EXTENSIVE CAPTIVITY UNDERMINES THE SOCIETAL INTERACTIONS OF APES
Lindsey Linfoot, Committee of Management and Members of the Humane Society of Western Australia 2002. “Submission on the Draft Policy on the Use of Non-Human Primates in Medical Research”. Committee of Management and Members of the Humane Society of Western Australia. http://www.avwa.com.au/subprimates.pdf
However, cognitive responses in non-human primates are not limited just to chimpanzees, what we may consider as normal and routine can cause distress in other non-human primates signifying that they are extremely aware of events or activities. “Some of the normal daily human activities associated with keeping primates are likely to be stressful to the animals. Collection of blood samples generally requires physical restraint and the transient pain of venipuncture, and may be otherwise aversive. The disorientation and loss of control caused by anaesthesia may itself lead to fear and distress.” 9Emotional bonds and attachments formed between non-human primates and other species are well documented signifying that the display of emotions is not just reserved for human beings. Bonding is even pointed out in your own documentation. “Social interaction is paramount for well-being. Social deprivation in all its formsmust be avoided.”10“Rhesus have formed strong and specific attachments to their canine companions(Mason & Kenney, 1974). Although the infant in this study appeared to show some interest in the dog throughout testing, contact with the dog was more frequent near the end of the study. This may be indicative of the bond formation process as well as the infant's development.”
Acts of kindness is another emotion not solely restricted to human beings; “Binti Juna, A female lowland gorilla was the center of media attention in August of 1996. She had obtained "Hero" of the year after her rescue and gentile treatment of an injured child who had fallen into her zoo exhibit. People were astonished at the video footage of the gorilla cradling the unconscious little boy and then carrying him to a door where zoo keepers could reach him. This wasn't the first time a gorilla did such a thing, for several years ago, a seven foot tall male (a silverback) named Jambo, received media attention when a young boy had fallen into his exhibit, and he too astonished people with his gentile caressing of the unconscious child.”Captive breeding and confinement on the other hand has negative effect causing social disorders and self-mutilation and boredom. “It was concluded that hair-pulling-and-eating is an aggressive behavioural disorder in captive rhesus monkeys, reflecting psychogenic adjustment problems in an unnatural environment. (Supported by NIHGrant RR-00167).”Once again this negative aspect can be easily extrapolated to human beings where inmates of penal institutions display anti social behaviour.
APES IN CAPTIVITY ARE TREATED BADLY
American Legal Defense Fund 2003 “Primate Prisoners” http://www.aldf.org/archives.asp?sect=search§ionid=4§ion=Issues
In 1985, Congress told the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to protect the psychological well-being of apes and monkeys in captivity. Yet today it’s plain to see that the USDA hasn’t followed through. For proof, all you have to do is spend a few minutes with Chico and Terry. They’re both chimpanzees who’ve been locked up alone for years. And they’re both suffering.
CAPTURING ANIMALS FOR ZOOS USUALLY INVOLVES VIOLENCE
Mark Rowlands, Professor of Moral Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire, 2002, Animals Like Us, p. 155
In addition to the loss of autonomy, we also have to consider how animals get to be in zoos in the first place. When chimpanzees, for example, are taken from the wild, the usual procedure is to shoot the mother and capture the child. All animals face a traumatic capture and equally traumatic transport, usually over long distances, to their place of confinement. In short, zoos typically thwart some of the most vital interests of animals, and the route by which many animals get to be in zoos in the first place is one that often involves considerable suffering. This is one of the things you will know in the impartial position.
Confinement for Great Apes Harmful
NO LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DETENTION OF APES IN ZOOS
Jared Diamond, Professor of physiology, UCLA, 1994, The Great Ape Project: equality beyond humanity, eds. Cavalieri & Singer, p. 88
The next time that you visit a zoo, make a point of walking past the ape cages. Imagine that the apes had lost most of their hair, and imagine a cage nearby holding some unfortunate people who had no clothes and couldn’t speak but were otherwise normal. Now try guessing how similar those apes are to ourselves genetically. For instance, would you guess that a chimpanzee shares 10, 50, or 99 percent of its genes with humans?
Then ask yourself why those apes are on exhibition in cages, and why other apes are being used for medical experiments, while it is not permissible to do either of those things to humans. Suppose it turned out that chimps share 99.9 percent of their genes with us, and that the important differences between humans and chimps were due to just a few genes. Would you still think it is okay to put chimps in cages and to experiment on them? Consider those unfortunate mentally impaired people who have much less capacity to solve problems, to care for themselves, to communicate, to engage in social relationships and to feel pain, than do apes. What is the logic that forbids medical experiments on those people, but not on apes?
MORAL VALIDITY OF ZOOS EXTREMELY SUSPECT
Robert Garner, Professor of Politics, University of Leicester, 2004, Animals, politics and morality, p. 96
In recent years, as the animal protection movement ha begun to step up its attack on the keeping of wild animals in captivity and as the public’s knowledge of wildlife has increased, defenders have claimed a variety of roles for zoos. The four main benefits that have been regularly cited are entertainment, education research and conservation. In so far as zoos exist purely for the amusement of those who visit them—and this probably applies to the bulk of them—their moral validity is extremely suspect. Only if they provide exemplary environments for the animals, excluding those species which cannot be kept in captivity, without suffering, can they be justified. Zoos also emphasize their educational value. In so far as they do—and many zoos pay lip-service to providing an educational content to their displays – it has to be asked whether viewing animals in cages or in small compounds can really teach anything of value – except perhaps that wild animals should not be kept in this way. This is particularly the case now that excellent natural history films are able to show to a wide audience the behavior or exotic wild animals in their natural habitats.
ZOOS NOT MORALLY DEFENSIBLE WHEN WEIGHED AGAINST ANIMAL RIGHTS
Tom Regan, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University, 2003, The Animal Ethics Reader, eds. Armstrong & Botzler, p. 454
An alternative to the utilitarian attack on anthropocentrism is the rights view. Those who accept this view hold that (1) the moral assessment of zoos must be carried out against the backdrop of the rights of animals and that (2) when we make this assessment against this backdrop, zoos, as they presently exist, are not morally defensible.
MORALITY OF CONFINING NONHUMAN ANIMALS IN ZOOS CAN ONLY BE JUSTIFIED BY THE INDIVIDUAL ANIMALS’ INTEREST
Tom Regan, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, North Carolina State University, 2003, The Animal Ethics Reader, eds. Armstrong & Botzler, p. 455
Thus the central question: Are animals in zoos treated with appropriate respect? To answer this question, we begin with an obvious fact—namely, the freedom of these animals is compromised, to varying degrees, by the conditions of their captivity. The rights view recognizes the justifications of limiting anothers’ freedom but only in a narrow range of cases. The most obvious relevant case would be one in which it is in the best interests of a particular animal to keep that animal in confinement. In principle, therefore, confining wild animals is zoos can be justified, according to the rights view, but only if it can be shown that it is in their best interests to do so. That being so, it is morally irrelevant to insist that zoos provide important educational and recreational opportunities for humans, or that captive animals serve as useful models in important scientific research, or that regions in which zoos are located benefit economically, or that zoo programs offer the opportunity for protecting rare or endangered species, or that variations on these programs insure genetic stock, or that any other consequence arises from keeping wild animals in captivity that forwards the interest of other individuals, whether humans or nonhumans.
Share with your friends: |
