As an academic working within the field of animal studies you are forced to consider, amongst other things, the legal and ethical issues which can surround the particular topic you might be working on and which in turn, can lead you into impassioned debate and even confrontation – and sometimes I just don’t feel in a strong position to either defend or argue for a particular angle. For example, when visiting a zoological collection last year and being angered by the conditions in which the animals were kept, I was shocked to later discover that the zoo were meeting the legal requirements for keeping animals in captivity. It’s all too easily to respond based on your own morality, and that can be a good thing, but the conclusions you reach might not always be the ‘right’ ones and so I’ve learnt to tread a little more carefully before jumping in all guns blazing. However, I thought on this occasion I’d try and take you through a few of the questions and topics I often find myself contending with and deliberating on.
1. Zoos
Should they exist or shouldn’t they? What makes a ‘good’ zoo, if there is even such a thing? Why is the legislation around the keeping of animals in captivity so lax? Why will parliament not approve the ban on the use of wild animals in circuses? Or the keeping of some exotic animals as pets? Why are there still so many comparisons to be made between the 19th century, 20th century and 21st century when so much else has changed? I could go on.
With all these questions, just a sample of what I could think of, where do I even begin? One of the two events that led me to focus my dissertation on Charles Jamrach, involved asking myself the question “why did zoos spring up in the middle of urban areas during the nineteenth century?” and at the time I happened to be stood looking at the giraffe house at London Zoo. I’ve been to zoos and wildlife parks all my life – some good, some bad and some excellent (as far of course as they can be). I’ve grown up with a respect for wildlife and interest in it, some of which stems from those very visits. But as I’ve grown up, what was once awe inspiring and entertaining has become more educational, thought provoking and a topic much closer to my heart.
I look at a visit as an opportunity to learn about conservation, but also about the heritage of these institutions. For example when in Vienna last year, I visit the Tiergarten Schonbrunn and was as interested in, if not more so in fact, in the infrastructure and layout of the zoo, as I was in what was contained within the enclosures. There is a history there I want to understand and I think that is something zoological collections should be looking to impart on their visitors - show the changes that have occurred and own that past. Offer the context and circumstances in which these curious institutions arose to help people better understand ‘why’. Let’s stop disassociating and hiding from the unpalatable bits of that past. It can’t be changed, it was what it was, so let’s be honest about it and show the progress that’s been made since, in terms of our attitude towards animals (although, has there really been any? Another question I often wrestle with and have done a lot this past week, in the wake of the controversy over Cecil the lion. But that is a blog in itself).
However reticent I am to admit it, and regretful, I think there is little point in suggesting the demise of zoos and wildlife parks. They have a value in terms of education, conservation and funding projects that for some species, offer a last ditch attempt to bring them back from the brink of extinction. I just wish Zoos could lose the ‘entertainment’ label. I don’t think they should be entertaining, I think they should be a sharp reminder of the power we yield over the natural world and that we should being doing all we can to hand that back and leave well alone. I read recently John Berger’s view that ’in zoos [animals] constitute the living monument to their own disappearance’ (1) and couldn’t help but get a heavy heart. What a sorry state of affairs the relationship between mankind and animals is currently in.
2. Why does the legislation suck?
I’ve also become increasingly aware of the lax legislation that surrounds exotic animals generally in the UK. It seems archaic to me. Something that’s been neglected and over looked for far too long. I know there are a number of organisations out there who are pushing for change and we really need to get behind them.
Born Free’s summer 2015 Wildlife Times highlights some harrowing statistics about the numbers of exotic pets in the UK. They estimate for example that there are at least 7,000 pet monkeys and other primates in the UK. And then there is the sheer range of different species being kept as household pets, all of which was bought to light in a recent survey. This includes amongst others snow leopards, polar bears and tapirs as well as meerkats and venomous snakes. The article asks ‘Just because we are legally able to keep any animal, does this mean it is morally right?’ and I’d ask you the same question but also – why in the world does the law permit this? These are animals that are not just wild but some that are listed as species in need of protection (vulnerable, threatened, critically endangered etc.)
And then there is the fact that British Parliament can’t pass a bill to ban the use of exotic animals in circuses. The why is just beyond me – especially when you consider that other European countries have introduced this ban. Why hang on to this ‘traditional’ relic when so many people are against it? Are we not better than that? How can someone look at an animal in that sort of situation and feel that it is acceptable? I know it comes low down on the priority list when compared to other issues such as welfare, defence and the economy, but come on people can’t we just get it sorted out?
3. Why bother when nature has its own agenda?
Nothing appears to be safe- whether from humans or from nature. For example, I read very recently how 10 Asiatic lions have been reportedly killed in the floods that hit Gujarat, which is a significant number when you consider that the remaining surviving population is believed to be only 523. This disaster has renewed criticism by some conservationists that the lions should not be kept in a single location (2) but I couldn’t help but think, is there any hope either with or without human intervention? Has the damage not already been done and are we not at a point where it’s irreparable in so many cases? But then the flip side to that view - I read another recent article which reports how the numbers of peregrine falcons have risen in Illinois, so much so that the species has been removed from state’s endangered and threatened list.
