If you visit a zoo, chances are the staff will likely tell you some version of the following stories: that your admission ticket goes directly towards conservation efforts in the wild; that the new babies just born help boost wild population numbers; and that the animals are happy and healthy. According to extensive research carried out by Born Free on wild animals in captivity, however, the facts do not confirm these zoo industry fabrications, and instead demonstrate that captivity is harmful for the animals and does very little to enhance species conservation in the wild or adequately educate visitors.

—

It is becoming harder to believe that zoos are good. Between the seemingly random yet frequent animal deaths, alarming escapes, and still decreasing population trends of threatened species in the wild despite promises made by zoos to improve their conservation status, the credibility of zoos seems more fragile now than ever -– and perhaps requires serious reconsidering altogether.

Just within the last few months, a 12-year-old female giraffe named Emara died at the Calgary Zoo after a tragic accident involving her ossicones (horns) getting caught on the cable around the enclosure, likely leading to her falling and breaking her neck. The Blank Park Zoo was cited by federal regulators for a Japanese macaque dying from severe burns after being laid on an unmonitored electric heating pad during a veterinary procedure. Five meerkats died at the Philadelphia Zoo after they were exposed to an unknown toxin from a dye routinely used to identify them. And, two chimpanzees who escaped from their enclosure at the Ukumari Biopark in Colombia were shot and killed by the police.

A young macaque monkey stares out from a small, empty cage at a zoo in Mae Rim, in Northern Thailand. Photo: EO Photographer Amy Jones.

Born Free USA has published several recent reports summarising the inability of zoos to meet stated goals, including improving animal conservation in the wild, enhancing captive animal welfare, and providing adequate visitor education as a means to justify their increasingly questionable existence to the public. In reports focusing on elephants, giraffes, polar bears, and fish in captivity, the findings presented by Born Free invalidate each of the lies that zoos continuously tell in hopes of convincing people to continue to buy their admission tickets; the funds of which, many would be surprised to know, mostly do not directly benefit the animals in any way.

1. Zoos Support Wildlife Conservation 

In fact, very little money from zoos goes towards genuine conservation efforts that functionally improve an animal’s conservation status in the wild. The “reserve populations” of animals kept and bred in captivity are almost never introduced into the wild, especially species non-native to the location of the zoo. In 1990, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) identified survival action plans for 1,370 species (418 of which were Endangered). Only 1.4% (19 species) were identified as being candidates for reintroduction of captive-bred animals. 

Facilities located near natural habitats remain the best alternative to zoo breeding/release, which would incorporate preparation for eventual reintroduction into the animals’ daily lives while held in captivity to optimize chances of survival following release. Therefore, animals kept and bred outside of their natural range without the intention of eventual release (particularly including popular animals in US zoos like lions, tigers, elephants, gorillas, and pandas) provide no direct benefit to conservation whatsoever, and likely detract from resources that could be used for other meaningful conservation efforts.

According to Benjamin Beck, former associate director of biological programs at the National Zoo in Washington DC, in the last century, “only 16 of 145 reintroduction programs worldwide ever actually restored any animal populations to the wild. Of those, most were carried out by government agencies, not zoos.” Further, financial, spatial, logistical, and biological factors frequently prevent breeding that allows for highly diversified gene pools within the captive populations that are also self-sustaining. For example, due to such unsuccessful captive breeding efforts, zoos take Asian elephants from their wild homes to maintain the current numbers at zoos in the United States; consequently depleting the very populations they claim to be protecting.

2. Animals in Zoos Are “Happier” than Their Wild Counterparts 

Zoos often proclaim that animals are “better off” in captivity because they are “protected” from threats like poaching, habitat loss, health issues, and starvation. We argue that these benefits, however, are not worth what the animals are denied living in a zoo, including having the freedom of choice, movement, adequate space, autonomy, ability to reproduce, raise their young, socialise naturally, escape stressors, or engage in species-specific behaviours, like swimming or sunbathing. When more resources are allocated toward in-situ conservation, perhaps both protection from threats and increasing wild population numbers could occur simultaneously, without having to keep hundreds of thousands of animals captive. Further, wild animals held captive often develop captivity-related physical and psychological diseases that are not typically seen in the wild, which often impede their chances of experiencing acceptable welfare.

