes in the midst of the metamorphosis, while working in zoos in the
United States as a keeper and curator, has provided a unique experience. Often, caught in
daily operational details, it is easy to lose sight of the entire spectrum of the profession,
as well as the flow and directions of the society. This account represents random views on
two major issues concerning today’s zoos, namely the animal collection and conservation.
E-mail address: Buteo007@aol.com
Please cite this article in press as: Kawata, K. Rambling Thoughts on Zoo Ani-
mal Collection and Conservation: A Historical Perspective. Zool. Garten N.F. (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zoolgart.2013.04.003
+Model
2 K. Kawata · Rambling Thoughts on Zoo Animal Collection and Conservation
It is by no means intended to be a thorough examination of the issues. For upgrading the

profession American zoos implemented landmark programs such as the accreditation plan
and ex situ conservation measures. The critical review of these subjects will respectfully be
left in the hands of future authors.
Animal Collection
Invisible veil
“Capturing wild animals is rape, robbery and crime,” a curator stated at a staff meeting
and he received an approving nod or two. It was at a zoo in Michigan in the 1990s. As they
spoke, ironically, those young staff members were standing on the shoulders of founders
removed from their home habitats and their descendants. An increasing number of species
has begun to attain self-sustaining populations, thus the curator may have assumed that
he could disassociate himself with the “dirty laundry” in the zoos’ collective closet. The
fact stands, however, that no founder stock “volunteered” to join the breeding program;
also, recruitment of wild animals is still a part of the long-term zoo animal management
in order to exchange genetic materials. “The size of any population at any given time is a
function of birth rate, death rate, emigration, and immigration. This is fundamental to any
consideration of demography. In terms of a zoological park, (1) immigration stands for an
acquisition from a sister institution or the wild, (2) emigration for the sale or trade of a
specimen.” (John Eisenberg, 1980; his paper was published during the pre-SSP era when
sale and trade were the norm.)
In fact, dealing with an animal fresh from the wild has become foreign in today’s zoos
with the discontinuation of large-scale importations of animals. Facing a tiger, captured as
an adult but not as a cub, would give a lasting impression, providing a glimpse of life in the
wild. Mabel Stark recalled a trip to a port to receive a tiger, still on a boat from India: “She
fought the cage so savagely that the sailors were afraid she would break out. . . She struck
again and again at the bars, half crazed with terror.” (Stark & Orr, 1940) Once, pinnipeds
were notorious for anorexia in captivity: “Very often a sea lion, after capture, will not eat for
as long as sixty days. Being used to catching its own fish live, the animal is extremely slow to
adapt to a change in environment.” (Bill Ballantine, 1958) With the disappearance of every
step like these the image of animals’ long journey from wilderness to captivity diminishes,
and along the way the invisible veil that separates us from nature’s way grows thicker and
heavier. Also along the way, as more animals are now zoo-born, comes complacency with
status quo.
But every now and then, a quick glance at our past will help us to at least attempt to lift
that veil. It may spoil a splendid dinner with colleagues if you bring up the topic to the
table, but it makes good exercise of minds. Take, for example, the great apes. A birth of a
gorilla no longer makes a big national headline but it was another story a mere six decades
or so ago. The dawn of the new day arrived for gorillas in captivity on 22 December 1956,
when Colo was born at Columbus Zoo, Ohio (Gibson, 2006); the magnitude and sensation
of the news were unimaginable today. However, the journey to Columbus was long and
brutal.
+Model
K. Kawata · Rambling Thoughts on Zoo Animal Collection and Conservation 3
Inconvenient history
C. Emerson Brown on gorillas in the native habitat: “A mother will fight to the death
in protecting her young, much as any human mother would do. . .” Citing another author
he noted: “a mother discovered in a tree with her young watched closely the movement of
the hunter, and, as he took aim, motioned with her hand in the same manner as a human
being would, to have him stop. . . .When wounded, gorillas have been described as trying
to stop the flow of blood by holding a hand over the spot.” (Brown, ca. 1931) Armand
Denis chronicled large-scale collection trips in Africa during WWII. Villagers prepared
themselves with spears and muzzle-loaders, stuffing the latter with nails, screws, nuts and
odd scraps of iron; they felled trees in the habitat for the hunt. In one hunting trip four
gorillas were killed and one infant was captured. Under difficult conditions Denis kept
adding, and assembled a total of 30 gorillas from a day-old infant to a 280-pound (127 kg)
male, with the hope that he would bring them back to Florida. Then a viral disease struck
the group, killing every one of them. (Denis, 1963)
Back to Brown, “Until 1923, few of the beasts had been brought into this country alive;
only five had been landed, and none lived for more than a year. Since then, for some unknown
reason, they have become more plentiful, until, by 1930, as I have said, there were five living
specimens in the various zoos of the United States. All were young, ranging from two to
about five years of age.” (Brown, ca. 1931) Across the Atlantic, in a book about London
Zoo Gertrude Gleeson said adult gorillas “seldom live long in captivity, as they refuse to eat.
The baby gorillas become very much attached to human beings they know, but, if they are
shipped to Europe in charge of strangers, they mope and almost invariably die of pneumonia
and misery a very few weeks after they reach our Zoo.” “Some day we may learn how to
acclimate young gorillas at our Zoo, but at present, when the babies are often captured from
the side of their dead mothers, fed on unsuitable foods and passed on from hand to hand by
dealers, it is unlikely that a gorilla will reach our Gardens in sufficiently good health and
spirits to survive for any length of time.” (Gleeson, 1933)
It would be comforting to suppose that great apes in other regions may have been collected
in humane and scientific methods and received sufficient care. But early accounts on the
orangutan are equally bleak. Killing mothers appeared to be the norm: “The mother orang-
utan makes desperate efforts to save its baby. Even when mortally wounded, and with blood