And so I end up right back at the beginning, questioning whether we ‘need’ zoos and what function they serve and whether we can actually make a difference.... I told you this wasn’t going to be straight forward.
4. When should I quit it all and become an animal activist?
When I read of the harsh reality in the way we treat animals - the huge number of species threatened and nearing extinction; or of those trapped in unfit cages and enclosures, used as photographers props and as circus entertainment, or shot for ‘sport’ – I get so enraged. Often my reaction to these things is “right, let’s get out there and do something” or “why?”, so often the question is why.
Three recent incidents particularly sparked this reaction. The first was the story of 66 chimpanzees abandoned by the company who had performed medical tests of them, after pledging ‘lifetime care’ when the laboratory was closed down. The second, was the overturning of South African Airlines ban on the transportation of hunting trophies, and third of course, was the hunting and death of Cecil (links 3 & 4 below). I want to get out there and do something, I just don’t know what or how at this moment in time. I really want to make an impact and not some half-hearted attempted that falls flat on its face. Perhaps using the work I’ve done and am about to do, I can influence policy, educate and help to make lasting changes. “Why haven’t you done so already?” I hear you ask, and another good question. I suppose my Born Free subscription isn’t quite enough is it…. and I think in light of recent news, I’d better get straight on it!
5. What’s the role of Natural History Museums?
Again, this is a topic I’ve engaged with a fair bit of late and it’s no more straight forward than any of the previous. I read recently somewhere natural history museums described as “cemeteries of corpses” – a phrase which evoked two images for me. On the one hand, it seemed to have rather negative connotations; why would we want to make pilgrimages to these sorts of places, to look at the dead and ‘decaying’. It all seems rather morbid when you think about it. Why look at something still, lifeless and posed when you could look at something full of life, via the internet, TV, in a wildlife park or best of all, in its natural environment. And in part, I can see the argument. I recently had a conversation with someone who argued this case, expressing criticism of the NHM South Kensington for the faded mammal taxidermy specimens that are on display, for this person had in fact wanted to be able to show their child a vibrant, impressive looking male lion.
So just why do we go to NHM’s? Is it to see, to study and to compare creatures – their physiognomy, colourings and size? Or is it to understand the work taken by that institution as a scientific organisation? I think in part it’s both, but I don’t think that the latter is something that is really explored enough by NHM’s and transmitted to the public as well as it could be. Natural history museums are oddities in that they are “cemeteries of corpses”, dead specimens put on display for public consumption. But so much more goes on behind the scenes, work of global scientific significance and I think that is so often overlooked. NHM’s aren’t just preserving specimens but they are continuing to carry out the scientific and educational work they have always done, so let’s inform people about that. There is a reason why these museums have in their stores, hundreds of specimens of creatures from around the world. Let’s tell people what drove, and continues to drive that collecting and scientific research.
In a positive step there have been some successful attempts to contextualise collections and explain these ‘oddities’ by doing exactly that. Both the Horniman Museum and Gardens and the NHM Tring have attempted to address this; the Horniman with its new introduction to the Natural history gallery and Tring with its new Rothschild gallery. Both have attempted to contextualise the collections, explaining why they exist, what drove the people that began those collections and what else was going on at the time to influence it. It’s a much needed approach and one which can only improve people’s understanding of what at first glance, are pretty odd institutions.
It’s all too easy to forget that what is on display is only a small proportion of a collection and that much more is held in a museum’s store. It’s here that the real scientific value is to be seen and understood and that was something I really grew to appreciate very recently when shown some of the bird collection at the NHM Tring.
Last one, I promise!
Recently when in an archive, I was approached by a mother with her two young boys who enquired as to what I was looking at and why. This moment was pretty significant for me for two reasons really. Firstly because it was the first time I really owned my claim to being a historian. But I was also struck by her response when I told her that I was looking at evidence for what specimens were being donated too and bought by this collection, by whom, where from etc. in order to try and map what was going on and why. I think I find this aspect particularly interesting because I’m looking for some sort of justification that this whole over exploitation that occurred throughout the 19th and early part of the 20th century, was in some way ‘worth it’ or ‘justifiable’. I don’t for a moment think it was, but I cling to the hope that there might just be something that makes it seem that tiny bit ‘ok’.
And that is exactly what this mother had said she’d tried to explain to her boys. That the animal specimens on display hadn’t been killed or died and preserved for nothing, and that the knowledge derived from them was hugely important. That’s what I want to believe too, and to a certain point, I do. But the more you encounter statistics that only 1 in 12 animals survived transportation to Britain, or that such and such died only days after it arrived, and that an animal was beaten to death for striking out – it really does destroy that belief. And even more so when you read that that is exactly what happens now, and again I can draw on a Wildlife Times article, in particular the one on cheetahs as ‘The ultimate status symbol’.
