Death at the zoo: the media, science, and reality

Zoo Biology 25:101–115 (2006)

Research Article

Death at the Zoo: The Media, Science,and RealityMichael Hutchins1–3�

1The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland2Center for Conservation and Behavior, Georgia Institute of Technology,Atlanta, Georgia3Graduate Program in Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development,University of Maryland, Bethesda, Maryland

Media characterizations of zoo and aquarium animal deaths were randomlymonitored on the internet for a 20-month period (September 2003–May 2005).Based on 148 samples collected, it was possible to classify articles into one of fourcategories, which were operationally defined: 1) dispassionate observers;2) accusers; 3) sympathizers; and 4) balancers. In addition, with the notableexception of seven cases, all of the articles examined focused on large, charismaticmammals, such as gorillas, dolphins, lions, and elephants. Although a majorityof the articles examined (70.4%) were either dispassionate and objective orsympathetic, nearly a third (29.6%) were either accusatory or attempted tobalance the accusatory statements of animal rights activists with sympatheticstatements from zoo professionals. Recommendations are offered for how zoosshould deal with the increasing media and public interest in zoo animal deaths,including: 1) a greater commitment to studying the reasons for mortality in a widevariety of species; and 2) an increased investment in record keeping and analysis,which should allow zoos to calculate average life spans in animal populations andto monitor and assess the risk of certain lethal diseases on a real-time basis.Comparisons are drawn between zoo veterinary practices and human medicine,which are both inexact sciences. Suggestions are made for how the public and keydecision-makers can distinguish between media reports on zoo animal deaths thatare legitimate cause for concern vs. those that are sensationalist and meant togenerate controversy and sell papers. A greater focus on the science of zoo animaldeath is necessary for accredited zoos to maintain the public’s confidence in theiranimal care practices. Zoo Biol 25:101–115, 2006. �c 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Keywords: zoos; aquariums; animal; mortality; animal welfare; public relations

Published online 15 March 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI 10.1002/zoo.20085

Received 5 May 2005; Accepted 28 October 2005

�Correspondence to: Michael Hutchins, PhD, The Wildlife Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda,

MD 20814. E-mail: [email protected]

rr 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

‘‘It is as natural to die as to be born.’’Francis Bacon, Essays 1625

INTRODUCTION

Our society has distanced itself from the looming specter of death. In ouryouth-oriented culture, this inescapable reality is not something that is planned foror carefully contemplated; it is either feared or ignored [Kubler-Ross, 1997;Australian Museum, 2005]. The mortality rate of every living thing, however,whether it be an amoeba, butterfly, elephant, or human is 100%. That being the case,it is interesting to observe how zoo and aquarium animal deaths have beeninterpreted by the popular news media. Although some reporters have approachedanimal deaths objectively and dispassionately, others have used them to provokeemotions, inflame controversy, and question the zoologic community’s commitmentto animal care and welfare [Paulson, 2005]. The purpose of this article is threefold:1) to review some of the ways that the popular media has characterized zoo andaquarium animal mortality; 2) to assess the validity of their claims; and 3) to offersome suggestions for how zoo and aquarium scientists, administrators and publicrelations professionals may want to respond to the apparently growing interest inzoo and aquarium animal mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To gain some perspective on the media’s view of zoo and aquarium animalmortality, the author randomly monitored web media reports for 26 months(September, 2003–November, 2005), collecting 148 samples of articles focused onzoo and aquarium animal deaths. An additional 33 articles were examined thatoffered broader commentary or post-hoc analysis of zoo or aquarium deaths. Allof the media descriptions examined covered the deaths of what might be termed‘‘charismatic mega-vertebrates’’ (e.g., elephants, gorillas, giraffes, lions, bears,dolphins, killer whales) and, with only 11 notable exceptions (Komodo monitor,bald eagle, snowy owl, ostrich, penguins, California condor, lobster, Alligator gar,and sharks), all focused on mammals. Furthermore, all of the authors of thesearticles could be effectively classified into one of four categories: 1) dispassionateobservers; 2) accusers; 3) sympathizers; and 4) balancers.

Dispassionate observers were completely objective in their treatment of zooand aquarium animal deaths. They simply described the facts, often citing the resultsof the necropsy and any other circumstances relating to the animal’s demise. Therewere no quotes from zoo or aquarium personnel expressing regret or sympathy, andno value judgments or assignment of blame.

In contrast, accusers attempted to assign blame for the death, often implying,either directly or indirectly, that zoo or aquarium personnel were somehow at faultand that the death was the result of inadequate animal care or abuse. Some accuserswent even farther, implying that deaths were the result of captivity and, therefore,that wild animals should not be kept in zoos or aquariums.

Some investigative reporters seemed to be attempting to stimulate controversyto sell newspapers. In addition, many accusatory articles featured quotes from

102 Hutchins

Zoo Biology DOI 10.1002/zoo

representatives of animal welfare or rights organizations, some of which are opposedto zoos and aquariums on philosophic grounds, regardless of the quality of animalcare or the professionalism of the institution’s staff. In nearly all cases, paraphrasedstatements or quotes from animal activists were negative and accusatory. Althoughsome accusatory articles seemed to be wildly sensationalist, it is also important tonote that some claims of inadequate care seemed to be legitimate and may, therefore,have played an important role in focusing the attention of zoo or aquariumadministrators on existing problems of which they may have been previouslyunaware.

Sympathizers were sympathetic in their treatment of zoo and aquarium animaldeaths. The general tone of such reports was to express regret over the loss. Thesereports, although they included certain objective information, also contained quotesfrom zoo or aquarium personnel expressing regret or sadness at the loss of life andgenerally reflected a caring and respectful attitude. They also did not attempt toassign blame.

