In 2011, primatologists Lucy Birkett and Nicholas Newton-Fisher conducted a study that sought to shed light on a simple yet provocative question: How abnormal is the behavior of captive, zoo-living chimpanzees? I encourage you to read the paper but I’ll spare you the suspense:
Very.
Their treatment of the issue was only slightly more nuanced. Captive chimpanzee behavior is normal, the authors say, in that they display many of the same behaviors as their wild counterparts—behaviors that we refer to as species-typical. As we know, captive chimpanzees tend to run, climb, groom, and use tools, just like wild chimps. The problem is that they also display a wide range of behaviors that are only rarely, if ever, seen in wild chimpanzees, such as hair-plucking, regurgitation and re-ingestion, coprophagy (eating feces), urophagy (drinking urine), pacing, rocking, self-clasping, and self-biting, which are commonly understood to be a reflection of poor welfare at some stage of life, and perhaps even mental illness. After observing the behavior of 40 chimpanzees at six accredited zoos in the U.S. and Europe, the authors came to the conclusion that abnormal behavior was not only present but endemic in these populations, regardless of group size, composition, and housing. Every single chimpanzee subject exhibited at least one abnormal behavior during the study period, with an average repertoire of five abnormal behaviors and an average frequency of once every forty minutes. This, it should be noted, was in contrast to the whopping total of zero instances that they recorded in over 1,023 hours observing wild chimpanzees in Uganda.
Researchers within in the zoo community rejected this characterization. They conducted their own study, which utilized a larger sample size but substituted surveys of zoo staff for direct behavioral observation, and concluded that only 64% of chimpanzees displayed abnormal behavior. And after excluding coprophagy, which some argue can be considered abnormal without necessarily being reflective of poor welfare, the overall prevalence of, shall we say, meaningfully abnormal behavior in their study dropped to a somewhat lower but still shockingly high 48%. As a rebuttal to the use of the term endemic, the paper may have succeeded, but it should provide little consolation.
Why would half or more of all chimpanzees in accredited zoological institutions exhibit abnormal behavior, in such stark contrast to their wild counterparts? Why, in light of decades of rigorous animal welfare science and the best efforts of hundreds upon hundreds of experts, do captive chimpanzees continue to regurgitate and pluck themselves bald?
One thing I discovered shortly after entering this field is that there is little agreement as to what it means for an animal to have a good life. To some, a good life is one in which one’s basic needs are met. As Dr. Dave Hone argues in an article entitled Why Zoos are Good:
…[zoo animals] will not suffer from the threat or stress of predators (and nor will they be killed in a grisly manner or eaten alive) or the irritation and pain of parasites, injuries and illnesses will be treated, they won’t suffer or die of drought or starvation and indeed will get a varied and high-quality diet with all the supplements required. They can be spared bullying or social ostracism or even infanticide by others of their kind, or a lack of a suitable home or environment in which to live. A lot of very nasty things happen to truly ‘wild’ animals that simply don’t happen in good zoos and to cast a life that is ‘free’ as one that is ‘good’ is, I think, an error.
There’s no question that the best zoos attempt to do all of this and more for the chimpanzees in their care. Why, then, does abnormal behavior persist?
The answer is that chimpanzees are more than just bundles of basic needs. They are complex social and emotional beings with highly intelligent and inquisitive minds. Moreover, chimpanzees are adapted to employ these traits in the environments in which their species evolved—a diverse range of environments, it should be said, from rain forest to savanna, which altogether actually have relatively little in common, save for one thing: their complete lack of resemblance to an urban zoo exhibit.
