The New Zoo: Open-Range Zoological Parks (Orzps) – an Integral Piece of the Wildlife Conservation Puzzle

Home , Dublin Zoo, List of zoos by country, List of zoo associations, Menagerie

The New Zoo: Open-range zoological parks (ORZPs) – an integral piece of the wildlife conservation puzzle

THESIS

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Kelly Ann George, B.A.

Graduate Program in Geography

The Ohio State University

2011

Master's Examination Committee:

Edward J. Malecki, Advisor

Becky Mansfield

Steve Moeller

Copyrighted by

Kelly Ann George

2011

Abstract

Throughout the twentieth century, wildlife conservation has come to the forefront of government policy and social concerns. At the same time, animal welfare has gained press, especially in regards to zoological parks. In addition, the recognition of climate change has concretely demonstrated the interconnectedness of humans and the environment now and throughout history; most importantly this has shifted environmental issues from being a local concern to a global one, requiring global responsibility. The culmination of these trends has led to new understanding of the complexity of wildlife conservation, as well as the realization that no “magic bullet” exists as a solution. Rather, wildlife conservation requires many pieces working simultaneously.

One integral piece, I argue, lies in the nexus of social concerns, public awareness of human-environment reciprocity, zoo evolution, and the necessity to construct a new wilderness – a place further down the continuum of zoos and protected parks, rather a blend of the two. This nexus is The New Zoo: the open-range zoological park (ORZP).

To illustrate my argument, I present a case study involving three geographically dispersed ORZPs: the Wilds in the US, Fota Wildlife Park in Ireland, and Orana Wildlife

Park in New Zealand. Through web research, personal visits, and personal interviews of key personnel, I present the parks‟ similarities, particularities, and abilities to play such

ii an important role in wildlife conservation. Additionally, I discuss what ORZPs can tell us about wildlife conservation in the future. A future research agenda is also offered for the continued advancement of wildlife conservation.

iii

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my husband, Richard, whose endless encouragement, love, and support made this work

possible.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Edward Malecki, Advisor - I would like to thank Dr. Malecki for all of his patience and guidance through this process. His wisdom and encouragement are beyond compare and are greatly appreciated.

Dr. Becky Mansfield, Committee Member – Dr. Mansfield provided invaluable input in literature selections. Her continual push for excellence propelled me to the next level, thank you.

Dr. Steve Moeller, Committee Member – Dr. Moeller‟s expertise in Animal Science was crucial for an understanding of animal husbandry and genetic processes. In addition, his willingness to include me in the Animal Science study abroad tours, which allowed me to visit each park in my case study, was essential and for that too I will always be grateful.

The Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University – I am especially thankful for Cheryl Deisch, my supervisor, and Debra Gallagher, my co-worker, for the flexibility in my work schedule allowing for the continuation of my studies and for the moral support when my own confidence waned.

A heartfelt thank you to all of my interviewees; this project would not have been possible if not for your kindness and willingness to share your time and expert knowledge:

Columbus Zoo & Aquarium -

Jack Hanna, Director Emeritus

Dale Schmidt, Executive Director

Fota Wildlife Park –

Dr. David Gibson, Former Director

Lynda McSweeney, Education Manager

Orana Wildlife Park –

Nathan Hawke, Marketing, Public Relations & Visitor Services Manager

Toby Johnson, Education Manager

the Wilds –

Dan Beetem, Director of Animal Management, Husbandry, and Health

Dr. Evan Blumer, Executive Director

Vita

June 1985 ...... Franklin Heights High School

2006 to present ...... Accountant, Department of Animal

Sciences, The Ohio State University

2008 and 2009 ...... Resident Director, Human and Animal

Interactions in Europe Study Abroad

Program, Department of Animal Sciences,

The Ohio State University

2009...... B.A. The Colleges of the Arts and Sciences,

The Ohio State University

2010 ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, Department

of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State

University

2010...... Recipient of Staff Advisory Council,

College of Food, Agriculture, and

Environmental Science, The Ohio State

University Award for Innovation and

Excellence

vii

2010...... Resident Director, Human and Animal

Interactions in Australasia Study Abroad

Program, Department of Animal Sciences,

The Ohio State University

2011...... Resident Director, Equine Studies in Europe

Study Abroad Program, Department of

Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University

2011...... Resident Director, Human and Animal

Interactions in South America Study Abroad

Program, Department of Animal Sciences,

The Ohio State University

Fields of Study

Major Field: Geography

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iv

Acknowledgments...... v

Vita ...... vii

Fields of Study ...... viii

Table of Contents ...... ix

List of Tables ...... xii

List of Figures ...... xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Origins of Wildlife Conservation ...... 3

1.2 Current Discourses ...... 5

1.2.1 Global Environmental Management ...... 5

1.2.2 Populist Discourse ...... 7

1.2.3 Anthropogenic Effects ...... 8

1.3 Political Ecology ...... 10

Chapter 2: New Public Awareness ...... 16

2.1 Governmental Policies ...... 16

2.2 Establishment of NGOs ...... 18

2.3 Animal Welfare Initiatives ...... 20

2.4 Where is the Wild? ...... 22

Chapter 3: What is an Open-Range Zoological Park (ORZP)? ...... 27

3.1 Paradeisos to Menageries ...... 28

3.2 Classical Zoos ...... 30

3.3 The Modern Zoo...... 33

3.3.1 Species Survival Plan/European Endangered Species Program ...... 35

3.3.2 Research/Biodiversity ...... 42

3.3.3 Knowledge Production/Cooperation ...... 44

3.4 The New Zoo: Open-Range Zoological Parks (ORZPs) ...... 45

3.4.1 New Animal Management Philosophy ...... 46

3.4.2 Ex-situ Populations ...... 48

3.4.3 Public Education ...... 49

3.4.4 Communities of Practice ...... 50 x

3.5 Constructing a New Wilderness ...... 51

Chapter 4: Case Study ...... 53

4.1 Methods ...... 54

4.2 the Wilds (USA) ...... 56

4.3 Fota Wildlife Park (Republic of Ireland) ...... 62

4.4 Orana Wildlife Park (New Zealand) ...... 66

4.5 Analysis ...... 72

4.5.1 Commonalities ...... 72

4.5.2 Particularities ...... 75

Chapter 5: Conclusions, Discussion and Future Research Agenda ...... 77

5.1 Conclusions ...... 77

5.1.1 Successes...... 78

5.1.2 Challenges ...... 79

5.1.3 Wildlife Conservation in the Future ...... 80

5.2 Discussion/Future Research Agenda ...... 81

References ...... 83

Appendix A: Open-ended Questions Used In Interviews ...... 94 xi

List of Tables

Table 1 A comparison of Modern Zoos and ORZPs ...... 47

Table 2 ORZP Comparison Table...... 73

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Human Population Growth and Projection...... 9

