The Ethical Quandary of Zoos and Aquariums in War Zones
Questioning the Value of Captive Animal Institutions in Peace and Conflict
In the midst of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the plight of two beluga whales, Plombir and Miranda, who were recently evacuated from Kharkiv to Spain, has brought to light a pressing ethical question: What is the value of zoos and aquariums, especially in war zones?
Zoos and aquariums have long been heralded as bastions of conservation, education, and research. However, their role and ethical standing have become increasingly contentious in the best of times; how much more so during times of war and disasters? The evacuation of the beluga whales from Kharkiv, necessitated by the relentless Russian bombardments, underscores the extreme vulnerabilities faced by captive animals during conflicts. The whales' survival hinged on a complex rescue operation led by Daniel Garcia-Párraga, director of zoological operations at Oceanogràfic de Valencia, who noted that their chances of survival in Kharkiv were slim if they had remained there.
The Kharkiv Beluga Whale Rescue: A Case Study
The rescue operation was fraught with danger and logistical challenges. The whales, native to the Arctic, were struggling in the warmer waters of the Kharkiv aquarium, which had been relying on generator power due to the devastation of the city's power grid. Maintaining the cold water necessary for their survival became increasingly difficult. Additionally, the whales' diets had been drastically reduced due to shortages of their required daily intake of 132 pounds of squid, herring, mackerel, and other fresh fish. Ukrainian caregivers were even considering using discarded fish from restaurants and markets as a last resort.
Bombs had been exploding close enough to the aquarium to disturb the whales' environment, further jeopardizing their well-being. The evacuation involved a perilous 12-hour drive from Kharkiv to Odesa, followed by a swift border crossing facilitated by the European Anti-Fraud Office. The final leg of the journey was a flight from Chisinau to Valencia, where the whales were greeted by a team of medical, nutritional, and behavioral experts ready to provide specialized care.
Historical Precedents and Modern Challenges
The history of zoos during wartime is fraught with tragedy and logistical nightmares. During World War II, the London Zoo faced severe challenges, including bombings and food shortages. Venomous animals were euthanized to prevent potential escapes, and many animals were relocated to safer areas like Whipsnade Zoo. Despite these efforts, the zoo struggled with maintaining adequate care for its inhabitants amidst the chaos of war.
Similarly, the zoos in Ukraine today face dire circumstances. The Kharkiv Zoo, along with others in Kyiv and Mykolaiv, has been under constant threat from Russian military actions. The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) and the World Association of Zoos and Aquaria (WAZA) have been working to support these institutions, but the challenges are immense. Animals are being sedated and moved to underground shelters to protect them from the noise and danger of explosions, a situation that is far from ideal for their well-being.
The Broader Ethical Debate
The ethical debate surrounding zoos and aquariums is not new. Critics argue that even when these institutions contribute to conservation and education, they inherently compromise the welfare of animals by keeping them in captivity. This argument gains more weight in the context of war zones, where the risks to animal welfare are exacerbated. The logistical difficulties of evacuating large numbers of animals, the stress induced by conflict, and the potential for enclosures to be destroyed by military actions all highlight the precariousness of maintaining zoos in such environments.
Moreover, the financial and human resources required to ensure the safety of zoo animals during conflicts often divert attention and aid from human victims of war. This raises a moral question: Should the resources spent on maintaining and evacuating zoo animals in war zones be redirected to human relief efforts?
The Irony of Human Hubris
Amidst these ethical discussions, a striking irony emerges: humanity's inability to protect its own environment from war and yet its confidence in safeguarding captive animals in the midst of war. This paradox highlights a deeper issue—our efforts to preserve animal welfare within controlled environments often starkly contrast with our inability to secure peace and stability in human societies. This irony not only calls into question the priorities of our conservation efforts but also their very feasibility.
Lessons from Past Disasters
Past disasters have shown that zoos can be both resilient and vulnerable. The 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused significant damage to the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans, though the loss of animal life was minimal compared to the devastation at the New Orleans Aquarium of the Americas, where most of the fish died due to power outages. The 2017 California wildfires also posed severe threats to the San Diego Wild Animal Park, necessitating the relocation of endangered species.
These examples illustrate that while zoos can prepare for and mitigate some risks, the unpredictability and scale of disasters often overwhelm even the best-laid plans. The current situation in Ukraine is a stark reminder of these limitations.
Conclusion
The evacuation of the beluga whales from Kharkiv to Spain is a testament to human ingenuity and compassion. However, it also prompts a critical examination of the role and value of zoos and aquariums, especially in conflict zones. As the world grapples with increasing geopolitical instability and environmental crises, the ethical justification for keeping animals in captivity, particularly in vulnerable regions, must be rigorously scrutinized.
To address these challenges, the international community, zoos, and governments should consider developing more robust contingency plans, increasing collaboration for animal rescue operations, and perhaps even reevaluating the necessity of maintaining zoos in high-risk areas. The welfare of animals, the allocation of resources, and the broader moral implications all demand a thoughtful and informed debate.
While the compassion and efforts shown in the Kharkiv whale rescue are commendable, they also underscore the need for a more profound reassessment of how and why we maintain zoos and aquariums in the first place, especially in times of war and disaster.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments. He is available for consultations. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Contact Ed Boks Consulting to help transform your organization's approach to animal welfare! With a proven track record in some of the largest animal control programs in the United States, Ed Boks offers unparalleled expertise in strategic planning, program development, and organizational efficiency. Whether you need help with capacity building, crisis management, or legislative lobbying, Ed Boks Consulting provides the innovative, compassionate solutions your organization needs to achieve and sustain success. Don't wait—reach out now to start making a life-saving difference! Contact Ed Boks Consulting at: animalpolitics8@gmail.com
While I’m glad they were evacuated, what happens with the next heatwave in Spain? I’d rather see them near Canada or Alaska, closer to their natural habitat. Of course, my first preference is that they would never have become captive at all, but as they are endangered and have been traumatized, we as their guardians must give them the absolute best environment and care possible.
I have visited the San Diego Wild Animal Park in years past yet with all the wildfires, my mind just did not connect the dots that these magnificent creatures in that enormous habitat could be in harm’s way. Until geopolitical conflict can be eliminated (as if that were realistic) Homo sapiens have no right to capture and confine wildlife for amusement.