Newsletter 76
05/09/13
Zoochosis
Corbett with siblings, Sariska and Panna
Look into the eyes of a caged tiger and you will
see the zombie victim of 'zoochosis': A passionate plea by
conservationist who breeds big cats to return them to wild
By
Damian Aspinall
PUBLISHED: 22:05 GMT, 10 August 2013 | UPDATED:
08:19 GMT, 23 August 2013
It is more than 180 years since the first
zoos opened in Britain. To put that in perspective, the electric
telegraph hadn’t been invented, never mind the telephone, and
passenger railways had only just come into existence.
People rarely travelled far, hardly ever abroad,
so imagine their delight when they visited menageries filled with
chimpanzees, oryx and orangutans.
I can also understand why so many of you today
want to take your children to see an elephant or giraffe or gorilla
close up.
But I think the time has come to re-evaluate the
role of zoos. I know it’s not practical to close all zoos today. Nor
am I suggesting that all zoos can be closed tomorrow. But I am
proposing that we phase them out over the next 20 to 30 years.
If you are going to the zoo today, I urge you to
look closely.
In the wild, these creatures roam hundreds of
miles. They hunt their prey, raise their offspring and enjoy complex
social relationships. So think how it must feel to be locked up with
no stimulation, no room to move and no chance of freedom.
Little wonder they develop self-destructive
behaviours known as ‘zoochosis’ – repetitively walking in tight
circles, rocking, swaying and sometimes mutilating themselves.
Watch the lion or the tiger. See if it pads back
and forth across its pen . . . back and forth . . . back and
forth.
Zoos proudly announce millions spent on new
enclosures – approximately £130 million has been spent in Europe
over the past few years. Imagine the projects they could have funded
in the wild for that amount. And nearly all these enclosures are
designed for the benefit of the public, not the animals.
All too often they are left on permanent display
with nowhere to hide. They have no shade, little shelter, no
privacy at all. For all the money spent, the life of a zoo animal is
no different now from what it was almost two centuries ago. All this
suffering, for what? Nothing more than our own amusement. That is
hard to stomach.
Before I am accused of hypocrisy, let me set out
my stall. I'm involved in two wildlife parks in Kent, Howletts and
Port Lympne, which have gorillas, rhinos, elephants and other
wildlife. The public pay a fee to see them. This money is for the
animals’ upkeep and to help fund the Aspinall Foundation, a
conservation initiative to return captive-bred animals to the wild.
I’m proud we have now bred more captive animals –
and reintroduced them to the wild – than any other organisation in
the world.
Our aim is to get these animals back to the
wild and bolster the indigenous populations of endangered species.
That is the only reason we breed and keep them. I hope that one day
that reason will no longer exist. My greatest achievement would be
to close Howletts and Port Lympne for good.
Because we are in the countryside we can give our
animals more space –- not enough, but it’s an improvement on urban
zoos. We also have a strict ethos. The animals come first, not the
public. Almost all zoos, I’m afraid, have a different approach. Why
else have penguin shows and sea lion hour? How can anybody say that
is in the best interest of the animals’ mental welfare?
Zoos were first designed as businesses. In the
1960s, as our awareness of animal welfare grew, there was a pressure
to improve and modernise. Zoos began breeding programmes to protect
endangered species and claimed they were there to encourage children
to develop an interest in the natural world.
That is blatant nonsense. After all, we manage to
teach children about the Greeks and Romans.
We should be teaching our children that animals
have as much right to live with dignity as we do. By taking them to
the zoo we teach them the opposite.
Another argument is that zoos are there for
everyone – only the rich can afford a safari.
I don’t buy that line. Today, we can see life in
the wild as never before. We can watch the amber eyes of the hawk
and its slow wing beats as it prepares to swoop on its prey. We can
watch the lioness, fur bristling, as she scans the savannah for
predators, protecting her young.
Day in, day out, on television, we can witness
these creatures in a way that would have astonished our ancestors.
So why are we still resorting to the same form of entertainment they
had nearly 200 years ago?