Balancers presented at least two sides to a given story. They clearly attemptedto balance critical or accusatory remarks by animal rights activists with remarkssympathetic to zoo or aquarium staff. Some reporters were more effective atachieving true balance than others.

RESULTS

Differing Perspectives on Zoo and Aquarium Animal Deaths

The news media exhibited a broad range of approaches to zoo and aquariumanimal death and all four categories of reports were represented. Examples can befound below.

Dispassionate Observers

About one-third of the articles (32.4%) examined by the author could beclassified as ‘‘dispassionate observers,’’ in that the writers simply reported the factssurrounding selected animal deaths. An excellent example is an article involving theloss of a 49-year-old male lowland gorilla at Erie Zoo in 2005 [Associated Press andFuoco, 2005]. The authors reported that the animal had experienced a recent lossof appetite and that it had seemed to die from ‘‘old age.’’ It also reported that theanimal’s body had been transported to nearby Cleveland Metro Parks Zoo so that athorough necropsy could be carried out.

Similarly, the Associated Press [2004] reported on the death of a 39-year-oldgorilla that was euthanized by veterinarians at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium.The animal had been diagnosed with ‘‘inoperable cancer’’ and was euthanized afterexploratory surgery, which confirmed the presence of the disease. Carmean [2004a]reported on the death of a 20-year-old bison at the Salisbury Zoo in Salisbury,Maryland. This report indicated that the animal was found dead in its enclosure andthat preliminary necropsy results suggested that the cause of death was ‘‘acute heartfailure.’’ In addition, the article provided some comments on the animal’s history,the normal life expectancy of wild and captive bison, and the role of zoos in bisonconservation.

103Death at the Zoo


In some cases, articles were initially classified as dispassionate observations,in that they objectively described the death of a particular animal. On more detailedexamination, however, they were classified as ‘‘accusatory’’ because they brought upother animal deaths that were unrelated to the one in question [e.g., Partlow, 2004];this seemed to be a veiled attempt to accentuate the negative and create controversyby indirectly implying that zoo staff might be at fault or at least creating some doubtin the reader’s mind.

The vast majority of media reports examined dealt with the death of individualanimals or of several animals within a specific time period. However, a fewsummarized broader challenges to zoo and aquarium animal care. For example,an article published on New Scientist.com [Anon, 2005] summarized the recentwork of Eric Harley and colleagues at the University of Cape Town, SouthAfrica. Harley et al. suggested that deaths of captive black rhinos fromhemolytic anemia might be explained by an overdose of iron. The researchersfound that black rhino blood cells contained 50 times as much tyrocine, an aminoacid, as human blood cells. Tyrocine is known to absorb oxygen free radicals,suggesting that it may protect rhinos from the build-up of excessive iron in theblood and tissues. They also suggested that the diets of free-ranging rhinos,which include acacia, are lower in iron than those of captive rhinos, which mostlycontain iron-rich plants, such as grasses. The article indicated that someveterinarians were now adding tannins to the diet of captive rhinos to ‘‘try to mopup the excess iron.’’

Rather than being accusatory, this article objectively reported new scientificfindings that could potentially assist in improving animal care. It should be noted,however, that this report appeared in the popular science, as opposed to themainstream media. There were other cases, however, in which the mainstream mediaalso tackled broader issues of zoo animal health and ethics in an objective manner.An excellent example is provided by Henderson’s [2003] article on the death of fourparrots at the Toronto Zoo due to an adverse reaction to the vaccine for West NileVirus. This article described the loss of several animals at the zoo as a result of theirexposure to the virus and discussed how veterinarians were balancing the complexrisks associated with exposure to the deadly mosquito-borne disease vs. the potentialloss of life due to unpredictable adverse reactions to the vaccine, which was intendedto protect them.

Interestingly, some articles by dispassionate observers had titles (tag lines)that could be interpreted as accusatory, and this may reflect editorial efforts to makethe articles seem more interesting or controversial. For example, an otherwiseobjective article about the death of three bushbuck antelope at the GladysPorter Zoo in Brownsville, Texas appeared under the suggestive title: ‘‘Mysteriousdeaths: Zoo investigates loss of three bushbuck antelope’’ [Ortiz, 2005]. Althoughthe article itself was objective and straightforward in its description of the deaths,it also mentioned the fact that the zoo had been investigated previously by theUnited States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service ‘‘after several animals died of unnatural causes.’’ It also noted,however, that the zoo had been ‘‘cleared of any wrongdoing.’’ To its credit, theBrownsville Herald, which published the article, also followed up with another storydetailing the reasons that the USDA had decided not to conduct a formalinvestigation into the deaths. As it turned out, the animals were lost as the result of

104 Hutchins


an accidental electric shock originating from a defective water pump near theirexhibit [Espinoza, 2005].

Accusers

Accusatory articles represented only 22.2% of the total sample. One examplewas Carmean’s [2003] article on animal deaths at the Salisbury Zoo in Salisbury,Maryland. The author stated that: ‘‘hundreds of animals have died there in recentyears due to old age, disease, neglect, and inappropriate care practices.’’ Yet, theprimary source of this information was a disgruntled employee, and the zoo was laterexonerated after a surprise inspection by the USDA and an invited inspection bythree independent zoo veterinarians [Carmean, 2004b,c]. There were other caseswhere initial accusations were later retracted after independent reviews cleared theinstitutions of any wrongdoing. Examples included Wagner’s [2005] and Mullen’s[2005a,b] reports on animal deaths at the Phoenix Zoo and Lincoln Park Zoo,Chicago, respectively.

