Melbourne zoo

[Guest guest]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/animal-rights-and-wrongs/2008/01/18/12006\

20207184.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

 

Animal rights and wrongs

 

Royce Millar and Cameron Houston

January 19, 2008

 

ONE OF the first exhibits you encounter as you enter Melbourne Zoo is an

empty, iron-barred cage. Built for orang-utans in 1927, the

concrete-floored coop is a reminder of what used to be: animals behind

bars, freezing or sweltering in their own faeces and urine, children

outside gawking and chucking peanuts.

 

The enclosure, says a plaque, belongs to an era when animals were " objects

of curiosity and displayed in cages which paid little heed to their true

needs " . It is meant to sit in contrast to the contemporary zoo, with its

re-created rainforests, faux jungle and Thai village, elaborate butterfly

show and improved orang-utan sanctuary.

 

Management insists the zoo is now an enlightened hub of animal-centred

education, conservation and research. But allegations of physical abuse

and animal neglect, and a deep rift among staff, management and outside

experts about policy and direction, have raised troubling questions for

Australia's oldest zoological gardens. The debate about animals in

captivity is a live one.

 

Like all public institutions, zoos embody the values of a society at any

given time. From private menageries for amusement and displays of wealth

in ancient Egypt, Greece and China, they have evolved into publicly

managed institutions that emphasise education and conservation.

 

The evolution is incomplete, however, and zoos now find themselves torn by

competing forces. Animal rights lobbies pressure them to be more caring

but economic rationalism demands they stand on their own feet financially.

This means a tendency to talk conservation, say critics, while the

turnstiles remain core business. Evidence for this can be found in what

the zoo's former senior curator, Peter Stroud, calls the " Disney effect " -

the creation of more, and ever more elaborate, " blockbuster " exhibits

aimed at getting more paying customers through the gate.

 

In a sense Melbourne Zoo - and it is not alone - says as much about humans

as the other species it houses. It is an exhibit of human attitudes to

animals, and of the unresolved battles between conservationists and

economic conservatives.

 

Everyone The Age has interviewed acknowledges the big advances in animal

care the zoo has made in recent decades. Animal welfare campaigner and

RSPCA Victorian president Dr Hugh Wirth applauds Melbourne for dragging

itself out of a " Victorian-era " circus-like mentality. Still, he says, the

zoo has a long way to go.

 

Australians have tended to distinguish between domestic and farm animals

on the one hand, and wild animals on the other. Domestic animals have had

individual rights recognised, with Government standards applied. Wild

animals are viewed collectively, with protection of the species, not the

individual, the only concern. There is little regulation in Victoria for

the handling of captive wild animals.

 

But Wirth says community views and expectations are changing, with big

implications for zoos. The zoo concedes as much. In its corporate plan for

2007 to 2012 it looks ahead 50 years to foresee " community attitudes fully

against keeping animals in cages for human amusement " .

 

Paradoxically, the growing recognition of individual animals comes as the

individualist market philosophy that dominates Western economics seems to

be pressuring zoos to do the opposite.

 

Even the State Government - to which Zoos Victoria, as a statutory body,

is accountable - acknowledges the dilemma. " Commercial requirements to

maintain 'attractive' animals or provide for 'contact' experience may

override objectives such as providing representative collections and

meeting animal-welfare needs, " warns the obscure 2000 parliamentary

inquiry into the state's native animals and plants.

 

By virtue of their historic entertainment role, it seems, zoos are

expected to generate more of their own income than institutions such as

museums, galleries and public parks. In Melbourne, admission to the

National Gallery is free for adults and children. At the Museum of

Victoria it is $6 for adults, children free. Adult entry to the zoo is

$23, children $11.

 

And Zoos Victoria gets less government support than other Australian zoos,

including the larger Taronga Zoo in Sydney. Of Zoos Victoria's total

income in 2007, just 24% was from Government grants, down from 37% in

1991. Taronga relied on Government grants for 42% of income last year.

 

Melbourne Zoo struggled in recent decades - in 2001-2002 its visitor

numbers were declining by about 2 % a year - but the decline has been

reversed. Last year more than 1.6 million visitors went to the three zoo

venues, a record for the past 15 years.

 

A crucial factor in the turnaround has been management's determination to

make the zoo more exciting, including the $15 million Trail of the

Elephant enclosure, the $6 million orang-utan enclosure and the

multimillion-dollar butterfly exhibit. A new $20 million Stories from the

Sea marine precinct is on the way. Other proposals being discussed by

management and staff include a Cage of Death that would give visitors

frighteningly close ringside seats to big cats feeding.

 

Zoo acting chief executive Matt Vincent is proud of the turnaround and

makes no apology for the zoo becoming " more accessible " to the community.

" Our vision is to connect people and wildlife together. " He says the

health of the zoo business is good. " Of course the more prosperous and

healthy we are as a business the more we can reinvest in revitalising the

zoo. "

 

That revitalisation, say critics, including former senior staff and

current staff, is overly focused on human thrills rather than the animals.