The long-term effects of the psychological and physical restrictions present in captive environments can be manifested in the form of stereotypies, or abnormal repetitive behaviours that develop from experiencing chronic levels of stress, boredom, or trauma. The demonstration of stereotypies often indicates a state of previous or current poor welfare. Sadly, some zoos have resorted to using psychopharmaceutical medication to treat animals with stereotypies deemed too distracting or troubling by visitors.

In captive elephants, these behaviours look like repetitive swaying, head-bobbing, pacing, and circling. In a sample of US zoos, 85.4% of elephants were observed to perform stereotypic behavior during the day and 68.8% during the night. Giraffes are also prone to stereotypic behaviors in captivity, particularly oral stereotypic behaviors involving the tongue. In a survey of AZA-accredited North American zoos, 79.7% of giraffes demonstrated stereotypic behaviour, including repetitive licking of non-food objects, pacing, self-injury, head tossing, and tongue playing. In polar bears, these behaviors manifest as pacing, repetitive swimming, and head swinging. Tongue-flicking, over-grooming, and jaw-clamping have been observed in other bear species. A study from 2013 on polar bears in North American Zoos discovered that 85% of the captive polar bears observed performed stereotypic pacing during, on average, 14% of the day. The conclusion from each of these studies: animals kept in captivity are not “happier,” and indeed experience high levels of stress, frequently at chronic levels that can be detrimental to their long-term health.

3. Zoos are Great Educational Tools for Children 

Several years ago, the zoo industry commissioned a paper in an attempt to “scientifically confirm” this fabrication. Instead, the results showed that most children did not learn anything of value, and some even experienced “negative learning outcomes” after visiting a zoo.

The study found that just 41% of educator-guided visits and 34% of unguided visits resulted in conservation biology-related learning in seven to 15-year-old children, and negative changes in children’s understanding of animals and their habitats occurred more frequently in unguided zoo visits. The extent of negative learning taking place in unguided zoo visits suggests that zoos’ standard unguided interpretive materials are grossly insufficient for achieving the best outcomes for educating visiting children.

As confirmed by our own research and that of others, to be a real advocate for wild animals, ensure that you do not fall for the misinformation presented by zoos. Statistics—numbers informing qualitative data to produce proper analysis—are key to understanding the big picture of wild animal welfare and conservation. This is why Born Free remains so committed to unveiling the truth about the exploitation of wild animals in captivity, which sadly occurs in zoos and aquariums largely unbeknownst to the public every day. The numbers do not lie, but zoos? So long as their need to make money trumps the needs of the animals in their care, we can never be too sure.

Explore all of Born Free USA’s reports on wild animals in zoo captivity at these links:

Elephants in Zoos: A Legacy of Shame. Read here.

Confined Giants: The Plight of Giraffe in Zoos. Read here.

Born to Roam: The Suffering of Polar Bears in Zoos. Read here.

Oceans Away from Home: The Suffering of Fish in Captivity. Read here.

You might also like: Animal Captivity Is A Dangerous Distraction from Real Conservation Efforts

Featured Image: EO Photographer Amy Jones/Moving Animals.

The post The Lies Zoos Tell appeared first on Earth.Org.

Wildlife conservation and animal advocacy nonprofit Born Free USA has released a major new report, Oceans Away from Home: The Suffering of Fish in Captivity, and accompanying aquarium investigation revealing the true extent of fish suffering in captive conditions.

—

Wildlife conservation and animal advocacy nonprofit Born Free USA has released a major new report, Oceans Away from Home: The Suffering of Fish in Captivity, and accompanying aquarium investigation, revealing the true extent of fish suffering in captive conditions. Despite being some of the animals most commonly held captive around the world, fish are vastly overlooked and neglected in terms of basic animal husbandry, welfare, and legislation protecting them from animal cruelty, neglect, and abuse. Further, despite claims to contribute to fish conservation, animal welfare, and visitor education efforts, zoos and aquariums do little to nothing, and in many cases work against, these goals.