Figure 2 The Evolution of Zoos ...... 31

Figure 3 Open-Range Zoological Park as The Nexus ...... 53

Figure 4 Fota Wildlife Park Map ...... 63

Figure 5 Orana Wildlife Park Map ...... 69

xiii

List of Pictures

Picture 1 Carl Hagenbeck's "panorama", Tierpark ...... 33

Picture 2 Safari Tour at the Wilds...... 58

Picture 3 Fourth Generation Southern White Rhino at the Wilds ...... 59

Picture 4 Herd of Sichuan Takin at the Wilds ...... 60

Picture 5 Black Rhino and Persian Onagers at the Wilds ...... 62

Picture 6 Ring-tailed Lemur Encounter at Fota Wildlife Park ...... 64

Picture 7 Capybara Encounter at Fota Wildlife Park ...... 65

Picture 8 Lion Encounter at Orana Wildlife Park ...... 68

Picture 9 Giraffe Feeding at Orana Wildlife Park ...... 70

Picture 10 Cheetah Keeper Talk at Orana Wildlife Park ...... 71

xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction

The second half of the twentieth century introduced many amazing advancements in technology (e.g. personal computers and the Internet), communication (e.g. mobile phones), and transportation (e.g. transatlantic airplanes and bullet trains). These innovations brought with them hope that any global issue could be solved through progress. Unfortunately, the reality is that these improvements became part of the problem and not the solution for many global issues and certainly for wildlife conservation. This is mainly due to the increased negative effects each of these advancements have had on the environment, specifically habitat destruction, either directly through resource extraction and topography changes to accommodate rails, airports, cell towers, and power lines; or indirectly through climate change. In addition, consumption patterns, specifically in the global North, have degraded habitat everywhere through unsustainable logging, ranching, pollution, etc. As a result, wildlife conservation has become a major focus of governments, non-governmental organizations, and individuals.

Unfortunately, no panacea exists for wildlife conservation; rather, it is an extremely complex puzzle with many integral pieces. Like a puzzle, each piece is necessary in order to complete the picture. In this paper, I argue that an integral piece of

1 the wildlife conservation puzzle consists of five main parts. First, the concept of wildlife conservation has evolved over the years resulting in new ways of thinking about conservation as a whole. Second, these new ways of thinking have produced new public awareness and with it new social concerns. Third, the concept of “wild” has been socially constructed. Fourth, the evolution of zoological parks plays a substantial role. Fifth, it is necessary to construct a new wilderness in order to save endangered species. The dependency and interaction between these five key areas demonstrates the multi-faceted nature of conservation. However, what is missing is the nexus where these pieces are synthesized. I argue that Open-Range Zoological Parks (ORZPs), as I will define, are that nexus. This is possible due to the following four important characteristics of ORZPs: 1) adopting a new animal management philosophy for the betterment of animal welfare; 2) maintaining ex-situ populations for behavior and breeding research, as well as genetic diversity safety nets; 3) promoting unique educational activities for the general public with the goal of affecting positive change in human behavior to ensure the well-being of future generations of both humans and non-humans; and 4) establishing a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), generating both explicit and tacit knowledge that is shared worldwide for the advancement of wildlife conservation. To demonstrate this argument, I examine a case study of three ORZPs dispersed geographically: the Wilds located in the United States, Fota Wildlife Park (further known as Fota) located in the

Republic of Ireland, and Orana Wildlife Park (further known as Orana) located in New

Zealand.

The history of wildlife conservation is very complicated both socially and politically. Challenges faced by conservationists of the twenty-first century are monumental. The lofty, but essential goal to make “ordinary people care” (Adams, 2004) in order to affect day-to-day behavior is almost unimaginable; yet, what is the alternative, not to try? That is even more unthinkable! However, what exactly does conservation mean? “To conserve” in its broadest sense sounds entirely positive, but the term conservation has become a buzz word and, as such, has different meanings for different people and groups, not all being positive. So, a logical starting place is an attempt to deconstruct the word conservation.

1.1 Origins of Wildlife Conservation

In the U.S., the political debates surrounding wildlife conservation began in the nineteenth century with the establishment of the Yosemite Grant, signed by President

Abraham Lincoln in 1864. The Yosemite Grant was signed during the height of the Civil

War, demonstrating the importance of preservation in the U.S., and was the first time the

U.S. Congress had ever established territory for the sole purpose of conservation

(Yosemite Park, 2011).

Conservation debates became even more prominent closer to the turn of the century with major participants, including John Muir, President Theodore Roosevelt, and

Gifford Pinchot. In 1892, John Muir founded The Sierra Club, a grassroots environmental

3 organization working to “protect communities, wild places, and the planet itself” (Sierra

Club, 2011). Yosemite Valley became Muir‟s home and project. Ironically, the conservation of Yosemite Valley required the displacement of the Native American tribes already living in the valley (Cronon, 1995), creating the question, Which communities were really being protected by the Sierra Club? President Theodore Roosevelt also played a major role in establishing the federal government‟s involvement in wildlife conservation (US FWS, 2011). The President, aligning with his good friend, Gifford

Pinchot, whom he appointed as the first Chief of the Forest Service (US FS, 2011), characterized conservation differently from Mr. Muir. Where Muir believed that “wild places” should be protected to maintain their beauty and “naturalness,” Mr. Pinchot defined conservation as “the wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting gain of man” (c. 1905). Given Mr. Pinchot‟s political status and backed by the power of the

President, this definition became the mantra of public conservation efforts. Like Muir‟s statement of “protecting communities,” Pinchot‟s definition first appears egalitarian; however, after closer examination that idea can be questioned. First, the obvious absence of concern for non-human beings is problematic. Anthropocentric views, by definition, discount the rights of existence for any other living creature. These rights include, but are not limited to, habitat, food, and water supplies. Second, the “lasting gain of man” creates an issue that is twofold: 1) “man” sounds generic enough to mean all humans, but the reality is, given the known history of the time period in which this statement was made, c.

1905, it more likely refers to western white men; and 2) why does it need to be “gain?”

4 why not “sustain?” Both of these issues are at the heart of the current conservation discourses.

1.2 Current Discourses

Interestingly, although Pinchot‟s definition is now over a century old, it is still professed in policy and action throughout the industrialized world, replicating national parks and game reserves as a method of conservation both in the home countries and in colonial establishments throughout Africa, India, and South America (Adams, 2004; Neumann,

1998). Each time an area is established, more indigenous peoples are displaced. The continuous top-down policies have threatened not only local practices in the now post- colonial countries, but in many cases have caused unsustainable hunting (often referred to as poaching) in order to protect agricultural land or simply to maintain a protein source for sustenance (Adams, 2004). In order to understand why such policies exist, one must first understand the discourse under which these policies are made.

1.2.1 Global Environmental Management

The neo-Malthusian argument of overpopulation underpins the Global Environmental

Management (GEM) discourse (Adger et al., 2001). The increasing human populations in the global South, according to this discourse, are to blame for deforestation and desertification due to the lack of knowledge and mismanagement of resources and the

5 necessity of additional land for agriculture in order to feed the masses. This Malthusian discourse has been identified in multiple case studies throughout the global South (see

Black, 2001; Colchester, 1995; and Mitchell, 2002, as examples), predominately implemented through policies of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund

(IMF), and many non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

This discourse has also infiltrated global summits, starting with the Stockholm

Conference in 1972 (Adams, 2009), through the most recent World Summit on

Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002 (Wapner, 2003). (A possible exception is the 1987 Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987). Although the report still uses a neo-Malthusian concept, it reverses the root problem to poverty causing overpopulation, which leads to degradation.) As a result, these summits produced international directives which place blame on developing countries for their “misuse” of natural resources and their unwillingness to slow development in order to protect the environment. The directives offer as a solution technological advancements, management expertise, and financial loans provided by the global North, mainly through the World Bank and IMF.