gushing from its mouth, it will fling itself onwards over the tops of trees and from branch to
branch, throwing the baby onward, in hopes of placing the baby out of reach of its pursuers.
She continues these tactics so long as she possesses an ounce of strength; then, turning for
a moment to gaze after her young, reels and topples down, head foremost, to the ground.”
(Gleeson citing a French traveler, 1933) But occasionally adults were also taken.
Charles Mayer vividly documented how a segment of a forest was felled as far as sixty
feet (18 m) on all sides around a pair until they were isolated on a tree, then fire was set
on foliage; “The orang-outangs (sic), high up in the tree, were huddled, swaying back and
forth.” The escaping apes were driven into nets, and how they fought: “A huge paw shot
out and grabbed my ankle. I was jerked off the ground, and, as I fell, my hands caught
the limb of a tree. . .” Antwerp Zoo offered $10,000 for each orang; Mayer knew he could
get offers of $25,000 or more in the United States but orangs would not survive the long
voyage. “From the moment the steamer headed on to sea, the orang-outangs began to fail.
+Model
They became deathly seasick, especially the female, and refused food...she had seemed so
human in her suffering!” She died; the male made it to Marseilles, was rushed to Antwerp
Zoo where he died 10 days later (Mayer, 1920). Frank Buck told a similar story of an adult
male. The orang arrived at Hong Kong then to Yokohama, Japan in good condition. Five
days off San Francisco toward another port he developed dysentery and died; he and the
cage were tossed into the sea (Buck, 1930).
Their fate at zoos, if lucky to survive the trip, hardly fared better. Based on records at
Philadelphia: “Success in breeding orang-utans lies partially, at least, in the ability to secure
a good mature pair. Young specimens, according to my observation and records, seldom
live to be old enough to breed. Of all the immature specimens purchased by us during the
fifty years of the gardens’ existence, not one has lived to be more than six years of age. The
parents of the two mentioned above were purchased when fully adult.” (Brown, ca. 1931)
As late as the 1960s Barbara Harrison noted, “Those taken captive frequently died before
they reached their intended zoos. Of the survivors, less than one in five survived more than
three years’ captivity, though an Orang’s normal expectation of life is at least twenty-five
years,” adding that the mortality rate “is much the same today.” (Harrison, 1962)
History is often inconvenient, as shown in these cases. If we bring in today’s popular
terminology, i.e., moral and ethics, into the scene we would have voted against wasteful
and inefficient capture and transport methods, yet we cannot put all the blame on our
predecessors and wash our hands. For that was how the founders of our great apes were
delivered to us. In other words today’s healthy, well-adapted apes stand on heaps of dead
conspecific; untold numerous lives perished during capture, transport and after the arrival
at our door. Adding up all these, we owe so much to nature; we are in immense debt,
and there is little consolation that success in breeding in recent decades would atone for
the atrocity committed upon them. Success stories, in this context, are bound to become
a mulling subtext. Nevertheless, we have to face this stain in history. Amnesia or worse,
willful ignorance, will not get us anywhere; although the first reflex is to ignore, our past
cannot be expiated. Also important is to realize that onslaught still continues on great apes
by way of deforestation and poaching for bushmeat out of sight of affluent societies, a reality
that needs to be told to our audience.
Obsession with angwantibo
Turning a critical eye on the distant past is easy. Yet, occasionally we ought to examine
today’s scorecards as well. The above issues focus on great apes, among the most popular
zoo animal groups along with large carnivores (e.g. big cats, bears) and large herbivores (e.g.
elephants, rhinos, giraffes), the so-called “ABC animals”. Without them the public would
not accept us as a zoo. When we intensely focus on one subject, the “spotlight effect” erases
all others from the radar. Step back a moment from the immediate subject, then a different
perspective dawns upon us. An example: We take the term a zoological park (or garden) for
granted, and rarely ask what “zoological” really means.
Interpreted literally, zoological is an adjective meaning “relating to zoology,” which refers
to a branch of biology that deals with animals. Animals consist of a vast world from amoeba
to us. As noted above, zoo animal collections are dominated by ABC animals, all of them
+Model
mammals, making zoos a mammalocentric entity. Yet mammals occupy only a fraction,
4,000 or so species out of the estimated total of five to ten million species in the animal
kingdom. The ABC-type mammals, representing a popularity-driven assemblage, make up
a very small minority even within mammals (Kawata, 2011a). Another large part of zoo
collections is birds, and they are typically recognized by the likes of penguins, raptors,
ratites and psittacines. In view of world’s birds, they also constitute a minority among bird
species. Missing or poorly represented are Procellariiformes (tube-nosed), Apodiformes
(swifts, hummingbirds), Piciformes (woodpeckers and allies) and to top it off, the largest of
all, Passeriformes (perching birds) that occupies 60% of all bird species. To sum up, zoos
exhibit an extremely skewed representation of the animal world.
And herein lies a built-in dilemma. The reality of business dictates that zoos need the
public-drawing power of ABC mammals to ensure gate revenue for the institutional well-
being and survival, even though we offer unbalanced examples of the animal kingdom. Baby
animals are particularly appealing to the populace, and predictably a website features new-
born animals from the world’s zoos and aquariums. The site receives a million hits monthly,
and the only requirement to be included on the site is “cuteness”. (Anon., 2011) This
indicates that, hard to resist as it may be, if we are not careful zoos begin to borrow superficial,
inflated and marketable elements from the animal world and that is one side of the story. On
the other hand, conservation is the common currency for zoo professionals, and the desirable
conceptual image of a zoo projects a perfect concentric circle with the dot, conservation, in
the dead center. Although the two components, financial and economical and conservational,
may not be mutually exclusive, an impression remains that zoos are being pulled toward two
