Ethical Issues Using Live Animals in Public Education Outreach Programs
Includes: Final Report Promotional Brochure Public Education Presentation – Props List
By: Kimberley Pastirik Completed for: Kawartha Turtle Trauma Centre Supervising Professor: Joe Cebek, Trent University Trent‐Centre for Community‐Based Education
Department: Biology Course Code: BIOL 3891H Course Name: Community‐Based Research Project Completion Date: April 2010 Project ID: 4086
Ethical Issues of Using Live Animals in Public Education Outreach Programs Joint Research Project with Trent University and the Kawartha Turtle Trauma Center with the Trent Centre for Community-Based Education
Kimberley Pastirik 4/26/2010
Key Words: Ethics, Live Animals, Public Education, Outreach Abstract The breadth of contemporary issues around the ethics of using live animals in educational outreach programs are discussed, citing published materials and expert interviews. While intending to conceptualize animal welfare, discussion is complicated by the interwoven factors of ethics, morals, animal benefits, species benefits, global benefits to conservation and individual animal costs.1 There are a number of philosophical theories that attempt to explain the moral status of animals: utilitarianism; deontology; kinship and organic unity.2 Recommendations are provided to institutions intending to implement live animals into their public programs and a brief outline of animal outreach programs policy is presented.3 It is concluded that the aforementioned theories regarding animal rights guide our beliefs in what is right and good regarding animal welfare when implementing live animals in educational outreach programs. Future study should focus on designing a statistical study to determine the extent to which this impacts future conservation efforts of the individual audience member.
1
Introduction This article explores the very complex and unresolved problem of conceptualizing animal welfare4, specifically with regards to live animals in educational outreach settings. The problem arises due to complicated and interwoven factors of ethics, morals, animal benefits, species benefits, global benefits to conservation and individual animal costs. The general perception of non‐human animals in the western world is that they are considered a resource, whether used as companions, as a food source, means of transport, or for other purposes including conservation education and medical research to be exploited to whatever extent we see fit.4 The value of the use of non‐human animals in human‐run industries is heavily debated, and the extent to which we should be concerned with the moral rights of the animal has been the subject of heavy philosophical debate.2 Several theories proposed by several philosophers are presented and referred to in a discussion of the associated costs and benefits to the individual animal, the species as a whole, the earth, and to the human audiences to which the educational outreach program is aimed. The purpose of this article is to present the breadth of contemporary issues around the ethics of using live animals in educational outreach programs and after having researched published materials and interviewed experts, provides recommendations to institutions intending to implement live animals into their public programs. Before discussing the breadth of contemporary ethical issues regarding the implementation of live animals into educational outreach programs in order to inspire the public to be active in conservation efforts in the future, one must consider the varying definitions of “moral” and “ethical”. It is best to describe moral as the human concept of what is right or wrong, in contrast with ethics which is a more subtle consideration of what is fair or good.2 Metaphorically speaking, morals are seen as black and white, whereas ethical considerations are various shade of grey.2 There are a number of philosophical theories that attempt to explain the moral status of animals: utilitarianism; deontology; kinship and organic unity.2 Before explaining the theories, one may ask why it is important to consider these theories, and as David DeGrazia (1996)puts it “untutored common sense is insufficient in areas such as this, where there is much fundamental disagreement and where traditional or common assumptions are questioned for their adequacy”.5 Philosophy offers critical reflection that can help to distinguish good insights from the products of prejudice.2 When discussing the implementation of live animals into educational outreach settings and presentations, it is critical to realize that there are many manners in which we contort the truths of the biological world in order to justify our means by citing the ends. Examination of the moral and ethical status of animals requires some measure of theorizing, taking us to the area of philosophy known as Ethical Theory.6
2
Utilitarianism7 Utilitarianism is concerned with choosing the action that will result in the most good for the most number of individuals.7 When calculating whether an action is morally right, we sum up the total amount of good that will be the result of the action and compare it to the total amount of harm that will be caused.2 Classical utilitarianism is often cited as the justification of using live animals in both medical research as well as educational outreach.7 Both areas require keeping animals in captivity (whether they are bred and raised there or wild‐caught) by making the argument that the benefits gained from using animals outweighs the costs (possible pain, stress, etc.) that the animal might endure. Classical utilitarianism has been criticized because it fails to take into account the rights of the individuals involved, and only sees the outcome as being “for the greater good”.7 The inherent flaws of utilitarianism include that if we as humans perceive animals as being capable of pain or pleasure, we must include these concerns when determining whether an action is morally right or wrong.7 Second, the very premise of utilitarianism requires us to have a priori knowledge that the outcome of the research or teaching will benefit the human world to a greater extent than the costs will be to the particular animals involved.2 This is not possible to predict, especially in the areas of biomedical research. In the area of educational outreach, it is clouded by the assumption that every audience member will walk away from the presentation having made a strong emotional connection to the animals and therefore be exponentially inspired to facilitate change and become heavily involved in conservation. We should also take into account whether the research or education may be accomplished in an alternative way and could be performed with less harm done.8 Modern utilitarianism recognizes that animals have some sort of status, but believes that humans should be valued more, especially in biomedical research.7 In the author’s opinion, with regard to educational outreach programs, the utilitarianistic view may be applied to an extent only so long as the “outcome” which is inherently seen to be greater than the costs, does not contribute significantly to human gain and is directly aimed at increasing conservation efforts, with the species and earth’s best interests in mind. Deontology‐the “rights‐based” view Deontology rejects in some ways the utilitarian approach to summing up benefits to determine which action is morally right or wrong.9 Deontology asserts that in making these decisions, the rights of the individual (or animal) must always be taken as the higher good.9 In short, deontology cannot justify an action that would otherwise be wrong strictly on the basis that it produces more good consequences than harmful ones.7 Tom Regan9 argues that animals have rights because they possess an inherent value and thus deserve to be treated in a certain way. Regan states that we are each of us an experiencing subject of a life, a conscious creature with individual welfare that has importance to us regardless of our usefulness to others.9 We
3
want and prefer things, believe and feel things, recall and expect things.9 All the dimensions of life including our pleasure, pain, suffering and satisfaction all make a difference in our quality of life.9 Regan claims that these preferences and desires carry into the animal world as well.9 He states the same must be true of those animals that we use, that they must be viewed as the experiencing subjects of a life, and therefore have an inherent value of their own.9 We must use reason, not sentiment and emotion to realize that animals have an equal and inherent value and therefore deserve to be treated with respect.9 Because these animals are treated routinely and systematically as if their value were reducible to their usefulness to others, their rights are routinely and systematically violated.9 Deontology focuses on the moral autonomy (inherent to all living things) and gives special attention to those who possess moral autonomy, suggesting that it should carry special weight.9 Thus, deontology like utilitarianism, leaves room for the argument about the special status of human beings, appealing to a hierarchy according to which it is better to use a more primitive animal that a more complex one. Kinship and Organic Unity The Kinship Theory can be visualized as a series of concentric circles surrounding a human being.7 The closer a person, or species, is to the center of the circle, the stronger our obligation is to protect and respect those beings.7 For example, family and friends would be seen in the nearest circle to the center, and we would experience our strongest feelings of obligation and kinship to those beings occupying a position of proximity when compared to strangers.9 But this does not mean that those beings (including animals) laying further from the center of the circle do not deserve respect and consideration to their suffering.7 Consider your pet’s position in this circle in relation to the position of a human stranger. You feel more moral obligation to minimize your pet’s suffering than you would a human stranger. Because animals fall into the scope of concern we should have feelings of kinship and compassion towards them, although the feelings dwindle as the phylogenetic relationship to us becomes more distant.7 The Organic Unity theory is based on the premise that life is unique and contributes to the earth to its own purposeful ends.7 Organic unity presents similarities that may be integrated into utilitarian or deontological theory: the goals exhibited by organic unity might be taken as ‘good’ consequences to be maximized, or as a state inherently worthy of moral respect.7 Organic unity theory also recognizes a certain hierarchy in that the more complex the organism, the more deserving of respect and care it is. These theories all contribute to our ways of thinking about animal suffering, and traditionally influence our decisions regarding animal testing in biomedical research but can also be readily applied to the ethical considerations required when considering the use of live animals in educational outreach settings. These four theories in no way represent all of the philosophical theories available to debate such a broad topic, but are included with the
4