Kestin’s [2004a–h] expose on the ‘‘marine mammal industry’’ for SouthFlorida’s Sun-Sentinel newspaper was a classic example of an accusatory approachto zoo and aquarium animal deaths. The underlying theme of this series was thatbecause some marine mammals are dying in zoos and aquariums, something must beterribly wrong. The clear implication was that zoos and aquariums, even accreditedones, are doing a terrible job of caring for their charges. An even broader implicationwas that captivity itself must be detrimental to wild animals and result in greatlydiminished welfare and longevity.

Kestin conducted her own analyses of mortality data based on the NationalMarine Fisheries Services’ Marine Mammal Data Base. Unfortunately, she made thecommon mistake of including only the dead animals in her calculations. As had beenshown recently by Wiese and Willis [2004] for elephants, a failure to include thecurrently living animals in such analyses can greatly underestimate average life spansin a population. This is because the animals that have died often represent a biasedsample, that is, individuals that have inherent health problems and do not reach theaverage life expectancy for a species.

In her essay titled ‘‘Industry must improve care,’’ Kestin [2004a] stated: ‘‘Overthe past 30 years, the Federal data show fewer than half of the dolphins and sea lionsreached the industry’s own projections of life expectancy of 20 and 14 years,respectively.’’ This statement was particularly misleading; in fact, in any population,only 50% of individuals are, by definition, expected to live to the median lifeexpectancy, and fewer than 50% are expected to live to the mean life expectancy.Furthermore, whereas Kestin attempted, in a very rudimentary fashion, to describesome of the complexities involved in assessing mortality data, she consistentlyinterpreted her results with a critical tone, implying that the industry was tryingto hide something.

Kestin [2004c] mentioned the work of Duffield and Wells [1993] comparingmortality rates and average life spans between dolphins in aquaria and a wildpopulation residing near Sarasota, Florida. This study concluded that mortalityrates and life spans of wild and captive dolphins were, in fact, comparable. However,the author chose to downplay the significance of this work. In fact, any and allevidence that marine mammal facilities might be doing a good job caring for animalswas always given a negative spin. In addition, the author placed the blame for any

105Death at the Zoo


and all animal deaths squarely on their caretakers. To support her conclusions, shedescribed many cases where the reason for death could not be determined or theanimal died due to an adverse reaction to anesthesia, which she interpreted asexamples of improper or unprofessional veterinary care. Furthermore, she used theseexamples to support her underlying theme that marine mammal care in zoosand aquariums, whether accredited or non-accredited, is inadequate and harmfulto animals.

At one point, Kestin [2004a] stated: ‘‘Of about 2,400 deaths in which a specificcause is listed, one in five marine mammals died of uniquely human hazards orseemingly avoidable causes, including capture shock, stress during transit, poisoningand routine medical care. Thirty-five animals died from ingesting foreign objects,including pennies, plastic balls, gravel, or licorice.’’ However, Kestin provided nocomparisons of data to wild marine mammals that may also ingest foreign objects.Furthermore, the author is not a veterinarian, nor does she have responsibility forcaring for or managing living animals on a day-to-day basis. In fact, unpredictableanimal deaths from capture myopathy, adverse reactions to properly prescribeddrugs, and even accidental injuries, all unfortunately sometimes occur duringnecessary capture or treatment of exotic or domestic animals [Harthoorn, 1965;Valkenburg et al., 1983; Fowler, 1995, 2003]. These are not purposeful orirresponsible attempts to harm animals as the author implied. Indeed, medicine isas much an art as it is a science. Highly trained veterinarians and human doctorsoften have to make split second decisions based on little information and the resultsare not always predictable, nor desirable. To imply that these experts did not knowwhat they were doing and that they cared only for profit and not about the welfare ofthe animals was patently unfair. As far as the deaths from ingested objects wereconcerned, these were due to irresponsible behavior on the part of visitors, not to thefacilities that hosted them or the veterinarians who treated the affected animals [seeAnon, 2004]. All of the accredited institutions of which I am aware warn visitorsagainst throwing foreign objects into animal exhibits, immediately remove suchobjects when they are detected, and do the best they can to avoid injuries to theirvaluable and often irreplaceable animals.

Kestin’s series had many problems that might cause one to question its validity.However, other examples of ‘‘accusatory’’ articles seemed to be credible. Theseincluded articles detailing the loss of an endangered sloth bear (Melursus ursinus) atthe Toledo Zoo in 2000 [Laidman, 2004]. In that case, the animal had been placedin isolation under the mistaken belief that the bear was pregnant and would enter astate of hibernation during the colder winter months. Sloth bears, however, rangethrough India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Although they may have periods of reducedactivity during the year, they are not known to hibernate like bears that inhabitnorthern, temperate regions [Dominico, 1988]. Consequently, the animal died fromstarvation. The zoo was fined by the USDA for being in violation of the U.S. AnimalWelfare Act and the curator and keeper in charge later resigned.

Similarly, in 2004, there was extensive media coverage of a National Academyof Sciences-led probe of several animal deaths at the National Zoo in Washington,DC [National Academy of Sciences, 2004]. In one incident, two endangered redpandas died after ingestion of poison baits that were placed in their exhibit byexterminators while attempting to control rats [Kerr, 2004]. These events wereclearly preventable and could have been avoided given appropriate internal