GEM does not account for the historical conditions, namely colonialism, that set the global South on its path of under-development; nor does it consider the resources still being extracted from those countries, typically by northern-based transnational companies (TNCs), to fulfill consumption demands of the north.

1.2.2 Populist Discourse

Contrary to the GEM discourse, post-colonial theory is the crux of the populist discourse.

Juma (1989) describes the colonial economic advantage of the north that still affects the south as an “irreversible legacy.” That is to say that powerful entities located in the north are still able to dictate policy to the newly sovereign post-colonial countries through government loan conditions, such as the condition for export crop production on land well-suited for agriculture, instead of the use of this land for subsistence farming. This condition is possible due to the historical lack of land rights of the indigenous peoples and often their nomadic or semi-nomadic culture. This leaves the indigenous people no choice but to relocate to land of poorer quality, causing a deficiency in subsistence production, in turn, increasing poverty and hunger, and the reinforcement of the GEM discourse: there are too many people in the south to be self-supportive (Colchester,

1995).

The forced movement of indigenous peoples onto land not formerly used for agriculture has also produced tremendous environmental impact. Obviously, forested areas are not suitable for agricultural production; therefore, it is necessary for the local people to cut down parts or whole forests in order to secure space for subsistence production. This becomes one of the many challenges facing wildlife conservation – on the surface it appears that the poor people have no regard for conservation and are deforesting for no apparent reason; however, the reality is that it is required for their

7 livelihood. Negative environmental impacts also can be more directly linked to consumption patterns. Only 25-30 years ago, it was not uncommon in areas of the global

North to only have seasonal fresh produce available for consumption. Now, grocery stores are filled year round with every kind of fresh fruits and vegetables, made possible by improvements in transportation and preservation. This is the demand driving the imposing export crop mandates.

1.2.3 Anthropogenic Effects

Unfortunately, the reality of the demand for additional foodstuffs is not due to necessity.

In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states that the U.S. alone produces 34 million tons of food waste each year, with 33 million tons of the total being disposed of in landfills and incinerators. The decomposition of this food waste in landfills produces methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Landfills are the major source of human-related methane production in the U.S., accounting for more than 20 percent of all U.S. methane emissions (EPA, 2009). The U.S. is not alone;

Western Europe is also guilty of food waste. Recent reports claim Britons discard a third of the food they purchase and Swedes throw out about a fourth (Martin, 2008).

Not only are these numbers staggering, but also there are more of us perpetuating this trend. (The next argument is not to be confused as a neo-Malthusian approach; rather, it is to demonstrate that humans and the environment are inseparable. This idea will be

8 discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.) Humans have become the dominant species in the world. Over the last 60 years, the human population has grown by 240%, reaching 6.8 billion in 2010, and is predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050 (IDB, 2011) (Figure 1). In addition, in 2008, for the first time in human history, the global urban population grew

An Anthropogenic World 10000 9000 8000 6080 6000 4000 2555 1650 2000 790 980 1260 0 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 Human Population in Millions

Figure 1 Human Population Growth and Projection.Data gathered from U.S. Census Bureau

to represent more than fifty percent (UNFPA.org, 2007) of the total global population base. This trend changes the landscape drastically. As urban population grows, the urban landscape sprawls, changing topography and reducing space once co-occupied by both humans and non-humans, to areas of humans only, with the few exceptions of species

9 that have been able to adapt to urban environments. This is not just the story for developing countries; it is also one for more developed countries, producing a massive issue for wildlife conservationists.

Species that have not been able to adapt to the urban landscape are left with lost or, at best, fragmented habitats. This represents an effect on nearly 40% of terrestrial mammal species worldwide (Schipper et al., 2008). The negative effects include loss of food sources, loss of protection from human and animal conflicts and, most importantly, loss of biodiversity (to be discussed in greater detail in Section 3.3.2). Long-term effects of habitat fragmentation also include the decline of species richness on an ecosystem scale (Laurance et al., 2008). This human footprint, according to Sanderson et al., is “a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not” (2002, p. 891). Or as Ellis and Ramankutty would describe, “for the foreseeable future, the fate of terrestrial ecosystems and the species they support will be intertwined with human systems: most of „nature‟ is now embedded within anthropogenic mosaics of land use and land cover” (2008, p. 446).

1.3 Political Ecology

As demonstrated above, conservation is an extremely complex concept. It is part of the growing field of political ecology. The most comprehensive and understandable definition of political ecology is offered by Paul Robbins (2004, p. 12):

…many understandings of political ecology together appear to describe: empirical, research-based explorations to explain linkages in the condition and change of social/environmental systems, with explicit consideration of relations of power. Political ecology, moreover, explores these social and environmental changes with a normative understanding that there are very likely better, less coercive, less exploitative, and more sustainable ways of doing things. The research is directed at finding causes rather than symptoms of problems, including starvation, soil erosion, landlessness, biodiversity decline, human health crisis, and the more general and pernicious conditions where some social actors exploit other people and environments for limited gain at collective cost. Finally, it is a field that stresses not only that ecological systems are political, but also that our very ideas about them are further delimited and directed through political and economic process. As a result, political ecology presents a Jekyll and Hyde persona, which attempts to do two things at once: critically explaining what is wrong with dominant accounts of environmental change, while at the same time exploring alternatives, adaptations, and creative human action in the face of mismanagement and exploitation.

The discourses and examples already discussed embody Robbins‟s definition. Identifying and analyzing the political mandates of economic structure, such as export crop orientation, and the exploitation of some, namely in the global South, to fill consumption demands, namely of the global North, with no regard to human and environmental impacts through these patterns is the epitome of political ecology. Understanding this is critical, for political ecology underpins the remainder of this paper.

A major philosophical issue underpins environmental conservation: why and how one places an economic value on nature. David Harvey presents the best explanation, both pro and con, for the use of money to value nature. I will attempt to paraphrase both, beginning with the pro argument: 1) because we live in a capitalist society, money is the means by which we value things; 2) money is now a universal means of measuring value

– it thus simplifies things; 3) money is the basic expression of social power in a capitalist society; and 4) the powerful within a capitalist society relate everything to a monetary price – everything is understood by its price. In opposition to his affirmative argument,

Harvey offers the following: 1) money is an unreliable form of representing value; 2) how does one determine prices for things that lack a functioning market, such as the conservation of wildlife; 3) prices apply to particular kinds of entities (commodities) – how does one treat a complex ecosystem as a single commodity; 4) how does one determine the present day value of a future resource – it is impossible to determine a value because the protection of nature is only a result of a future capitalist venture which may not yet exist; 5) money valuations condemn us to a world view in which the ecosystem is viewed as an “externality”; 6) as social power, money is asymmetrical and uneven; and 7) it is amoral (Harvey, 1996). So, the dilemma becomes that by living in a capitalist organized society, we must value nature in terms of money regardless if the argument against doing so is stronger. Wildlife conservation, in particular, poses additional difficulties. Valuing a species is hard enough; valuing a complex combination of many species and their interactions within the context of a certain location – an entire ecosystem – is more difficult (Brown & Shogren, 1998); but, with no recourse available, wildlife conservation must value species and ecosystems as monetary.