intention of introducing the reader to a different way of thinking about the ethical issues regarding the use of live animals in educational outreach settings. Citing the theories outlined above, two main concepts on the treatment of animals arise. Firstly, one can accept that we are “greater” beings and as such have been naturally selected to increase our fitness by any means possible, including the unregulated exploitation of animals. In contrast, one can be of the opinion that given that we have evolved to a more complex state than other beings of this earth, that it is our responsibility as a “more complex” being, having placed ourselves at the top of organic hierarchy as cognitive, intelligent, socially complex species highly capable of communication and learning to not only be aware of the impact of our species, but to strive to minimize the impact our future generations have on the planet.10 In regards to maximized fitness and the propagation of the human race, both views are founded in evolutionary biology. Although there is heavy opposition to the concept of “group selection”,11 by regulating our impact on the earth and its resources, we are inadvertently practicing a mode of prudency towards the earth, by balancing our parasitism with our requirement of the earth for our own fitness. Meaning that in order to ensure our species’ fitness, and the overall contribution of genes to the next generation, the behaviour of regulating our use of resources (both living and non‐living), subsequently ensures the fitness and survival of our future generations, and inclusively our genes. By educating and inspiring as much concern for conservation as possible to our future generations, we are instilling the beliefs that we have evolved to be cognitive, and have the ability to plan into the distant future and discuss the distant past, unlike other species of the earth, and therefore have the responsibility to do our part in ensuring a maintenance of balance for future generations.12 Up‐close and personal contact with animals is a powerful educational tool that provides a variety of benefits to individuals and institutions seeking to convey cognitive and emotionally inspiring messages to the public about wildlife and environmental conservation.3 The author has found that the advantages of this hands‐on teaching method includes: greater absorption of information regarding conservation and animal life history/welfare, an ignited interest and passion in wildlife conservation, the engaging of the learner who is now motivated to make change happen as the experience has been more meaningful, the dispelling of myths and an increased compassion for previously misunderstood animals. This method of teaching is widely used by those institutions such as zoos, aquariums, and charitable organizations aiming to: promote individual environmental responsibility; encourage responsible consumerism and increase public awareness with the intention of inspiring people to get involved in conservation efforts around the globe. Individuals involved in educational outreach and/or the handling of live animals were surveyed electronically regarding their opinions on the ethics of using live animals in educational outreach using the questionnaire found in Appendix A. General impressions
5
include: the costs and benefits to the animals involved; the benefits to the audience members and the overall benefits to the involved species as a whole. As defined by the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Program Animal Policy, a program animal is “described as an animal presented either within or outside of its normal exhibit or holding area and intended to have regular proximity to or physical contact with trainers, handlers, or the public, or to be part of an ongoing conservation education / outreach program”.13 It is of great importance to recognize that the implementation of any program animal comes with a host of responsibilities including the welfare of the animals used (i.e.: psychological and physiological well‐being), the safety of the animal handlers and public14, and accountability for the messages received by the audience.3 These responsibilities are surrounded by a host of ethical and often legal issues, which heavily complicate the effective implementation of, live animals into educational outreach programs. Welfare refers to a characteristic of the animal, and is not something given to them by man. Welfare can be defined “as state of being regarding its attempts to cope with its environment”.6 The definition refers to a characteristic of the individual at the time, and is a measure of how well the being is faring, ranging on a scale from very poor to very good.4 To measure welfare, one must start with full knowledge of the animal’s biology and all of its needs.4 For lack of a better word, and without the intention of propagating anthropomorphism, animal ‘feelings’ are important in its own determination of responses.4 Feelings are adaptive aspects of an individual’s biology that must have evolved in order to survive in the same manner that anatomy, physiology and behaviour have evolved. For example, fear and pain play an important role in determining the fast‐acting response to predators and risk of immediate injury.4 Additionally, stimuli involved in situations which subsequently effect fitness effect animal responses have a biological basis. Evolutionarily, responses to stimuli are determined by genetics, and past experiences, and as such determine the fitness of the individual in nature. When humans intervene with the normal processes of nature, by either capturing wild animals or by breeding them in captivity, we are altering the influential experiences that determine an individual animal’s fitness, derailing natural selection and introducing artificial selection.12 The issues of using animals to better our own welfare as humans, is complicated, as those people who see health and affective states as the only components of animal welfare, will not reach the same conclusion regarding welfare as those who see the animals’ ability to behave in a natural way as the key component.1 14
The implementation of live animals into educational outreach programs, presented to a variety of audiences is integral in inspiring a passion for the conservation of the earth. As the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA)15 states, “When well presented by professional staff, personal interactions with animals are the basis of an emotional connection that ensures the transmission of information in a positive, receptive mode that encourages positive behavioural actions of benefit to the environment and wildlife.”15
6
In contrast however, activist groups will often rigorously vocalize their opinions regarding the costs to the animals involved, often claiming that they are not treated humanely. Although there are associated costs to the animals involved in terms of stress levels and potential for injury, there are institutions and associations in place to ensure the ethical and humane treatment of these animals while in captivity. For example, CAZA (and AZA, its American counterpart) have extensive accreditation standards that ensure its members adhere to strict guidelines regarding animal husbandry, reproduction, nutrition, health and habitat in order to best provide for the animals in their care.13,15 The CAZA Code of Ethics forms the basis for all disciplinary actions of the CAZA and are in place to ensure that their members are ultimately responsible for the welfare of their animals.15 Zoos and aquariums voluntarily become members, there is no law that zoos must be CAZA accredited.9,16,12,15 Those who are members are a eligible for a variety of grants as well as other benefits.17 The Code sets out mandatory standards that are uniformly applied to all members to establish a minimum level of conduct, below which no member may fall without being subject to disciplinary action. The CAZA accreditation program Mission Statement is “To establish, maintain and raise standards of operation in the Canadian zoo and aquarium community through a process of self‐evaluation, on‐site inspections and peer review.”18 The goals of which are: • •
• • • •
Establish standards for CAZA zoos and aquariums To create standards that will be a living document of currently acceptable practices for zoos and aquariums in Canada. CAZA will utilize an ongoing review process that will include policy development, review and revision Achieve recognition of CAZA standards as representing the national industry standard for zoos and aquariums. Encourage and assist member institutions to develop superior facilities and enhanced programs. To ensure that member institutions continuously strive for superior facilities and enhanced programs. Work with non‐accredited institutions to communicate the importance of CAZA accreditation and encourage participation by providing whatever professional assistance is available. 18
These goals outline the mission of the CAZA and communicate the value and importance of humane and ethical practices in regards to animals in captivity, and can be readily applied for use in designing a list of requirements for institutions intending to implement live animals in educational outreach programs.
7
Unfortunately for some animals, zoos in Ontario have the option of becoming members of CAZA and being CAZA accredited, and are not required by law to abide by any specific animal welfare regulations in regards to exotics. Therefore there exist several “roadside” zoos in Ontario which are not governed by any specific laws regarding the care of exotic animals. In Ontario, native species are heavily protected by the MNR, but if an individual were looking to start an exotic zoo, so long as they attained the animals legally and with the correct import permits, there is nothing to stop them from charging people to view these animals and there are no specific laws in place to ensure the ethical treatment and welfare is upheld of these exotic animals.19 For those individuals and institutions with less “capitalist” (in it for the money and not for conservation) views on keeping animals in captivity, the development of conservational educational programs for the public are a central part of their mandate. The claim that an institution “has the conservational goals and welfare of the animals foremost in mind” is not sufficient to accept that these institutions are abiding by ethical practice standards. Rigorous investigation and observation of the living conditions and overall welfare of the animals living in the zoo must be analyzed to determine the true extent to which the animals’ welfare is prevalent in the overall goals of the institution. An effective and morally sound animal outreach program must have certain policies and procedures in place that address not only the welfare of the animals and handlers, but of the public as well. Most importantly, these programs communicate appropriate messages which the institution is attempting to convey.3,13,18,20 The institution must be accountable for the messages that they relate to their audiences. Briefly, the policies and protocols that an educational outreach program coordinator should ensure are being met are: • • •
• •
•
The use of program animals must always be done or supervised by trained staff. The setting of the show, performance, and act or contact area is appropriate. Individual integrity, professional ethics and socially accepted moral values should be considered. Animal health and welfare is assured. Animals should not be trained or forced to perform activities that may endanger them. Appropriate breaks and rest should be given between uses. Human health and safety is not at risk. This includes the staff as well as the public. The animal is used in a respectful, safe manner that is not misrepresentative or degrading. They should be trained and perform only actions or tasks which are considered to be part of their natural behaviour. The educational material being relayed is pertinent and accurate. Every opportunity should be taken to appropriately interpret the behaviours involved in the “performance” as they relate to the animal’s natural behaviour, physiology and anatomy.