Should we be surprised that animals whose home ranges are measured in square miles in the wild feel frustrated in zoo exhibits? Should we expect animals that evolved dynamic fission-fusion communities of up to 150 individuals to thrive in relatively static groups of a dozen or less? Do we believe that members of a species that exhibits a predictable pattern of migration, in which males remain in their natal communities while females generally emigrate upon reaching adolescence, would not experience prolonged stress when groups are broken up and reorganized in violation of those patterns? This mismatch between the captive environment and the environment in which chimpanzees evolved both denies them the opportunity to express behaviors that are biologically and psychologically fulfilling and introduces stressors for which they have no innate coping mechanisms. And, importantly, it exists to varying degrees in every situation in which chimpanzees live under human care, from laboratory to zoo to sanctuary.
Regarding Dr. Hone’s point, I would never argue that life for wild chimpanzees is perfect. But I don’t think it requires a defense, either. It very well may be nasty, brutish, and short (actually, wild chimpanzees that reach adulthood live nearly as long as captive chimpanzees), but it is theirs, and has been for millions of years. It would be strange, and perhaps too convenient, to think we could improve upon it.
If we accept that all is not well for captive chimpanzees, we must then ask ourselves why we continue to breed them in captivity. I, for one, am not against all forms of captivity, as for the better part of the last 25 years I have worked to keep chimpanzees behind bars and electric fencing. Sanctuaries are necessary for chimpanzees who have been raised in captivity or who cannot be returned to the wild. And in fact many zoos have, to their great credit, provided homes for chimpanzees from laboratories, the pet trade, and various failed and shuttered institutions. But intentionally breeding and keeping animals in a way that denies their autonomy and restricts the full repertoire of their behavior, and which results in the proliferation of myriad abnormal behaviors despite our best efforts to enrich their environments, requires justification or, at the very least, a bit more reflection.
The modern defense of maintaining chimpanzees in zoos rests on two assumptions. The first is that the captive chimpanzee population serves an important role as a reservoir for one day restoring declining wild populations—the ark strategy, if you will. Given what we know about captive chimpanzees’ behavioral abnormalities and the absence of any kind of culturally-transmitted knowledge that would permit them to survive independently, this is unlikely to succeed and is generally accepted as such, even within the zoo community. The second is that zoo chimpanzees help educate the public and inspire support for conservation efforts. For this there is at least a somewhat more robust debate. But even if we were to accept that these benefits could only be achieved by maintaining chimpanzees in exhibits, our rightness in doing so would depend largely on how we measure the costs on the other side of the ledger; namely, those borne by the captive chimpanzees themselves.
The degree to which abnormal behavior correlates to the internal experience of suffering in captive chimpanzees is difficult to define with precision and we must be careful not to lump all abnormal behaviors together as though each is indicative of the same degree of compromised welfare. But the data appear to support what many of us have experienced professionally and what many others know intuitively: The chimps aren’t alright. And the reason for their troubles, it seems, has less to do with the way in which we keep them than with the very fact that we keep them at all. Our society is just now beginning to wrestle with the fact that, at least for some species like elephants and cetaceans, captivity is simply incompatible with good welfare. If we care enough about chimpanzees to conserve their wild populations, it’s time we think critically about the well being of the individuals serving on their behalf.
Thank you for this blog, JB. It really gives you a lot to think about. What we lay people have learned about captive animals across the board in the past 20 years or so is really eye opening. And what a double edged sword. The ideal would be to let all animals in captivity eventually die off and never be replaced. But then how do we teach the importance of conservation for the animals without anything tangible to encourage it.
Thanks, Cindee. I don’t doubt that people are influenced and motivated in different ways. Speaking for myself, I only visited a couple of zoos while on vacation as a kid, and the primary way I saw captive animals was at a local nature center that rehabilitated or provided sanctuary for injured raptors and reptiles. I became interested in primates by watching documentaries. And the benefit of that, I think, is that I was able to see them live real chimpanzee lives, for better and for worse (of course, it’s undeniable that documentaries stretch the truth sometimes). So I honestly wonder if it’s necessary to have chimps in exhibits, where only people within a couple hours of a major city can see them. Moreover, I wonder if we sometimes learn the wrong lessons from zoos. In fact, I still wonder if breeding chimps in captivity could make people less concerned about extinction, because at least we would still have them in zoos. None of this is meant to diminsh your perspective at all…I think it’s healthy for all of us (and the chimps) if we step out of our comfortable frame of reference and explore other ideas. Thanks for your comment!