 

The zoo's former strategic planning director David Hancocks says that with

limited philanthropic support available, the Melbourne Zoo has repeatedly

gone to government for capital grants, always arguing that new, exciting

exhibits will attract more paying visitors and help make the zoo

self-sufficient. " It is a circular logic. This approach for years has led

the zoo executive and board down the wrong path, " he says.

 

Zoo insiders say the preoccupation with money-spinning attractions was

especially prevalent under American former chief executive Laura Mumaw.

 

It contributed, say the critics, to a climate racked by low morale, and

tension between management and staff and within upper management. The Age

believes the zoo board decided late last year that the zoo administration

had become unworkable under Mumaw. She left after eight years at the helm

when her contract expired in November last year.

 

Hancocks says he left in 2003 disillusioned because he could no longer

tolerate the corporate approach of Mumaw and the business-dominated board.

He says the new " bean-counter mentality " resulted in a narrow focus on

attendance figures, rather than animal welfare.

 

Vincent disagrees and insists animals, not money, come first. " Zoos

Victoria absolutely has the best interests of the health and welfare of

our animals at heart and we would never compromise that. "

 

He acknowledges the zoo has undergone much change due to " unprecedented

investment " in new exhibits and other programs. " That change has been

exciting and revitalising for a lot of staff, but there are some people

who have struggled with that change. "

 

Always braced for controversy and criticism, zoos are notoriously

defensive organisations. At Melbourne, staff are either frightened to, or

contractually bound not to, speak out. The zoo now requires staff to sign

confidentiality agreements, known as " deeds of release " , silencing them

even after they have left the zoo's employ.

 

Wariness of the world beyond the zoo walls is intensified in an era when

vocal animal rights proponents question the very existence of zoos. Under

such questioning, conservation and biodiversity work, rather than

entertainment of the masses, tends to be zoos' first line of defence. Zoos

Victoria is able to reel off a long list of conservation, breeding and

wildlife recovery projects with which it is involved. It has been lauded

in the past for recovery work with the striped legless lizard.

 

Species in conservation breeding programs at Healesville Sanctuary include

orange-bellied parrots, helmeted honeyeaters, brush-tailed rock wallabies,

mountain pygmy possums and eastern barred bandicoots. Australian zoos are

renowned internationally for their breeding work with Sumatran tigers, a

critically endangered sub-species. Still, zoo insiders and other experts

say conservation takes a back seat to entertainment. In 2004, for

instance, Melbourne Zoo management undertook a major restructure and

scaled back its conservation and research department, which led to the

departure of several high-profile staff.

 

Former conservation and research director Peter Temple-Smith did not have

his contract renewed after the 2004 review. He says the zoo's board and

marketing department often failed to recognise the importance of

conservation, particularly of smaller native animals. " If it's not a big

animal program in the Serengeti, then the zoo sometimes struggles to see

the point. "

 

Zoologist and former Melbourne Zoo employee of 19 years Peter Myroniuk was

another casualty. He resigned after being overlooked for a job similar to

his own in the 2004 shake-up. " The idea (of the restructure) was to

replace conservation staff with keepers with a keener sense of the

business side of things, " he says.

 

In recent years the catalyst for these debates has been elephants. Just

over 12 months ago, three Thai elephants were brought to Melbourne to join

long-time residents Bong Su and Mek Kapah. The importation of the

elephants - another five went to Taronga Zoo - sparked a domestic and

international controversy, including a protracted legal challenge from

animal welfare groups, protests in Thailand and the spending of as much as

$50 million, including on the creation of special enclosures at Taronga

and Melbourne.

 

Under international guidelines, wild animals can only be imported for

conservation reasons. The zoos managed to convince the Howard government

that conservation was, indeed, their primary motive. Yet the zoos have

struggled to explain to a wider audience how, exactly, this conservation

works.

 

Animal welfare campaigners, including the RSPCA's Hugh Wirth, scoff at the

conservation claims, pointing out that elephants have never bred in

captivity in Australia and, even if they did, their offspring would not be

sent back to the wild.

 

While employed at the zoo, Hancocks was involved in discussions about the

Thai elephants. He says there is no doubt their importation was " first and

foremost a commercial venture " . He says that for a fraction of what was

spent on the new elephant exhibits, the two zoos could have protected

thousands of hectares of elephant habitat in the wild. " This would have

been real conservation. "

 

Zoo acting chief executive Matt Vincent responds that the funding from

government was specifically for enclosures and so would not have been

available for habitat. He says another problem with direct funding of

habitat is that it may protect it for only five or 10 years. The zoo's

elephant program is about long-term investment and partnership with the

community, he says. The zoo hopes to breed the elephants, although Vincent

acknowledges that at this stage the breeding would be for zoos only. He

says a " viable captive herd " would act as an insurance against

" catastrophic declines in the wild " .

 

Former senior zoo curator and now zoo consultant Peter Stroud was in

charge of the elephant program in the early 2000s and also party to

discussions about the Thai elephants. Stroud now says he questions why, if

purchase of the elephants was for conservation and animal welfare, neither

Melbourne nor Taronga sent the animals to their respective open-range

zoos. " Clearly the box office is an issue, " he says. " It's preposterous to

pretend that breeding elephants in Australia is some type of contribution

to elephant conservation. "

 

Vincent struggles to respond to this. As is often the case with zoos on

such matters, he falls back to a second line of defence: education. The

implication is that more people will see the elephants, and therefore

learn more, at Parkville than at Werribee.