8
•
Suitable species and individual specimens are used. Animals that are a relevant part of a captive management program, such as the Species Survival Plan (SSP), should not be used. 3,20,13
In order to fully understand the breadth of contemporary issues regarding the ethics of using live animals in educational outreach settings, nine individuals involved in educational outreach programs and/or live animal handling were electronically interviewed using a questionnaire developed by the author. The author sent out 17 questionnaires to individuals recommended to me by Gina Varrin of the Kawartha Turtle Trauma Center. The questionnaire was intended to gain a broad understanding of issues regarding the ethics of using live animals in educational outreach settings. The backgrounds of the individuals interviewed and their experience with live animals in public educational settings was determined, and the participants were asked for their opinions regarding the benefits to the audience; the costs to the animal; whether a non‐releasable* animal would have different costs when being used in educational outreach; the direct benefits to the animal living in a captive environment (zoo/aquarium); and the benefits to the species as a whole. They were then asked to provide an experience in which they witnessed an audience gaining more from an outreach or educational program involving a live animal where they believe that a model of an animal would not have had the same impact. Finally, they were asked to outline a situation in which they felt that the animal involved was not benefiting (or was even at risk or hindered) by its involvement in an educational or outreach setting. (There was no requirement for specific names or dates. The participants were permitted to be as ambiguous as they chose to be as this question was intended purely to collect anecdotal data, not to accuse any particular organization). A copy of the questionnaire is included and can be found in Appendix A. The results of the returned and completed questionnaires are summarized in the table below (Table 1). The detailed responses are included in Appendix B and are not linked directly with the individual who gave the response, but are included as whole responses in order to give context to some of the results which may be confusing for some readers. In the Appendix B, the direct responses are colour coded to indicate the same individual throughout responding to the various questions. ______________________________________________________________________________ *A “non‐releasable” animal refers here to an animal whose injuries (attained prior to going to the institution) although not fatal physiologically (i.e.: Blindness or a missing limb), would put the individual at such a great survival disadvantage if it were re‐released into the wild, that it would be more humane to euthanize them than subject them to the cruelties of a natural death by predators in the wild. This is not to say that a “non‐releasable” should be euthanized, it is meant as a comparison, stating that to release the individual under its circumstances would be virtually guaranteed death for that individual.
9
TABLE 1‐ Types of responses are categorized into a similar format as the questionnaire itself. Each respondent often gave more than one response for each question and therefore the number of responses to each category may exceed 9 (number of total respondents). i.e.: Several respondents had various different kinds of experiences with animals and each respondent felt that there were multiple costs to the animal as well as multiple benefits to the animal, species, and audience members.
RESPONSE NUMBER OF RESPONSES Responder’s Experience With Animals School groups 5 General public 6 Custom group programs (residential summer camps, Girl Guides/Scouts media 9 programs etc.) Personal Collection, shown on request 1 Veterinarian 1 No direct contact in Educational Setting 1 Sale of Animals 1 Zoo setting 4 Benefits to the Audience Hands‐on experience allows greater absorption of information 5 Ignites interest/passion in wildlife conservation 4 New/increased compassion/dispel myths about a previously less understood animal 4 Gives reality/Able to relate more directly/understand animals plight 4 Not supportive of taking animals off‐site for education 1 What are the costs to the animal? Did not understand the question/irrelevant answer 1 Stress of handling 6 Potential injury 2 Possible spread of disease 1 Upset feeding schedule 1 Anthropomorphic view of the animals being “species ambassadors” 1 Fatigue 1 Over stimulation 1 Separation anxiety (from kin) 1 If injured beyond release, does this change the costs to the animal when being used in an outreach presentation? Yes, if injured and subsequently released (Increased predation risk 1 Yes, injured animals should NOT be used in educational outreach 1 No, the species benefits as a whole 2 No, the animal will still react in the same way to stress whether non‐releasable or not 3 Irrelevant answer 3
10
What are the benefits to the animal directly, living in a zoo or aquarium? Shelter Steady supply of food/water Protected from predators Captive breeding program Prolonged lifespan Interaction provides enrichment to the animal Social interaction is comforting to hand reared animals What are the benefits to the species as a whole? Ambassadors of the species Increase public awareness Increased information databases leading to conservation efforts No answer Promotion of environmental responsibility Encourage responsible consumerism Discussion of results and further research
1 2 1 3 2 2 2
3 5 2 1 1 1
Upon review of the qualitative, verbatim responses as opposed to the quantitative numbers of the responses there are several themes that emerge regarding the ethics of animals in educational outreach settings. Note: Quotes from respondents are in their own words and are presented here verbatim – grammar and spelling errors are those of the respondents. In regard to the associated costs to the animal being kept in captivity and taken on educational outreach programs for public view and interaction stress emerges as a main concern to most individuals. Additionally, it appears that the sub‐themes of stress include potential injury, possible spread of disease, an upset in feeding schedule, fatigue and over‐ stimulation. “...stress if you take always the same turtle.” “The cost to the animal would be measured mostly in its stress level” “Some stress due to trapping handling, potential predation (e.g., when the traps are used), risk of injury or spread of disease.” “Stress that can manifest in a variety of ways. Wildlife in general is ‘wired’ to not show stress, and yet this can have a tremendous negative health impact over time.”
11
“Stress, especially if inappropriate species or specimens are chosen for use. Luckily, many of the commonly used and available species become accustomed to a busy environment well. Still, there is some concern when people without the experience to read an animal's body language try to utilize animals in this way.” “Fatigue, stress...bringing animals to outreach presentations is far from natural. Also stress due to over stimulation (auditory, visual, tactile), risk of injury during transportation.” In social animals, such as the Ring‐Tailed Lemur, according to respondent #9, “Taking one lemur to a presentation would result in separation anxiety for both the single lemur and for the rest of its family group being left at the zoo. Lemurs are highly social and require the company of other lemurs.” Therefore separation anxiety should be taken into consideration when determining the welfare of the animals involved in outreach programs. One of the most important responses is broad reaching and raises more questions than it answers. It is the concern that the animals being kept in captivity and brought to educational outreach programs are “ambassadors” to the species, and that they have an anthropomorphic view that the animals involved have a choice in being there. As told by responder #8 “Though the importance and necessity of zoological facilities in modern society cannot be disputed, zoo's must routinely justify keeping animals in captivity. One statement that seems to be well received by the public is that the few animals in captivity are ambassador's for their species, making the animals appear as though they have a higher purpose than others. Unfortunately, this is a completely anthropomorphic view, as the animal itself doesn't recognize this status nor has a choice in it. The reality is, we keep animals in captivity without the freedom of choice. It's not an ideal situation, but with the current extinction crisis, zoos have become a necessary tool to preserve the planet's biodiversity.” This view is one that can both help and hinder our goal of increasing compassion for conservation. In terms of costs to the animal, this view can hinder our goals because it promotes the idea that the animals have a choice in being at the presentations and reflects the incorporation of utilitarianism theory (that the good consequences justify the bad consequences) and disregards organic unity theory (that life has its own purposive ends, regardless of its usefulness to others). When asked about the benefits to the audience of these up‐close and personal encounters with live animals, the main theme can be described as ‘hands‐on interactions create lasting memories’ as shown by the following responses:
12
“Close encounters with a live animal gives the opportunity for some, especially children, to experience an unforgettable moment.” “They likely remember and enjoy the event more than if they didn’t see any animals.” “People get much more out of the experience if they see them up close or touch them.” “For an environmental message to be heard, it must be taught and presented in a format that engages the public... Using "live" animals for educational purposes is an exciting and novel way to engage an audience that would never be able to get that experience from a movie, TV or computer monitor.” These views are utilitarian in part because they assume that every audience member will walk away from the presentation having made a strong emotional connection to the animals and therefore be exponentially inspired to facilitate change and become heavily involved in conservation. Live animal outreach presentation interactions subsequently result in an emotional connection to the animal and its species, making environmental messages easier to “sell”, allowing greater absorption of information.
“Once you have their attention, you can sell "green" ideas... promote Earth stewardship.” “Bringing our animals on outreach presentations inspires and motivates people to learn about and protect wildlife. I believe that educating the public about conservation is much more effective when they can engage and connect with various species. The audience benefits hugely by being able to engage their senses...whether it be listening to the sounds of the animals or through hands on interaction.” “The opportunity to see these animals (snakes, turtles, etc.) up close and to hold/feel them cannot be beat”
The hands‐on interaction between human and animal may help to dispel myths about previously misunderstood animals, as indicated by several respondents: “I have particularly seen this with snakes. Snakes are a common fear in adults which has led to needless killings of species like The Massassauga and the Hognose; this is mainly due to misunderstanding these important animals that are now at risk. Conducting live animal presentations using snakes can, in some cases, allow adults to have a second thought about their fear. Giving a child the opportunity to handle a snake early on in their life can help him/her to dispel the needless fears and misunderstanding of snakes.”