A very sobering post. I’ve often responded to comments from people who decry zoos and even sanctuaries by showing how impossible it would be for captive apes to return to the wild. To Cindee’s point, I wonder now whether it’s worth it to the animals to keep them in captivity as a means of teaching conservation at the expense of the animals’ well-being. We speak often here about how well CSNW residents are well cared for, and happy, and seemingly mentally and physically healthy and well-rounded. Certainly benevolent captivity is better for animals who’ve been held as pets or money-making vehicles for people. And I hope, but don’t know, that all are now safe. But besides that, and after that, what? If “we” let those in captivity die off without replacement, the last will find themselves in solitary conditions, conditions that are contrary to their nature. Damn humans, anyway! We want to think we’re so superior, even those of us whose heart and soul are with the animals we know and love. You haven’t opened a can of worms, J.B., because it’s not new and not unexamined. But where do we go from here?
Thanks, Maureen. I think it’s important for people to know that the CSNW chimps exhibit all of these behaviors, too. There’s lot of overgrooming (Annie, Jamie, Jody, and many of the Californians), rocking (Honey B, Lucky), urophagy (Foxie, Burrito), coprophagy (almost everyone), etc. It’s tempting to blame these behaviors on their histories when the chimps are in sanctuaries and imagine that everything is better now, but a chimp born at CSNW would likely exhibit all the same behaviors. Because it is still so far from the life of a wild chimp.
Zoos are a derivitive of colonialism, designed by white people who at that time, also felt ok to see people of color as slaves, and categorizing them as “animals” instead of humans. Maintaining zoos can be seen by many, as perpetuations of those outdated, harmful white supremic narratives that we dont want to believe still exist.
I want to believe that we can still teach compassion for the conservation of wild animals without having to perpetuate enslaving them behind bars, for our children to see and learn from. Since the early historical development of zoos, we have socially evolved to advanced technology in ways that allow us to view chimpanzee origins from a lens, which for me, is far more inspiring and impactful than seeing them behind bars.
Thank you J.B. for articulating your thoughts so eloquently, and for challenging oppressive views towards animals in captivity.
I am glad, JB, that you mentioned elephants and cetaceans. I wonder whether we will soon see a movement in accredited zoos not to allow group living animals to be housed in a place that cannot provide them an approximation, at least, of the size and shape of group in which they would naturally live.
A zoo with a small footprint could not, for example, keep chimps or baboons.
Do the chimpanzees who live as much larger colonies in Europe show fewer negative stereotypical behaviors?
I would be very interested in a study group on such matters.
I know there is a recent book by Martha C. Nussbaum, a philosopher of law at, I think, the University of Chicago Law School called Justice for Animals. She lays out a way of thinking about the rights of animals. Her work focuses not only on animals but also on other groups unable to represent themselves in ethical discourse, such as people with certain kinds of disabilities.
Thank you for citing the work by Martha C. Nussbaum. I’m going to look it up.
I think you’re on the right track, Gabby. We may decide that captivity is inappropriate for all species, but we could certainly begin by looking at those species whose natural environments are impossible to replicate in a zoo setting, due to size, climate, complexity, etc. I don’t think it has to be binary – maybe our best captive environments have less effect on welfare for turtles or sheep or naked mole rats than chimps and elephants? There’s no reason we can’t begin to reevaluate our practices by focusing on the animals we know are a poor fit for captivity.