 

" Zoos are the incubators of the conservationists of tomorrow, " he says.

" What we're trying to do is capture the hearts and minds of the people to

get them involved in the long term. " He notes that of the 1.6 million

visitors to the three zoos last year, 620,000 students were there for

formal learning programs.

 

WHILE close encounters with wild animals are undoubtedly moving, the

merits of zoo education are unproven. New York University environmental

studies professor Dale Jamieson, queries the education bona fides of zoos.

" Despite the pious platitudes that are often made about the educational

efforts of zoos, there is little evidence they are successful in educating

people about animals, " he concludes in Australian philosopher Peter

Singer's 2006 book In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave.

 

The two zoos stress that the Thai elephants did not come from Eden-like

rainforest but from work camps where they were disciplined and worked in

chains. The suggestion here is that they are actually better off in

Parkville than Thailand. Critics respond that buying elephants from

Thailand - even from work camps - only encourages a market in them, and

poaching. One senior elephant handler in Thailand says elephants have a

much richer life working in Thailand than being cooped up in urban zoos in

Australia.

 

The Trail of the Elephants enclosure at Parkville has won awards and its

Thai village, complete with community hall, colourful roadway kiosk and

jungle, is a popular enhancement to visitors' zoo experience. Vincent says

the zoo would have been criticised had it not redeveloped the previous,

outdated elephant enclosure.

 

Stroud says that through exhibits such as the Trail of the Elephants the

zoo is attempting to create a fantasy in which people are taken on an

international safari to see animals in their own environment. " In reality

all the resources go into the human experience at the expense of the

animals. That's the dilemma of zoos around the world. They all do it. "

 

Hancocks helped design the enclosure, which he now says was a mistake.

While he believes it to be better than any such exhibit in Australia, he

says his study of elephants since has convinced him that no urban

enclosure is adequate for them. He likens the enclosure to " being locked

in a hotel room with four other people, not of your choosing, for the rest

of your life " .

 

Even so, the elephants, tigers, orang-utans and butterflies are the stars

of the show at Parkville and, on the face of it, seem to get special

attention, and money. The lesser lights such as kangaroos, many of the

birds, the pumas, leopards and bears languish in inferior enclosures, some

of which have not been upgraded for decades.

 

Having a big, pink bulbous bottom is a real disadvantage. If you're a

baboon at the Melbourne Zoo you get a concrete and wire cage, not much

better than the barred cage used as a reminder of the bad old days.

 

Vincent acknowledges the age of the baboon enclosure but stresses that the

care of animals is top class. He says the current group are the happiest

he has seen in 20 years at the zoo. Under a long-term plan, all the old

enclosures are earmarked for redevelopment, money permitting. Some of the

current " collection " of species will no longer be kept at Melbourne as

part of a strategy to concentrate on animals from the South-East Asian

region.

 

Despite the ongoing controversy over captive animals, Vincent says zoos

will play an ever bigger role in the future, courtesy of disappearing

habitat and the species that go with it. " The need to keep animals in

captivity will continue to grow and our relevance and value to the

community to preserve species, to preserve habitats will increase and

strengthen. "

 

This view, that zoos are the modern arks, and zoo professionals the modern

Noahs, is common among zoo managers. But if they are to play this ark role

then money will continue as a major challenge.

 

In her 2001 book After the Ark then Australian National University

research fellow Nicole Mazur argues that the answer to the dilemma of

zoos, money and animal care may be a fundamental rethink of their place in

the 21st century. She says zoos should consider abandoning their old-world

entertainment role and operate more like museums, galleries or parks,

charging little or no admission but relying more on government support.

 

Hancocks and Stroud call for zoos with less focus on big mammals which,

they say, should not be kept in such confined, " impoverished "

environments. Stroud says the idea of zoos as places " to see animals "

should be replaced by the idea of them as " dynamic interactive environment

centres " - more like Scienceworks than a traditional, passive zoo.

 

Such zoos, he says, should be accountable to the community rather than to

a business-dominated board more concerned with performance indicators than

biodiversity. " If we need a redefinition of humanity's relationship with

nature, we need zoos that are able to help change things, not merely

reflect current market demand. "

 

Melbourne-born ethicist and philosopher Peter Singer believes time is

probably up for the traditional inner-city zoo such as Melbourne. The

question then, Singer told The Age, would become what to do with the

animals already in captivity. He says there may be a case for

Werribee-style open range zoos if the animals were allowed a varied and

active life, or if they seriously face extinction. Otherwise sterilisation

is an option to prevent future generations suffering in zoo conditions.

 

Writing in Singer's book, Dale Jamieson sees the vision of the modern ark

as tragic because Noah, after all, found a place for his animals to roam

free and thrive. " If zoos are like arks then rare animals are like

passengers on a voyage of the damned. "

 

Royce Millar is an Age investigative reporter. Cameron Houston is city

reporter.