Outdated morality and ethical standards in zoos professionals of the past

[Olivia Dunnage-O'Neill]

(MODERATOR NOTE: post split from an obituary of Molly Badham which was "bumped" after several years by a newly registered member as below)

Her work with the PG Tips chimps should not be commended. My dad worked at Chessington and London Zoo with primates for a number of years, and one of his closest friends/colleagues headed primates at Twycross. I was hearing from him the other day that she could be quite cruel behind closed doors. He would head into work early sometimes and catch her training sessions with them, where she would tie their legs tightly to the stilts they would have to walk on to practise, and if they got it wrong she would hit them over the head. My dad also visited and was allowed to go behind the scenes because of his work, and he says they were severely messed up after they retired. They had to be kept in a back area because its too distressing/disturbing to the public to see, and when Molly came to visit them while he was there, as soon as she walked in they started screaming and defecating everywhere out of fear. Granted she has done good work for animals and conservation as a whole, by she is by no means a good person.

 

[ZooNews2024]

Her work with the PG Tips chimps should not be commended. My dad worked at Chessington and London Zoo with primates for a number of years, and one of his closest friends/colleagues headed primates at Twycross. I was hearing from him the other day that she could be quite cruel behind closed doors. He would head into work early sometimes and catch her training sessions with them, where she would tie their legs tightly to the stilts they would have to walk on to practise, and if they got it wrong she would hit them over the head. My dad also visited and was allowed to go behind the scenes because of his work, and he says they were severely messed up after they retired. They had to be kept in a back area because its too distressing/disturbing to the public to see, and when Molly came to visit them while he was there, as soon as she walked in they started screaming and defecating everywhere out of fear. Granted she has done good work for animals and conservation as a whole, by she is by no means a good person.

Molly was a person of her time, judged by the standards of her day. To judge her (or anyone deceased who cannot defend their reputation) by future standards not yet dreamt of, is unfair. She trained her animals in the same way that others did then, to the demands of the publicity companies, PG Tips, the media and the public. This does not make her a bad person.
It must be remembered too that she single-handedly pioneered the principle of giving primates outdoor access to open grassy enclosures, when the mainstream zoos criticised her heavily for attempting it, saying her animals would die if kept like that. The opposite was actually the case, and the record at zoos like London which shut all their animals inside in heated, air-less, tiled cubicles was dire, and many primates like chimps quickly died of TB and other diseases.
Certainly the PG Tips era should not be commended, but it should not be forgotten either.

 

[Strathmorezoo]

Molly was a person of her time, judged by the standards of her day. To judge her (or anyone deceased who cannot defend their reputation) by future standards not yet dreamt of, is unfair. She trained her animals in the same way that others did then, to the demands of the publicity companies, PG Tips, the media and the public. This does not make her a bad person.
It must be remembered too that she single-handedly pioneered the principle of giving primates outdoor access to open grassy enclosures, when the mainstream zoos criticised her heavily for attempting it, saying her animals would die if kept like that. The opposite was actually the case, and the record at zoos like London which shut all their animals inside in heated, air-less, tiled cubicles was dire, and many primates like chimps quickly died of TB and other diseases.
Certainly the PG Tips era should not be commended, but it should not be forgotten either.

But,cruelty is cruelty, which ever way you look at it.

 

[ZooNews2024]

But,cruelty is cruelty, which ever way you look at it.

No absolutely - it isnt. What is defined by the word will vary depending on the age it is used. What is defined as 'cruelty' now in England, will be quite different to what was considered 'cruelty' in Victorian England, or by the Incas or in the Stone Age - or I guess modern day Sudan or North Korea. Any act can only be judged by the time and place it happens.
As I said, I am not personally defending anything. All that I am saying is that nothing and no-one can be judged by future standards. Your personal behaviour could just as well be criticised after you are dead in decades time, by someone looking back from a future ear. No-one can be expected to live by future standards which dont exist.
London could equally be accused of cruelty, for shutting its primates into tiny cubicles and letting them die of TB after a few years. Just Google Desmond Morris' famous TV chimp 'Congo' as an example.
Chimps 'Tea Parties' and similar with bear cubs were common throughout the zoo world, and chimps were commonly used in circuses. What happened behind the scenes would have been no different to Twycross. It was accepted and expected.
Anywhere and anyone would operate by the standards and expectation of their time.