Together with direct evidence (including videos and pictures) from investigations at three popular United States aquariums, the report:

• Summarises the harmful effects of wild fish population depletion to supply the demand for the private fish trade.
• Analyses the gross shortcomings of zoos in protecting fish welfare and conservation.
• Confirms fish sentience by providing evidence for complex social and neurological processes similar to mammals, and therefore a similar capacity to experience suffering and pain.
• Argues for a more compassionate and comprehensive protection of the tens of thousands of unmonitored fish species that fall victim to the exploitation-driven private fish trade every day.

Particularly damaging to fish welfare and human public health and safety are touch tanks. There are no standards by which touch tanks are required to be operated. Therefore, practices differ widely between aquariums, including species involved in touch tanks, amount of time animals are exposed to direct human contact, how human contact is monitored and/or directed, bacterial concerns from pathogens introduced from outside of the fishes’ habitat, and any measures taken to reduce stress or injuries experienced by the animals involved. Zoonoses, or diseases that may be transferred from animals to humans, also pose a major health concern. Zoonotic diseases, primarily bacterial infections, can be passed through direct physical contact with fish, the tank and its components, and food. These infections – some potentially fatal – are often asymptomatic in fish but can cause serious illness in humans.

Some consistent psychological behaviours and physical impairments have been observed to be directly associated with animals in touch tanks and thus likely indicative of poor welfare and health in these captive environments. These include stereotypic behaviours in stingrays like “surface breaking,” an abnormal repetitive behaviours induced by chronic stress, trauma, or boredom, or a reaction to the shallow depth of the pools compared to their natural habitat; and “tail-wagging” in dogfish, where the fish attempt to escape the exhibit by walking on their tails and jumping out of the tank.

“Fish are biologically and behaviorally very distinct from humans, which has for a long time led to the misconception that they are not capable of feeling pain, frustration, boredom, or any of the emotions we take for granted in mammal species,” Born Free USA CEO Angela Grimes said. “But most animal welfare research on fish is in resounding agreement: fish are sentient, intelligent, social, and highly capable of suffering and feeling pain. They do not belong in tiny glass tanks devoid of any meaningful environmental elements. They deserve freedom, no matter how much smaller or different they seem compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.”

To prevent irreversible wild population depletion and end the cycle of unnecessary suffering for fish in captivity, Born Free USA recommends the following actions:

• Zoos should immediately halt the wild capture of fish from their natural habitats to stock collections.
• Zoos must ban touch tanks from aquariums, as they do not contribute to any genuine conservation efforts and directly negatively impact the welfare of the animals and humans involved.
• Fish should be included in the definition of “animals” in both state and federal animal cruelty legislation based on the scientific evidence provided in the report.
• Members of the public should say “no” to visiting aquariums.

Read the report and explore the campaign here.

You might also like: Experts Join Together to Offer Support to Stop Caribbean Monkey Cull

The post New Report Reveals Horrific Suffering of Fish in Captivity, Calls for a Ban on Touch Tanks and an End to the Capture of Fish from the Wild appeared first on Earth.Org.

Not a day goes by without one of the world’s approximately 10,000 zoos announcing the birth of a captive-born resident. From elephants to rhinos, these birth announcements are invariably accompanied by the bold claim that this new baby, born into captivity, is helping to secure the future of their species. Born Free USA’s Programs Director Liz Tyson-Griffin discusses the issues related to wild animal captivity and what conservation efforts should really look like.

—

By Liz Tyson-Griffin, PhD, Born Free USA Programs Director

Wild Animal Captivity

In February 2023, a rhino was born at a zoo in Kansas. The zoo owner stated in the press that birth helps in “preserving species who are on the brink of extinction.” Another article, celebrating the birth of twin elephants in Syracuse, New York, in November 2022, said that “their birth helps boost the endangered species’ population.” 

When Amur leopard cubs were born in St. Louis Zoo in May 2022, zoo staff were quoted as saying: “There are so few of these rare big cats left in the world and each birth is extremely important for the survival of the species.” 

Likewise, a birth announcement for a giraffe born at the Virginia Zoo in October 2022 included the claim that, because the species is endangered: “The birth of this newest calf is especially important.” 

The list goes on.

Photo: EO Photographer Amy Jones/Moving Animals.

Zoos have long claimed that breeding wild animals in captivity serves to guarantee the survival of the species, to the extent that the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) coordinated breeding programmes are named Species Survival Plans (SSP). The purpose of the plans is “a cooperative animal management, breeding, and conservation effort that works to ensure genetically diverse, self-sustaining populations of more than 500 species of animals.” 

For AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums, conservation is “a priority” and “a key part” of their mission to save species from going extinct. But despite both overarching and specific examples of zoos claiming to save species from extinction, animals held in zoos have little to no opportunity for release to the wild. Rather than the proverbial “ark” saving species from extinction, zoos are better described as silos for species held captive while wild populations continue to fight for their very survival. Zoos claim to mitigate species decline but, in fact, both contribute to it and distract from the very real threats facing free-living wild animals. Rather than breeding endangered animals for eventual release back into their natural environments, zoo breeding programmes breed animals to stock their public exhibits.

You might also like: Breeding Programmes For Endangered Species: Do They Really Help?

Elephants

Elephants in zoos are a prime example of animals who suffer, both from a conservation and a welfare perspective, when held captive in zoos. 

Research carried out by Born Free and published in 2022 confirmed elephants have been captured from the wild to stock zoos exhibits in the U.S. as recently as 2016. For the captive Asian elephant population alone, it was calculated in 2000 that zoos in North America would need to import four elephants per year to maintain the population at the current level. Put simply, deaths of elephants in zoos outnumber births. As a result, zoos are net consumers of elephants rather than guardians of them as the industry would have us believe.

Not only do zoos impact wild populations of elephants by taking them from their natural home but elephants kept in zoos also suffer poor welfare as it is impossible for the captive environment to meet their extremely complex and specific needs. Captive elephants, particularly calves, are more likely than their free-living counterparts to die from Elephant Endotheliotropic Herpesvirus Haemorrhagic Disease (EEHV-HD), a disease so deadly that it is the most common cause of death for infant elephants in zoos. While EEHV-HD is latently carried by both captive and free-living populations, captive deaths are proportionally much higher than those in free elephant communities. 

Given the mortality rates of captive elephants, it is disturbing if not surprising to learn of the desperate measures zoos take to force elephants to breed. An example is Chai, an elephant who died in 2016 at Oklahoma City Zoo. Chai was forcibly inseminated 112 times in her lifetime. The process required her to be anchored by her feet and have a three-foot hose inserted into her reproductive tract. The training for her to accept this invasive procedure took two years. When all attempts at forced insemination were unsuccessful, Chai was moved from Woodland Park Zoo, where she was living at that time, to Dickerson Park Zoo in Missouri. The move went ahead in 1998 despite the Missouri zoo experiencing an outbreak of EEHV-HD and the risk that Chai could bring it back with her. Despite Chai being attacked and injured by the other elephants at the Missouri facility, and losing about 1,300 pounds during the year she was away from her home zoo, she returned to Woodland Park pregnant. Her calf Hansa died from EEHV-HD at just seven years old. 

You might also like: 12 Incredible Facts About Elephants

Giraffes

Other zoo favourites, such as giraffes, also suffer terribly in zoos, while their free-living counterparts are threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation and abhorrent practices such as trophy hunting. In North America, at least 103 zoos hold close to 600 giraffe captive. For giraffes, the world’s tallest land mammal, captivity presents multiple welfare issues, not least because of their huge size, climactic needs, the natural tendency to roam great distances, and their adaptation to spend around 60% of their time foraging. 

The simple act of keeping them captive can kill giraffes; multiple individuals have died because of the enclosures they are kept in. For example, in 2010, a giraffe died at Cincinnati Zoo when her horns got entangled in netting, and a three-year-old giraffe at Peoria Zoo got his neck caught in the fork of a tree in the same year. He died in front of visitors after flipping over trying to free himself. In 2015, a giraffe died after running into the perimeter fence of her enclosure in one zoo, and at another zoo, a baby giraffe died after their neck became entangled in wire. In 2016, a giraffe collapsed after getting his head caught between two posts at Zoo Miami, and the following year, another giraffe was found dead after getting caught up in a toy-like piece of equipment in another facility. In February 2023, a giraffe died after getting his neck caught in a gate at Seneca Zoo in New York State. 