13
“It is also easier to dispel myths about the animals if you have them with you. This has proven to especially be true with Snapping Turtles.” “They (the audience) see things they would never normally see – as these animals/life stages are very cryptic. By seeing many different species/life stages it helps to dispel some misconceptions that many people have about amphibians (e.g., the true number of species that exist in their local environment, the variety of microhabitats they need/use as a result of their diversity).” Hands‐on animal interaction allows people to more directly relate to and understand an animal or species’ plight, bringing to reality the truths surrounding the need for conservation, as evidenced by the responses below. The hands‐on interaction with an animal ignites an interest and a passion in wildlife conservation. From Jane Goodall’s book “The Ten Trusts” 21 she states that “only when we understand, can we care, and only when we care sufficiently will we help”.(page 1) “It gives them reality. Per eg. The public is surprised by the size of a full grown spotted or stinkpot turtles, because they are small. The public understands more why they have to keep an eye for them when they are travelling or biking.” “The audience can relate more directly when they can see the animals that they are learning about.” “They receive a new found interest in these types of animals, respect for living things in general, and information on how to best care for these animals in captivity and how they live in the wild.” “People do not want to protect what they don't love. Bringing our animals on outreach presentations inspires and motivates people to learn about and protect wildlife.” “Close encounters with a live animal ...ignites an understanding or even a passion for wildlife conservation.” There was one response that was not supportive of taking animals off‐site for educational outreach programs. “I am not for the use of live wild animals in offsite educational programs. I feel that it is a stressful situation for the animal and that education can be quite adequately be carried out without the use of live animals.” Upon review of the responses gathered, it appears that the responders are of the opinion that the main benefit to the animal from living in captivity is the resulting longer lifespan. Subsequently, within this central theme of longevity the benefits of constant available
14
shelter, steady supply of food and water, protection from predators and the benefits of a captive breeding program are all implied as leading to a longer lifespan in captivity. “Benefit to animal (e.g., in rehab) – may live longer.” “They are fed and provided with their daily needs and health care...” “That the animal has shelter, a steady supply of food and water and is protected from predators. For species at risk, the benefits may involve being part of a captive breeding program to augment the natural population.” Additionally, interaction provides enrichment to the animal and specifically with hand reared animals in captivity, human social interaction can be comforting. “On a more individual basis...the outreach programs provide a type of environmental enrichment and a break from the day to day mundane...provided that suitable animals were chosen.” “Wild animals in captivity that have been socialized don't tend to exhibit stereotypical behaviours. Their intimate familiarization with humans is comforting, as opposed to an animal raised by its parents (in the wild or captivity) that is in constant view or contact with people. This can cause stress, in the form of extreme aggression or fear.” “Benefits to the animal‐... enrichment, socialization.” The main benefits to the species as a whole include that the animal is acting as an ambassador for the species, thus increasing public awareness of species status, and promoting environmental responsibility while encouraging responsible consumerism. “Animals living in zoos act as ambassadors to their wild counterparts, making connections with people and helping to educate the public. By learning about why some animals are at risk, zoo visitors can help to minimize pressures on these animals by spreading the word to friends and family and by making small changes in their daily lives.” “For species at risk, the benefits may involve being part of a captive breeding program to augment the natural population and being able to increase public awareness and support (for protection, reduction of contaminants in the environment, anti‐poaching campaigns etc).” “Benefit to species as a whole – increased awareness and appreciation of species amongst the public.” “Benefits to the species as a whole can include public awareness of their ecological status, and the impacts to these animals and their habitats as a result of human activities.”
15
“...acting as a species ambassador. TV and TV programs have come a long way, but in my experience there is still nothing that peaks the public's interest in wild animals and nature in general, than a firsthand animal experience.” “As mentioned early, though they don't have the choice, they are ambassadors for their species. When someone becomes emotionally involved with one individual, such as a lion cub, that feeling of attachment and concern tends to radiate to the species as a whole.” “Benefits to the species ‐ Increased awareness as to their status (IUCN/CITIES). Captive breeding programs, generated revenue towards protecting wild spaces. Protection of endangered species. Promotion of environmental responsibility to encourage responsible consumerism to positively affect species and wild spaces.” Additionally, one of the main benefits to having live animals for educational outreach programs is the increased of information databases leading to conservation efforts. “As part of the global initiative to save endangered species, the Zoo is part of a worldwide network of 825 zoos and aquariums in 76 countries called the International Species Information System (ISIS). This network of institutions helps to catalogue, breed and care for genetically important species across the globe. The Zoo is also actively involved in Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) programs including Species Survival Plan (SSP), Population Management Plan (PMP) and Stud Books. These programs analyze genetic and demographic information about animals at the Zoo in relation to other captive animals around the world. Recommendations are then made in an effort to perpetuate global captive populations and reduce the impact on wild populations of animals.” Furthermore, the respondents were asked to give their opinion and outline a situation in which they felt an audience gained more from a live animal incorporated into the outreach program, where they believe a model of an animal would not have had the same impact. The main theme of these responses can be summarized as ‘live animals have a greater impact than technology can ever hope to have regarding the need for animal conservation’. This theme is evidenced by responses such as, “...I attended more than 50 outreach events, and can say very definitively that our audiences were larger, more engaged, more supportive of the (centre) and more inquisitive at events where we had live animals present than at events when we did not. If we did not have live animals with us very few children visited our table; if we had live turtles the number of children who visited and asked questions was very large. It is much easier to hold the attention of children with the live animals for the outreach. One situation that comes to mind is when I did a ‘turtle talk’ for children at Ecology Park one summer, I had two live turtles with me and the children were engaged and excited for the whole time I was there. I believe that if I had of had a model it would have been very difficult to engage the children and hold their interest.”
16
“...the grade 6 kids surveyed a constructed wetland and a natural one for amphibian egg masses and larvae to assess how well the constructed one functioned as breeding habitat. Models cannot be used for that.” “On one occasion at Georgian Bay Islands National Park, I witnessed a Warden providing an educational session on the Massasauga rattlesnakes. The public got so much more out of the presentation because he had a live rattlesnake for the people to see. Subsequently, I personally arranged for these Wardens to provide a health, safety, and environment presentation to a group of seasonal students... They brought to the presentation live snakes and turtles, including a rattlesnake. The students got so much more out of the presentation by seeing the animals rather than a collection of photos shown on a screen.” “One area of rehabilitation that can be suitably used for an educational experience, is the time of release of the animal. To have a select amount of people present at this event is a tremendous learning experience and very moving. I heard a quote once that summed this up well, and it stated that to release one animal saves that animal, but to release that animal in front of a class of students, does much to save the species.” “Every single time a person holds their first snake. Every single time a kid sits enthralled in front of an enclosure watching an animal's behavior. If models are to be used, then you might as well sit the audience in front of a television.” “Every case. I can speak about the "evils" of toilet paper made from our Boreal forest, or the insanity of purchasing bottled water, but unless I have an animal with me that is directly and negatively impacted by our reckless behaviour, the audience isn't engaged. They either aren't interested, convinced or can fully make the connection between "cause and effect". I see starving children on TV all the time. I turn the channel. If someone put a starving child on my lap, it would change my life forever...” “It always happens with the critically endangered Amur Tiger cubs. People fall in love with them initially because they are "so cute", however when they realize that there are less than 460 in the wild and that they occupy less than 7% of their historic home range they are shocked. They can't fathom that this apex predator is likely to go extinct unless we alter our habits as humans. This love they have for the "cute" tiger walking right in from of them inspires a desire to protect their habitat and ultimately the many species that share it.” These responses provide supporting evidence regarding the opinions that technology cannot even hope to elicit the same emotional response that the close personal interaction between human and animals does.