 

[Strathmorezoo]

No absolutely - it isnt. What is defined by the word will vary depending on the age it is used. What is defined as 'cruelty' now in England, will be quite different to what was considered 'cruelty' in Victorian England, or by the Incas or in the Stone Age - or I guess modern day Sudan or North Korea. Any act can only be judged by the time and place it happens.
As I said, I am not personally defending anything. All that I am saying is that nothing and no-one can be judged by future standards. Your personal behaviour could just as well be criticised after you are dead in decades time, by someone looking back from a future ear. No-one can be expected to live by future standards which dont exist.
London could equally be accused of cruelty, for shutting its primates into tiny cubicles and letting them die of TB after a few years. Just Google Desmond Morris' famous TV chimp 'Congo' as an example.
Chimps 'Tea Parties' and similar with bear cubs were common throughout the zoo world, and chimps were commonly used in circuses. What happened behind the scenes would have been no different to Twycross. It was accepted and expected.
Anywhere and anyone would operate by the standards and expectation of their time.

CAN'T AGREE. Just because an act of cruelty happened in the past, when ever it was, doesn’t make that act any less cruel. Tying chimpanzees legs to pieces of wood even though you know that it is causing pain and distress, can be nothing other than cruelty. Especially when it is being done by someone who was doing it purely for financial gain and should have known better,no matter what other so called trainers were doing. I also don't agree that it was was accepted and expected. Being of an age when such vile training was being used, none of my family or friends found it acceptable. I agree that zoo animals were housed badly.

 

[ZooNews2024]

CAN'T AGREE. Just because an act of cruelty happened in the past, when ever it was, doesn’t make that act any less cruel. Tying chimpanzees legs to pieces of wood even though you know that it is causing pain and distress, can be nothing other than cruelty. Especially when it is being done by someone who was doing it purely for financial gain and should have known better,no matter what other so called trainers were doing. I also don't agree that it was was accepted and expected. Being of an age when such vile training was being used, none of my family or friends found it acceptable. I agree that zoo animals were housed badly.

Singling out Molly Badham for such an attack is unfair and cowardly, as she is dead and cannot defend herself.
Spend ten minutes on eBay and search for zoo rides, or chimps tea parties and you'll find dozens of artifacts for sale, from zoos across the World - bear tea parties, chimps tea parties, children riding bears, chimps riding ponies, chimps riding bicycles etc etc.
London Zoo was the leader with the chimps tea parties, Molly followed their lead.
Just look at the pictures, they're all babies, they're all chained, and I am certain were all 'trained' off-show in the same way. Even as babies, they are dangerous animals any of which could tear a human childs arm off, or worse. How do you think they were trained? - it wasnt positive-reinforcement and polite requests in those days.
Condemn it ALL if you want, and I'll be the first to agree with you - but dont single out one person, who cant answer back.

 

[Strathmorezoo]

Singling out Molly Badham for such an attack is unfair and cowardly, as she is dead and cannot defend herself.
Spend ten minutes on eBay and search for zoo rides, or chimps tea parties and you'll find dozens of artifacts for sale, from zoos across the World - bear tea parties, chimps tea parties, children riding bears, chimps riding ponies, chimps riding bicycles etc etc.
London Zoo was the leader with the chimps tea parties.
Just look at the pictures, they're all babies, they're all chained, and I am certain were all 'trained' off-show in the same way.
Condemn it ALL if you want, and I'll be the first to agree with you - but dont single out one person, who cant answer back.

I mentioned Molly by name because she was the one named. Believe me,I have never been a coward and if I had met her knowing what she had done, I would have told her to her face, she was cruel!

 

[Chlidonias]

Singling out Molly Badham for such an attack is unfair and cowardly

She isn't being "singled out" - the thread is specifically about her. That's why she is being discussed. If the thread was about Barnum, he would be being discussed. If the thread was just generally about training practices in the past, then many people would be being discussed. That's how discussions work.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Molly was a person of her time, judged by the standards of her day. To judge her (or anyone deceased who cannot defend their reputation) by future standards not yet dreamt of, is unfair. She trained her animals in the same way that others did then, to the demands of the publicity companies, PG Tips, the media and the public. This does not make her a bad person.