It’s all just very difficult because on the one hand, the history of the exotic animal trade is a colourful and fascinating one. I’ve been amazed to discover how far it impacted upon and reflected wider social, cultural, political and economic issues and it has enabled me to look at history in a very different way. However, while I maybe studying this subject and sharing my research, I do not for one moment condone what went on and what continues to go on, nor do I want to be seen as glorifying it by talking about it. I suppose, you have to learn to compartmentalise it in order to keep perspective and this is something I am still very much learning to do. The topics of animal welfare and animal rights are ones I feel very passionately about and there are often a lot of deep breaths to be heard when I’m in the archive and reading up on it, just as there has been in writing this, as I struggle to come to terms with the reality of what I might be reading.
(1) John Berger, Why Look at Animals? (London: Penguin Books, 2009), 36.
(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indian-floods-kill-10-endangered-asiatic-lions-in-gujarat-10390123.html
(3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173127/The-heartbreaking-battle-save-66-chimpanzees-baby-left-starve-African-island-medical-firm-abandoned-finished-experimenting-them.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline
(4) http://www.fastcompany.com/3048936/fast-feed/south-african-airways-lifts-ban-on-hunters-animal-trophies
So just why do we go to NHM’s? Is it to see, to study and to compare creatures – their physiognomy, colourings and size? Or is it to understand the work taken by that institution as a scientific organisation? I think in part it’s both, but I don’t think that the latter is something that is really explored enough by NHM’s and transmitted to the public as well as it could be. Natural history museums are oddities in that they are “cemeteries of corpses”, dead specimens put on display for public consumption. But so much more goes on behind the scenes, work of global scientific significance and I think that is so often overlooked. NHM’s aren’t just preserving specimens but they are continuing to carry out the scientific and educational work they have always done, so let’s inform people about that. There is a reason why these museums have in their stores, hundreds of specimens of creatures from around the world. Let’s tell people what drove, and continues to drive that collecting and scientific research.
In a positive step there have been some successful attempts to contextualise collections and explain these ‘oddities’ by doing exactly that. Both the Horniman Museum and Gardens and the NHM Tring have attempted to address this; the Horniman with its new introduction to the Natural history gallery and Tring with its new Rothschild gallery. Both have attempted to contextualise the collections, explaining why they exist, what drove the people that began those collections and what else was going on at the time to influence it. It’s a much needed approach and one which can only improve people’s understanding of what at first glance, are pretty odd institutions.
It’s all too easy to forget that what is on display is only a small proportion of a collection and that much more is held in a museum’s store. It’s here that the real scientific value is to be seen and understood and that was something I really grew to appreciate very recently when shown some of the bird collection at the NHM Tring.
6. And, what should we be telling people about natural history collections?
Last one, I promise!
Recently when in an archive, I was approached by a mother with her two young boys who enquired as to what I was looking at and why. This moment was pretty significant for me for two reasons really. Firstly because it was the first time I really owned my claim to being a historian. But I was also struck by her response when I told her that I was looking at evidence for what specimens were being donated too and bought by this collection, by whom, where from etc. in order to try and map what was going on and why. I think I find this aspect particularly interesting because I’m looking for some sort of justification that this whole over exploitation that occurred throughout the 19th and early part of the 20th century, was in some way ‘worth it’ or ‘justifiable’. I don’t for a moment think it was, but I cling to the hope that there might just be something that makes it seem that tiny bit ‘ok’.
And that is exactly what this mother had said she’d tried to explain to her boys. That the animal specimens on display hadn’t been killed or died and preserved for nothing, and that the knowledge derived from them was hugely important. That’s what I want to believe too, and to a certain point, I do. But the more you encounter statistics that only 1 in 12 animals survived transportation to Britain, or that such and such died only days after it arrived, and that an animal was beaten to death for striking out – it really does destroy that belief. And even more so when you read that that is exactly what happens now, and again I can draw on a Wildlife Times article, in particular the one on cheetahs as ‘The ultimate status symbol’.
It’s all just very difficult because on the one hand, the history of the exotic animal trade is a colourful and fascinating one. I’ve been amazed to discover how far it impacted upon and reflected wider social, cultural, political and economic issues and it has enabled me to look at history in a very different way. However, while I maybe studying this subject and sharing my research, I do not for one moment condone what went on and what continues to go on, nor do I want to be seen as glorifying it by talking about it. I suppose, you have to learn to compartmentalise it in order to keep perspective and this is something I am still very much learning to do. The topics of animal welfare and animal rights are ones I feel very passionately about and there are often a lot of deep breaths to be heard when I’m in the archive and reading up on it, just as there has been in writing this, as I struggle to come to terms with the reality of what I might be reading.
(1) John Berger, Why Look at Animals? (London: Penguin Books, 2009), 36.
(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indian-floods-kill-10-endangered-asiatic-lions-in-gujarat-10390123.html
(3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173127/The-heartbreaking-battle-save-66-chimpanzees-baby-left-starve-African-island-medical-firm-abandoned-finished-experimenting-them.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline
(4) http://www.fastcompany.com/3048936/fast-feed/south-african-airways-lifts-ban-on-hunters-animal-trophies