different directions. In that sense, zoos represent a bifocal ellipse rather than a perfect circle
(Kawata, 2011b). This is not to argue against featuring baby animals, since they embody
success stories of captive breeding and that helps the conservation cause. The point, however,
is there exists the tendency to place marketability above all, thereby treating the general
public as consumers instead of citizens; we need a balance.
Back to the animal collection, selection of animals used to be the domain of zoo directors.
They lived in a dream bubble to pursue rarity, blessed with imagination. As Gerald Durrell
asserted: “There are only two ways to find out about how an animal lives, and what its habits
are: one is to study it in the wilds and the other is to keep it in captivity.” He continued:
“That is why I thought it was more important to bring back an animal that had never been
seen alive in captivity, even if it was only a species of mouse, than to bother over-much
with the larger and better-known animals.” He seemed almost obsessed with angwantibo,
a prosimian from Cameroon. During an expedition in that exotic land, one day a hunter
brought him a green basket, and when Durrell peered inside his colleague and the hunter
“thought I had gone mad.” (Durrell, 1953) It was an angwantibo in the green basket, and
Durrell’s passion, joy and excitement were genuine and infectious. Acquisition of such
animals can lead to pioneering work to establish captive care protocol, to pave a way for
husbandry and scientific endeavors.
Collectors’ days are gone now, and rarity is no longer in vogue. Zoo world recognized
the need for captive propagation as a part of global conservation strategy, and the car-
rying capacity of zoos of the world was (still is) painfully limited. With conservation
serving as the standard-bearer of zoos, precious captive space was to be devoted to species
management programs. With the dawn of the new millennium approaching, a number of
+Model
articles on collection planning was published in the United States, revealing guidelines
for institutional, regional and national strategies. Acronyms became a part of zoo life,
for example: IUCN/SSC, IUDZG, CBSG, AZA, CITES, SSP, EEP, TAG, MK, ISIS, ICP,
CAMP, GCAP, RCP, GASP and REGASP. On ICP (institutional collection planning) Bruce
Read defined five steps: purpose and how; stakeholders; level of understanding; brain-
storming and revisit the plan. (Read, 1999) Moreover, “In our view, every taxon maintained
by a zoo should have a justification for being in the collection and we further support
The World Zoo Conservation Strategy‘s [IUDZG and IUCN/SSC CBSG, 1993] proposal
that every individual animal be justifiable as well.” (Michael Hutchins, Kevin Willis and
Robert J. Wiese, 1995) As collections are being shaped by group decision making by com-
mittees, the top-down style, with a singular individual choosing species, rapidly became
anachronistic.
An unavoidable outcome of this operational model is the uniformity of zoo animal collec-
tions across the land. Zoos began to acquire animals from populations managed by national
groups and soon, they filled exhibits with a similar set of species, rarely venturing out for
new species and sources. As a result visitors see ring-tailed lemurs nearly everywhere;
lion-tailed macaques are so common, while there are other macaque species such as rhesus,
pig-tailed, Taiwan, stump-tailed and crab-eating that few visitors have the opportunity to
see. The trend is not limited to the United States.
A. C. van Bruggen observed the London Zoo over the decades: “From the late sixties
I was an almost annual visitor so that I personally witnessed the enormous changes that
have resulted in what is now left of the former glories. Let me state first of all that I was
trained, and worked almost my whole life, as a taxonomist so that my main interest is in
the diversity of the Animal Kingdom. However, the zoo of today is (rightly or wrongly)
no longer interested in showing biodiversity. . .” To conclude: “Gone are the days that all
major vertebrate groups were represented in their stunning diversity in the major zoological
gardens of the world. . .” (van Bruggen, 2005) In the mainstream American zoos “taxonomic
exhibit system” is a dirty word. Using today’s thinking the old-style zoo would be accused,
justifiably or not, as a place of exploiting wildlife, where wild-caught animals were crowded
into cages and lived short lives. The aforementioned accounts on great apes are quite grim,
easily giving us the spotlight effect that leads us to assume that past was all bad. Yet all
this should be taken in the context of history; all was not that grim, according to Clinton
Keeling.
He commented: “Most zoological gardens and parks today bear very little resemblance to
their counterparts of yesterday and their husbandry methods have undergone an even greater
transformation. It is, however, an all-too-common mistake to follow the current trend and
dismiss these early institutions as virtual concentration camps for animals in which the vast
majority lived brief and unhappy lives. In fact, a great many species did extremely well,
bred freely and, in some cases, set world longevity records which are still unsurpassed. The
much maligned Jardin des Plantes in Paris compiled an impressive array of longevity records
during the closing decades of the last century.” (Keeling, 1989) Also, Dr. van Bruggen’s
recollections have a valid point: diversity in collections has been lost from zoos. Zoos now
offer limited animal-viewing experience to the visitors, with few chances to watch different
sizes, shapes, colors or behaviors within the same group of animals, be it guenons, pheasants
or rattlesnakes.
+Model
Off the center stage?
Continuing on the examination of zoo scorecards, one of the pleasures of studying zoos is
to sit down and go over animal data, records and statistics. A quiet afternoon of immersing
yourself into such materials helps to enrich your mind and recharge your battery. In order to
do so, you must first have accessibility to a body of knowledge. Inconveniently, somewhere
in recent decades vital information on animal collections began to stay beyond our reach. For
instance the International Zoo Yearbook, published by the Zoological Society of London,
was once known as “the zoo man’s Bible”. It had a wealth of data on animals and zoos.
However “I stopped subscribing when the list of the world’s zoos and aquaria began to be
published only every other year. . . At some point, apparently, the census of rare animals and
the list of animals bred in captivity disappeared altogether.” (Herman Reichenbach, 2010)
Until the list of animal births appeared for the last time in the 1996 issue, a researcher was
