Zoos need radical rethink

A plea for Lammie the elephant

WE NEED to talk about the future of zoos. There are about 1 500 formal and many more informal ones in the world holding between three and four million undomesticated, non-human creatures displayed for our curiosity and amusement. It’s fair to ask: to what end?

In a world of rapidly shrinking wild biomes, species collapse and rising extinction, there are two questions that need to be asked of these ubiquitous but strange institutions:

What is the conservation value to the species of the individuals confined in zoos and are the conditions under which they’re held conducive to their physical and psychological well-being?

At great cost to themselves, we’re asking zoo animals to be wild ambassadors and live in captivity. If they’re cared for, well-fed, safe and able to socially interact in extensive enclosures – are happy – and their presence serves to support the survival of their wild cousins, their confinement may be justifiable. If these outcomes are not in place, and they seldom are, zoos are simply money-making freak shows.

They have a chequered history. Originally, zoos were created as private royal menageries in Egypt, Assyria and China, but in the Roman Empire they became the holding pens for brutal public spectacle. The first zoo as we know it was the London Zoo founded in 1828. It initially did science behind closed doors, but opened to entertain paying guests. Since then zoos have spread across the globe and most use cages with bars to keep the animals inside and on display. They’re a tangible link to a colonial past and reminders of the conquest of distant lands.

Which brings me to Lammie, the lonely elephant at the Johannesburg Zoo. There’s a photograph of her precariously reaching across a deep moat to an outside world she has never known for the 39 years of her life. Once, touching that freedom, she fell into the moat but, miraculously, was uninjured but for a broken tusk.

She’s the last of her known family and lonely, living at the zoo in a treeless enclosure with minimal water under the unremitting gaze of human visitors. Last year her only companion, Kinkel, died of colic and eating sand. Lammie spends most of her day against the wall of her enclosure, the only shady place, where she stands doing almost nothing, a sign of boredom and probably depression.

Humane Society International Africa, the EMS Foundation, Ban Animal Trading and the Elephant Reintegration Trust have joined forces to try to persuade the zoo to move her to a rewilding sanctuary. They offered to pay for the translocation.

The zoo’s response was that Lammie couldn’t be moved “as she was born at the zoo and has lived her whole life in this environment”.

A former director of the zoo, Dr Pat Condy, gave a different take on the reason for exhibits like Lammie. He told Out There magazine: “We are in the family recreation business. The zoo is competing with places like the Randburg Waterfront and the Bruma Lake Flea Market”.

The four NGOs pointed out that a single elephant standing doing nothing had no educational value and, furthermore, there was no adequate environmental enrichment for Lammie or decent shade in the enclosure. A study the organisations undertook found that few people spend more than three minutes at her enclosure.

The zoo’s marketing manager, Jenny Moodley agreed that more signs and educational input was needed, but said there was unfortunately only one education officer.

In a letter to the zoo, the NGOs noted that “there are numerous examples of ex-captive elephants being successfully reintegrated into the wild. Therefore, the argument that Lammie is required to be kept captive because she is zoo-born is extremely weak.

Moodley pointed out, however, that when an elephant named Thandora was relocated from Bloemfontein Zoo to Gondwana Game Reserve she died, so moving Lammie could pose a danger. Gondwana owner Mark Rutherford agreed that relocation of single elephants can be tricky. But he said that by first pairing elephants then releasing them, relocation was possible.

Moodley said the zoo was about to acquire another elephant (contradicting previous statements that no decision had been taken) and to expand the enclosure, but the National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) has opposed this and threatened legal action. The reason, it says, is that the zoo’s captive environment is detrimental to any elephant’s well-being. It also resigned from the zoo’s animal ethics committee.

According to an NSPCA statement, (we) “informed the zoo that if they are to move to obtain another elephant, the society would launch an application in the High Court to interdict the action. It would be completely irresponsible of the Johannesburg Zoo to continue to deprive elephants of a good life,” said Karen Trendler, NSPCA’s trade and trafficking portfolio manager.

Lammie’s situation highlights the need for a wider discussion about zoos and the animals confined in them. Non-human animals have been found to display fear, sadness, happiness, playfulness and curiosity. They’re sentient in the fullest meaning of the word. At a time when scientists know more than ever about the inner lives of animals and when concerns about animal rights loom large, many experts think that zoos need a major overhaul if they’re going to survive.