Giraffes would naturally spend around a third of their day walking. Their natural range has been calculated to be between 1,326 and 127,012 acres. In contrast, the average zoo enclosure for giraffes in US zoos is 1.2 acres. The smallest giraffe enclosure in the country is just 0.17 acres and is found at the Los Angeles Zoo. In addition, giraffes spend a large part of their day feeding on leaves and stems of trees and shrubs and rumination is their dominant activity at night. As such, feeding is not just of nutritional importance to them, but also behaviourally significant. Even with the best of intentions, it is impossible for zoos to provide sufficient browse to fulfil nutritional and behavioural needs, which leads to both physical and mental health issues for the animals. Physical health issues include significant weight loss and dental issues, among other conditions. In Europe, a survey revealed that at least 48% of giraffes were in poor to emaciated body condition at the time of death. Mental health issues for captive giraffes often manifest in stereotypic behaviours such as bar biting, licking non-food objects, or pacing. In a survey of giraffes in AZA zoos, 79.7% of them demonstrated stereotypes. 

Polar Bears

Polar bears held captive in zoos are one of the more extreme examples of the way in which animal captivity fails to provide adequate living conditions for wild animals as well as the way in which zoos not only fail to address the very real threats facing free-living animals but also contribute to the very issues they claim to ameliorate. 

A polar bear’s range can be up to tens of thousands of square miles, yet a 2003 report confirmed that a typical zoo enclosure for a polar bear was 0.23 acres. This is one millionth the size of their natural range – around the size of an Olympic swimming pool. When the polar bears’ aquatic range is considered in addition to the land range, the picture for captive bears becomes altogether bleaker. Polar bears are reportedly capable of swimming 427 miles over nine days, yet US regulations recommend a water surface area of just 97 square feet (9 square metres) and a depth of just 5 feet (1.5 metres).

You might also like: 5 Facts About Endangered Polar Bears: Diet, Threats, and Conservation

In addition to the welfare impacts of keeping polar bears in zoos, the somewhat ironic truth is that keeping these bears in captive environments negatively impacts climate change – the bear’s main threat in their natural habitat. The construction of the polar bears’ enclosures, the water treatment, climate control, food production, and overall zoo infrastructure all create significant emissions that impact the environment negatively. Indeed, the carbon footprint of zoos, in general, is huge – something that is rarely acknowledged despite zoo claims that they exist to serve conservation goals. 

The Truth About Animal Captivity 

The truth is that, despite bold claims of serving conservation, saving species from extinction, and educating future generations of conservationists, the primary purpose of zoos is to hold animals captive for entertainment. People enjoy seeing wild animals and zoos are a convenient and accessible way to do that. Almost without exception, animals born in zoos will die in zoos – they will not be released into the wild. It is time we recognise that holding wild animals captive for life and over generations is not only harmful to the welfare of the animals themselves but is also a dangerous distraction away from the true threats facing these animals in their natural habitats.

Instead of supporting zoos and perpetuating the lifelong animal captivity, true conservation efforts, which focus on protecting animals in their natural ranges and deal meaningfully with the often complex issues facing free-living animals, are where our efforts should be focused.

Featured image: EO Photographer Amy Jones/Moving Animals.

—

Sources: 

Bashaw, M. J., Tarou, L. R., Makia, T. S. and Maple, T. L. (2001). “A survey

Clauss, M., Rose, P., Hummel, J. and Hatt, J-M. (2006). “Serous fat atrophy and other nutrition-related health problems in captive giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) – an evaluation of 83 necropsy reports.” In: Congress of the European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians. Budapest: EAZWV, pp. 233-235.

Leuthold, B. M. and Leuthold, W. (1978). “Daytime activity patterns of gerenuk and giraffe in Tsavo National Park, Kenya.” East African Wildlife Journal, 16, pp. 231-243.

About the Author:

​​Dr. Liz Tyson-Griffin is Born Free USA’s Programs Director. She has helped animals across the globe. She helped to establish the very first locally-run sterilisation program for street dogs in the Middle East; worked with indigenous communities in the Colombian Amazon to end the hunting of wild primates; ran a UK charity campaigning to end the exploitation of animals in circuses and zoos; and helped design a new rehabilitation complex for rescued monkeys at Born Free’s sanctuary in Ethiopia, Ensessa Kotteh. In 2018, she earned her doctorate in Animal Welfare Law. 