Shogren et al. (1999) suggest that in a world of scarce resources, the opportunity cost of species protection must be taken into account in decision making to avoid wasting valuable resources that yield no gain. This notion sounds logical but not realistic for

12 wildlife conservation because species and areas selected for protection involve emotional

– not logical – decision making. Emotion causes unevenness among choice of groups protected, for it is much easier to receive public support of a plan for a mammalian than an arachnid (Brown & Shogren, 1998).

One cost that should be considered in species protection is the payment made for property damage caused by endangered species (Treves et al., 2009). This action may seem unnecessary until one considers the socio-political concepts of private property rights, equity, and government control (Patterson et al., 2003). It is typical for humans to occupy property near government controlled protected areas, which leads to the interaction between endangered species and humans (or at least their property, including livestock). Protected areas are necessary for wildlife conservation, particularly for reintroduction; hence the interaction that occurs between the human and non-human is unavoidable and typically results in the loss of property caused by the endangered species. In order for the humans occupying these areas to tolerate the endangered species, equitable compensation must be given (Treves et al., 2009). Monetary payments are made by conservation groups, including zoo conservation programs, on behalf of the endangered species to the property owners for their losses. The “value of nature” is understood through this economic means.

The described philosophical, socio-political and socio-economic issues are still unresolved in wildlife conservation discourse. In addition, potential endeavors of zoos to become long-term storage centers for genetic resources via cryobiology have introduced

13 a new ethical and socio-political debate. The Frozen Ark Project was initiated by the

University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom and currently is backed by a worldwide consortium. “The mission of the Frozen Ark Project is to collect, preserve and store tissue, gametes, viable cells and DNA from endangered animals. The project focuses on the thousands of animals that are threatened with extinction” (Frozen Ark Project, 2010).

The ethical debate should begin with the question: is it right to collect DNA from species that someday could be extinct in the name of conservation? If so, how will the DNA be used in the future? For example, if a species becomes extinct due to a complete loss of habitat, should the DNA be used to reproduce an animal with nowhere to live? The socio- political debate involves a further question: who has the right to own genetic property?

The thousands of endangered species included in the Frozen Ark span the globe. Juma

(1989) asks: should each species‟ native country own the rights to the genetic material?

These are the same unresolved issues debated in relation to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) germ-plasm bank. An example is maize seed, a plant indigenous to Mexico but held within the USDA bank. First, there is political debate regarding why the U.S. owns the rights to a resource indigenous to Mexico. Second, an economic debate occurs over who should/could gain from the seed. Third, the seeds are held dormant for extended periods of time, which, on cultivation, could diminish their survivability in the face of evolving disease and environmental challenges that are new and different from the original habitat. In other words, regardless of plant or wildlife species, a biological

14 question exists if a species, reintroduced after a time of extinction, lacks the memes needed to survive in the new environment.

As this chapter has discussed, wildlife conservation lies at the intersection of socio-political, socio-economic, and socio-natural issues, which all unavoidably shape the current discourse. My research focuses on three major objectives: 1) offer a new nomenclature for conservationists – a gradation of the current day captive/wild binary; 2) encourage individuals, corporations and governments to support conservation efforts, especially ORZPs, through philanthropic donations of land, resources and money; and 3) advance wildlife conservation awareness and education. The remainder of this paper fulfills these objectives, beginning in Chapter 2, which offers a closer examination of governmental policies, non-governmental institutions, and public attitude. In addition, the chapter addresses the question: Where is the “wild?” as well as the public‟s perception of where it is. In Chapter 3, I define an open-range wildlife park (ORZP) through an historical look at zoological parks‟ evolution, ORZPs‟ distinctions in comparison to modern zoos, and the necessity to create a new wilderness. In Chapter 4, I offer my case study in support of my argument, describing and comparing: the Wilds, Fota Wildlife

Park, and Orana Wildlife Park. This chapter also includes my methods and analysis.

Finally, Chapter 5 presents my conclusions, as well as a discussion and future research agenda.

Chapter 2: New Public Awareness

As the world becomes more globalized, there has been an awakening of public awareness concerning social, political, economic, and environmental issues. To be clear, I am not using the term “global” to mean “international”, as in place, nor “free trade”, nor the “end of difference” - becoming an homogeneous society; rather I am referring to globalization as Speth (2003) would describe: the compression of the world, the tightening of linkages, the economic, political, cultural, and environmental interconnections. This new public awareness recognizes that actions in one place are reacting to something happening elsewhere. In other words, global environmental problems are due to global causes and therefore should have global solutions. In order to explore this idea further, an historical review of global attempts thus far is required.

2.1 Governmental Policies

The enactment of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) brought species conservation to the foreground of the environmental movement. Section 2 of the act acknowledges that “various species have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and

16 conservation…these species are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people”. The ESA continues to describe its purpose as the “pledge of the United States to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction”. The act offers the following definition, “the terms „conserve‟, „conserving‟, and „conservation‟ mean to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking”

(United States Senate, 1973). The quote, particularly the latter half, is an extension of

GEM discourse enacted in policy through the suggestion that non-human species must be

“protected” from humans, even if this means the removal of people from land currently shared by both. However, contrary to GEM, “the act severely restricts the role of economic considerations. Species are listed as „threatened‟ or „endangered‟ solely on the basis of scientific criteria and, once listed, must be protected regardless of cost in all but the most extreme situations” (Linder, 1988, p. 164). This act has been described as the most comprehensive of all U.S. environmental laws (Brown & Shogren, 1998) and one of the most extreme forms of government intervention (Yaffe, 1982), therefore perpetuating

17 the GEM discourse. Although this is a national act, it was the first to coin the phrase

“endangered species” and it has had additional international influence on more recent conservation directives.

One such directive is the European Union‟s Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Regulation (EC Council, 1996). The regulation is in compliance with the objectives of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES). The goal is to protect and conserve endangered species through the control of trade. This regulation is obviously not as comprehensive as the

ESA, but it does establish government awareness of endangered species protection.

2.2 Establishment of NGOs

The twentieth century also saw the rise of many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) concerning wildlife conservation, such as the International Union for the Conservation of

Nature (IUCN), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

Each of these NGOs offers its own definition of a conservation mission, which becomes the discourse from which all of its actions follow. The IUCN states:

our mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable (IUCN, 2010).

Similarly, the WWF proclaims:

[our] mission is the conservation of nature. Using the best available scientific knowledge and advancing that knowledge where we can, we work to preserve the diversity and abundance of life on Earth and the health of ecological systems by protecting natural areas and wild populations of plants and animals, including endangered species; promoting sustainable approaches to the use of renewable natural resources; and promoting more efficient use of resources and energy and the maximum reduction of pollution. We are committed to reversing the degradation of our planet's natural environment and to building a future in which human needs are met in harmony with nature. We recognize the critical relevance of human numbers, poverty and consumption patterns to meeting these goals (WWF, 2011).