able to compile the history of captive breeding of a certain animal group; it was a gold mine.
An example is a massive review of hummingbirds in captivity, with a table of world-wide
zoo breeding records from 1959 through that year (Lindholm, 2007).
As for AAZPA/AZA, Bob Truett once categorized AAZPA member institutions into four
groups in terms of the animal collection size, such as “Category A consists of zoos which
have about 2,000 specimens or more, of which at least 1,500 are tetrapods of at least 300
species. Category B consists of zoos which have about 1,000 specimens or more including
at least 750 tetrapods of at least 200 species” and so forth (Truett, 1970). It was a quick
reference source, at least enabling us to figure out a zoo in your mind. Four decades later,
American zoos now seem to be measured in terms of money they have, but not animals (e.g.
AZA Communique May 2005, p. 5). All these seem to indicate that animals have become
a mere abstraction in the zoos’ business world, data on animal collections were no longer
relevant and also, the animal collection no longer commands a center stage in the national
zoo arena.
No zoo is an isolated island, and what goes on in zoos may reflect the society we live
in. Specifically, it may refer to the trends in academia, albeit indirectly and also, the type
of persons entering zoo employment today. Aforementioned Dr. van Bruggen brought up
taxonomy, a discipline old-school zoo workers are familiar and comfortable with along
with natural history. The mainstream biology is now dominated by molecular biology, and
there exists “a huge elitist prejudice against natural history and for microbiology”, Richard
Louv quotes Paul Dayton, who also said: “the explicit goal of the new philosophy of mod-
ern university science education is to get the ‘ologies’—invertebrate zoology, ichthyology,
mammalogy, ornithology, and herpetology—‘back in the nineteenth century where they
belong’.” Dayton also noted, “In a few years there will be nobody left to identify several
major groups of marine organisms.” (Louv, 2006) In a recent research institute website,
there was a job announcement for Computational Biologist (a title inconceivable a gener-
ation or two ago), whose work involves “the evolution and control of cellular systems”.
(Anon., 2012) For sure, organismic aspects have been pushed aside from the mainstay of
the biological science.
Louv also points out the trend of today’s children growing up indoors, away from nature
about which he coined a term “nature-deficit disorder.” In the generations past, many chil-
dren ventured out to woods, climbed on trees just to take a look around or hunted little
+Model
creatures, or waded into a stream to look for frogs. Among them were those who devoured
natural history books with insatiable curiosity. They were fascinated by creatures with
exotic names such as kakapo, tuatara, quetzal, okapi, indri and sifaka from far-away lands.
Aforementioned Gerald Durrell must have been mesmerized by an obscure small animal
with a funny name like angwantibo from the African jungle, from early years. That type of
young people often ended up in zoos, and although they may not have had formal higher
education, some of them turned out to be practical achievers and problem solvers in animal
collection management, forming a basic work force. Some of them managed to climb up
the ladder to the top.
In 1969 a zoo exhibit designer attended an AAZPA conference, and he must have expe-
rienced a culture shock. The program “was mainly about animals. . . Those people were
‘animal people’,” he observed: “Collecting was the passion of most zoo directors and the
favorite subject of informal conversation was rare and exotic species hoped for or recently
acquired.” (Jack Jones, 1994) Time has changed, and they (nearly all of them men) have
joined the rank of an endangered species. A different and new breed of persons, armed
with advanced degrees, is in the driver’s seat and conversely, we see few old-style “animal
people” in the upper hierarchy of zoos. The fact still stands, however, that without a healthy
and solid animal collection, a zoo would have no structure in order to plan its missions,
including wildlife conservation.
Conservation
A blueprint for zoos
The United States was a late starter regarding the birth of the modern zoo due to the
young age of the country, and partly because of American Civil War (1961-1965). Influential
hunter-conservationists, closely connected to those early years, played a role. In January
1888 the Boone & Crockett Club was organized in New York, with Theodore Roosevelt as
its president. The objectives of the Club included: inquiry into and recording of observations
on the natural history of wild animals, and preservations of forest regions. . .as nurseries
and reservations for woodland creatures which else would die out before the march of
settlement. Roosevelt took charge: “Among his first acts was to appoint a Committee on
Parks, which was instrumental in the creation of the National Zoo in Washington” in 1889.
(Morris, 1979) William Hornaday also “envisioned a conservation center in which herds
of endangered species, such as the bison, could live. . .” (Morgan, 1989) For the New York
Zoological Society, the operator of the Bronx Zoo (opened 1899), stated “The declared
objects of the Society are three in number—‘A public Zoological Park; the preservation
of our native animals; the promotion of zoology.”’ (Hornaday, 1918) Out West, Zoological
Society of San Diego, the operator of the Zoo (opened in 1916), also stated as The Purpose of
the Society: “1. To advance sincere and scientific study of nature. 2. To foster and stimulate
interest in the conservation of wild life.” (Anon., 1916)
A global commitment to conservation by a zoo association may be traced to the Inter-
national Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens, or IUDZG. European zoo directors
met regularly, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century and IUDZG was officially founded
+Model
in 1946. In the following year its first Constitution was approved in Basel. In Article 2,
among the objectives of this Union was to “promote zoological research in the widest sense
and also the protection of the world’s fauna.” While cities still lay in ashes and ruins from
WWII, in 1948 collaboration with international conservation and museum organizations
was discussed in Paris, where it was documented: “Taking account of the growing inter-
est in nature conservation, the justification for zoos can be found only in the educational,
conservational and research aspects, just as in the case of museums.” (Walter K. van den
Bergh, 1973)