Agreed - it is entirely possible to acknowledge that someone was responsible both for acts of cruelty (whether judged by the standards of the time or modern-day standards) *and* merit, without immediately labelling them as "by no means a good person". The good acts of a person do not expunge the bad, and the latter should always be acknowledged, but equally the bad acts of a person need not automatically expunge the good.

Look at some of Badham's contemporaries in the zoological scene as further examples; Gerald Durrell was highly-influential in raising awareness of conservation issues and increasing public interest in rare and unusual species at risk of extinction, and he was also an alcoholic boor with bigoted views; John Aspinall is responsible for numerous important developments in the captive husbandry of various species, but was also an antisemite and fascist responsible for a rather poor safety record at his zoos; and Clinton Keeling (although resoundingly unsuccessful in his career as a zoo owner) was a devoted advocate of the importance of preserving historical material relating to zoological collections and established the Bartlett Society - for which I am privileged enough to be the custodian of the Society's sizeable archive - to that end, but was also by all accounts an unpleasant, single-minded man with a distinct cruel streak.

She isn't being "singled out" - the thread is specifically about her. That's why she is being discussed.

I can't help but ponder the motivations of someone who has joined the forum for the sole purpose of reviving a long-inactive and rather obscure thread - the last post having been in October 2007 - in order to criticise someone who has been dead for nearly 20 years and accuse them of having been a bad person.

I think I would call that "singling out" of Badham!

 

[Chlidonias]

...as she is dead and cannot defend herself...

...criticise someone who has been dead for nearly 20 years...

I genuinely don't understand the sentiment of "X is dead so shouldn't be criticised" which is invariably brought up in discussions like this.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

I genuinely don't understand the sentiment of "X is dead so shouldn't be criticised" which is invariably brought up in discussions like this.

It's not the criticism I'm looking askance at per se, it's the joining the forum and reviving a thread which has been dead almost as long as the subject for the sole purpose of doing so. The relevance of the fact that Badham has been dead almost 20 years is that this is when the thread was last active, rather than a suggestion that she shouldn't be criticised at all.

Criticism which arose as part of an active and ongoing discussion would be entirely different - if a thread had been created recently to discuss the cruelty of past zoological husbandry practice, and the OP had joined in order to take part in that discussion, it would be an entirely different and perfectly justifiable scenario.

 

[FBBird]

It's not the criticism I'm looking askance at per se, it's the joining the forum and reviving a thread which has been dead almost as long as the subject for the sole purpose of doing so.

Criticism which arose as part of an active and ongoing discussion would be entirely different - if a thread had been created recently to discuss the cruelty of past zoological husbandry practice, and the OP had joined in order to take part in that discussion, it would be an entirely different and perfectly justifiable scenario.

I’m not convinced the chimps suffered from being talk to stilt walk, the Misses Badham and Evans always come across as having been very concerned about the welfare of their Chimpanzees. It may well be that they were ‘kind but firm’. Other days, other ways.
All their early chimps would have been wild caught as infants after their parents were killed, and necessarily humanised. Nobody thought any different back then. Indeed, ZSL even exported groups of ‘tea party trained’
chimpanzees. I understand that it was partly the chimps’ earnings from advertising that supported the young Twycross Zoo. Perhaps we need to remember that relatively natural, freely breeding groups of captive apes are, in historical terms, a recent phenomenon. The world moves on…..

 

[ZooNews2024]

I’m not convinced the chimps suffered from being talk to stilt walk, the Misses Badham and Evans always come across as having been very concerned about the welfare of their Chimpanzees. It may well be that they were ‘kind but firm’. Other days, other ways.
All their early chimps would have been wild caught as infants after their parents were killed, and necessarily humanised. Nobody thought any different back then. Indeed, ZSL even exported groups of ‘tea party trained’
chimpanzees. I understand that it was partly the chimps’ earnings from advertising that supported the young Twycross Zoo. Perhaps we need to remember that relatively natural, freely breeding groups of captive apes are, in historical terms, a recent phenomenon. The world moves on…..