17
Contrastingly, one responder did feel that technology is powerful and sufficient enough to illicit a substantial emotional response from individuals in order to motivate them to aid in conservation. “Videos, models, photos, description and audience interaction are powerful methods of education.” Overall, the remaining questions were left open ended for the respondents to provide any other thoughts that they had regarding ethics of using live animals in educational outreach settings. The main theme was that ‘educational outreach programs are necessary, and it’s okay to use live animals if the animal’s well‐being is considered first and foremost, because it’s for the good of the species’. “I feel the species or population as a whole benefits from the sacrifice of individual animals for this purpose (i.e., it’s for the ‘greater good’).” “Zoos and aquariums and are now a necessary tool to preserve as much genetic material as possible for future generations.” “Under no circumstances do I feel that animals should be used as entertainment on outreach presentations. We are allowed this opportunity to educate for the greater good with the hope of inspiring positive change.” Sub‐themes of the remaining information surrounded the need for trained staff or educational outreach coordinators. Those trained staff must be mindful of the behaviour of the animal, knowing when it needs a break, and when it is too stressed to display them to the public in good conscience. “...proper training of staff is essential in the handling and care of captive and outreach animals. Staff should have in‐depth knowledge about the species and individual animals involved; animal nutrition, enclosures, security, exercise and enrichment, veterinary care, and contact with visitors should meet the highest standards for animal care. Exposure to animals should be limited to only a few trained individuals. Also, when presenting animals to visitors, it is important to properly prepare your audience for the animal interaction to avoid unwanted reaction by either the animal or the visitor. This will differ depending on your audience and age group, but may include ensuring that voices are quiet, hands in lap, sitting still, minimal sudden movements, etc. It is also
18
important to make your audience comfortable for the encounter but prepared for a possible unexpected movement by the animal.” “Some species or individual animals are not suited well to outreach (unpredictable, skittish, prone to biting, solitary, don’t transport well, etc.” “Handlers need to be trained in proper handling techniques and be able to recognise any signs of stress and be able to take the appropriate measures to relieve that stress. Handlers also need to ensure that the animals and the public are protected from any dangers that using live animals may present.” “The snake had just been chased down and captured and did not have any time to rest before this took place. The animal was clearly stressed and I voiced my concerns about tagging an animal, for no reason, that was stressed (I was however ignored). The director claimed that he was tagging the animal as part of an educational demonstration.” “...the people handling the animals are caring, thoughtful, and competent.” “ ...the animals come first. If the occasion is likely to be stressful, then do not take them out. Their well‐being must be the first priority. If it’s too cold to take them out, or the handling likely to be too rough for whatever reasons, don’t do it.” “I can in all good conscience say that there is absolutely nothing ethically wrong with using animals in educational settings and outreach programs provided it is done with the animal's environmental and psychological needs in mind.” “The priority is always the safety of the animals and the public, it is up to the animal handler to assess behaviour and to do what maintains the animals well being. A stressed animal should never be forced into a presentation.” The environment in which the program is taking place must be considered in regards to the stress level of the animal. “...there are certain venues that are not ideal.” “...loud environments are very stressful...” The animal must always have somewhere to “hide” from the public, and be able to have some “private” area in order to de‐stress.
19
“...provide adequate "private" areas for the animals to have their down time away from the public.” “I did see a turtle display at a trade show. The turtle was in a glass tank with no enrichment, no place to hide, and no rocks to climb out of the water on, and continually banged up against the glass as it swum constantly. Although the display was intended to illustrate the plight of the turtle species (a spotted turtle, currently endangered in Ontario), this could surely have been accomplished without the tremendous stress placed on that animal.” Wild‐caught, healthy animals should not be captured and subsequently incorporated into programs. This is a violation of laws and morals that wild animals belong in the wild, and sends a conflicting message that it is “ok” to catch a wild animal (causing it a massive amount of stress) just to “learn” about it. “...it is very important that they not be wild caught; they should either be captive bred or have received an injury that has rendered them un‐releasable (or not be releasable for some other reason). It does not matter if the animal is part of a species at risk or one that is currently still abundant; wild caught animals should not be used.” Although people generate emotional attachments very easily to those animals considered to be “friendly” or “cute”, the most complicated part is ensuring that people at the presentations gain a respect for ALL life. For example, the planet’s ecosystem cannot survive if the conservation of microorganisms and insects are not kept in mind, as they are the basis of the food web. Without them, top predators and those animals considered “worthy” of saving don’t have a chance. “It's easy to get people to love a baby tiger... the trick however, is to get them to appreciate all species... big and small. If we can't save the bees and ants, dolphins and pandas don't stand a chance.” It is evident by the results that the aforementioned theories1,2,4,5,7,9 regarding animal rights are indeed prominent and influential in regards to the extent to which we believe animals have rights. These philosophical theories guide our beliefs in what is right and good regarding animal welfare when implementing live animals in educational outreach programs. Limitations of this study Qualitative research of this kind can be subject to responder bias, in that although the author sent out questionnaires to 17 people who have experience with live animals (most in
20
educational outreach settings), only 9 individuals responded. The danger of running a study like this is we only get data based on what people think, there is no treatment or experimental variable. The responses are subjective and based on the interviewee’s personal experiences. Additionally, the analysis is subject to the author’s interpretation as there are no figures or numbers to statistically represent the extent to which tactile touch truly influences future conservation efforts from individuals witnessing these live‐animal outreach presentations. Therefore, a recommendation for the future would involve the design of a statistical study, gathering data drawing on students/past audiences to see if they have an increased awareness regarding conservation, and how they feel the programs and implementation of live animals affected their passion for conservation. We will not know the effect of kinesthetic touch on emotional connection to conservation without a full statistical study, the extent of which would be very large involving many years and many subjects. Conclusions In conclusion, there are a plethora of variables that influence our thinking regarding the rights of animals. Conflicting but often conjunctive philosophical theories as outlined above regarding the “good of many outweighing the costs to the individual”, “the rights of the individual having value measurable by the extent to which the being is of use to the higher organism”, “that every being is an experiencing subject of a life, inherently possessing a certain value irrespective of their usefulness to others”, “all animals fall into the scope of concern, the extent of which dwindles as phylogenetic relationship to us gets more distant”, and “that life is unique and contributes to its own purposeful ends” influence our ethical and moral considerations in respect to the use of live animals in educational outreach settings.1,2,4,5,7,9 That being said, we, as complex and socially cognitive human beings we have a responsibility preserve the earth by advocating a greener future and promoting earth stewardship.22,10 Evolutionarily, we are inherently increasing our own species’ fitness by encouraging respectful and prudent consumption of resources, ensuring future generations the opportunity to thrive and propagate the species. 11 A morally and ethically sound animal outreach conservation program ensures certain policies and procedures are in place that establish not only the welfare of the animals and handlers, but of the public as well and most importantly, that these programs convey appropriate messages to which the institution is accountable for conveying. 3,13,16,18,20 Regarding the qualitative responses generated by the questionnaire, the themes emerging as the most important considerations when detailing the ethical concerns of live animals in educational outreach settings were: ensuring minimized stresses experienced by the animal; ensuring properly trained animal coordinators; that the animal is acting as a species ambassador (utilitarianism combined with deontology);4,5,7,2 and the promotion of earth stewardship and conservation messages through the tactile interaction of animal and human.
21
While intending to identify the breadth of contemporary issues surrounding ethical use of live animals in educational outreach settings by conceptualizing animal welfare, its discussion is made complex by the complicated and interwoven factors of ethics, morals, animal benefits, species benefits, global benefits to conservation and individual animal costs.22,1,4,5,7,8,9,12 Although there is no doubt that the tactile interaction of human and animal illicit a profound emotional response, future study should focus on designing a study to determine the extent to which this impacts future conservation efforts of the individual.
22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank the respondents (in no specific order): Karen Elcombe, Sue Carstairs, Ian Kanda, Peter Klose, Wayne Weller, Nicole Santeramo, Michele Andre‐St.Cyr, Susan Cowin and Elke Wind. Additionally, thank you to Joe Cebek of Trent University and Gina Varrin of the Kawartha Turtle Trauma Center for their input. Finally the author would like to acknowledge the editors, who have asked to remain anonymous. LITERATURE CITED 1. Fraser D. 2008. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet Scan, 50:S1. 2. Wood, E. 2010. Ethical considerations in the use of laboratory animals for research and teaching at the University of Virginia. http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/ccm/ethics/ethics.cfm 3. Klose, P. 2008. Policy and Procedure: Program Animals. Jungle Cat World Wildlife Park, Safari Zoo Camp. http://www.junglecatworld.com/documents/07ProgramAnimals.pdf 4. Broom, DM. 2010. Animal welfare: an aspect of care, sustainability, and food quality required by the public. J Vet Med Educ, 37:83‐88. 5. DeGrazia, D. 1996. Taking Animals Seriously. Cambridge University Press; New York, NY. 6. Broom, DM. 1986. Indicators of poor welfare. Brit Vet J, 142:524–526. 7. Hastings Center Report (May/June, 1990). "Introduction: The Troubled Middle In Medias Res", pp. 2‐32. 8. Fox, MA. 1986. Case for Animal Experimentation Berkeley. University of California Press, Berkley, CA. 9. Regan, T and Singer, P. 1989. The Case for Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp.105‐115. 10. Wake, DB and Vredenburg, VT. 2008. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. PNAS, 105(1):11466‐11473. 11. Burt, A. 2003. Site‐specific selfish genes as tools for the control and genetic engineering of natural populations. Proc‐R. Biol. Soc., 270:921‐928. 12. Gianan, NA. 2008. Bioethics, environmental ethics, promoting life: Towards a sustainable human and environmental existence. Asia Life Sci, 2:119‐127. 13. AZA Policy Re: Program Animal Policy http://www.aza.org/program‐animal‐policy/ 14. AZA Policy Re: conservation Education at the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
23
http://www.aza.org/conservation‐education/ 15. CAZA Policy Re: Accreditation Program http://caza.ca/en/about_caza/accreditation_program/ 16. Canadian Council on Animal Care Policy Re: Guidelines Program http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/gublurb.htm 17. CAZA Policy Re: Member Services http://caza.ca/en/membership_and_services/membership_information/ 18. CAZA Policy Re: Code Of Ethics http://caza.ca/en/about_caza/code_of_ethics/index.php 19. Ministry of Natural Resources Policy Re: Wildlife in Captivity http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FW/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_168424.html 20. CAZA Policy Re: Educational Program Guidelines http://caza.ca/media/Pdf/Education/Aug%2024%20Education_guidelines.pdf 21. Goodall, J and Bekoff, M. The Ten Trusts: What we must do to care for the animals we love. Harper Collins, New York (2002). (p. 1) 22. Thompson, PB. 2010. Animal Ethics and Public Expectations: The North American Outlook. J Vet Med Educ, 37(1):13‐21.