Nowadays, zoos say they are in the business of
conservation. In my opinion, that’s a lie. They are in the
conservation of business.
Take their breeding programmes. Even when zoos do
breed successfully it is not with the aim of reintroducing animals
to their natural habitat. Their interest is in ensuring they have a
captive population . . . and when that captive population gets
too large they put their animals on the pill to control numbers.
I think it is now time to take a leap forward.
If zoos are really being honest with the public about their motives,
why are 75 per cent of the animals they keep not even endangered?
So what’s the answer? Obviously we can’t change
the mentality of ‘zoo-ocracies’ overnight. Like any bureaucracy,
they do not desire change or see a way forward.
We must find a new path. I suggest that over the
next 20 years we phase out the keeping of species that are not
endangered or rare. That would free up more space for the species
that need our protection.
The real fight for species’ survival will be won
or lost in the wild. But how much do zoos contribute to projects
that protect natural habitat, tackle endemic poaching and
reintroduce animals back into the wild?
THEY say they contribute but since they don’t
have to publish figures, there is no way for us to know. I believe
there must be absolute transparency on this issue. And I also think
any institution that keeps animals in captivity should be taxed a
levy of approximately ten to 15 per cent for reinvestment in
in-situ projects.
And any new enclosures where substantial amounts
of money are to be invested must be analysed properly by a
regulatory body to prove that the designs are for the benefit of the
animals and not the public.
At Howletts and Port Lympne we have animals that
can’t breed any more, that aren’t endangered and our enclosures
can’t ever be big enough. But we’re brave enough to admit those
failings. Zoos must be honest enough to do the same.
Change can only be led by us as individuals. I
understand why many of you might be thinking of taking your children
to just such a place today. There’s a certain nostalgia – many of us
were taken by our parents or grandparents – and a misguided belief
that zoos are a respectable form of entertainment.
But the truth is they’re not. Just look into the
eyes of a caged tiger and tell me otherwise.
JV's Response:
Hello Friends
I agree entirely with Damien Aspinall. The recent
decision to not allow elephants in zoos should be the first step in
phasing out zoos completely.
The decision by countries world wide to not allow
animals in circus acts should be implemented immediately.
When the fences were washed away in 2011 at Tiger
Canyons, I was forced to bring Corbett into a boma 200m by 200m. The
alternative was to leave him to be killed by Seatao. However,
Corbett was wild born and wild raised and then confined to
captivity. The decision haunts me daily.
By December 2013, Corbett will gain his freedom
once again, as the expansion of Tiger Canyons is complete.
I am counting down the days to freedom.
Tread Lightly on the Earth
JV
As Rhino Poaching Surges, South
Africa Proposes Legalized Trade in Precious Horns
By John R. Platt, July 12, 2013
The South African government released two important and
shocking news items last week. The first announcement
revealed that 461 rhinos had been poached in the country
to date as of July 3—more than were killed in all of
2011. Poachers target the animals for their horns, which
are valued in China and Vietnam for their purported (but
nonexistent) medicinal qualities. The second
announcement was a proposal for the legalization of
rhino-horn trade, which is currently illegal under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES).
The
announcements came from Edna Molewa, South Africa’s
Minister of Water and
Environmental Affairs, who
said she will formally make
the proposal at the 2016
meeting of CITES delegates
(known as the Convention of
the Parties or COP), which
will take place in South
Africa that year. Molewa
praised her country’s
efforts to conserve rhinos—a
true success story, as both
African species were nearly
wiped out a few decades
ago—while saying that this
success has also made the
animals targets for criminal
gangs. “South Africa cannot
continue to be held hostage
by the syndicates
slaughtering our rhinos,”
she said in a prepared
statement to the media,
adding that a
“well-regulated trade
system” would help all
future conservation efforts.
South Africa reportedly
will not seek a full
legalization of all
rhino-horn trade but a
one-time sale of current
stockpiles. The South
African government has
stockpiled more than 16,400
kilograms of rhino
horns—mostly confiscated
from poachers—while private
owners possess about 2,000
kilograms more—ironically,
mostly horns that have been
removed from live animals to
make them less attractive to
poachers. With rhino horns
fetching anywhere from
$10,000 to $40,000 a
kilogram, the South African
government could net half a
billion dollars or more from
the proposed sale. Private
ranchers, who own much of
South Africa’s rhino
population, would also
benefit from this windfall.