Back to this side of the Atlantic Ocean, the view of zoos’ mission gradually expanded
from preservation of the nation’s fauna to a global level. “In 1980 the Board of Directors
of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) voted unan-
imously at their midyear meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma to make wildlife conservation the
Association’s highest priority. With this action began the development of the extensive
efforts now underway to reach this goal. . . .The foundation of AAZPA Conservation Pro-
gram is the Species Survival Plan (SSP).” (Robert Wiese and Michael Hutchins, 1992) The
scope of zoos’ work has since been continuously discussed. More recently, John Fraser and
Dan Wharton (2007) define five areas for conservation work; meanwhile William Conway
(2010), the key spokesman for zoos, takes a more realistic viewpoint, reviewing the path
taken by zoos in this colossal endeavor, and points to future directions.
Deﬁning the boundary
Although the goals and scope of work have been addressed by many authors, the term
conservation is subject to interpretation by each individual. There should be a unified front
for carrying out the task by the middle management, as well as the ground level workers in
public relation, education, marketing and animal care. In one aspect, at its core, conservation
should refer to activities to ensure survival of population(s) or a taxon in the natural habi-
tat without continuous human interventions. Taking that view on consideration, questions
remain for zoos: What does conservation mean to zoos after all? Does captive breeding
of endangered species itself constitute conservation, a part of it or a support practice as
a safeguard against extinction? Can self-sustaining captive populations be maintained for
many species? Shouldn’t invertebrates, although less appealing to the public, require atten-
tion as mammals do? The cognitive model of conservation can get murky, as sprawling
and non-focused ideas seep into daily work. Conservation, then, could turn into a self-
fulfilling prophesy, a euphemistic abstraction for immediate gratification. Eager souls may
conveniently cast a net on ambiguous areas, but that would eclipse the focus.
In a zoo in Illinois, a building for amphibians was labeled Conservation Center; in another
zoo in this state, an elevated observation platform, from where the public looked down at
cheetahs, was titled Conservation Deck, not far from a children’s area called “Petting Zoo”.
(Pers. observ., 2010) From these the public may assume conservation means merely placing
an animal in captivity. One day in a zoo in Missouri, a man (who remains anonymous) who
began work in 1960 observed younger colleagues (e-mail, 2003): “We often discuss how the
animal keepers and staff appear to perceive the visitors. I think we fit into the ‘modern AZA’
attitude that we’re conservationists and the public is welcome if they don’t get in the way of
+Model
our ‘important work’. I’m sure it’s really not that extreme on the whole but the extremists
are not frowned upon in lunchroom conversations.” In reviewing a book Animals in the
Blood Nick Gould notes, “Most . . .readers, probably, are broadly in favour of the changes
that have taken place to zoos in the last half-century. But many will feel an uneasy suspicion
that the pendulum has swung too far.” He talks about “an age when the conservation ethos
and the demands on international breeding plans had not imposed their uniformity on so
many collections, when safety barriers were not compulsory, when visitors were allowed
(even at Jersey!) to feed many animals. . .” (Gould, 2012)
Nostalgia aside, reversing the trend is inconceivable and we must make the most of our
day. As an idea for zoo function, “We live in a world that is disconnected, isolated and
insulated from the wild. We must, in the final analysis, connect people with plants and
animals in a way that makes us care for all living things. That must be our mandate for the
future.” (Jeffery Bonner, 2002) Thus conservation education becomes, perhaps arguably,
the most vital function for zoos today, and that puts us facing a set of challenges.
In the urban society, the public’s “experience” with animals is largely limited to caring for
household pets and watching nature’s images on the screen. Too often, wildlife films have
become an entertaining art; images are manipulated, intensified, dramatized and fictional-
ized, thus distorting reality; “story is king, and science its servant,” asserts Derek Bouse.
His example: African lions often spend up to twenty hours a day at rest. “In a one-hour
(fifty-two minute) wildlife film for television this would amount to forty-two minutes of
relative inactivity—true to nature perhaps, but anathema to distributors, broadcasters, and
advertisers. Such a film would surely induce mass channel-changing even among viewers
who might be content to sit and watch the same lions for forty-two minutes from a Kenyan
tourist van. . .” Such a production will be considered “bad television” and therefore, bad
business. And “it is not surprising that a common complaint heard in national parks is that
the animals don’t seem to do anything; they just lie there.” (Bouse, 2000) Nature may appear
so familiar, yet so far and the crowds cast the same expectations upon zoos.
Eco-soap? Lesson from Knut
Also in an urban society, the concept of an “animal” is developed, from early childhood,
through emotional attachment to individual pets, dogs in particular. Citizens are bound to
perceive wild animals as an extension of their beloved pets that are totally cut off from
nature. Consequently, their capacity to comprehend nature’s intricacy stays quite limited.
Even the mass media imagery provides a snapshot of nature’s crises, such as clear-cutting
of tropical rainforests or rapidly receding polar ice caps. For the populace, these images
are viewed as just another type of soap opera with no real connection to breathing, furred,
feathered and scaled creatures; we might call it ecology soap opera, or eco-soap. In order for
zoos to convey concepts such as biodiversity and ecosystem to the public, it is essential that
the audience be receptive to the message. As Sue Dale Tunnicliffe puts it, “to plan effective
interpretation, it is necessary to start with the visitors and the knowledge that they bring
with them to the zoo because visitors pay attention to and comment about that which attracts
them and they recognize, which matches with their personal mental model.” (Tunnicliffe,
1998) Yet, the average zoo visitor does not appear to be equipped with mental (or cognitive)
+Model
model, knowledge and sensitivity to an animal’s environmental components, in order to