I agree with almost all of Maureen’s comments, JB. And with your struggle to deal with these issues at all for indeed, it is a struggle. There is no “perfect” answer to these issues. Would I want the Cle Elum group to be in Africa risking being shot or captured for yet another road-side zoo? NO. They don’t have the skills they might have developed if they had all been raised there, but even if they did they would be in danger from all the human ills that still are active there. I am grateful that THESE chimpanzees have food, safety, shelter, each other, and many humans who love and care for them both “on the ground” and here in blogland. I have long been discouraged about humans’ inhumanity to each other and our world and its beings, but I also cannot be of help if my discouragement prevents me from acting in whatever ways I can to contribute in the present and future with whatever tools I can access. I am grateful there are so many people who agree about the horrors and seek to contribute to change in ways that work for their own lives. Thank God for Jane Goodall’s continuing work in the world in her “Roots and Shoots” program to educate children about these issues and get them involved in actively helping. I’m too angry about the ongoing ills to let it prevent me from acting, even if it’s a new blanket for Neggie or a new boots book for Jamie. These precious beings we’ve been graced with in our lives…
Bravo JB….thoughts many of us have been struggling with for many years. You’ve opened the doors for much discussion so thank you!
Thank you for the thoughtful blog about these deeply problematic issues with captive chimpanzees. It took me several starts and long pauses to make it through to “the reason for their troubles, it seems, has less to do with the way in which we keep them than with the very fact that we keep them at all.” I have a lifelong internal conflict regarding zoos and their (seemingly recent and often vaguely credible) usefulness for species conservation, but I have never had such a conflict regarding sanctuaries that strive to provide the best-we-can-offer permanent homes for animals retrieved from labs, zoos, legal or illegal cruel breeders and traders, owners of exotic pets, and fur farms, among too many awful circumstances to list them all. If humans caused suffering, then humans should ethically and morally undertake to remedy that suffering. I possess fairly limited resources to address even this one (extremely complex) issue of captive chimpanzees, but CSNW offers me a meaningful, effective way to help. Does that answer for me all the questions you posed in this blog or even begin to answer the endlessly propagating questions that arise in my mind from your questions? Well, I’ll sure keep asking and trying to answer them, but in the everyday challenge of being a human, I will do my best to support my fellow humans who are providing sanctuary for captive chimpanzees and other non-human beings who have had their natural lives stolen from them. It is no small thing to have the opportunity to help, and I thank you for that.
Thanks for the insight. A lot there that I was not aware of.
My thoughts are that CSNW and other good zoos and sancturies did not make these chimps captive and are doing their best for them.
Thank you J. B. for this blog and for taking the time and trouble on this very dark and disturbing topic. You have given us food for thought and I would just like to say thank God for caring and compassionate people like you all at the sanctuary at Pacific North West and the people at the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance. You have made it possible for the Chimpanzees- who can never go home again- to at least live a life surrounded by people who care for them. I thank you from the bottom of my heart
Very interesting and thought-provoking post, thank you. The first and (probably) most important things I’ve learnt from great apes after watching lots of YT videos is that we humans are obsessed with perfection while they are not. If there’s a footage about zoo gorillas having a family argument, many commenters blame the zoo why they let them engaging in conflicts as if gorillas were always peaceful in the wild. If there’s a footage about chimps doing nothing for some time – commenters start to label the zoo staff as cruels why they let the animals get bored. Boredom is especially a boogeyman for us westerners which must be avoided at any cost, while I’m not convinced if great apes actually hate being bored…Coprophagia is a very interesting topic, I’ve seen so many different patterns among great apes practicing it that I wouldn’t dare stating it’s always a sign of stress/lack of some nutrition in their diet.On the other hand, I deeply agree with the argument that in a complex fission-fusion community it must be really stressful not to be able to disperse or choose if/when and where to leave. Not to mention the constant attention, staring eyes, strange noises and closeness of the visitors, which, I’m sure would drive me mad after a short period of time. But actually, chimp and gorilla communities in the wild have to cope with the presence of scientists who watch them closely, and I always wonder how these animals can be so tolerant to accept them in such close proximity within their personal space. (We would only know the answer if compared stress-hormones in the urine of these communities observed by scientists regularly to those ones without human presence, but obivously collecting urine samples from the latter ones could be tricky.) Living in the jungle and facing all the challanges and threats IS stressful (even without nosy humans nearby) – living in captivity without the freedom of choice IS stressful (even with the best care and most dedicated staff). Maybe they (the apes) just know how to cope with the stress-factors and don’t aspire for a completely healthy, happy and hardship-free life like we humans do. Maybe hair-plucking, coprophagy and other abnormal behaviours are not abnormal, captive animals might have just developed this tool of tackling with the inevitable stress and their wild counterparts don’t practice them because they’re too busy finding food in the forest. Of course, I’m not saying we shouldn’t improve their well-being, especially in zoos with a more limited living space, I’m just saying that we humans have difficulties to accept imperfection.
