GIVEN THE appalling conditions at the Manila Zoo, it’s a real stretch for anyone to suggest that visitors will learn anything meaningful about how animals really behave or leave the zoo with a newfound mission to save wild animals. Most people go to the zoo to pass their time or to occupy their kids, or to be entertained—not to be educated.
Even the most well-known organization that promotes zoo visits concurs. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ (AZA) magazine “Connect” details findings that zoo visitors rarely “retained even a few basic facts.” When asked “What did you learn at this exhibit?” the most common reply was “Nothing.” The same magazine notes that: “learning is not a popular reason for people to visit zoos and aquariums. Everyone would like it to be true, but the specifics and logic of how casual visits to zoos really function in the conservation movement remains unproven.”
Some years ago, Dale Marcellini, a curator at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. conducted a study of zoo visitors. He and several colleagues watched and listened to more than 700 people over the course of a few summers. “Basically, we just tracked them … and recorded what they did,” said Marcellini.
The data he collected shattered the myth that zoos serve to foster respect and understanding for animals. His study showed that zoos are little more than backdrops for people’s other preoccupations. The visitors’ conversations dealt not with the animals at all, but mostly with their own lives. When people did remark on an animal, it was usually to comment on how someone they knew looked like that baboon or hippopotamus, or to speculate how an octopus (or some other animal) could eat a person. The most common words Marcellini recorded were “dirty,” “cute,” “ugly,” “funny-looking” and “strange.”
The study found that almost 60 percent of visitors’ time was spent walking from place to place, almost 10 percent for eating, and the rest for resting, bathroom breaks and shopping. A similar study conducted at the London Zoo mirrored Marcellini’s findings. Visitors stood in front of the monkey enclosure for an average of 46 seconds which included time spent reviewing the posted informational signage.
The Manila Zoo has drawn international criticism for cramming hundreds of animals in a facility slightly more than half a square kilometer. Animals live in barren concrete enclosures, mostly devoid of even a blade of grass. Many of the animals exhibit neurotic behaviors.
The Manila Zoo does not have the space, money or resources to provide the space, exercise, privacy and mental stimulation the animals need. Zoo officials should stop spending time defending their cruel operation and start to systematically shut the zoo down.
—JASON BAKER, vice president,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta)-Asia, petaasiapacific.com