106 Hutchins


communication policies. However, other accusatory articles were perhaps morequestionable in their conclusions. For example, Cohn [2005] and Barker andGrimaldi [2004] reported on the losses of a grey-cheeked mangabey and bald eagleat the Washington DC National Zoo, respectively. The monkey died as the result ofcontracting a rat-borne disease at a time when the zoo was also being criticized forhaving rodent control problems [Barker and Grimaldi, 2003]. The zoo was found tobe deficient by USDA in the monkey’s death, in that it failed to effectively controlrodent populations. However, although the zoo probably deserved some criticism(the presence of large numbers of rodents certainly increased the probability ofdisease transmission), there is no way to know if more efficient rodent suppressionwould have prevented the infection altogether. Indeed, rat and mice populationscannot be completely eliminated from urban areas, only controlled. Similarly,there is no way to know if zoo staff could have prevented the death of the eagle,which was apparently killed by a free-ranging red fox that squeezed its way intothe cage through a wire mesh fence. Indigenous and feral predators, such asraccoons, foxes, feral domestic dogs and cats, hawks and owls, pose a continuingthreat to some zoo and aquarium animals in urban and suburban areas. Althoughthe risk of such attacks can be reduced, it often cannot be eliminated totally.Thus, although zoos should make every effort to control populations of rodentsand predators on their grounds, the loss of some zoo animals to disease andpredation, although undesirable, is probably inevitable. Interestingly, zooshave received criticism by the media for both controlling [Forsyth, 2005] andfailing to control pest animal populations, a ‘‘damned if you do and damned if youdon’t’’ scenario.

Many accusatory and balanced articles included paraphrased statements andquotes from animal activists. For example, Kestin [2005] frequently quoted animalactivists in her series. At one point, she described a 2-year-old harbor seal as dyingfrom ‘‘acute cardiopulmonary failure.’’ She subsequently stated that a consultant foranimal welfare groups: ‘‘suspects that stress is behind some illnesses and deaths atmarine attractions.’’ The consultant is then quoted as saying that: ‘‘It’s beendocumented that dolphins in captivity can exhibit self-inflicted trauma, behaviorsthat are analogous to pacing, and excessive aggressiveness toward people.’’

Sympathizers

Sympathetic portrayals of zoo and aquarium animal deaths, which represented31.1% of the total sample, typically included comments from zoo or aquarium staffexpressing regret for the loss of life. They also reflected some appreciation for thefragility of all life and the strong bonds that may exist between animals and theircaretakers. For example, Yolin [2005] described the loss of ‘‘Tinkerbelle’’ a popularelephant that had been at the San Francisco Zoo for 37 years and had only beenmoved recently to an animal sanctuary. Although the article referenced acontroversy that had resulted in the animal being transferred from the zoo to thePerforming Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), it did not assign blame and objectivelydescribed her death by euthanasia as resulting from complications related todegenerative joint disease and associated foot problems. The article quoted a zoorepresentative who said: ‘‘We were saddened to hear that Tinkerbelle had taken aturn for the worseyPAWS worked admirably to care for Tinkerbelle. And the lossis profound, affecting both our staffs who loved and cared for her all her life.’’

107Death at the Zoo


Zaske [2004] described the loss of an ‘‘aging’’ male black-tipped reef sharknamed ‘‘Charlie’’ at the Steinhart Aquarium. The exact cause of death was listed asunknown, but the animal died while being transferred to a super-oxygenated tankfor transportation to another aquarium. The article quoted a spokesperson, assaying that: ‘‘It is like the loss of a beloved petyWe have to find out why he died.We try to learn what we can from these experiences.’’

Similarly, Winter [2004] reported on the death of a 3-year-old female giraffenamed ‘‘Karlie’’ at the Racine Zoo. The animal died suddenly as the result of ‘‘spinaltrauma caused by wedging her head in her stall.’’ In the article, the Zoo’s executivedirector stated: ‘‘What a shameyGiraffes are exceptionally vulnerable for lifethreatening injuries from falls and entanglements. Other zoos have experiencedsimilar incidents. He further stated that: ‘‘The accident is something that could notbe foreseenyIt was one in a millionyshe got her horn stuck in a place it shouldn’thave been.’’ All of these examples treated the deaths objectively and did not assignblame; however, they were also sympathetic in that they demonstrated a caringattitude by zoo employees and were thus generally accepting of the reality of deathdue to natural causes or accidents. In addition, unlike accusatory articles, thesearticles reflected an underlying trust of zoo and aquarium veterinarians, curators andkeepers to provide the best possible care for the animals.

Balancers

Balancers tried to present both sides of a given story, often includingaccusatory quotes or paraphrased statements from activists opposed to zoos oraquariums and sympathetic quotes from zoo or aquarium staff in relatively equalproportions. For example, [Mullen, 2005a], reporting on the death of a 55-year-oldAfrican elephant at the Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, stated that after anotherelephant’s death, the zoo ‘‘came under withering criticism from People for theEthical Treatment of Animals, an animal rights group that charges that zoos in coldnorthern climates like Chicago’s should not be allowed to keep elephants.’’ Thesestatements were contrasted with heroic efforts by zoo staff to save the animal and,when it was determined that she would not recover, assisting her with a painlessdeath. A zoo spokesperson is quoted as saying: ‘‘For hours, veterinarians andkeepers tried to get the elephant on her feet, but to no avail. Zoo veterinariansadministered anesthesia, and she was painlessly euthanized Monday evening.’’

Similarly, Amusa [2004] reported on the loss of a 4-month-old female Atlanticbottle-nosed dolphin at the National Aquarium at Baltimore after aggressiveinteractions with two older males. The young dolphin, unbeknownst to aquariumstaff, was suffering from a bacterial infection at the time and became fatigued afterinteracting with the males and later died. The article quoted a spokesperson for TheHumane Society of the United States who determined the aggressive encounterbetween the baby and the two males should ‘‘never have occurred.’’ She was alsoquoted as saying that: ‘‘It’s not unusual for male dolphins to do what they did. Theydo it in the wild, that’s why [mother dolphins] segregate themselvesyin captivitythey don’t have that option.’’ However, statements from aquarium officials whomindicated that had they known the baby was sick, they would have isolated herbalanced this negative perspective. Furthermore, they contended that allowing olderand younger dolphins to co-mingle was appropriate and ‘‘a proven technique to

108 Hutchins


socialize calves with the groupyif segregated too long, calves will eventually be‘outcast’ by the group,’’ they said.