Adrienne, thank you for your thoughtful reflections.
I think with great apes it is reasonable to try to understand their adaptations by thinking about how we adapt to similar things. I have spent a lot of time watching gorillas being watched, and I think I see how they become unfazed by quiet people. One thing is that the presence of people just watching (not banging on glass or screaming) is just not salient to them after they get used to it. The adult animals pay no attention to the people, often facing away, much as we often don’t pay a lot of attention to other people in the grocery store or the actual people in the cars next to us on the highway.
Part of modern habitat design for them too is if they want to settle in at a distance from where people are standing, they have plenty of options to do so, either at a distance, or up in trees, or under bushes, or wherever.
The sound protective glass too protects them to some degree from people noise, as do staff who prevent people from doing things like being loud.
During sensitive periods, like introductions, or youngsters, or major changes in the life of the community, barriers are put in place to keep visitors at a particular distance or viewing is completely curtailed.
In the zoo I think animals are more disturbed by construction and maintenance noises than by people watching them.
i have always felt we humans have no right to explot animals for any reason. zoos do exploit animals and that is why i quit going to them. there are plenty of good rescues to go to who.do not breed.
I am always interested in your perspective on topics such as this. Thank you, J.B., for bringing your thoughts to the forefront. I understand your frustrations. Sometimes, if we are lucky, change occurs because we beat the drum over and over (for decades or a lifetime) to bring the urgency of a situation to those who aren’t aware or paying attention. I often think of Jane Goodall going to Tanzania in 1960. Sixty three years of tireless work and it wasn’t until very recently our government finally chose to declare they would no longer use their captive laboratory chimpanzees for experimental scientific purposes.
I have always believed human primates as a whole, with current audience being the exception,
are convinced their species is far superior to all other living creatures. As long as we refuse to acknowledge the existence and validity of the reality that all species have intelligence, emotion, empathy, and they experience suffering that is physical and emotional, how can we ever properly address your concerns.
Fortunately there are numerous, well documented studies on chimpanzees living in the wild (along with many other species living in their natural environments) that could be utilized educate the public. Instead of zoos, perhaps someday we will have virtual learning centers. Visitors could be surrounded and immersed in a visual learning experience using actual video of species living their true wild life. Think Disneyland meets scientific classroom/museum/zoo. No live animals necessary.
Why do we need to see the actual living breathing animal if the animal suffers for our entertainment and/or curiosity? (This is why I support the fight for Personhood for chimpanzees, primates, elephants, whales, and so on, now being argued in the courts. But why did it ever have to come to this?) I often wonder why we can’t leave nature alone. Nature is pretty perfect in its balance and rhythm, even if that balance includes wild animals facing death from an attack of another trying to survive. Human interference has thrown off the natural balance to such a point scientists now need to assist in the reproduction of species facing extinction. They monitor. When necessary, they have to step in and raise the young. If successful, they release the subject back into their natural habitat to hopefully increase the existing population. Then, they continue to observe and hold their breath in the hopes the species survives to breed on their own. Those who do this extraordinary work are fighting to protect countless species from human predators/traffickers not natural forces.