24
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE Animals in Educational settings and Outreach programs Questionnaire 1. Briefly outline your experience with animals in educational settings and or outreach programs in which the public were involved. 2. What benefits do you believe the audience receives with this kind of interaction? 3. What are some of the associated costs (in your opinion) to the animal? 4. If the animal involved is injured beyond release, does this change your opinion of the costs to the animal? 5. What are the benefits to an animal living in a zoo, aquarium, or rehabilitation facility that is subsequently involved in an outreach program? What are the benefits to the species as a whole? 6. Please briefly detail a situation in which you witnessed an audience gaining more from an outreach or educational program involving a live animal where you believe that a model of an animal would not have had the same impact. 7. Please outline a situation in which you felt that the animal involved was not benefitting (or was even at risk or hindered) by their use in an educational or outreach setting. (there is no requirement for specific names or dates, you may be as ambiguous as you chose to be, this is purely for information’s sake and is not intended to point fingers) 8. Any other thoughts on the ethics
25
APPENDIX B: RAW DATA Animals in Educational settings and Outreach programs Questionnaire 1. Briefly outline your experience with animals in educational settings and or outreach programs in which the public were involved. Experience with using mainly reptiles and amphibians for program presentations to school groups, general public, and custom group programs. Animals were kept in appropriate enclosures and exhibits and then transported in “critter cages” to onsite classroom areas. Animals were then shown to the audience under controlled circumstances. Experience with taking groups to animal enclosures at zoo and providing opportunities for feeding certain animals, touching them, or seeing them up‐close / behind‐the‐scenes. We bring different healthy turtles from O.A.R.A. for each educational settings if they education sessions are in the same week. This is stressful for the animals. The public does not handle turtles. I have volunteered with the KTTC where we used live animals in outreach. I personally think that the audience is more engaged when there have been turtles at the events. I give educational talks to children and adults about amphibians (I am an amphibian biologist). I often take people on walks, where we dipnet for larvae or I set live (minnow) traps the night before to catch more cryptic species/life stages. In my teens and twenties, I had a large collection of amphibians and reptiles in my home – mostly snakes of all species. Although not used specifically for educational purposes, I would on occasion take them to schools and scouts/guides meetings to introduce younger folks on these animals. Although I do not have any live reptiles now, I do take opportunities to attend outdoor education sessions to introduce young people to these animals. I have worked at various charitable organizations that have educational animals on site. I am not directly involved with the education program, but I do take care of the animals as the veterinarian. I have worked at Earth Rangers Wildlife Centre, before the closure of the rehabilitation centre and hospital, and currently I work at Toronto Wildlife Centre and Kawartha Turtle Trauma Centre. I also work at Seneca College, teaching in the veterinary technician program, and as such have experience with the housing of domestic species for educational purposes. As president and long time member of the Edmonton Reptile and Amphibian Society my involvement includes everything from large reptile show and sales, display only shows in malls, pet expo's etc., teaching other Animal Health Technologists handling and routine procedures
26
with reptiles, school presentations, radio call‐in shows, monthly meetings and show‐and‐tells... that pretty much sums it up. I've been working at Jungle Cat World since its inception in 1982, and actively involved in the educational component for over a decade. Programs include: Wildlife Safari (outreach program), Safari Zoo Camp, scheduled feeding tours in the zoo and TV work/interviews (Discovery Channel, Travel Channel, YTV, etc) Jungle Cat World ‐ Outreach Presentations across Ontario‐ Wildlife Education at the zoo for various organized groups. Safari Zoo Camp ‐ Wildlife presentations both with and for campers. On site as well as within the community. 2. What benefits do you believe the audience receives with this kind of interaction? Many people are tactile learners who are able to take in formation more readily when they have a hands‐on experience. Close encounters with a live animal gives the opportunity for some, especially children, to experience an unforgettable moment that can help to ignite an interest, an understanding or even a passion for wildlife conservation. I have particularly seen this with snakes. Snakes are a common fear in adults which has led to needless killings of species like The Massassauga and the Hognose; this is mainly due to misunderstanding these important animals that are now at risk. Conducting live animal presentations using snakes can, in some cases, allow adults to have a second thought about their fear. Giving a child the opportunity to handle a snake early on in their life can help him/her to dispel the needless fears and misunderstanding of snakes. The public loves to see different indigenous turtles of Ontario. It gives them reality. Per eg. The public is surprised by the size of a full grown spotted or stinkpot turtles, because they are small. The public understands more why they have to keep an eye for them when they are travelling or biking. The audience can relate more directly when they can see the animals that they are learning about. It is also easier to dispel myths about the animals if you have them with you. This has proven to especially be true with Snapping Turtles. They see things they would never normally see – as these animals/life stages are very cryptic. By seeing many different species/life stages it helps to dispel some misconceptions that many people have about amphibians (e.g., the true number of species that exist in their local environment, the variety of microhabitats they need/use as a result of their diversity), it engages them more when an animal is in the hand, they likely remember and enjoy the event more than if they didn’t see any animals, etc.
27
Although nature shows are far more common now than when I was growing up, the opportunity to see these animals (snakes, turtles, etc.) up close and to hold/feel them cannot be beat. People get much more out of the experience if they see them up close or touch them. Personally, I am not for the use of live wild animals in offsite educational programs. I feel that it is a stressful situation for the animal and that education can be quite adequately be carried out without the use of live animals. We do currently have some on site education animals at both Toronto wildlife centre and KTTC. These are non releasable animals that are kept rather than being euthanized. I am in the process at KTTC of getting a permit to house these turtles within sight of the public. Currently, no such permit is held. Additionally, the MNR is not supportive of removing the animals from site, and transporting to an offsite education area. They receive a new found interest in these types of animals, respect for living things in general, and information on how to best care for these animals in captivity and how they live in the wild. Modern multi‐media had radically changed the way people acquire, process and use new information. It is a highly competitive field, implementing stimulating visuals and sounds to provoke certain emotional responses to "sell" ideas and/or products. For an environmental message to be heard, it must be taught and presented in a format that engages the public. Their standards of "entertainment", which inevitably holds their interest, is very high. Using "live" animals for educational purposes is an exciting and novel way to engage an audience that would never be able to get that experience from a movie, TV or computer monitor. Once you have their attention, you can sell "green" ideas... promote Earth stewardship. ‐People do not want to protect what they don't love. Bringing our animals on outreach presentations inspires and motivates people to learn about and protect wildlife. I believe that educating the public about conservation is much more effective when they can engage and connect with various species. The audience benefits hugely by being able to engage their senses...whether it be listening to the sounds of the animals or through hands on interaction