It does indeed, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. I guess it depends to a degree on how rose-tinted your glasses are - or how large your blinkers?
As TLD says, this thread was very dead, and does appear to have been re-started for a reason, by someone who has only second-hand information about a historic situation which cannot be defended or otherwise by the person being discussed.
Time for bed, maybe?

 

[dillotest0]

I think one problem with how we view history is that we choose to remember certain aspects of various historical figures and not others... which then leads to people having ideas of historical figures which aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but rather become viewed in isolation of everything else.
I think Carl Hagenbeck was a good example of this. Many people know Carl as being one of the men, if not the man who revolutionised zoo architecture forever; building what were amongst the first zoo enclosures without bars; allowing for better viewing and a more natural environment for many animals. And he ultimately paved the way for many enclosure designs we see today.
In the same breath, many people remember Carl for a different reason... before he opened the Tierpark, Carl featured, alongside wild animals he was known for, people of foreign cultures in his touring exhibitions, in essence making his displays a human zoo. And although Carl was largely successful and renowned for his displays for the time, his 'exhibitions' were often paid rather poorly. [yes, a very, very simplified, un-nuanced retelling of this... but I am trying to show two contrasting perspectives here. Hopefully one can get the picture]

So, then, was Carl Hagenbeck a forward-thinking man who paved the way for exponentially better welfare for many animals in the future long after him, or was he a cruel man who exploited foreign cultures for his personal gain? Is the person you ask this to more passionate about zoo-architecture or historical sociology? Then chances are, they will tell you he was one or he was the other. But I think to paint a broad stroke on a man like Carl either way is to avoid the whole picture; that Carl did both things during his life. And it's simply a matter that if you are more invested in a particular subject, the image of Carl, or anyone else, will become one more relevant to your subject of choice. But of course it stands - Carl, like many historical figures before him and many after him, was a man who did many things during his life. Some we prefer to remember, and some we acknowledge with bated breath. And so it is with many people who lived then... and many people who live now!

 

[ZooNews2024]

I think one problem with how we view history is that we choose to remember certain aspects of various historical figures and not others... which then leads to people having ideas of historical figures which aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but rather become viewed in isolation of everything else.
I think Carl Hagenbeck was a good example of this. Many people know Carl as being one of the men, if not the man who revolutionised zoo architecture forever; building what were amongst the first zoo enclosures without bars; allowing for better viewing and a more natural environment for many animals. And he ultimately paved the way for many enclosure designs we see today.
In the same breath, many people remember Carl for a different reason... before he opened the Tierpark, Carl featured, alongside wild animals he was known for, people of foreign cultures in his touring exhibitions, in essence making his displays a human zoo. And although Carl was largely successful and renowned for his displays for the time, his 'exhibitions' were often paid rather poorly. [yes, a very, very simplified, un-nuanced retelling of this... but I am trying to show two contrasting perspectives here. Hopefully one can get the picture]

So, then, was Carl Hagenbeck a forward-thinking man who paved the way for exponentially better welfare for many animals in the future long after him, or was he a cruel man who exploited foreign cultures for his personal gain? Is the person you ask this to more passionate about zoo-architecture or historical sociology? Then chances are, they will tell you he was one or he was the other. But I think to paint a broad stroke on a man like Carl either way is to avoid the whole picture; that Carl did both things during his life. And it's simply a matter that if you are more invested in a particular subject, the image of Carl, or anyone else, will become one more relevant to your subject of choice. But of course it stands - Carl, like many historical figures before him and many after him, was a man who did many things during his life. Some we prefer to remember, and some we acknowledge with bated breath. And so it is with many people who lived then... and many people who live now!

Hagenbeck was no more single-handedly responsible for the 'human zoo' concept than Molly Badham was for chimps tea parties.
In just the same way that London Zoo sold or exchanged humanised chimps for tea-parties all over the World; human exhibitions were staged in many countries, London, Paris, Antwerp and New York as examples. Circuses had regular 'freak-shows' of humans who different from the accepted norm, and in America there were exhibitions of premature babies (presumably mostly white Americans) displayed in incubators for the paying public to visit. A spin off from the latter was the fast advancement of neo-natal care and the subsequent saving of many thousands of babies.
Just do some research before singling out one person, be that Hagenbeck or Badham for doing what many others were doing in their day.

