Dispelling the Myth of the "Sad Zoo Animal"

Keeping animals in captivity is a subject of great controversy, one with good arguments put forth from both sides. Many conservationists recognize zoos and aquariums as key elements in the continued survival of many animals species, while other animal enthusiasts prefer that animals live more natural lives free from captivity. We want to support the conservation efforts of these facilities, but it is hard to see exotic animals spending their life in confinement. So who is "right" here?

In one of my first posts, I discussed the importance of zoos and how these facilities are incredibly beneficial to animals, both species and individuals, despite their sometimes negative public reception. Zoos and aquariums are meant to conserve and protect animals at the species level, while also providing care and enhanced lives for their individual animals (no small task by the way!). A recent article was written that pointed out many of the misconceptions people have about animals residing in zoos, more specifically, their emotional welbeing. While most visitors who come to zoos are satisfied that the needs of the animals are being met and exceeded, many others still worry that these animals are suffering as a result of their captivity. You have probably heard these phrases at your local zoo, aquarium, circus or other animal facility.

"That bear looks sad."

"That lion is bored."

"That bobcat is lonely."

Many of these comments are a symptom of our need to anthropomorphize animals; essentially, we try to humanize them and their actions or emotions. People who don't spend much of their time around wild animals simply don't have the ability to determine an animal's mood (just like how people with cats can generally read a cats emotions while dog owners are better at reading canine emotional cues; it's all a matter of experience). There is a lot of variation between individuals and species, so it is very easy to misread an emotional cue without extensive experience.

Different species of animals behave very differently when they are scared or nervous. Take dogs for example; when upset, they typically bark or growl to display their displeasure, which we know how to recognize thanks to our experience. But some species are far more subtle in their emotional cues, displaying behaviors most people simply aren't trained to recognize or even mistaken for other emotions. A particular animal, like the author's spotted genet, may seem incredibly calm and relaxed, when in actuality it is scared out of its wits and prepared to defend itself. Other species, like some primates, appear happy and will even "smile", baring their teeth in a fashion that seems genuinely friendly, but to them means "back off".

Other species just look naturally sad. Their facial structure may simply result in giving them a sort of permanent frown, even when they are content, excited or happy. Some meaningless actions may give the impression that an animal is sad, while in reality it has no real bearing on their true emotional state. Imagine a dog once again; when tired, a dog may rest its head on its paws, sometimes giving them the appearance that they are sad or droopy. We know our pets aren't sad, it's just how they look when they do this; the same idea applies to many of the animals in the zoo. Alternatively, some animals just look naturally happy due to their facial structure; many snakes for example seem to have a permanent smile plastered on their face regardless of their current mood.

Animals in zoos often seem lethargic during our short visits. Part of this can be blamed on programs such as documentaries: while these programs are great for educational purposes (I definitely have nothing against them!), they tend to only show animals actively engaging in their activities such as hunting/foraging, swimming or playing. As a result, these are the behaviors people are expecting to see when they visit these facilities. In the wild, when humans encounter animals, they are likely more active and alert due to the human presence (they are less likely to be resting while a potentially dangerous human is near), but at zoos, these animals are 100% acclimated to the presence of people. They are less alert and more inclined to enjoy their downtime, which is just as important as their more engaging activities (this is a good thing!).

Boredom in zoos is something we do have to address as keepers. Animals can get bored in the wild but it's less common because the animal must focus on its own survival. In captivity, survival is a much less pressing issue (thanks to daily feedings and care) so boredom is actually considered a form of luxury (as long as there isn't too much boredom, which is addressed as a welfare issue). Keepers engage their animals in enrichment activities designed to stimulate them both physically and mentally and encourage their natural behaviors and skills. 

Animals may be sad sometimes, but not necessarily due to their confinement. Some animals, just like people, have their good days and bad days and their moods may fluctuate. If an elderly animal passes away, some species (such as elephants) will mourn the loss for a short time. Other animals may face a short period of stress due to an environmental change, but this will dissipate with acclimation. When you see what you perceive to be a sad (or bored) animal at a zoo, keep in mind that they are likely not always in this state. It is harsh to judge the standards and care set forth by the zoo based on your short observations of an animal during one day's visit. Perhaps an animal is resting after eating a large meal; perhaps they are calming down from a stressful vet visit. Be careful not to project emotions such as loneliness onto the animals; some species are housed separately on purpose as they are solitary animals that might be stressed out by the presence of other individuals!

Cages and bars. Just the sight of them is enough to make us feel sorry for the animals, but here's the thing; these bars don't have nearly the same emotional impact on animals as they do on us. To us, bars are not just a barrier, they are a symbol of a loss of freedom, eternal confinement, lack of dignity, and are associated with criminality, among other things. But the animals at the zoo do not hold the evolved, cultural aversion to cage bars that we do; they simply see a physical barrier and have no emotional feelings toward the structure. While we much prefer to see animals living in enclosures with moats, natural stone walls or see-through glass, they simply view all as environmental barriers. For this reason, some zoos still use classic cages and bars to save money, allowing for greater features, care and more natural conditions within the exhibit itself.

So what is the takeaway from the article? Is it that everyone is wrong and it is not okay to judge a zoo exhibit? Absolutely not, it is perfectly okay to evaluate the welfare of an animal and it's enclosure...provided you take an informed approach. The public should absolutely be allowed and able to tell right from wrong and object to poor welfare when they see it (there are still facilities out there that do not provide great care standards and are facing public pressure), but this is a slippery slope. It is hard to judge welfare based on a short observation, especially with little knowledge of the animals' lifestyles, personal histories or behaviors. Talk to keepers and volunteers; they know these animals and will often be able to explain why an animal might be behaving unusually or seem moody. Keep in mind what you might not be able to see: what vet care is proved behind the scenes? Is it possible the animal has access to a larger area that you can't see (many zoos offer the opportunity for animals to have access to privacy)? And above all, avoid emotional projection; it is inherent nature to see ourselves in the animals. We have to be able to see things from the point of view of creatures that may be very different from ourselves. 

Note: When I talk about zoos, I am typically referring to facilities that are accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums or other reputable organizations with strict ethics, standards and regulations. These zoo provide the best care for captive animals thanks to routine inspections and protocol implementations. Some privately owned zoos exist that do not provide adequate care for their animals (hence why they are not accredited). In any facility, if you truly feel there is a welfare issue, contact a keeper (we want to know if there is an issue) or the facility's governing body.

Photo Links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10

Article Link: http://hubpages.com/animals/sad-zoo-animals