And look where our superiority has brought us. Mass extinctions, climate disruption, a beautiful world out of balance. We desperately need to hear more perspectives like yours, J.B.. Keep educating and beating your drum. I listen with gratitude knowing you and people like you exist and it gives me hope.
I’m so grateful for the intelligence and heart that I read in J.B.’s blog and in the responses, and I feel very lucky to be part of this group. It’s so disheartening to view everyday society and to fear that caring no longer exists among humans. The chimps, and other animals at other sanctuaries, are also lucky and blessed to be under the care of such compassion when they can’t live their natural lives. Thank you to J.B. and to my fellow bloggers!
HABITAT! I hope it doesn’t come across as too political, as I know we aren’t supposed to get political here. But in order to have our cellphones and laptops and solar panels and cars and batteries, we have to destroy Habitat for the rare minerals needed. and for our cosmetics and processed food we destroy Habitat in order to plant thousands of acres of palms for palm oil. Coconut oil is just so wonderful! Right? what habitat is destroyed to plant those coconut palms. I just encourage all humans to think about where these things come from.
I don’t think talking about strategies to save habitats where apes live is political.
What I have found is that lots of people don’t make a connection, don’t realize that by replacing electronics less option and recycling electronics when they are replaced, they can protect the habitats of gorillas and chimpanzees and protect them from human illnesses and poaching.
People don’t realize that there are simple ways of figuring out which products are the result of sustainable agriculture and which aren’t.
If we assume people know and just don’t care, I think we are missing a real opportunity.
After reading and rereading JB’s blog entry one thing stood out to be: . . . there is little agreement as to what it means for an animal to have a good life.
While we may observe and record what is considered abnormal behavior, perhaps based on poor welfare conditions, we really don’t know what a chimp is thinking when they are quietly sitting and reflecting upon their life in managed care.
We can only strive to give them the best life we can.
Yes, And CSNW shines in it’s duty to care. Precisely because it’s leaders keep in mind all the issues written here by JB, and do their very best to mitigate where they can.
Thank you JB for such a thought provoking blog. I work for a zoo and have worked at a sanctuary. Neither is perfect. I agree with so much of what JB wrote and it is a struggle. The wild is not perfect and also has its problems that stems from human activity as previously mentioned… poaching and habitat loss are a real problem that needs to be addressed and people need to be aware of sustainable agriculture… which is a whole other topic…Habitat loss is a plague for all wild animals… human encroachment with our ever expanding population is a problem… its all very complicated with no simple answer…we need to keep these dailogues open and do so with open minds and open hearts… thanks again JB and all who have responded.
Zoos will always defend their existence. The fact that zoos admit 50% of chimps in zoos – and the documented fact that some of the Great Apes in zoos are on psych drugs to control them – tells you that the celebration of new ape births in zoos is, in my opinion, just as much to drive zoo attendance and therefore revenue as it is “to build up the species”, if they clearly admit the high level of dysfunction that exists in the chimp families they host/breed. The fact that zoos say they essentially protect their chimps from the challenges of living in the wild is ridiculous because it questions whether chimps should exist at all in such challenging environments. If zoos are not birthing baby chimps to release them, which they will say would be dangerous for the young chimps, then leave the role of reintroduction and preservation to the sanctuaries that exist near their natural habitats. Send zoo babies there. These sanctuaries have success releasing rescued and newly birthed chimps into the wild. Congratulations to Chimps Northwest for acknowledging the behavioral issues shown by chimps living under human control and for making their resident chimps there as happy as they can be. This encourages us to learn how to be more loving and caring to the humans we share life with.
Great comment David. Thank you. This is one of the reasons I support Lola ya Bonobo in the DRC and the Liberian Chimp Rescue & Protection (LCRP). They both rescue and rewild bonobos and chimpanzees.