understand the above concepts.
Knut was a polar bear, born in Berlin Zoo in 2006. Orphaned and hand-raised, he became a
news media phenomenon dubbed “Knutmania.” With immense media coverage catapulting
his status into a global celebrity, his presence began to vividly illustrate the central conflict
between conservation philosophy and the public’s perception of a wild animal. “The sec-
retary of state for the environment, Sigmar Gabriel, adopted Knut as a symbol for nature
conservation, but the public mostly ignored the symbolism. Neither the zoo nor the political
powers were able to use Knut effectively for this important purpose. The people and the
journalists were not interested in the stories about global warming, thin and hungry Polar
bears and melting pack ice, they wanted Knut and his keeper Doerflein to be two beings
living together in harmony. So the story left the realms of natural history and became a
modern fairy tale; Knut and Doerflein seemed to live together like the lion and the lamb
in the Garden of Eden.” Knut died suddenly in 2011 but the saga continues. “The story of
Knut illustrates the danger of personalisation with animals.” (Harro Strehlow, 2012)
He was more than a bear. Heini Hediger said it all: “The mania of anthropomorphism
is generally widespread and unbelievably deep-rooted in the public; it is one of the most
important and worthwhile tasks of the zoological garden to counteract this attitude to animals
because it leads to a total misunderstanding of the animal and thereby quite frequently
to animal torture. There can be no animal protection without knowledge of animals and
humanizing is a main obstacle on the road to knowledge.” (Hediger, 1970) Given the
intensity of anthropomorphism by the public and the power of news media, zoos of the
world face a daunting task ahead.
The public becomes serious when their emotion gets roused; news of animal abuse,
cruelty, suffering, killing or rescue will get them out of the comfort of the living room.
Conversely, the story of declining polar ice cap does not prompt them for action even
though beautiful and magnificent polar bears may be suffering, starving and dying, all
of which taking place out of sight. Extinction of another species will generate a passing
reaction, “Oh, poor thing. . .” It all goes back to the cognitive model. Once that model is
established, the person will realize that passively admiring beautiful animals alone is far
too inadequate for wildlife conservation. Instead, it calls for action to make things happen,
such as influencing the public policy making process. If that is the ultimate outcome of
conservation education, how can zoos nurture the cognitive model in the citizens’ mind?
There is no simple or easy formula and it will no doubt take an almost evangelical zeal to
even start the process.
Toward grass-roots movement
Actions for wildlife conservation take many forms. Here follows a sample menu for
ordinary citizens. One of them is to engage in the political system for promoting the type of
change, from more funds and support for the local zoo, protection of tropical rainforests to
banning importation of products made from endangered species. Writing letters to elected
officials will be a start. Ironically, working on the political system is the strategy which
the news media-savvy anti-captivity advocacy organizations employ effectively. They run
+Model
campaigns to fight against circuses and zoos. Circus fans take up the cause to counter-
campaign, yet we see no surge of pro-zoo movements or campaigns. Letters may also be
sent to news media, such as the headquarter offices of television stations and newspapers,
to encourage them to advocate for wildlife conservation.
Net-working is also important. Joining zoo-support groups and legitimate nature conser-
vation organizations is one way to show your willingness to help wildlife. As an additional
step, you might consider donating funds for worthy causes and volunteering for various
programs. Just one word of advice—use every caution in choosing organizations, and to
stay away from those heavily focused on romanticism, emotionalism for individual animals,
and gearing toward radical, illegal and military strategies. No matter how appealing their
plea may sound, you may be wasting time and money by careless choices.
Something anyone can do while staying home: Examine daily habits and modify them
as necessary. Conservation can mean changing people’s behavior, for instance, to curb the
march of excessive consumerism in affluent nations. The familiar phrase, “Reduce, reuse,
recycle” comes to mind for helping to reduce natural resource consumption. An example:
Water is renewable for which we take granted, yet we can look for a better way to utilize
it. On Lisbon’s waterfront stands the fabulous Oceanario. Stepping inside, a sign greets
visitors: “The Oceanario’s mission is to promote the knowledge of the oceans, inspiring
the public for the protection of natural resources through changing its daily habits.” Not far