The TNC offers a comparable statement “[TNC] is the leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. We address the most pressing conservation threats at the largest scale” (TNC,

2011).

These leading NGOs have established an enormous international presence, backed by substantial financial resources, much of which is from corporate funding, giving them political clout and power (Chapin, 2004). This has allowed them to make tremendous strides in identifying and categorizing endangered species, as apparent in the IUCN‟s Red

List of Threatened Species (2010). It has also afforded them to purchase large tracts of land to “preserve” in the name of conservation. The enactment of preservation also means the removal of indigenous peoples. This makes NGOs unfavorable among contemporary scholars, such as Neumann (1998), who sees the remnants of colonialism abounding through these types of actions; Adams (2004), who stresses the importance of indigenous knowledge and practice of wildlife and ecosystem conservation; and Chapin (2004), who

19 implores the NGOs to be accountable and truly work with the indigenous peoples in real cooperation in order to correct local environmental issues caused globally.

2.3 Animal Welfare Initiatives

The debate regarding the “worth” and treatment of animals has existed long before our current welfare debates1. The first philosophy of this kind can be found as early as

Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who claimed animals are essentially different from humans in that humans can reason, therefore establishing an earthly hierarchy with humans on top.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650 CE) proclaimed that animals are machines and, although they may have sensation, Descartes questioned if it was from reflex or a state of awareness.

John Locke (1623-1704 CE) believed that animals can exercise some degree of reason, but can be used as a resource because they cannot form general or abstract ideas. Jeremy

Bentham (1748-1832 CE) determined the question is not, Can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But rather, can they suffer? Charles Darwin (1809-1882 CE) wrote differences between species are only by degree. Contemporary philosopher, Tom Regan, Emeritus

1 For the sake of clarity, it is important at this time to distinguish between “animal welfare” and “animal rights.” Although the two philosophies share the same roots mentioned in the above paragraph, they are not equal. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA, 2011), animal welfare is a human responsibility that includes consideration for all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling and, when necessary, humane euthanasia. Animal rights, on the other hand, according to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA, 2011), means that animals have an inherent worth – a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. Every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy – it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. PETA founder, Ingrid Newkirk, has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.” 20

Professor of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, states that all animals have

“inherent value”, therefore are “subjects of a life”. Contrary to this, R.G. Frey, Professor of Philosophy, Bowling Green State University, proposes the unequal value thesis: “not all life is equal”. In this thesis, Frey declares that the fullest chicken life there has ever been, does not approach the full life of a human (Boyles, 2010).

Differences in reigning philosophies have influenced multiple welfare societies and policies throughout the years. The first such society was the Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, established in London in 1824, which was later royally endorsed, becoming the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA,

2011), which it is still called today. The RSPCA influenced Henry Bergh to establish the

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1866 (ASPCA, 2011).

Since then, more organizations have formed, such as the Humane Society of the United

States (HSUS), Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), and Animal Protection Institute (API), to name a few. Each has played a significant role in protecting animals and promoting an ethical treatment agenda. Through this agenda, many policies have been established in the name of animal welfare.

The first animal cruelty law, commonly known as the Martin‟s Act of 1822, was passed by parliament in the UK, for the protection of cattle. This law was later consolidated into the Pease‟s Act in 1835, to include dogs and other domestic animals, and better slaughter conditions (RSPCA, 2011). The first anticruelty state statute in the

U.S. was created in New York in 1829, for the protection of farm animals. Multiple laws

21 have been passed since this time, including the U.S. Animal Welfare Act of 1966, for the protection of warm-blooded animals (with some exceptions). The 1970 amendment to this Act also included the protection of zoo animals (USDA AWIC, 2011). One of the most comprehensive laws is the Animal Welfare Act of 2006, passed in the UK. The UK

Act updates the current offences for cruelty to and fighting of animals, and introduces for the first time in domestic animals legislation, a new concept – the welfare offense. This requires owners of and people responsible for animals to take reasonable steps to ensure their animals‟ welfare needs are met. The welfare needs are based on the Five Freedoms widely used and recognized in farm animal legislation. Animals‟ needs include: 1) a suitable environment; 2) a suitable diet; 3) to be able to exhibit normal behavior patterns;

4) any need to be housed with, or apart from, other animals; and 5) to be protected from pain, suffering, injury, and disease (RSPCA, 2011).

The gains in public awareness and social ethics have encouraged many to push for animals to stay in the “wild”. A common image of “the wild” is the massive wildebeest migration across the Serengeti, or Asian tigers hunting in the jungle, all devoid of humans. But is this reality or simply a socially created esthetic vision?

2.4 Where is the Wild?

Jack Hanna, Director Emeritus of the Columbus Zoo & Aquarium and star of Jack

Hanna’s Into the Wild television series, disclosed in a recent interview that people tell

22 him all the time that zoo animals need to be returned to the wild. His response is always,

“Can you tell me where the „wild‟ is?” Their response is typically, it‟s in Africa. He then replies, “Oh really! Do you realize the Serengeti Plains is really Serengeti Plains National

Park? There are few places in the world, the Congo, Antarctica, the North Pole, and maybe a section of the Amazon that are not parks, but that‟s it. Most wildlife is protected in national parks. The „wild‟ is national parks!” (Hanna, 2010).

Hanna‟s remarks address the long-standing and widely circulated myth of a pristine wilderness. In fact, for more than a century, protected areas have been constructed with the idea of an imagined wilderness where wildlife is “free” of humans

(Brockington & Homewood, 2001). As already discussed, this imagery of untouched land that needs protection was first established in the United States. It is based on what

Denevan (1992) calls “The Pristine Myth.” In 1492, Denevan estimates the North

American indigenous population was 3.8 million. Mainly through the introduction of old world disease by explorers, indigenous population dropped rapidly, by approximately

74% in 1800. Yet, in 1638, only approximately 30,000 Englishmen were found in North

America and only 1.3 million Europeans and slaves were found as late as 1750. As apparent from these numbers, in 1750, the total number of human beings living in North

America was still below the number living there in 1492. Therefore, as Europeans pushed westward, the land they “discovered” had already been impacted by humans previously or currently by those living on it, so the idea of pristine land is simply a myth (Denevan,

1992).

However, myth or not, it is what underpins our environmental discourse and this leads to human-human and human-animal conflicts. As McKibben (2006, p. 117) describes, “Animals don‟t know they‟re in refuges, and they aren‟t as adaptable as people. As the temperature warms, the elk will move north out of Yellowstone, and so will the bison and the grizzly and the dozens of other plants and animals that find safety there.” Once the animals cross the park border, they are subject to hunting and other dangerous human-animal interactions. This of course is true of protected areas everywhere (McKibben, 2006).

