What are Your Moral Boundaries For Keeping Animals in Zoological Institutions?

[Taccachantrieri]

What are Your Moral Boundaries For Keeping Animals in Zoological Institutions?

Let me start off by saying that I am not morally opposed to the notion of captivity itself. At the same time I find the somewhat opposite notion that the whims and desires of humanity take precedent over the needs and suffering of animals to be rife of very undesirable repercussions.
I think that how people judge the merits of captivity is largely based on their notions of the differences between captivity and the wild.
Animals face many hardships in the wild, but at the same time have adaptations that allow them to cope with most of these challenges. Captive animals are sheltered from many of these challenges, which certainly has the potential to improve their physical and emotional health. At the same time this removal can leave animals somewhat disengaged from their normal condition-posing problems like boredom or obesity. Captive animals can also be exposed to unnatural conditions that threaten their emotional and physical health.
Of course, the captive environment is not equal temporally or spatially around the world but varies in different institutions and even within the same institution.
Captivity of animals in Zoos also has the possibility of improving conditions for wild animals, as well as the possibility of threatening them via extraction of individuals from the wild or reinforcement of negative human attitudes or decisions.
Lastly, captivity of animals has the potential to benefit humanity in a myriad of ways which I will not delve into.
All of this complexity and variance of both positive and negative effects of keeping animals in captivity paints a complicated picture of what acceptable limits are for things like emotional well being of captive animals in light of other factors. However, this doesn't make it any less important to talk about!
I recognize that it is integral that we know just how realistic things like comparisons of mortality from disease between captive and wild animals are. Ultimately though, diseases (as an example) do not form the entirety of the decision on the morality of Zoos and so needs to be placed within context and compared to other factors to form a more realistic overall perspective. I should add here that things are further muddied by interconnections. For example, diseases can be more problematic in animals with poor emotional well-being because of immunosuppression.

So I pose this question to you fellow Zoochatters, how bad do physical or psychological captive animal conditions (you choose the temporal and spatial scale) have to be for you to stop supporting the captivity of that species?

A few other broad related questions:
Is it OK to keep animals in Zoos if they suffer emotionally and physically, just because they are needed for the survival of the species? Is it OK for a few great Zoos to keep animals with difficult husbandry well, even if it requires the presence of many other individuals of the same species suffering at other Zoos to maintain genetic diversity? Is it acceptable to keep a species in captivity if that species is currently suffering from things like inappropriate diet in the hopes that changes will soon be made, and those first captive individuals will be helping later importations of individuals into captivity?

 

[Leptonyx]

Taccachantrieri, it's an extremely difficult question to answer... only because there will always be an exception to any moral rule when you decide which animal should/should not be kept in an institution. So many animals differ in their biology and behaviour, that it's hard to say which one would benefit from captivity, and which ones would find it complete misery.

For example, one common criteria I use (and based on the elephant research done by Dr. Mason)- is the life expectancy of animals in captivity vs. the wild. In captivity they should *as you pointed out* be protected from the things that hamper their survival in the wild, and so if they sucuum before that age, then there's obviously something wrong with the environment. However having worked at a Humane Society, you see animals that have faced nothing but misery, but still live to an amazing ripe age...longevity does not necessarily equal happiness or a morally acceptable situation (I'm sure there are numerous animals in zoos with similar stories)

Situations where I felt an animal was justified being held in captivity was when the animal could not be released into the wild. Human-imprinted animals cannot be as they associate too closely with humans, and have the potential to hurt someone if they are released. With some exceptions, they also seem to like human interaction, and so I'd imagine captivity would be less stressful for them. Animals with permanent injuries (ex., amputations)..I've also found to be slightly more acceptable, as they can serve as excellent education models for the public (ex., "Robin here got attacked by an outdoor cat, KEEP YOUR CATS INDOORS!). Depending on the species they can also be used for breeding, or be used as foster parents.

I spoke to a dolphin rehabber once, who said that he would personally like to see the dolphins they rescue being placed in captivity. He said we don't know nearly enough about dolphins to say with confidence that "they're healthy", and by releasing them could be spreading diseases back into the population. In the case with dolphins, it could lead to more research, and help to minimize the amount of wild-caught dolphins (Re: the marineland discussion )

ANYWAYS...my point was that I try to take it from a case-by-case basis...there are so many factors involved that I would find it hard if there was a universal rule that applied to everything- though someone please point it out to me if I'm wrong

 

[zooman]

When an animal is used as a ambassador for the rest of its species! I would say from a moral point of view it is then justified.

Leptonyx [what does that mean LOL] I agree 100% a long life in captivity is no guide to the mental health of an animal.

 

[jay]

For me I always make a distinction between an individual and a species. I don't think any individual should be treated inhumanely but am happy to accept the sacrifice of an individual if it's for the benefit of the population/species as a whole. That's why under certain circumstances I will accept hunting, even though I don't like it.

With zoos I don't have a problem with captivity at all but am against inhumane treatment. There are those who oppose all use of animals for lesuire but isn't looknig at a bird in the wild a lesuire activity?

I think I judge each zoo on it's own terms and not overall.