from the entrance is a model of a kitchen, exhibiting water usage. (Pers. observ., 2010) This
is as basic and as simple as it can get; our daily activities begin in the kitchen to prepare for
breakfast, where a conservation process may begin. (One of the most urgent approaches to
conservation is to manage the ever-increasing human population on a global basis. However,
that issue is beyond the scope of this account.) So much can be done at home, and that takes
us back to writing letters.
Letter-writing has none of the novelty of cuddling exotic animals. It is a non-glamorous,
monotonous, tedious undertaking, yet a necessary part of a grass-roots movement. A decade
or two ago when I was on the committee for the Mexican wolf recovery program I once
attended a citizen’s group meeting. It was in Arizona and we (mostly zoo staff) were taken to
a small conference room of a museum at night. The recovery program was facing difficulties,
financial and political. This small meeting was attended by housewives, students and other
concerned citizens. A middle-aged woman called the meeting and led the discussion. “Write
to your congressman and senators,” she stressed, “. . .and express your concern, tell them
how important it is to save the wolves! Just one letter may not do much, you might think,
but we must keep sending them letters. Unless we get into the political arena, there is NO
victory.” Wolves and “man’s best friend” belong to the same genus Canis, and wolves can
be just as adorable, cute and cuddly. Yet during this meeting, I never heard such adjectives
being uttered. It was an eye-opener, as I sat and witnessed the citizens’ grass-roots movement
in action.
Cast thy bread upon the waters
Modern zoos have been around for roughly two centuries. The river of history continues
to flow with varying width, depth, volume and speed, making turns every now and then,
+Model
sharp or gradual, through good times and bad. The last half-century has seen another turn,
characterized by shifts and changes described in this account. Internally, however, the oper-
ational aspects of a zoo remain basically unchanged, unaffected by the rapid transformation.
A preferred profile of a zoo may be summarized by three criteria, not necessarily in the order
of importance: That animals are well cared for with their records accurately chronicled; for
employees it is a comfortable and worthwhile workplace; and the visiting public enjoys the
visits, and hopefully learns something about the animals.
Externally, throughout the years, a zoo’s position in our increasingly urbanized society
has also been consistent with the three premises, regardless of its mission or purpose of
the time: No other institution keeps an assemblage of a wide variety of live wild animals
as a zoo; it is open to the public; and thirdly, the zoo offers the populace the only contact
with those animals. Although the position stands firm, we have inherited an often nagging
contradiction: Zoos introduce wild animals, a component of nature, to the public while
confining them in captivity. Debates continue, as some animal advocates intend to push
zoos into gradual irrelevancy. As William Conway once observed: “Inevitably, zoos will be
caught up in the controversy between those who would rather be certain that an individual
animal dies well than that an entire species survives at all; between those who believe
it better for animals to die in the ‘dignity’ that comes from pesticide poisoning, random
shooting, and habitat destruction than to survive in captivity through knowledge and care.
Somehow, it will be necessary to secure a synthesis of the ideas of people who ascribe rights
to animals and people who ascribe responsibilities to man.” (Conway, 1980)
The task of caring for wild animals requires a serious personal commitment. Many in
this profession must have asked a question, late at night in bed: Can we justify taking wild
animals into our hands, subjecting them to a variety of potential risks from vandalism,
national political turmoil, natural disasters to wars, regional and world-wide? In the search
for an answer, bringing up religion may not be permissible, or even objectionable. One of
the potential answers, however, may be found in the time-tested wisdom in the Scripture:
“Cast thy bread upon the waters, for after many days you will ﬁnd it again.” (Ecclesiastes
11:1) It calls for people to know that their good deeds will eventually benefit them. The
lesson for us: Wildlife is a vital component of our world, and that is precisely the reason
why zoos take them into the flow of living history, bringing them closer to the people. We
hope that it will lead to an assurance that wildlife will continue to share this Planet with us,
for millennia to come.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express appreciation to Dr. William Conway for his encouragement to
compile my thoughts into this essay.
References
Anon. (1916). An unpublished internal document, San Diego.
Anon. (2011). AZA benefits from new-born zoo animals. Int. Zoo News, 387, 126.
+Model
Anon. (2012). http://www.stowers.org/careers