Human-human conflicts persist because no wilderness without humans exists, nor has it for centuries, which is why clashes arise when eviction of humans from ancestral land is based on constructed ideals of wilderness and not on ecological evidence

(Brockington et al., 2006). For example, in the Mkomazi region of Tanzania, local government determines allocation of the scarce resources based on the notion that the

Mkomazi region is the richest area in the savannas, which in reality has not yet been determined. Therefore, instead of recognizing the local pastoralists as contributors to the richness, authorities have evicted residents in the area assuming they will cause a negative impact (Homewood & Brockington, 1999). To add insult to injury, these protected areas have swollen to include buffer zones, which now too are controlled by the state (Neumann, 1997), especially in the case of Serengeti National Park where activity is restricted to wildlife tourism only (Homewood et al., 2001). Conflicts such as these are a

24 result of policies that are not rooted in the idea of co-existence, rather in the ideas of separation. But how does one separate oneself from nature?

Complexity theory demonstrates how humans are embedded into the environment and cannot be separated. Morton (2007, p. 84) explains, “The fact that metabolic processes create dynamic conditions that change both organism and environment means that nothing in ecosystems remains the same.” He continues,

Ulrich Beck has observed that the logic of unintended consequences plays out in industrial society such that, despite class differences, risk becomes increasingly democratic. Radiation is ignorant of national boundaries. In a bitter irony, the equality dreamt of in the 1790s has come to pass-we are (almost) equally at risk from the environment itself. Nationality and class affiliations aside, we share the toxic legacy of Chernobyl. And no matter where in the world capitalism puts its industry, giving rise to the recent illusion of a “post-industrial” landscape, all societies are affected.

These realizations have, or at least should, change the way we think of “nature” and

“wilderness;” it is no longer a “thing” out there, but rather an interconnected complex system (Morton, 2007). As McKibben (2006, p. 55) describes, “…we have ended the thing that has, at least in modern times, defined nature for us – it‟s separations from human society.” He continues,

…now we make that world, affect its every operation (except a few-the alteration of day and night, the spin and wobble and path of the planet, the most elementary geologic and tectonic processes)…By domesticating the earth, even though we‟ve done it badly, we‟ve domesticated all that live on it (p. 72).

As discussed early in this chapter, public awareness of environmental and wildlife issues have been paramount in the creation of new governmental and non-governmental

25 organizations and the introduction of new laws and directives in these areas. However, also represented in this chapter is the perception that most have regarding a place that exists out there, somewhere separate from us, that is free of human domestication; that is

“wild.” The understanding that this idea is simply constructed is essential to Section 3.5.

Chapter 3: What is an Open-Range Zoological Park (ORZP)?

To this point, this research has focused on an historical perspective of wildlife conservation, describing relative arguments, policies, public awareness, and modern theories; but what does all of this mean for zoological parks? And how do they fit into this complicated puzzle?

In general, zoos are contentious, mainly due to the argument against animals in captivity, regardless of purpose (Cohn, 1992; Jamieson, 1994). For example, even the plan initiated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to capture the last six California condors for a species survival program (to be discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.1) was challenged by the National Audubon Society, which argued that the birds should be allowed to remain free (Linder, 1988). This provides an example par excellence. Kay

Anderson, describing the Adelaide Zoo, suggests “the zoo is a cultural institution which reflects not nature itself – as if such an unmediated thing exists – but a human adaptation of the ensemble of life forms that bears the name nature” (1995, p. 276). Zoos have addressed this argument by assuring the protection of the ex-situ populations that are so important in wildlife conservation. To accomplish this, zoos promote high quality of life for the captive animals by eliminating the threat of predation, avoid starvation by providing an ample food supply, circumvent diseases that are associated with living in the

27 wild through routine veterinary service, and produce more naturalistic habitats to improve animal welfare (Hutchins et al., 2003; Rabb, 1994).

Zoological parks have existed in some form since the ninth century BCE. Since that time, they have continually transformed until they have reached their current condition of spacious, natural exhibits in modern zoos, as well as the extension of this concept in non-traditional open-range zoological parks (ORZPs). However, what then distinguishes ORZPs from national parks or private ranch collections, and where do you draw the line on the continuum between ORZPs and safari parks? There must be more to consider than simply the animals‟ ability to roam freely or semi-freely. As with many things, ORZPs are defined by their history; therefore a closer examination of zoo evolution is necessary in order to answer these questions and offer a proper definition of

ORZPs.

3.1 Paradeisos to Menageries

Keeping animals captive, especially species of animals used as a means of food, has been recorded in history as early as 2500 BCE. In addition, the idea of parks containing freely roaming exotic animals maintained by humans is not a new concept. The earliest record of such a park is found in China, established around 1150 BCE by Emperor Wen Wang.

Later, in the Babylonian region of the Persian Empire, these parks were known as paradeisos, a Persian word referring to a walled park where beasts were kept for the

28 monarch‟s enjoyment. Paradeisos also provided animals for royal hunts, ceremonial processions, and storage space for gifts of animals from foreign lands. These parks were representative of the royal “paradise” (Veltre, 1996). Traces of these animal parks continued to be found through Assyria (885-859 BCE), where lions and herds of gazelles were maintained in extensive but confined areas (Hoage et al., 1996).

As cultures progressed, so too did the penchant for keeping animals. Paradeisos evolved into menageries; however,

in contrast to the paradeisos, the menagerie of the Middle Ages was not an attempt to create a private heaven on earth but rather was little more than a collection of living trophies kept on the palace grounds, a reflection of the ruler‟s importance and the extent of his empire (Veltre, 1996, p. 19).

As exploration increased and transportation improved, more species of fauna were added to the collections (Hoage & Deiss, 1996). At one point in history, the menagerie of

Cardinal Hippolytus of Florence contained not only exotic animals, but also “exotic peoples,” such as a troop of “barbarians” which included Moors, Tartars, Asian Indians,

Turks, and Africans (Hoage et al., 1996).

Royal menageries also became a form of entertainment and education for the people. During festivals the monarch would allow viewing of the animals to the public.

Exposure to the royal menagerie of Sweden is believed to have influenced Linnaeus in the eighteenth century to create the modern scientific system for naming animals (Hoage et al., 1996). Although menageries had some obvious benefit, this display of a monarch‟s power eventually caused deterimental damage to the animals in the collection, as

29 observed during the French Revolution, when many of the king‟s lions were killed by the revolutionaries as a symbol of the fall of the monarchy and the new power of the public.

3.2 Classical Zoos

The fall of the monarchy at the end of the eighteenth century led to the evolution of menageries to a period of classical zoos, as depicted in Figure 2. George Rabb (1994) describes this as the evolution of the “Living Natural History Cabinet” of the menagerie, that is a park based on taxonomy, husbandry, and species propagation, with caged exhibits, into the “Living Museums” of the nineteenth century classical zoological parks, based on ecology, cooperative species management, habitats, and animal behavior, exhibited in dioramas. (Other aspects of this figure will be discussed later in this section.)