Liz recently published her book, Licensing Laws and Animal Welfare: The Legal Protection of Wild Animals, with Palgrave MacMillan/Springer Nature. The book outlines the findings of her doctoral research, which is the most comprehensive study of the legal protection of wild animals in English zoos carried out to date.

You might also like: Will the 2030s Be the Decade for Global Biodiversity Conservation?

The post Animal Captivity Is A Dangerous Distraction from Real Conservation Efforts appeared first on Earth.Org.

Leading animal welfare and conservation non-profit Born Free USA has recently launched Thrill Kill: Recreational Animal Slaughter in the US, a shocking new investigation into the dark and disturbing world of animal “thrill killing.”

—

The report Thrill Kill: Recreational Animal Slaughter in the US released on May 23, 2023, covers a series of troubling practices including killing contests, where hunters compete for huge cash prizes by killing as many animals as possible; trophy hunting, where individuals pay thousands of dollars to kill caged, critically endangered African wildlife on Texas ranches; rattlesnake roundups, where snakes are tormented, killed, and skinned in front of paying audiences; and helicopter hunting, where hunters use fully automatic weapons and crossbows to mass kill feral pigs and coyotes.

Showing a complete disregard for sentient lives, thousands of animals are killed by sport hunters in these ways each year. Texas’ laissez-faire regulations enable these egregious forms of hunting, making it the epicenter of thrill killing in the United States. The report focuses on the Lone Star State as a case study and reminds readers that many of these practices occur across the nation.

The investigation uncovered:

• Inexperienced hunters let loose with fully automatic weapons while hanging out of helicopters, saying: “I kinda [sic] blacked out and just started shooting… rounds off everywhere, I wasn’t aiming for anything, I got so excited…”
• Young children encouraged to cover their hands in the blood of rattlesnakes and put their bloody handprints on the wall, while other children were taught how to skin dead snakes as paying audience members watched.
• A hunting guide gasping for breath from laughing as he watched a deer injured with a crossbow bolt run into a pond and drown to death.
• Hunters playing target practice with slow moving animals such as porcupines as part of “unique” hunts. Failing to kill the animal cleanly, the hunters film on a cellphone as the injured animal lies writhing and bleeding on the ground.
• A single killing contest paying out more than $2.6 million dollars in prize money since 2014.
• Repeated instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia ingrained into the events, publications, and resources associated with these activities.

Sweetwater Rattlesnake Roundup. Photo: Born Free USA.

“This new investigation lays bare the abject and deliberate cruelty inherent in these pastimes and the joy taken in torturing and killing living beings,” said Born Free USA CEO Angela Grimes. “The animal suffering that we uncovered is on a scale that is difficult to comprehend and impossible to condone. This is not about population management or predator control, this is killing for the fun of it, plain and simple, and it must be stopped.”

As a result of the investigation’s findings, Born Free USA is calling for multiple reforms including statewide bans on killing contests across the country; a reconfiguring of rattlesnake roundups to promote kindness and respect for animals; removal of legal loopholes allowing helicopter hunting “experiences” to be sold to inexperienced hunters; and a re-listing on the Endangered Species Act of species most impacting by US-based trophy hunting.

You can read the full report here.

Featured image: Sweetwater Rattlesnake Roundup. Photo: Born Free USA.

More by Born Free USA: Animal Captivity Is A Dangerous Distraction from Real Conservation Efforts

The post New Animal Thrill Killing Report Explores the Dark World of Animal Slaughter in the Name of Entertainment appeared first on Earth.Org.

In January of this year, news reports circulated about the proposed cull of around 450 monkeys on the Dutch island territory of St. Maarten in the Caribbean. The decision to kill the monkeys was based on research carried out by a local non-profit, the Nature Foundation, which erroneously predicted that the monkey population was set to double in one year. The subsequent publicity led to international concern and calls for the monkey cull to be abandoned in favour of non-lethal control of the non-native primates.

—

By Liz Tyson-Griffin, PhD, Born Free USA Programs Director

In light of the news, global wildlife protection non-profit, Born Free USA, coordinated a group of 75 primatologists, veterinarians, and animal welfare experts and organisations to lead the call for St. Maarten to adopt a humane sterilisation programme in place of the planned killing.