Ballantine, B. (1958). Wild Tigers & Tame Fleas. New York.
Bonner, J.P. (2002). The president’s letter. Zudus 17(2, 3), Mar/Apr.
Bouse, D. (2000). Wildlife Films. Philadelphia.
Brown, C. E. (ca. 1931). My Animal Friends. New York.
Buck, F., & Anthony, E. (1930). Bring’em Back Alive. New York: Garden City.
Conway, W. C. (1980). New conservation perspective. In AAZPA 1980 Annual Conference Proceedings (pp.
30–38).
Conway, W. G. (2010). Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo Biol., 29, 1–8.
Denis, A. (1963). On Safari. New York.
Durrell, G. (1953; reissue 1987). The overloaded ark. London.
Eisenberg, J. F. (1980). Zoo and aquarium animal management in relation to conservation. In AAZPA 1980
Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 39–41).
Fraser, J., & Wharton, D. (2007). The future of zoos: a new model for cultural institutions. Curator: The Museum
Journal, 50(1), 41–54.
Gibson, A. (2006). Something to celebrate at Columbus Zoo. Int. Zoo News, 353, 470–473.
Gleeson, G. (1933). London Zoo:. New York.
Gould, N. (2012). Book review. Int. Zoo News, 397, 482–484.
Harrison, B. (1962). Orang-utan. New York: Garden City.
Hediger, H. (1970). Man and Animal in the Zoo. London.
Hornaday, W.T. (1918). Popular Official Guide to the New York Zoological Park (fifteenth edition). New York.
Hutchins, M., Willis, K., & Wiese, R. J. (1995). Strategic collection planning: theory and practice. Zoo Biol., 14,
5–25.
Jones, J. (1994). Reactive past—responsive future. Zootrend, 5(4), 1–3.
Kawata, K. (2011a). Romancing the celluloid nature: a review of American zoo exhibits, part I. Zool. Garten N.F.,
80, 239–253.
Kawata, K. (2011b). Of circus wagons and imagined nature: a review of American zoo exhibits, part II. Zool.
Garten N.F., 80, 352–365.
Keeling, C. (1989). Cages and common sense: early animal keeping. In abstracts and biographies of the participants,
the history and evolution of the modern zoo. Washington, DC.
Lindholm, J. (2007). The aviculture of hummingbirds: a historical perspective. In Proceedings of the 4th Interna-
tional Conference on Breeding of Birds in Captivity Toronto,
Louv, R. (2006). Last Child in the Woods. North Carolina.
Mayer, C. (1920). Trapping Wild Animals in Malay Jungles. New York: Garden City.
Morgan, A. (1989). The 1880s: an idea is born. Zoogoer, 18(3), 4–6.
Morris, E. (1979). The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. New York.
Read, B. (1999). Institutional collection planning (ICP) and the purpose of developing one for an institution. In
AZA Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 69–74), 1999.
Reichenbach, H. (2010). Book review. Int. Zoo News, 381, 224–226.
Stark, M., & Orr., G. (1940). Hold That Tiger. Idaho: Caldwell.
Strehlow, H. (2012). Knut—a cautionary tale. Int. Zoo News, 396, 406–407.
Truett, B. (Ed.). (1970). Zoos & Aquariums in the Americas. AAZPA.
Tunnicliffe, S. D. (1998). Everyday zoo animals—mental models of children in England and the USA. In AZA
Regional Conference Proceedings (pp. 604–608), 1998.
van Bruggen, A.C. (2005). Half a century ago: visits to the Zoological Society Gardens, London, 1947-1955-1958.
Bartlett Society Newsletter/Britain Jan, Mar, May, July, Sep, 22-24.
van den Bergh, W.K. (1973). An IUDGZ internal document.
Wiese, R. J., & Hutchins, M. (1992). The AAZPA conservation program: there is a method to our madness.
AAZPA Conservation Resource Guide. AAZPA.

Rambling Thoughts On Zoo Animal Collection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rambling Thoughts On Zoo Animal Collection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rambling Thoughts On Zoo Animal Collection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

+Model

ZOOGA-3591; No. of Pages 14 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Zool. Garten N.F. xxx (2013) xxx–xxx

Rambling Thoughts on Zoo Animal Collection and

Received 28 January 2013

E-mail address: Buteo007@aol.com

It is by no means intended to be a thorough examination of the issues. For upgrading the

Obsession with angwantibo

Off the center stage?

A blueprint for zoos

Deﬁning the boundary

Eco-soap? Lesson from Knut

model, knowledge and sensitivity to an animal’s environmental components, in order to

Toward grass-roots movement

Cast thy bread upon the waters

Anon. (2012). http://www.stowers.org/careers

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.