Truly balanced articles were comparatively rare, accounting for only 14.2% ofthe total sample. Some articles, such as Arzua’s [2004] article on animal deaths at theSalisbury Zoo, Maryland initially seemed to be balanced, as the author presented theperspectives of both zoo critics and supporters. However, classification of mediareports is not a precise science, and the tag lines and number of quotes includedsometimes tipped my impression of an article one way or the other. In this particularcase, the title ‘‘Report on Salisbury Zoo Deaths Sparks Uproar Over Animal Care’’caused me to classify it as ‘‘accusatory’’ rather than ‘‘balanced.’’ Similarly, anotherwise balanced article on the San Antonio Zoo’s trapping and killing of pestanimals on zoo grounds [Forsyth, 2005] was titled ’’Slaughter at the SA Zoo,’’ thusgiving it a decidedly accusatory tone.

REALITIES OF HUMAN AND VETERINARY MEDICINE

Up to 98,000 people die each year in the United States, the richest and mosttechnologically advanced country in the world, due to medical errors by licensedphysicians [Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force, 2000]. In addition, theFederal Drug Administration (FDA) receives 250,000 reports annually of adversereactions to properly prescribed drugs and 100,000 reports of defective medicaldevices, many of which lead to mortality. Furthermore, 2,000,000 people are afflictedwith hospital-acquired infections annually, some of which lead to death.

Recent reports have also criticized the ability of the American health system todetect the occurrence of disease before it is too late. Dobbs [2005] and Smith [1998]suggested that more autopsies are needed to study the extent of this problem. In1995, only 12% of people dying in Chicago area hospitals were autopsied, comparedto 50% in 1965. Interestingly, the author states that about 20% of autopsies show‘‘significant surprises,’’ such as undetected and potentially treatable cases of cancer.To substantiate his position, he cited a 10-year study of 1,105 deaths in New Orleans,which found 433 undetected tumors post-mortem, 250 of which were malignant.In 57 cases, the apparent cause of death was undetected cancer [Smith, 2005].This is further evidence that the human medical system in the United States isfar from perfect. In contrast, a full post-mortem necropsy is required for allnon-human animals dying at American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA)-accredited zoos and aquariums [American Zoo and Aquarium Association,[1999,2004]. This is the first step to identifying potential problems and assessingthe need for preventative measures.

Reporting this data is not intended to make excuses for rare cases of improperveterinary care at professionally managed zoos and aquariums, but are only meantto put wildlife medicine into proper perspective. Contrary to popular belief, humanmedicine is an imperfect science and yet some reporters seem to want to hold zoo andaquarium veterinarians to an even higher standard. However, even though highlytrained zoo and aquarium veterinarians practice preventative medicine and utilizemany of the same technologies as human doctors [Hinshaw et al., 1996], wildlifemedicine is comparatively more challenging than human medicine. This is largelydue to the fact that: 1) wild animals generally do not show overt symptoms of illness(i.e., they ‘‘hide’’ their illnesses) and the inability of animal caretakers to detect often

109Death at the Zoo


subtle behavioral changes in ailing animals can make it more difficult for aveterinarian to effectively diagnose and treat health problems when they arise; 2) thepatients cannot ‘‘tell’’ the doctor about their symptoms; 3) little is known about thediseases of exotic animals because the vast majority of research funds have beenspent studying humans or animals of significant economic value to humans(e.g., domestic cattle, sheep, dogs, and cats); 4) as a result, specific treatments arelacking for exotic animal species, thus necessitating a ‘‘hit or miss’’ approach tohealth care; and 5) although human doctors deal with one species (Homo sapiens),wildlife veterinarians may deal with hundreds, each with their own unique biologyand health challenges.

The fact that animals are dying in a zoo or aquarium could potentially be causefor concern; zoo and aquarium animals are dependent on human caretakers andcaptive animals certainly can die as the result of inadequate care or abuse. However,the situation is far more complicated than some sensationalist reporters would havetheir readers believe. In fact, because all animals die, the occurrence of death is not,by itself, sufficient to conclude that care is inadequate or that animals are beingabused. Consequently, the public, media, and key decision-makers need to be able todetermine when such allegations are legitimate vs. when they are not. The followingis a list of evidence that could not allow one to conclude that animals were dyingbecause of inadequate care: 1) there is no identifiable pattern of mortality (i.e.,animals are dying for a variety of reasons that are unrelated to human care(e.g., cancer, infection, stroke, organ failure); 2) the pattern is understandableand unrelated to human care (i.e., mortality is highest in the highest risk categories,e.g., infants and older animals); 3) the reasons for mortality are naturally-occurring,not preventable or difficult to prevent (e.g., cancer, unpredictable adverse reactionsto properly prescribed drugs, rare accidents); or 4) the reasons for mortality arenot identifiable after normal post-mortem analysis (i.e., the death of animals in‘‘good flesh’’).

Conversely, the following evidence might cause one to be legitimatelyconcerned about zoo or aquarium animal deaths: 1) there is a clear pattern ofpreventable mortality as a result of factors controlled by animal caretakers,including accidental exposure to toxins (e.g., those used in pest control or present inpoisonous plants), exposure to extreme temperatures, fighting due to inappropriatesocial structure, starvation or dehydration, poor nutrition, poor water quality orother controllable factors; and 2) the individuals providing care for the animals arenot properly trained or qualified (e.g., medical treatments are being administered bysomeone other than experienced, licensed veterinarians).

