Zoos bound by only basic standards
Dear Lawyer,
Recently I visited a small city zoo and was appalled at the cramped, unkempt living quarters and lack of stimulation for most of the animals. I complained to the zoo director, but she said that the zoo is providing all necessary care and treatment mandated by law and that no one is forcing me to visit the zoo again. Is there any further action I can take? —Distressed animal-lover
Dear Distressed,
Zoo living environments generally pale in comparison with natural habitats, and some zoos unfortunately provide substandard care. While conditions have improved overall, much more improvement is needed.
The only federal law regulating treatment of animals in zoos and aquariums is the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which essentially requires only that animals be provided basic food, water, housing, and sanitation. Cold-blooded animals (reptiles, amphibians, and fish) are excluded.
Accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) requires a higher level of care, but the guidelines have no force of law. Even AZA-recommended living conditions permit zoos to provide what many experts consider artificial and constrained quarters. A case in point is AZA-accredited aquariums that capture wild orcas and compel them to spend their lives in small pools, performing tricks day after day.
At the state level, enforcement of anti-cruelty laws at zoos is rare, as such investigations are usually left to local authorities, who are reluctant to investigate or prosecute zoos. (Where does one impound a tiger?) Some states exempt zoos from animal cruelty laws altogether.
Several years ago the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit (ALDF v. Glickman) claiming that the poor conditions at a zoo caused an aesthetic injury to visitors, who had to endure the sight of suffering animals. The zoo argued that the ALDF had no legal right to sue, but the court disagreed, finding that a party could make such a claim within the “zone of interest” of the AWA. In other words, you cannot sue directly on behalf of suffering animals, since animals have no legal standing. But a person who is injured by watching animal suffering does have the right to take action.
The animal-rights group PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) tried a different approach in 2011 when it sued on behalf of orcas at an aquarium, arguing that the whales were “enslaved” in violation of the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. Essentially PETA asked the court to find that animals do have legal standing as sentient beings with basic rights.
The court ended up dismissing the suit for lack of standing, but animal advocates were encouraged that the suit even made it to court. It will be interesting to see what comes of three lawsuits filed in New York in December by the Nonhuman Rights Project, seeking status for four captive chimpanzees as “legal persons.”
As for what you can do about shoddy zoo conditions, there are several options. You could complain to the AZA (if the zoo is accredited), and an investigation would likely ensue. You could file a complaint with the Department of Agriculture alleging violations to the Animal Welfare Act, although the agency has 104 inspectors covering more than 2,000 animal-care facilities. You could conceivably file a lawsuit against the zoo based on the findings of ALDF v. Glickman. And it certainly wouldn’t hurt to complain to local, state, and federal legislators and to bring the issue to the media’s attention.
Ed Goodman worked for more than two decades as a trial lawyer in Massachusetts. A painter, screenwriter, and novelist, he lives in Corrales with partner Ennio Garcia-Miera and their seven dogs, four turkeys, four chickens, and a parrot.