Legal and Moral aspects of Zoological Parks, National and International

Profile of the author: Sampriti is a 2nd-year law student of BALLB course, WBNUJS, Kolkata.

Zoological Parks as a source of recreation or educational purpose though emerged only in the modern era, the concept of captivating animals traces itself back to ancient history. Popular as “menagerie” than the everyday term “zoo”, it was majorly owned by prosperous kings as a symbol of royalism. The empress of China, Tanki, had a “house of deer” built of great marble, dating back to 1150 BCE. Similarly, the biblical king Solomon who lived around 1000 BCE was a professional zoological gardener followed by other royal kings and queens for at least 600 years.[1] The purpose of the zoo transformed to serve as a source of intellectual study in the modern era. It was in 1826 that the “world’s first scientific zoo” was established known as “Gardens and Menagerie of the Zoological Society of London”. It was open to the public in 1847 in Regent’s park, located in the middle of the city for the public. [2] The layout and architecture were designed to cater to the larger population. The archetype of the London zoo was soon copied in making public city zoo.[3] The humongous popularity it gained gave birth to the term zoo which was further popularized through the song “Walking in the Zoo” by Alfred Vance.

We have come far away from the 19th century and the architecture for the zoos has transformed with the emerging modernity. No doubt we have been able to fight ignorance with age and experience, and now better equipped with scientific tools we are able to simulate the wildlife environment in the zoo. But the “lives of animals held in captive are merely a shadow of the real-life in the world”, a strong statement highlighted by Marc Bekoff, a behavioural ecologist. [4] The proponents of the zoo may argue that benefits of conservation of animals through zoo far outweighs the cost of the animals, the primary purpose of zoos is entertainment and while they may contribute to the conservation, there is hardly any tangible difference. While it is also argued by the zoo supporters that animals in exhibits are ambassadors for their counterparts that are endangered in the wild, the majority of the animals caged in the zoos are not endangered. Those that are can never be released into the natural habitats as they have never been exposed to the wild. In 2019, Central Zoo Authority cancelled the recognition of 13 zoos. While it is appreciable to take stock of animal welfare, the action was already too late, the decision might prove counterproductive as the animals cannot be released. They have to be sent to other facilities which will become over-crowded or under-resourced.[5] In this capitalistic era, human interest is put before the individual animals.[6] Modern zoos are evolved to earn money and capture into the wealthy societal appetite for the entertainment.

Most of the animals are not caught from the wild but inbred in captive. A ‘captive gene pool’ consist of products of a successful breeding program which are used for further replication. More often, this results into surplus breeding resulting into the over-crowding. The solution? Euthanasia or Birth control. Animals are fed with hormones or birth control pills, denying them of their parenting experience. Sometimes, it can be impossible to reverse the mechanism leaving the animals unable to bear offspring ever again. [7] Bengt Holst, the Director of Conservation at Copenhagen Zoo opposes birth control. “If we take away their parenting behaviour, they would not have much left”[8]

The other option is killing of animals once they grow mature. The infamous case of Copenhagen Zoo is a delible mark on the human conscience when even after public signing the online petition, giraffes were culled for being over-represented. [9] If not culling, they are sold to other zoos, ending up with substandard facilities massively affecting their quality of life.

The solution? Abolishing the zoos altogether is impractical and will affect the current population held in captive. Jesse Donahue suggests expanding the legal rights of the animals. By renaming zoos as “wild public companion animals” will increase the legal rights of the animals, as the legal institution will be more willing to accept zoo animals as “co-citizens”. [10]When the state can ban active euthanasia for humans, why are animals to be treated differently?

Captivity of animals may be allowed when the alternative is death or difficult survival in the wild, and captive conditions furnish positive welfare states. There can be no one judgement against the zoos altogether and no one argument justifying or condemning its existence. It is the circumstance which can determine the moral or legal appropriateness.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

FAQ:

Q1. Which legal act of India recognizes zoos?

A1. . Section 38 of Wildlife Protection Act

[1] Encyclopaedia Britannica, <https://www.britannica.com/science/zoo> accessed 2 July 2020.

[2] ’10 things you may not know about ZSL London Zoo’ (ZSL London Zoo, 27 April 2018) <https://www.zsl.org/blogs/zsl-london-zoo/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-zsl-london-zoo> accessed 2 July 2020.

[3] Michael Graetz, ‘The role of Architectural Design in Promoting the Social Objectives of the Zoo’ (NUS 1995)

[4] Margi Prideaux, ‘Zoos are the problem, not the solution to animal conservation’ (Opendemocracy, 22 June 2016) <https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/zoos-are-problem-not-solution-to-animal-conservation/> accessed 2 July 2020.

[5] Rahul Sharma, ‘Concern for Indian Zoo Animals as 13 Zoos lose recognition’ (Wildwelfare, 8 January 2019) <https://wildwelfare.org/concern-for-indian-zoo-animals-as-zoos-lose-recognition/> accessed 2 July 2020.

[6] Alice Oven, ‘The Problem with Modern Zoos’ (Aliceanimalwelfare, 26 June 2018) <https://www.aliceanimalwelfare.com/the-problem-with-zoos-if-our-modern-zoos-are-doing-so-much-good-why-do-they-make-me-feel-so-bad/> accessed 2 July 2020.

[7] David Hunn, ‘What happens when Zoo Contraceptives work too well’ (STLToday, 16 February 2014) <https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/what-happens-when-zoo-contraceptives-work-too-well/article_8e71a4c4-2cd1-58d7-b8af-8fe8eb1be30c.html> accessed 2 July 2020.

[8] Leslie Kaufman, ‘When babies don’t fit the plan, questions for zoos is, now what?’ (Seattle Times, 4 August 2012) <https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/when-babies-dont-fit-the-plan-question-for-zoos-is-now-what/> accessed 2 July 2020.

[9] Ian Johnston, ‘Copenhagen Zoo kills surplus young giraffe Marius despite online petition’ (Independent, 9 February 2014) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/copenhagen-zoo-kills-surplus-young-giraffe-marius-despite-online-petition-9117317.html> accessed 2 July 2020.

[10] Jesse Donahue, ‘Increasing Legal Rights for Zoo animals: Justice on the Ark’ (Rowman & Littlefield 2017) 163.