In fact, many ranchers have
been pushing for a sale like
this.
South
Africa’s deputy director
general for biodiversity,
Fundisile Mketeni, said
monies from the one-off sale
“should go to
conservation”—note that he
didn’t say it would—but
experts and conservation
organizations say the sale
would do little more than
feed the growing desire for
rhino horns and make the
situation much, much worse
in the long run.
History
backs them up on this point.
Similar one-off sales of
ivory to Japan in 1999 and
China in 2008 have been
linked to the resultant
increased demand for ivory
in Asia, which has driven
elephant poaching across
Africa to crisis proportions
in the past decade. At the
time, proponents of those
sales said flooding the
market with stockpiled ivory
would lower prices and
therefore eliminate the
incentive to poach more
elephants. The opposite
happened and prices soared.
South Africa now argues that
putting more than 18,000
kilograms of rhino horn up
for sale would glut the
market, lower prices and
save more rhinos. This is an
argument we have heard
before.
Meanwhile, any legal
rhino horn market only
supports the misconception
that this keratinous body
part has medicinal
qualities. In China and
especially Vietnam rhino
horn powder is sold as a
cancer cure and an
after-party drug to remove
hangovers. Rhino horns have
no such abilities. Why
support the misplaced
economic value of something
that has no practical
function for humans, and why
support the utterly false
belief that rhino horn could
cure desperately sick people
of their cancer? As WildAid
Executive Director Peter
Knights wrote on the
organization’s blog,
“Legitimizing and promoting
demand for rhino horn would
inevitably create a far
larger consumer base and
once this genie is out we
could never re-cork the
bottle if the experiment
went wrong.”
And while
South Africa may be home to
73 percent of the world’s
rhinos, will consumers care
if their rhino horn powder
is sustainably sourced,
which species it comes from
or if it originates from
South Africa? Poachers don’t
care: they’ll target the
animals that are easiest to
kill and yield the biggest
profits, so they’ll take
whatever animals they can
get. A renewed rhino-horn
trade could increase the
threats against the Sumatran
rhino, which now numbers
fewer than 275 animals, or
the Javan rhino, which has
fewer than 50 surviving
members of its species.
Those species can’t handle
any increase in poaching
levels.
So, would
legalizing rhino horn trade
put an end to poaching? I
doubt it. Putting a
“well-regulated trade
system” in place would
probably take years and high
levels of international
cooperation. Meanwhile the
criminal mechanisms already
exist to poach and smuggle
rhino horn and it seems
highly doubtful that they
would transition to a legal
system; instead, they would
continue to kill and smuggle
through existing channels
while the news that rhino
horns were about to become
legal served to increase
their market.
South
Africa is obviously
desperate to protect its
rhinos. Poaching hurts not
just animals but people, and
dozens of guards and rangers
have been murdered
protecting the rhinos in
their charge. Guarding and
protecting every rhino is
next to impossible, as most
live in gigantic national
parks or wide-ranging
reserves. Corruption exists
at every level, from guards
and police who take bribes
from poachers to
veterinarians who provide
the drugs used to take down
rhinos.
Legalizing rhino horn,
however, does not appear to
be the answer. Instead, the
international community
needs to target the consumer
demand for rhino horn and
end it. Rhino horns are
useless to every human but
they are essential for
rhinos, which use them to
defend themselves and root
up food. Eliminating the
market for rhino horns is
the only way we’re going to
ensure the long-term
survival of these threatened
species.
One last
note: in the eight days
after the legalization
announcement an additional
19 rhinos were killed in
South Africa, bringing this
year’s total to 480. Only
140 people have been
arrested for the crimes so
far this year.