CONCLUSIONS

Media reports of zoo and aquarium animal deaths can be classified in at leastfour different categories, ranging from dispassionate observers to accusers,sympathizers and balancers. There have certainly been rare cases where accusatorytreatment by the media has been justified. As illustrated above, however, zoos andaquariums have also been the target of unfair journalism. This is precisely whyzoologic professionals must do a better job analyzing mortality data themselves andeducating both the media and public about the realities of life and death in natureand in zoos and aquariums. They must also begin to emphasize the complex efforts

110 Hutchins


that go into caring for animals in accredited zoologic facilities. Advancements in zooand aquarium exhibit design, veterinary care, nutrition, animal training, and socialand environmental enrichment should be among the topics covered. Indeed, modernzoos and aquariums often go to extraordinary lengths to save animals lives ormaintain their quality of life, and such efforts are newsworthy [e.g., Anon, 2004b;Laukaitis, 2004; Harris, 2005]. This is not to say that zoo and aquarium animal careand welfare cannot be improved; they certainly can, and all zoologic professionalsshould be dedicated to this ongoing process. In addition, like any other humanendeavor, zoos and aquariums are subject to error. Thus, individual institutions,even accredited ones, may experience intermittent problems with their animal careprograms and administrators must therefore remain forever vigilant. However, thesituation is not nearly as dire as some sensationalist reporters would like theirreaders to think (good news does not sell papers) and certainly cannot be generalizedacross the entire profession.

Zoo and aquarium biologists and their university and government collabora-tors must continue to advance animal management and care through carefulscientific study of animal mortality. Death is a fact of life and the incidence andcauses of death are important topics for scientific investigation. Advances in recordkeeping and analysis will be critical to this effort. Compiling necropsy and detailedpathologic data can help identify the leading causes and risk of death at differentstages of life in various species, and perhaps open up the possibility of intervention.The analysis of mortality trends in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) by Leonget al. [2004] is an excellent case in point; the authors found that neonates experiencedthe highest rate of mortality. Furthermore, the authors suggested that the risk ofinfant death could be reduced by ensuring that all potential breeding animals hadexperience in rearing siblings, a factor that is well known to affect the quality ofinfant care [Price, 1992]. They also concluded that other major causes of mortality(e.g., bacterial infections, trauma, etc.) could be significantly reduced by traininganimal care personnel in proper husbandry techniques. Thus, it is possible that manytaxa held in zoos and aquariums could benefit from a thorough examination of theincidence and causes of mortality.

Population level research is also useful. Epidemiologists look at how diseasesspread through entire populations; they study patterns of transmission andmortality. At least one AZA-accredited zoo has a full-time veterinary epidemiologiston staff and it may be time for others to consider following suit. In addition, at leastsix United States zoos have full time veterinary pathologists on staff and many morehave cooperative agreements with nearby colleges of veterinary medicine. In thefuture, zoos should develop real-time data bases that track the incidence and causesof mortality, as is currently done by the Center for Disease Control’s NationalCenter for Health Statistics (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/) for humans. Such informa-tion management tools would allow zoo veterinarians to monitor age-relatedcauses of death and better assess the risks associated with them. Surveillance ofparticularly troublesome diseases and their impact on zoo and aquarium animalpopulations will also be important. Databases currently exist for E. coli,tuberculosis, and West Nile virus [Travis, 2004]. In addition, the InternationalSpecies Information System (ISIS) is currently developing a new animal database forthe world’s zoos (i.e., the Zoological Information Management System or ZIMS)that could eventually possess these capabilities (Boyle, 2005; N. Flesness, personal

111Death at the Zoo


communication). One major barrier to the implementation of such systems has beencost, and zoos and aquariums will need to explore innovative, cooperativeapproaches to fund-raising to help support such efforts. Unfortunately, lack offunds to support the tracking and analysis of mortality data also plague the humanhealth system [Lunny and Lynn, 2005], so the challenge of finding the necessaryresources may be formidable.

By studying and understanding the causes of death, zoo and aquariumbiologists can potentially extend or improve the quality of life for the living. Giventhe way that animal deaths are sometimes portrayed by the popular media andcritics, zoos and aquariums could benefit by becoming more proactive in theirsystematic tracking and analysis of animal mortality data. Zoo-based experts shouldconduct these analyses themselves or in collaboration with university scientists,rather than to leave them to the untrained and inexperienced public, media, andgovernment regulators. Institutions have a responsibility to immediately do allthat is necessary to correct or change any situation that may lead to preventableor accidental deaths. However, some zoo administrators may have been reluctant tosupport mortality studies because they might expose weaknesses in current animalcare practices. Animal rights extremists, whose ultimate goal is to eliminate all zoos,will more than likely attempt to take advantage of such information. However,professionally managed zoos and aquariums must seize high moral ground andconsider what is best for the animals in their care. Indeed, long-term improvement inzoo and aquarium animal welfare and survival will be difficult, if not impossible,without such a commitment. Furthermore, the media and public need to understandthat the ultimate goal of modern zoos and aquariums is not to set longevity records,but rather to ensure that all animals receive quality care for the duration of theirlives. Life, whether in nature or in zoos or aquariums, is unpredictable and fullof risk and, no matter what is done to improve the situation, some individuals willlive longer than others.

Like most public institutions, zoos and aquariums often reflect the attitudesand beliefs of the cultures that spawned them. It is therefore not surprising thatzoologic institutions have had a difficult time deciding how to address the issueof animal mortality. The approaches of zoo and aquarium administrators and publicrelations professionals to animal deaths have been varied. For example, oneinstitutional director claimed that deceased zoo animals had a ‘‘right to privacy’’ anddeclined to open their medical records to the public or media [Grimaldi, 2002], anaction that immediately created distrust. Other zoos have held wakes or funerals fordeceased animals [Cardinale, 2005], sent their remains to museums for scientificstudy [Albrecht, 2005] or allowed their bodies to remain in the enclosure for a timeso that cage mates could have an opportunity to bid farewell and ‘‘grieve’’ [Garcia,2005]. It is difficult to say whether the latter events are as important to non-humansas they seem to be to humans, although some animals, such as elephants, are knownto show an interest in death and have been described as exhibiting behaviorsuggestive of ‘‘mourning.’’ [Burton, 1978; Anon, 2004c].

