Natural Bridge Zoo tragedy highlights broader issues in zoo priorities, management, and operations

by Devan Schowe in Animals in Captivity, Blog

Whenever animals are used to generate money, there is always a risk for exploitation, poor welfare, and physical disease from exhaustion, poor conditions, or behavioral constraints from captivity to occur. This devastatingly common cycle stems from one unfortunate quality that many humans possess: greed. 

Using living creatures to increase financial gains will almost always cause the profiter to make decisions at the expense of the animal; an unfortunate scenario that has proven exponentially true throughout the last century. This animal exploitation has been tragically illustrated through the increase in demand for the exotic pet trade, factory farming-style industries that view animals as commodities like the fur trade, the field of biomedical research, and zoos.

Although zoos are often not perceived by the public to fall into this exploitative category, zoos are one of the most frequent perpetrators of this horrific use of animals. Instead of staying true to their promises of improving the conservation of species in the wild or promoting good animal welfare (which remains impossible for most wild animals to achieve in a captive setting), zoos are businesses motivated by financial profits at the end of the day, and money—not the best interests of the animals—will remain their biggest motivator to stay open and provide entertainment to visitors.

Unfortunately, the Natural Bridge Zoo in Virginia recently demonstrated a devastating result of viewing and using animals in this way. According to The Independent (2023), the Virginia State Police seized 95 animals (including 16 capuchins, 14 tortoises, five lemurs, and two Burmese pythons), 28 dead animals (including alligators, a dog, a lemur, and a llama), and various animal body parts from the privately owned zoo after they were allegedly discovered living in “filthy” habitats. The body parts discovered included legs, a head, the skin, and tails from giraffes, the legs of a zebra, and the head of a mandrill. 

Following complaints from a confidential informant who worked at the zoo stating that they had witnessed animal cruelty at the facility, the Virginia State Police executed a search warrant at the zoo this past week amid accusations of animal cruelty. The informant also claimed that animal keepers would use a bullhook (a pole with a metal hook and tip traditionally used to painfully handle elephants) to control the animals, and that an elephant named Asha was left shackled and living in her own waste on the property and was made to carry hundreds of guests on elephant rides during short spans of time. 

The warrant stated that the animals were being kept without access to basic necessities, including food, water, and a clean environment. Other animals taken under the warrant included tamarins, gibbons, sacred ibis, ground hornbills, kookaburras, macaws, patrons, cockatoos, serval, ball pythons, red-eared slider, a turtle, a skink, donkeys, sheep, llamas, and a dog. Officials also seized the body of a euthanized white Bengal tiger, which the Attorney General’s Office said was put down with the owner’s consent to “humanely end its suffering.” It remains unclear where the seized animals have been taken.

 Despite the mounting evidence against them, one of the owners of the zoo stated that he would challenge every claim made against him. He also plans to go through the appeals court to reclaim their seized animals – and will likely be litigating this case for years. The owners are expected to appear before a hearing on the 20th of December during the investigation. 

To put all these animals through such horrors and claim to see no faults to save a business seems inconceivable. We sincerely hope that justice is appropriately served—to the people and for the animals involved. Remember: the next time you consider visiting an animal venue, please think about whether it models a business based on the exploitation of living creatures, or if its existence serves the animals based on their own needs, regardless of the financial gain or entertainment value they may provide. These two conditions rarely—if ever—exist simultaneously.

 

References

The Independent, 2023.

Read the next article

Fantastic News for West Africa: Regional Strategy on Combating Wildlife Crime is Adopted