The Jardin des Plantes Zoological Gardens in Paris was the first product of this stage of the evolution. It incorporated the surviving animals from the Versailles menagerie and established a public zoo as an education and recreation institution (Veltre, 1996; Hoage et al., 1996). This opening acted as a catalyst for many new zoos and zoological societies across Europe and the world, including the Dublin Zoological Gardens in Phoenix Park,

Dublin, Ireland, founded in 1831 by the Royal Zoological Society of Ireland (Dublin Zoo,

2009). The mission of the Dublin Zoo and many others during this time period was to establish a collection of living animals to be used in a combination of scientific advancement, public amusement, and a source of civic pride (Veltre, 1996). Yet,

The Evolution of Zoos

Based on Rabb, 1994

Figure 2 The Evolution of Zoos

although the zoo missions may have been the same, not all societies and zoos were established by the same means of public funding. Some societies were created with private funds, as in the example of the Society of Hamburg, which was established in

1860 by a group of wealthy merchants for the specific purpose of creating a zoological garden. The Hamburg Zoological Garden would, at its peak, house 4,000 specimens

31 representing 1,000 species (Reichenbach, 1996). The establishment of such a variety of specimens allowed for scientific advancements in husbandry and taxonomy.

During this time period, the missions of these emerging zoos were not established with the idea of animal welfare in mind. The majority of the animals were kept in small cages or used as a form of entertainment for the visitors. Such an example is the Asian elephant, Lilian, of the Adelaide Zoo, who was required to pull a cart full of children for a ride around the zoo while being ridden by her trainer (Anderson, 1998). These types of displays could be found in zoos everywhere, simply fulfilling the goal of visior amusement with no regard for the animal.

However, a revolution in animal keeping began in 1896 by Carl Hagenbeck Jr. with the creation of the “panorama” (Picture 1). This bar-less exhibit, used in

Hagenbeck‟s Tierpark in Hamburg, Germany, was designed by “laid out successively higher stages containing different species, separated from one another and from the public by moats” (Reichenbach, 1996). The design of the exhibits attempted to re-create the natural habitat of the animals and promote more naturalistic behaviors (Veltre, 1996).

More natural habitats would eventually become the norm for the next state of zoos, the modern zoo, but this evolution would not be complete for several decades.

Picture 1 Carl Hagenbeck's "panorama", Tierpark

3.3 The Modern Zoo

Even with the introduction of a more naturalistic landscape for the zoo animals, some still argue that zoos are prisons. Although a positive aspect of the zoo environment is that the animals are saved from stresses they might otherwise find in the wild, such as predation and starvation, animal welfare advocates continue to claim that, in general, restricting wild animals to designated yards, no matter how naturalistic, negatively affects the welfare of the animal because the wild can never be duplicated (Hutchins et al., 2003).

(The concept of recreating nature has already been discussed in detail in Chapter 2.) This line of thinking also exists within zoos, causing the continual re-examination of the

33 morality associated with keeping animals in captivity. Every attempt should be made by zoos to assure the highest quality of life for the captive animal and this responsibility is recognized and taken extremely seriously both inside and outside the zoo. These captive animals are then used as “ambassadors for their species, helping to raise public awareness and funds to support education, research, on-the-ground conservation activities in range countries, and a host of other relevent activities” (Hutchins et al., 2003).

Zoological societies have not disappeared with the introduction of the modern zoo. In fact, the concept has grown into national and international organizations. Among the oldest of these organizations is the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, commonly known as the AZA, founded in 1924 (AZA, 2009a) and more recently the establishment of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, EAZA, in 1992 (EAZA, 2009). The overarching association, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, refered to as

WAZA, orginated in 1935 under the name International Union of Directors of Zoologcial

Gardens (IUDZG), which in 1949 became an international organization member of the

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and later, in 2000, was renamed

WAZA (WAZA, 2009). A major part of the mission of these organizations is to provide membership accreditation for zoological parks that meet the high animal care standards determined by a group of experts. In order for a zoo to receive accreditation, it must pass on-site inspections and a peer review process. Then, in order to maintain its accredited status, the zoo must be reviewed every five years (AZA, 2009b). Due to these stringent standards, of the approximately 2800 U.S. wildlife exhibitors licensed by the USDA, less

34 than 10% or just over 200 are AZA accredited (AZA, 2009c). The EAZA has 322 members in 36 countries (EAZA, 2009a), and WAZA, has over 1300 members in more than 50 countries, including the AZA and EAZA (WAZA, 2009). Collectively, WAZA members host more than 700 million visitors annually (WAZA, 2009).

Another major directive of these organizations is to promote conservation, through public education, coordinated cooperation, knowledge sharing, and environmental research (WAZA.org, 2009). This has become possible due to the recruitment by zoological parks of a wide range of professionals including, but not limited to, the fields of conservation science, reproduction, behavior, nutrition, ecology,

IT, engineering, business, and design (Anderson, 1995). A major initiative implemented was the captive breeding programs discussed in the next section.

3.3.1 Species Survival Plan/European Endangered Species Program

In allegiance to the GEM discourse and as part of the evolution to conservation centers, zoos around the world initiated Species Survival Plans (SSPs) under the supervision of the AZA, and European Endangered Species Programs (EEPs) under the supervision of

EAZA and ultimately WAZA, as forms of ex-situ conservation (WAZA, 2009). SSPs, similar to EEPs, were developed to ensure the continued survival of designated “flagship species,” which are defined as “well-known animals which arouse strong feelings in the public for the preservation and protection of the in-situ population and their habitat”

(AZA, 2009d). Both provide managed population goals and recommendations to ensure sustainability, genetic diversity, demographically varied populations, and support of in situ populations (AZA, 2009d). It can certainly be argued that limitations of space and funding exist, which limit the number of species participating in the programs, as well as additional challenges, such as addressing animal subjectivity (Anderson, 1995) and habitat loss (Huxel & Hastings, 1999); however, these cannot overshadow the successes that SSPs have reported with species such as the California condor, the black-footed ferret, and the Karner blue butterfly (AZA, 2009d; Balmford et al., 1996), or EEPs accomplishments with winsets (European bison) (EAZA, 2009b).

As mentioned, the greatest limitations are the economic and space constraints limiting the number of species within the programs. Due to these limited resources, competition exists among species to be designated as “flagship” in order to receive funding and space allocation within the participating facilities (Earnhardt et al., 2001).

Currently, there are 115 AZA SSP programs (AZA, 2009e); yet, globally there are 16,928 species threatened with extinction (IUCN Red List, 2010). The conundrum in determining which species should have an SSP program is that large mammals are more expensive to keep, require more space, and typically have a less successful captive breeding record than smaller animals; yet, the public demands the inclusion of popular animals, such as the polar bear, panda bear, African lion, Asian tiger, and African elephant. Although maintaining an SSP for polar bears will reduce the number of species that could take part in planned breeding programs due to the huge expense and space

36 required to maintain their habitat, nevertheless zoos will do so in response to the preferences of the zoo-going public (Balmford et al., 1996; Snyder et al., 1996). The public‟s power to dictate decision making processes is the result of socio-economics.

Zoos must continue to attract visitors in order to collect revenue from gate admissions, concessions and souvenirs. Zoo revenue not only covers operation costs but also supports conservation efforts. Ergo, if the public wants to protect polar bears, the zoo must listen.