JV's
Response:
People
have phoned me
congratulating me on the
South African Government's
decision to open the trade
in rhino horn. I don't see
it as a cause for
celebration. The fact that
the rhino has to pay its way
into the future via the
trade of its horn, is an
indictment against the human
species. The trade in rhino
horn is in my opinion, the
best of several bad options
and I congratulate the South
African Government on their
bold decision.
However,
I query the fact that the
Government must wait until
2016 to implement. Surely a
special meeting of CITES can
be called. This is a major
crisis and South Africa has
95% of the rhinos. By 2016,
several thousand rhinos
could be dead at the present
rate of poaching.
The
article makes several valid
points. What will be the
effect on the last of the
Javan and Sumatran rhino? We
don't know! What we do know
is the present situation is
catastrophic and we have to
change.
The onus
is now on every one of us
rhino owners who are in
possession of rhino horn to
support the SA Government by
trading responsibly through
controlled auctions.
I
challenge the private
enterprise to make the
considerable investment in
rhino horn cloning and turn
it into a billion dollar
profitable business and then
plough the funds back into
conservation and by
extension, protection of the
rhino.
Tread lightly on the earth
JV
Response
I read your newsletters since I
have visited you and your project in 2008. Most of
them are quite interesting. I do not always have the
same opinion as you but this time I think I have to
reply for the first time. Of course there are always
at least to sides of every story and the attitude
towards zoos can differ. There are several pros and
cons and every one has to balance them and take his
own decision. However, some statements are not
correct from my point of view. I do not know Damian
Aspinall but how can you compare to see a real
animal with watching a film? Do you have no plants
in your house just because it is so easy to get the
most beautiful pictures of flowers? Can such a
picture substitute the plant in your house? Do you
have no garden but a video-installation with
changing pictures of the jungle? Do you tell your
children not to go out and play football but rather
watch TV because the professional players can do
much better and can be seen from any perspective? Do
you live in front of a computer because google has
it all instead of going out? Probably not. I am
quite sure that reality cannot be substituted by
digital media. Yes, they can intensify our senses
but without reality we will never feel a real
passion for nature and in turn will not protect it.
I do go to zoos with my two year old twins and they
love it. I let them interact with pets. I let them
ride on a horse (if you can call it that way with
two years). I do hardly never show them films,
however. And I know that animals will play a role in
their live when they are grown ups. That is
important to educate them in a way that they will
protect our nature one day.
It is not correct that zoos play
a minor role in conservation. The entrance fees you
state that could be used for other purposes would
not be available without zoos. So your idea doesn't
lead anywhere. Think of the Frankfurt zoological
society and call in mind that Serengeti would
probably not exist any more without Frankfurt zoo.
This is only one of the uncountable projects that
are not only supported but carried by zoos. Of
course there are bad zoos and yes, especially the
leopards have not the best enclosures in most zoos.
Tigers and lions are much more relevant for the
visitors and therefore they can get the more
expensive enclosures. Zoos do a lot against
zoochosis and I wonder quite often how animals would
choose if they could. A life in free nature, in a
zoo, as a pet. What is best? Compared with humans
probably most think that roaming free is best. But
this is only the romantic idea we have of it. How
many people realy chose such a life? Most
individuals chose the burgois annoying life with a
retirement arrangement. And that it why I am not
sure if sometimes the life in a zoo - even if it is
not the life the animals were designed for - is the
preferable one. Humans also changed their lifes in a
way that has not much to do with what they were
designed for from evolutionary aspects.
Kind regards and see you one day
when our children are older
Joe
JV
A couple of things
· In SA only 10% of
the population have been to a Park
· Only 80% have
access to TV, only 36% to Dstv
· How many Zoo’s
worldwide have closed down over the last 10
years?
· How do you connect
ordinary people with wild animals who will never
visit a park with the wild? TV is not the
answer, its surreal.
· A think a case can
be made for a bit of ‘reverse psychology’ when
one visits a zoo one could become intensely
aware of the ‘suffering’, it stimulates a
conservation consciousness, an interest to visit
a park when you can, a commitment to take up the
cause.
· Zoo’s also
facilitate green areas. If they are closed
hopefully a park will replace.
Best
Steuart Pennington