The coalition sent a letter to the St. Maarten government on February 2, 2023, but received no response from officials. On March 2, in a bid to increase pressure, a public petition was launched to show support for the proposed sterilisation programme. To date, more than 2,500 compassionate people have signed it.

In the detailed letter sent to the government, the coalition raised concerns over the quality of the research upon which the decision to execute the monkey cull was based. Breaking the issues down, the groups noted the following points.

1. Population Growth Figures Are Wildly Inaccurate

Aside from questions arising over the true number of monkeys on the island, with some primatologists working in the region casting doubt over the accuracy of the Nature Foundation’s census, the report’s claims over potential population growth were rejected. 

The Nature Foundation document claims that the estimated 450-strong population could double in size in the space of 12 months. The coalition letter stated that this “shows a disturbing lack of understanding of primate behavior and reproduction.” Indeed, calculations carried out by Born Free USA based on population growth over time estimate that monkey numbers may grow by 10% per year, not 100% as claimed by the Nature Foundation. This, they say, means that there is no urgent need to eradicate the monkeys and rather there is time to implement humane non-lethal control before numbers get out of hand.

2. Cost Analysis Is Unsubstantiated

The Nature Foundation report claims that monkeys’ sterilisation would cost five times more than what it would cost to kill them, however, there is no information available to substantiate this claim. The coalition in favor of sterilization has asked the St. Maarten government to provide a cost analysis and to allow the coalition to re-cost the project. With veterinarians standing by to offer training and expertise, there is no reason for sterilisation to be more expensive than the proposed monkey cull.

3. Public Survey Flawed

The Nature Foundation points to a public survey as a means to demonstrate public support for the monkey cull but results are misleading. Indeed, some information provided to respondents, and upon which their responses were based, were incorrect. 

The survey included the claim that sterilisation would cost five times more than culling, which is unsubstantiated. It also cited that there was a “risk of failure” if sterilisation was chosen but not if killing was chosen to control the monkey population. Again, no evidence was provided to support this claim. Indeed, as both methods require the trapping of monkeys, the risk of failure is arguably equal in both cases. 

Interestingly, 72% of survey respondents self-identified as involved in agriculture whereas more than 85% of island residents are employed in tourism and just 1% of the country’s GDP comes from agriculture. As such, it appears that survey respondents were not representative of the wider population and the majority of respondents were people most likely to be biased toward lethal control. That being said, there was only a small majority of people who favoured killing over either doing nothing or sterilising the monkeys (55% and 45%, respectively). So, even with misleading information, the public survey can hardly be considered decisive.

Next Steps

Monkeys on the island territory may not be native, but they have co-existed alongside the human population for decades and perhaps even centuries. Likely growing from a founder population of escaped or released former pet monkeys, their presence on the island is no fault of their own and they do not deserve to be killed. 

As a country that relies on tourism, killing innocent animals may lead to backlash and affect the local economy. Instead, St. Maarten has the opportunity to establish a humane and effective population control project, which can lead the way for other islands in the region to follow.

Born Free USA is calling upon members of the public to abandon the monkey cull and encourage St. Maarten officials to collaborate with experts to come up with a better plan, which mitigates the nuisance caused by the monkeys without resorting to mass slaughter. 

You can help efforts by signing the petition here.

—

About the Author:

​​Dr. Liz Tyson-Griffin is Born Free USA’s Programs Director. She has helped animals across the globe. She helped to establish the very first locally-run sterilisation program for street dogs in the Middle East; worked with indigenous communities in the Colombian Amazon to end the hunting of wild primates; ran a UK charity campaigning to end the exploitation of animals in circuses and zoos; and helped design a new rehabilitation complex for rescued monkeys at Born Free’s sanctuary in Ethiopia, Ensessa Kotteh. In 2018, she earned her doctorate in Animal Welfare Law.

Liz recently published her book, Licensing Laws and Animal Welfare: The Legal Protection of Wild Animals, with Palgrave MacMillan/Springer Nature. The book outlines the findings of her doctoral research, which is the most comprehensive study of the legal protection of wild animals in English zoos carried out to date.

You might also like: Animal Captivity Is A Dangerous Distraction from Real Conservation Efforts

The post Experts Join Together to Offer Support to Stop Caribbean Monkey Cull appeared first on Earth.Org.