3. What are some of the associated costs (in your opinion) to the animal?
The animals I have worked with have been captive / rescued animals meant for educational purposes and have not been scheduled to be released back into their habitat. We choose healthy animal and the cost to the animal could be stress if you take always the same turtle. The cost to the animal would be measured mostly in its stress level. If the animal is becoming visibly stress, the handlers should be able to recognise this and ensure that the animals are
28
taken out of public contact. The handlers may need additional training to recognise the signs of stress. I do not feel that a healthy animal should be taken from the wild for the purposes of outreach and education. Some stress due to trapping/handling, potential predation (e.g., when the traps are used), risk of injury or spread of disease. Stress of handling could be a factor. Travelling from venue to venue could upset their feeding schedule. Stress that can manifest in a variety of ways. Wildlife in general is ‘wired’ to not show stress, and yet this can have a tremendous negative health impact over time. Stress, especially if inappropriate species or specimens are chosen for use. Luckily, many of the commonly used and available species become accustomed to a busy environment well. Still, there is some concern when people without the experience to read an animal's body language try to utilize animals in this way. Ensuring the animals welfare is paramount (see link above‐ Program Animals). Aside from the basic necessities (food, water, shelter, space), their psychological well‐being must be considered. Some species work better than others in certain environments. For example, Serval cats (Leptailurus serval) are extremely shy and tend to be very nervous with large crowds. Maturity must also be considered. A young tiger (Panthera tigris) may enjoy the human‐animal interaction during a wildlife presentation, but at 8 months old, show signs of aggravation. Though the importance and necessity of zoological facilities in modern society cannot be disputed, zoo's must routinely justify keeping animals in captivity. One statement that seems to be well received by the public is that the few animals in captivity are ambassador's for their species, making the animals appear as though they have a higher purpose than others. Unfortunately, this is a completely anthropomorphic view, as the animal itself doesn't recognize this status nor has a choice in it. The reality is, we keep animals in captivity without the freedom of choice. It's not an ideal situation, but with the current extinction crisis, zoos have become a necessary tool to preserve the planet's biodiversity. ‐fatigue ‐stress...bringing animals to outreach presentations is far from natural. Also stress due to over stimulation ( auditory, visual, tactile) ‐separation anxiety. For example, taking 1 lemur to a presentation...they are highly social and require the company of other lemurs. ‐risk of injury during transportation
29
4. If the animal involved is injured beyond release, does this change your opinion of the costs to the animal? The animals I have worked with have been captive animals meant for educational purposes and have not been scheduled to be released back into their habitat. If you had rescued an animal that was injured in the wild (KTTC) and attempted to rehabilitate it but were unable to release it back, I would suppose that there would be a great increase in the chance of predation or death of that individual; there would be great costs to the animal. We are not allow to display injured turtles in our organization , rule of MNR. We will lose our license as wildlife rehabilitator. I feel that if the animal is not releasable, as long as a veterinarian approves it, it is appropriate to use them for outreach purposes. No. I see the benefits for the whole species/population versus the single animal. Yes. This should not happen. I would not recommend that an animal be used for educational purposes is this happens. On the other hand, using an injured animal for educational purposes could have benefits in addressing the impact of human activities on animals. No, as the animal is still wild and still reacts to stress the same way whether non releasable or not. I'm uncertain as to what you mean by "injured beyond release". I think all precautions should be taken so that the animal should not be injured. If it is, then I'd fault the person in charge, and not the idea of using animals in outreach programs. No. An injured animal should require the same level of care and concern as with healthy individuals. On another note, regarding injured animals, we have a turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) at the zoo with one leg and one wing. Its behaviour during warm, sunny days indicate to us that it is "happy", the way it basks in the sun and auto‐grooms, even though it can't perform most natural functions, like flying. This non‐releasable rehabilitated animal is unsuitable for hands‐on educational programming. In regards to wildlife conservation, education and/or research, it serves little value in a zoological facility. Should our values dictate its survival or demise? How actively should zoo's "manage" their collections? ‐No because it is a physical injury...mentally, they are still required to engage in the natural behaviour of the species. They are just as affected by stress.
30
5. What are the benefits to an animal living in a zoo, aquarium, or rehabilitation facility that is subsequently involved in an outreach program? What are the benefits to the species as a whole? Animals living in zoos act as ambassadors to their wild counterparts, making connections with people and helping to educate the public. By learning about why some animals are at risk, zoo visitors can help to minimize pressures on these animals by spreading the word to friends and family and by making small changes in their daily lives. There are many benefits to a species as a whole. As part of the global initiative to save endangered species, the Riverview Park and Zoo is part of a worldwide network of 825 zoos and aquariums in 76 countries called the International Species Information System (ISIS). This network of institutions helps to catalogue, breed and care for genetically important species across the globe. Riverview Park and Zoo is also actively involved in Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) programs including Species Survival Plan (SSP), Population Management Plan (PMP) and Stud Books. These programs analyze genetic and demographic information about animals at Riverview Park and Zoo in relation to other captive animals around the world. Recommendations are then made in an effort to perpetuate global captive populations and reduce the impact on wild populations of animals. I do not know
Many people have difficulty relating to wildlife if they are not given the opportunity to experience the animals/interact in some way. The direct benefits to the animal are likely to be that the animal has shelter, a steady supply of food and water and is protected from predators. For species at risk, the benefits may involve being part of a captive breeding program to augment the natural population and being able to increase public awareness and support (for protection, reduction of contaminants in the environment, anti‐poaching campaigns etc). Benefit to animal (e.g., in rehab) – may live longer. Benefits for those in zoo/aquaria? Depends on whether the animal was captive reared or caught in wild. Benefit to species as a whole – increased awareness and appreciation of species amongst the public. Benefits are allowing people to see them. Posters/display panels associated with the animals can be used for educational purposes, but captivity should not be emphasized. Benefits to the species as a whole can include public awareness of their ecological status, and the impacts to these animals and their habitats as a result of human activities. I am entirely supportive of education and outreach programs, as I believe these to be key to conservation of the species involved. As mentioned previously, however, I am not supportive of the constant transport of these animals to different sites to be displayed. If non releasable animals can be within sight of the public, and incorporated into an education program in this
31
way then I do feel it is beneficial without causing undue stress. In the case of KTTC, our plan is to house three non releasable turtles on the main floor, and the space there will allow them to receive a larger and more elaborate enclosure than the one they are presently in. Two of these turtles are of a threatened species, whose main issue is habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation of populations. As such, educational materials on site can be illustrative of this. The benefits for the animal are as acting as a species ambassador. TV and TV programs have come a long way, but in my experience there is still nothing that peaks the public's interest in wild animals and nature in general, than a firsthand animal experience. On a more individual basis, I guess there could be an argument that the outreach programs provide a type of environmental enrichment and a break from the day to day mundane. This would be provided that suitable animals were chosen; see my comments on stress. Wild animals in captivity that have been socialized don't tend to exhibit stereotypical behaviours. Their intimate familiarization with humans is comforting, as opposed to an animal raised by its parents (in the wild or captivity) that is in constant view or contact with people. This can causes stress, in the form of extreme aggression or fear. As mentioned early, though they don't have the choice, they are ambassadors for their species. When someone becomes emotionally involved with one individual, such as a lion cub, that feeling of attachment and concern tends to radiate to the species as a whole. Benefits to the animal‐low stress level ( they are fed and provided with their daily needs), health care, enrichment, socialization. Being accredited by CAZA ensures that standards are being met. Benefits to the species ‐ Increased awareness as to their status (IUCN/CITIES). Captive breeding programs, generated revenue towards protecting wild spaces. Protection of endangered species. Promotion of environmental responsibility to encourage responsible consumerism to positively affect species and wild spaces. 6. Please briefly detail a situation in which you witnessed an audience gaining more from an outreach or educational program involving a live animal where you believe that a model of an animal would not have had the same impact. See #2 – Snakes We show graphic pictures of injured dead turtles and as well pictures of the surgeries we had to do . We have an album. While I was with the KTTC I attended more than 50 outreach events, and can say very definitively that our audiences were larger, more engaged, more supportive of the KTTC and more inquisitive at events where we had live animals present than at events when we did not. If we did not have live animals with us very few children visited our table; if we had live turtles
32
the number of children who visited and asked questions was very large. It is much easier to hold the attention of children with the live animals for the outreach. One situation that comes to mind is when I did a ‘turtle talk’ for children at Ecology Park one summer, I had two live turtles with me and the children were engaged and excited for the whole time I was there. I believe that if I had of had a model it would have been very difficult to engage the children and hold their interest. When teaching the kids about the role of ‘science’ (how it works) and data collection – the grade 6 kids surveyed a constructed wetland and a natural one for amphibian egg masses and larvae to assess how well the constructed one functioned as breeding habitat. Models cannot be used for that. I have seen this many times. On one occasion at Georgian Bay Islands National Park, I witnessed a Warden providing an educational session on the Massasauga rattlesnakes. The public got so much more out of the presentation because he had a live rattlesnake for the people to see. Subsequently, I personally arranged for these Wardens to provide a health, safety, and environment presentation to a group of seasonal students at our Gravenhurst office. They brought to the presentation live snakes and turtles, including a rattlesnake. The students got so much more out of the presentation by seeing the animals rather than a collection of photos shown on a screen. One area of rehabilitation that can be suitably used for an educational experience, is the time of release of the animal. To have a select amount of people present at this event is a tremendous learning experience and very moving. I heard a quote once that summed this up well, and it stated that to release one animal saves that animal, but to release that animal in front of a class of students, does much to save the species. Every single time a person holds their first snake. Every single time a kid sits enthralled in front of an enclosure watching an animal's behavior. If models are to be used, then you might as well sit the audience in front of a television. Every case. I can speak about the "evils" of toilet paper made from our Boreal forest, or the insanity of purchasing bottled water, but unless I have an animal with me that is directly and negatively impacted by our reckless behaviour, the audience isn't engaged. They either aren't interested, convinced or can fully make the connection between "cause and effect". I see starving children on TV all the time. I turn the channel. If someone put a starving child on my lap, it would change my life forever... It always happens with the critically endangered Amur Tiger cubs. People fall in love with them initially because they are "so cute", however when they realize that there are less than 460 in the wild and that they occupy less than 7% of their historic home range they are shocked. They can't fathom that this apex predator is likely to go extinct unless we alter our habits as humans.