It is equally fascinating that media treatments of zoo animal deaths havefocused primarily on charismatic mega-fauna (e.g., great apes, elephants, marinemammals, sharks) as opposed to nondescript, smaller animals or invertebrates. Noone has held wakes for deceased rodents or written obituaries for lost insects or coralpolyps. Such deaths are apparently not as newsworthy, or do not draw public

112 Hutchins


attention in the way that the deaths of large mammals do; this finding is generallyconsistent with studies on human attitudes toward and preferences for certain typesof animals [Kellert, 1989].

In their efforts to inform the public about animal deaths, zoos and aquariumsshould avoid media spins and be cooperative, honest, and sympathetic [Allen, 1995].We clearly live in a society that seeks to assign blame for any undesirable event, but,it is not realistic for people to expect zoo and aquarium animals to live forever.Conversely, zoo and aquarium visitors and supporters must be able to trust that‘‘their’’ institution is making every effort possible to provide animals with quality,professional care. Reaching that objective simply will not be possible in the absenceof a strong commitment to the scientific study of death and the many reasons for it,whether natural or accidental. Similarly, responsible reporters should also take greatcare in their interpretation and reporting of zoo animal deaths, as negative mediareports have the ability to erode public trust and cause great harm to zoologicinstitutions and staff. It is sincerely hoped that this article will increase under-standing of the topic of zoo and aquarium animal deaths and provide some guidanceas to when the public and media should be concerned with animal deaths and whenthey should not.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are due to J. Doherty, former General Curator and Curator ofMammalogy, Bronx Zoo, Wildlife Conservation Society and J. Murphy, Smithso-nian Associate and former Curator of Herpetology, Dallas Zoo and two anonymousreviewers for reading and commenting on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Albrecht B. 2005. Zoo’s late gorilla provides alegacy. Cleveland Plain Dealer 2 April 2005.

Allen K. 1995. Putting the spin on animal ethics:ethical parameters for marketing and publicrelations. In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, StevensEF, Maple TL, eds. Ethics on the ark:zoos, animal welfare and wildlife conservation.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 1999.Guidelines for zoo and aquarium veterinarymedical programs and veterinary hospitals.American Zoo and Aquarium Association.

American Zoo and Aquarium Association. 2004.Guide to accreditation of zoological parks andaquariums. Silver Spring, MD: American Zooand Aquarium Association.

Amusa M. 2004. Baby dolphin dies after encounterat aquarium. Baltimore Sun 30 July 2004.

Anon. 2004a. Zoo can’t halt foolish acts. Peoplemust be responsible. Delmarvanow.com 15November, 2004.

Anon. 2004b. Wanda the elephant tries physicaltherapy for her arthritis. Detroit Free Press 23August, 2004.

Anon. 2004c. Elephants mourn their fallen inBotswana. Animal Sentience (www.animalsen-

tience.com/features/elephants_mourning_their_fallen,htm).

Arzua L. 2004. Report on Salisbury Zoo deathssparks uproar over animal care. The WashingtonPost 12 January 2005.

Associated Press. 2004. Columbus Zoo and Aqua-rium euthanizes 39-year-old gorilla with inoper-able cancer. The Cincinnati Enquirer 4 August2004.

Associated Press, Fuoco LW. 2005. Oldest gorilladies in Erie Zoo. Pittsburgh Post Gazette, March9, 2005.

Australian Museum. 2005. Death: the last taboo.Sydney, NSW, Australia: Australian MuseumOnline (http://deathonline.net/).

Barker K. 2003. Fox squeezed into cage throughmesh; bent wires, hair found at zoo enclosure ofmortally wounded eagle. The Washington Post11 July 2003.

Barker K, Grimaldi JV. 2003. Rat-bornedisease kills zoo monkey: cheetah alsoinfected; visitors complain of mice ‘runningrampant.’ The Washington Post 11 December2003.

Boyle P. 2005. ZIMS: the ISIS Zoological Manage-ment Information Management System: A giant

113Death at the Zoo


step forward for zoos and aquariums. AZACommunique March: 6–7.

Burton M. 1978. Just like an animal. New York:Charles Scribner and Sons.

Cardinale A. 2005. Zoo holds brief wake aftereuthanizing Omega the gorilla. The BuffaloNews 14 January 2005.

Carmean JE. 2003. Zoo death rate is high. TheDaily Times (Delmarva Newspapers) 31 Decem-ber 2003.

Carmean JE. 2004a. Salisbury facility’s oldestbison dies at age 20. Daily Times Tuesday 13January 2004.

Carmean JE. 2004b. Salisbury Zoo gets ‘‘cleanbill.’’ USDA springs surprise inspection. TheNews Journal (www.delewareonline.com) 3 Feb-ruary 2004.

Carmean JE. 2004c. Vets find zoo death rate isnormal. Delmarvanow.com (www.delmarvanow.com/news/stories/20040518/localnews/443165.html).18 May 2004.

Cohn D. 2005. Zoo found deficient in monkey’sdeath: corrective actions taken after USDAinspectors cite rodent problems. The WashingtonPost 8 January 2005.

Dobbs D. 2005. Buried answers. New York Times24 April 2005.

Dominico T. 1988. Bears of the world. New York:Facts on File. 189p.

Duffield DA, Wells RS. 1993. A discussionon comparative data of wild and oceanariumTursiops populations. In: Hecker NF, ed. Pro-ceedings of the 18th International Marine AnimalTrainers Association Conference 1990:28-39.