 

[Chlidonias]

Hagenbeck was no more single-handedly responsible for the 'human zoo' concept than Molly Badham was for chimps tea parties.
In just the same way that London Zoo sold or exchanged humanised chimps for tea-parties all over the World; human exhibitions were staged in many countries, London, Paris, Antwerp and New York as examples. Circuses had regular 'freak-shows' of humans who different from the accepted norm, and in America there were exhibitions of premature babies (presumably mostly white Americans) displayed in incubators for the paying public to visit. A spin off from the latter was the fast advancement of neo-natal care and the subsequent saving of many thousands of babies.
Just do some research before singling out one person, be that Hagenbeck or Badham for doing what many others were doing in their day.

Maybe try reading the post again? Nowhere was it written - or even implied - that Hagenbeck was "single-handedly responsible for the 'human zoo' concept" (indeed I don't think anybody in the thread has said that "Molly Badham was [the same] for chimps tea parties" either).

The post was using Hagenbeck as what is known as "an example" to illustrate a point being made.

Also, the excuse of "lots of people were doing it" is a really weak one. You can extend that to lots of really abhorrent things in the past (or the present) - it doesn't make whatever the thing is moral or right, and it certainly doesn't mean that a person doing that thing therefore cannot be discussed as having done it.

 

[ZooNews2024]

Maybe try reading the post again? Nowhere was it written - or even implied - that Hagenbeck was "single-handedly responsible for the 'human zoo' concept" (indeed I don't think anybody in the thread has said that "Molly Badham was [the same] for chimps tea parties" either).

The post was using Hagenbeck as what is known as "an example" to illustrate a point being made.

Also, the excuse of "lots of people were doing it" is a really weak one. You can extend that to lots of really abhorrent things in the past (or the present) - it doesn't make whatever the thing is moral or right, and it certainly doesn't mean that a person doing that thing therefore cannot be discussed as having done it.

I made no such excuse of 'lots of people were doing it', and the fact that other institutions and individuals were - is purely a statement of fact.

Badham (and subsequently Hagenbeck) were indeed singled out. They were not given as 'examples' as you state, no-one else was mentioned and no mention was even made that what they are accused of, was indeed being done by others.

 

[Chlidonias]

This is just unproductive so I'm not going to continue further than these points:

Badham (and subsequently Hagenbeck) were indeed singled out. They were not given as 'examples' as you state, no-one else was mentioned and no mention was even made that what they are accused of, was indeed being done by others.

Literally quoting the post in question:

I think Carl Hagenbeck was a good example of this.

I made no such excuse of 'lots of people were doing it', and the fact that other institutions and individuals were - is purely a statement of fact.

Again, a direct quote below:

Just do some research before singling out one person, be that Hagenbeck or Badham for doing what many others were doing in their day.

I do wonder whether if Badham (for example) was mentioned as doing something really good you would be so quick to try and shut down the topic because she was being "singled out" and wasn't alive to agree with it.

 

[ZooNews2024]

This is just unproductive so I'm not going to continue further than these points:


Literally quoting the post in question:





Again, a direct quote below:




I do wonder whether if Badham (for example) was mentioned as doing something really good you would be so quick to try and shut down the topic because she was being "singled out" and wasn't alive to agree with it.

Maybe for the good - as all you have done is empasised my points.
Do you not see that by criticising one person on one issue, with NO mention of others that were involved, or indeed that the practice was common, widespread or even rare elsewhere, but happening - IS indeed 'singling them out'. You do not need to use the actual words every time.
This is especially obvious (as stated by others) when the thread is resurrected for just this purpose.
And - to accuse me of attempting to 'shut down' the topic is ridiculous as that is exactly what you have just tried to do!

 

[SHAVINGTONZOO]

This thread's title is "Twycross Zoo:Molly Badham" so hardly unreasonable to discuss her in this thread.

If she is being singled out it's because she is the subject of the thread.