33
This love they have for the "cute" tiger walking right in from of them inspires a desire to protect their habitat and ultimately the many species that share it.
34
7. Please outline a situation in which you felt that the animal involved was not benefitting (or was even at risk or hindered) by their use in an educational or outreach setting. (there is no requirement for specific names or dates, you may be as ambiguous as you chose to be, this is purely for information’s sake and is not intended to point fingers) I cannot think of any specific example but I do believe that proper training of staff is essential in the handling and care of captive and outreach animals. Staff should have in‐depth knowledge about the species and individual animals involved; animal nutrition, enclosures, security, exercise and enrichment, veterinary care, and contact with visitors should meet the highest standards for animal care. Exposure to animals should be limited to only a few trained individuals. Also, when presenting animals to visitors, it is important to properly prepare your audience for the animal interaction to avoid unwanted reaction by either the animal or the visitor. This will differ depending on your audience and age group, but may include ensuring that voices are quiet, hands in lap, sitting still, minimal sudden movements, etc. It is also important to make your audience comfortable for the encounter but prepared for a possible unexpected movement by the animal. No answer, sorry. While working for an outdoor conservation centre, I witnessed the director PIT Tag a snake (which was a member of a species at risk) for an audience of snake “enthusiasts”. This snake was not to be involved in a scientific study/survey; the director simply wanted to show off. The snake had just been chased down and captured and did not have any time to rest before this took place. The animal was clearly stressed and I voiced my concerns about tagging an animal, for no reason, that was stressed (I was however ignored). The director claimed that he was tagging the animal as part of an educational demonstration. Sorry if this answer sounds a little choppy: it was difficult to answer without more specific details that would lead to identification of individuals involved. If you would like a little more clarification, feel free to call me 876‐8754. I don’t feel animals, individually speaking, ‘benefit’ from their use in an educational or outreach setting. I don’t feel captive animals ‘benefit’ in any way – I imagine that their instinct is always to seek escape/freedom. I feel the species or population as a whole benefits from the sacrifice of individual animals for this purpose (i.e., it’s for the ‘greater good’). I’ve never seen this happen using amphibians or reptiles. It’s probably because the people handling the animals are caring, thoughtful, and competent. I have generally not been involved in any of the educational trips, but any that I have seen as a spectator have caused me much distress at seeing the stress of the animals. Most notably,
35
aquatic mammals such as those housed at marine parks, cause me concern. Most recently, I did see a turtle display at a trade show. The turtle was in a glass tank with no enrichment, no place to hide, and no rocks to climb out of the water on, and continually banged up against the glass as it swum constantly. Although the display was intended to illustrate the plight of the turtle species (a spotted turtle, currently endangered in Ontario), this could surely have been accomplished without the tremendous stress placed on that animal. Videos, models, photos, description and audience interaction are powerful methods of education. In addition, as I stated, release opportunities allow interaction without placing stress on the animal, and illustrate the goal, which is of course to replace these animals in the wild and to continue to have wild populations. I cannot think of anything, sorry. I can't recall any such situation, however... there are certain venues that are not ideal. I spoke at a corporate function that was directly responsible for cutting down Canada's boreal forest. That was an awkward presentation. Audience members tend to be squeamish with the tarantulas, scorpions and snakes, but we use them regardless. It's easy to get people to love a baby tiger... the trick however, is to get them to appreciate all species... big and small. If we can't save the bees and ants, dolphins and pandas don't stand a chance. I find that animals tend to become stressed at longer events. I feel that loud environments are very stressful, as well as areas not providing adequate "private" areas for the animals to have their down time away from the public. 8. Any other thoughts on the ethics Some species or individual animals are not suited well to outreach (unpredictable, skittish, prone to biting, solitary, don’t transport well, etc.) No response If an animal is to be used for outreach, it is very important that they not be wild caught; they should either be captive bred or have received an injury that has rendered them un‐releasable (or not be releasable for some other reason). It does not matter if the animal is part of a species at risk or one that is currently still abundant; wild caught animals should not be used. Handlers need to be trained in proper handling techniques and be able to recognise any signs of stress and be able to take the appropriate measures to relieve that stress. Handlers also need to ensure that the animals and the public are protected from any dangers that using live animals may present. No answer given
36
From my experience, the animals come first. If the occasion is likely to be stressful, then do not take them out. Their well‐being must be the first priority. If it’s too cold to take them out, or the handling likely to be too rough for whatever reasons, don’t do it. No response given I'm an advocator for animals, nature and the planet in general. I can in all good conscience say that there is absolutely nothing ethically wrong with using animals in educational settings and outreach programs provided it is done with the animal's environmental and psychological needs in mind. Life in captivity can be pretty good. It can be pretty horrible too. The same goes with nature. The difference is the freedom of choice. Sadly, the Earth is experiencing a 6th mass extinction caused by our careless impact. Zoos and aquariums and are now a necessary tool to preserve as much genetic material as possible for future generations. Unfortunately, most highly specialized species will disappear. Weedy species, like humans and dandelions, will likely survive. Life always finds a way, but the world will be a lonelier place. In my opinion wildlife presentations are a slippery slope. On one hand it is extremely beneficial for the captive animals’ wild counter parts...in terms of raising awareness and protecting species. On the other hand it does cause stress to the animals involved in the presentation. Under no circumstances do I feel that animals should be used as entertainment on outreach presentations. We are allowed this opportunity to educate for the greater good with the hope of inspiring positive change. Also...I firmly believe in allowing the animals to remain in their natural physical state ( no removal of claws or blunting/extracting dentition). The priority is always the safety of the animals and the public, it is up to the animal handler to assess behaviour and to do what maintains the animals well being. A stressed animal should never be forced into a presentation.
37
Props list (To be used in place of live turtles) • •
• • •
•
Ping pong balls as models of turtle eggs In a large, outdoor setting one could display how difficult it can be for turtles to dig their nests by attaching flippers to the kids and seeing if they can dig a certain sized hole (to fit their “eggs” in) using them. Stuffed animals (scientifically accurate to the species of Ontario, but the cuter, the better!) Construct a human‐sized shell as a sort of backpack to be worn by the kids to see what life is like with a shell, attach flippers, and see if they can “get away from the predators” Life‐sized models of all of Ontario’s turtles (full grown as well as a newly‐hatched) with a material similar to the “gel pads” for shoes as the under belly (to demonstrate vulnerability) and a very hard material for the shells. A digital game like “Frogger” but with Turtles, to show how dangerous it can be to try and cross the roads (or other computer games/models where the kids feel they are responsible for their digital turtle).
Possible program plan for the younger audience (~6yrs old) ÆScript could easily begin with, "Some of you have heard of Yertl the Turtle. He was a very outspoken turtle in a book by Dr Seuss. Well, since he could not be here today, he sent his friend/cousin/buddy Mertyl. Would you like to meet her?” (stuffed animal) ÆMertyl's role would then be to educate the children (about 6 yrs old) about turtles. ÆYou would design the program to be about 20 minutes maximum. ÆThen, at the end, they would get some colouring sheets or activity sheets that have info on one side for extension (talking it over with mom and dad) and education at home/community. Your coloring sheet goes home with them and contains point form key points about conservation and turtle truths and also includes a few references for parents, including library books or websites that they can use as a jumping off point with their kids should they wish to pursue it further. ÆA short video of 5‐8 minutes could wrap up what Mertyl tells them...ideally this would be a mix of cartoon (looking like your Mertyl character) and amazing videos of turtles. ÆYou can create a catchy tune/song for them to "never get out of their heads" which they take home and teach. ÆIf you added in a Turtle Craft too, then the program would be a little longer. The craft could easily be just making a puppet of Mertyl...a stick puppet on a popsicle stick who goes home to sing the annoying song. ÆFor the craft, you cut along the dotted line and fold the white part under and glue it, this gives the turtle a 3rd dimension, and you can have them attach it to a popsicle stick. Very simple and fast. You can have them colour it before cutting and pasting to add personality. ÆYour lure is the stuffy,...she becomes your teaching aide...then she teaches the concepts and delivers the message. Then, you can reinforce the concepts that are important with a craft that they take home and which initiates a dinner conversation. Æ...and to finish off, a short video of live action footage.
38