Espinoza JN. 2005. USDA will not investigateantelope deaths. The Brownsville Herald 28January 2005.

Forsyth J. 2005. Slaughter at the SA Zoo. WOAIRadio San Antonio News 19 April 2005.

Fowler M. 1995. Restraint and handling of wildand domestic animals. 2nd Ed. Ames, IA: IowaState University Press.

Fowler M. 2003. Zoo and wild animal medicine.5th Ed. Philadelphia, PA:W.B. Saunders Company.

Garcia K. 2005. Gladys Porter Zoo elephant dies.The Brownsville Herald 11 March 2005.

Grimaldi JV. 2002. National Zoo cites privacyconcerns in its refusal to release animal’s medicalrecords. The Washington Post 6 May 2002.

Harris TF. 2005. Zoo animals receive a visit fromthe dentist. Louisville Cardinal 12 April 2005.

Harthoorn AM. 1965. Application of pharmaco-logical and physiological principles in restraintof wild animals. Wildlife Monogr 14:1–78.

Henderson D. 2003. West Nile shot may havekilled Toronto parrots. Zoo vets balance con-flicting risks. Denver Post 10 July 2003.

Hinshaw KC, Amand WB, Tinkelman CL.1996. Preventive medicine. In: Kleiman DG,Allen ME, Thompson V, Lumpkin S, editors.Wild mammals in captivity: principles andtechniques. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress. p 16–24.

Kellert SR. 1989. Perceptions of animals inAmerica. In: Hoage RJ, editor. Perceptions ofanimals in American culture. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press. p 5–24.

Kerr JC. 2004. Panel looks into deaths at NationalZoo. Miami Herald 23 January 2004.

Kestin S. 2004a. Part 1: Not a perfect picture.South Florida Sun-Sentinel (For Lauderdale,FL) 16 May 2004.

Kestin S. 2004b. Sickness and death can plagueparks. South Florida Sun-Sentinel 17 May 2004.

Kestin S. 2004c. Experts, parks debate animals lifespans in captivity. South Florida Sun-Sentinel 16May 2004.

Kestin S. 2004d. Captive animals net profits for all.South Florida Sun-Sentinel 18 May 2004.

Kestin S. 2004e. Parks rely on breeding for newstars. South Florida Sun-Sentinel 19 May 2004.

Kestin S. 2004f. History of risks surround cap-tures. South Florida Sun-Sentinel 19 May 2004.

Kestin S. 2004g. Even in death, Rocket maninspires donations. South Florida Sun-Sentinel19 May 2004.

Kestin S. 2004h. Federal government often slow toenforce laws meant to protect marine mammals.South Florida Sun-Sentinel 23 May 2004.

Kubler-Ross E. 1997. On death and dying. NewYork, NY: Touchstone.

Laidman J. 2004. Feds probe 2 animal deaths atToledo Zoo from 2001-03. Toledo Blade 24February 2004.

Laukaitis AG. 2004. Enrichment activities helpzoo entertain animals. Lincoln Journal Star18 June 2004.

Leong KM, Terrell SP, Savage A. 2004. Causesof mortality in captive cotton-top tamarins(Saguinus oedipus). Zoo Biol 23:127–37.

Lunny J, Lynn J. 2005. Why we know painfullylittle about dying. The Washington Post 27March 2005:B4.

Mullen W. 2005a. Huge loss for Lincoln Park.Lincoln Park Zoo puts to rest Peaches, a 55-year-old African elephant, leaving it with a solitarypachyderm. The Chicago Tribune 19 January2005.

Mullen W. 2005b. Shrub poisoned zoo monkeys.But report clears Lincoln Park staff. ChicagoTribune 12 July 2005.

National Academy of Sciences. 2004. Animal careand management at the National Zoo: finalreport. Washington, DC: National Academy ofSciences.

Ortiz I. 2005. Mysterious deaths: zoo investigatesloss of three bushbuck antelope. The BrownsvilleHerald 13 January 2005.

Partlow J. 2004. Red kangaroo died last month,zoo confirms. The Washington Post 29 February,2004:C3.

Paulson A. 2005. Nagging questions on thewisdom of zoos. Christian Science Monitor 9June 2005.

Price EC. 1992. The benefits of helpers: effectsof group and litter size on infant care in

114 Hutchins


tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). Am J Primatol 26:179–190.

Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force.2000. Doing what counts for patient safety:federal actions to reduce medical errors and theirimpact. Report of the Quality InteragencyCoordination Task Force (QUIC) to the pre-sident. Washington, DC: Quality InteragencyCoordination Task Force.

Smith IM. 1998. Autopsies can help find betterways to treat patients. Virtual Hospital (http://www.vh.org/adult/patient/internalmedicine/aba30/1998/autopsies.html).

Travis D. 2004. Emerging pathogens and theirimpact, real or perceived, on zoos. AZA Com-munique November: 47–9.

Valkenburg P, Boertje RD, David JL. 1985.Effects of darting and netting on caribou inAlaska. J Wildlife Manage 47:1233–7.

Wagner D. 2005. Review gives Phoenix Zoomostly clean bill of health. The Arizona Republic9 June 2005.

Wiese RJ, Willis K. 2004. Calculation of longevityand life expectancy in captive elephants. Zoo Biol23:365–73.

Winter A. 2004. Giraffe dies in unusual accident.The Journal Times (Racine, WI) 26 March 2004.

Yolin P. 2005. Tinkerbelle the elephant dies. TheSan Francisco Chronicle 25 March 2005.

Zaske S. 2004. Shark dies traveling to newaquarium. The San Francisco Examiner 22January 2004.

115Death at the Zoo


Death at the zoo: the media, science, and reality

Documents

Transcript of Death at the zoo: the media, science, and reality