A major challenge for SSP programs in meeting their goal of species reintroduction is habitat loss and fragmentation. Reintroduction will only be successful if long-term habitat sustainability is assessed both pre- and post-release (Cheyne, 2006).

Included in the assessment are: 1) a sustainable food supply, but more importantly, 2) the size of the habitat, which can affect the reproduction rate of the species and ultimately the success of the reintroduction (Fahrig, 2001). If a suitable habitat no longer exists for a reintroduction, then logically, no breeding program should exist for that species (Gurd et al., 2001); however, this is not necessarily the case because, as previously mentioned, public opinion will play a role in the decision process. To help avoid the issue of habitat loss, it is imperative that zoos include within their breeding programs public education regarding not only the selected endangered species but the entire ecosystem that is involved. The education initiative is two-fold: first, by educating the public in this manner, zoos are able to include species that may not normally catch the public eye but share the same environment with a species that does; and second, public awareness of

37 habitat loss and preventative measures that can be accomplished by the individual will result in the preservation of habitat.

The maintenance of genetic diversity within the ex situ SSP/EEP populations is of the utmost importance to ensure the continued existence of the species. Prior to the initiation of SSP/EEP programs, inbreeding within managed populations was not a consideration (Hedrick & Kalinowski, 2000). Under the SSP/EEP program, each population is managed by a Taxon Advisory Group (TAG), which uses a studbook to plan the family tree and make breeding recommendations (AZA, 2009f). A “pedigree analysis” has become common in determining when and which individual animals should breed (Hedrick & Miller, 1992). Based on a metapopulation2 model, animals are exchanged between zoos per the breeding recommendation. A pedigree “black hole” occurs when an animal with undocumented parentage information is introduced into a breeding program (Willis, 2001). In this case, the assigned TAG will enter the animal‟s genetic history into the studbook by assuming a worst-case scenario and recording all animals as highly interrelated (e.g., full siblings) in order to guarantee biodiversity

(Willis, 2001). Close management of SSP/EEP populations minimizes the rate of loss of genetic diversity and maintains the long-term demographic stability of the population

(AZA, 2009d). An average SSP population drops to a 90% viability risk threshold in a

40-year time frame and, at 100 years, SSP population genetic diversity range is 60.7% -

2 “A metapopulation is a set of populations distributed over a number of patches that are connected, to varying degrees, by dispersal movements” (Hess, 1996, p. 226). 38

90.7% (Earnhardt et al, 2001). Successful maintenance of genetic biodiversity through

SSPs has directly led to the conservation of some endangered species.

The first example of a conserved species is the black-footed ferret. Wild black- footed ferrets once ranged in the thousands across the North American plains. The ferrets‟ main source of food was the prairie dog that numbered in the millions in this area.

However, as humans populated the plains, ranchers who saw prairie dogs as competition for the grass that fed their cattle began killing off the dogs, bringing the black-footed ferret near extinction. In 1981 the last 18 wild ferrets were captured and placed into a

SSP program (Smithsonian, 2010) that was jointly managed by the Cheyenne Mountain

Zoo and the Smithsonian‟s National Zoo (AZA, 2009d). More than 500 ferrets were born in captivity from 1989-2007 and after reintroduction more than 700 ferrets live in the wild (Smithsonian, 2010) today. A recent study conducted by the Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, determined that the wild offspring of reintroduced ferrets maintained equivalent genetic diversity as the SSP program population, concluding that the recovery program will achieve its goal of maintaining

“80% of the genetic diversity of the founder population over 25 years” (Wisely et al.,

2003, p. 287).

Another famous example of a successful SSP program is the California condor. In

1982, only 23 California condors existed in the wild. As of 2010, due to the SSP breeding and reintroduction program managed by the San Diego Zoo, 180 birds now live in the wild with an additional 169 birds held in an ex situ population. The zoo was able to build

39 the population quickly by using a technique called “double clutching” where the eggs are removed from the nest allowing for replacement eggs to be laid. The removed eggs are then placed in an incubator to be hatched. In order to simulate natural parenting for the hand-raised hatchlings, recorded adult condor sounds were played in the nests and the humans would feed the chicks using condor puppets (San Diego Zoo, 2010).

Furthermore, to ensure adaptation to the modern world, reintroduced condors first participated in an avoidance-training program where they learned to avoid death by collision with power lines. This training has been successful since there have been no reported power line deaths in the reintroduced animals (Enoch, 1997). The extreme attention to detail delivered through the SSP program and the “absolute need for ex situ capacity” (Maunder & Byers, 2005, p. 96) allowed for the survival of this species.

A third prominent example of SSP program success is the Karner blue butterfly.

This butterfly completely disappeared from Ohio in 1992 and only remained in a handful of its historic range states (AZA, 2009d). Their extinction from the area was due to the introduction of a non-native species that fed on the Karner, as well as the pure beauty of the butterfly that made them a must-have for collectors (Toledo Zoo, 2010). In 1998, the

Toledo Zoo became the first institution to breed and reintroduce Karners back into Ohio at a restored habitat in the Kitty Todd Nature Preserve (US FWS, 2010). Currently, this is the only place in Ohio that Karner butterflies can be seen; however, the intention of the

SSP program is to reintroduce the species into other suitable habitats.

The wisent, or European bison breeding program has been a huge EEP success, to the point that it has spun-off an association, the European Bison Conservation Center, to continue breeding coordination (EBCC, 2011). Currently, 60 EEP breeding centers exist in Europe for wisents, responsible for one-third of the world population. Wisents were once extinct in the wild, but through the EEP breeding/reintroduction program, 2000 animals have been reintroduced into free-living herds.

The twenty-first century brings with it a rapid increase in the number of endangered species and the desperate need for wildlife conservation (IUCN, 2010). The highest profile ex-situ conservation strategy is captive breeding (Russello & Amato,

2007), in which zoos and aquaria are to play a key role by maintaining populations of threatened species (Bowkett, 2009). In compliance with this role, WAZA, EAZA, and the

AZA have implemented various SSP/EEP programs to protect the future of designated

“flagship species” and with the cooperation of accredited zoos, they have been successful in the mere 30 years of existence. The captive breeding and reintroduction of the endangered black-footed ferret, the California condor, and the Karner blue butterfly are successful examples of SSP programs in the U.S., as well as the wisent (European bison)

EEP program in Europe. Also, careful management through TAGs has ensured the ability to maintain genetic diversity within the ex-situ populations, and sets the stage for the continued success of wildlife conservation efforts. Furthermore, continued assisted- reproduction technological advancements will increase the role that zoos play in conservation by allowing for the possibility of gamete transfer instead of animals

41 between zoos and through the long-term storage of genetic material via cryobiology

(Bowkett, 2009). However, future endeavors and technological advances bring with them a new set of political and social issues that must be addressed.

3.3.2 Research/Biodiversity

Biodiversity has become a hot topic in conservation. Why is it so important? According to Rands et al.,

effective conservation of biodiversity is essential for human survival and the maintenance of ecosystem processes…more radical changes are required that recognize biodiversity as a global public good, that integrate biodiversity conservation into policies and decision frameworks for resource production and consumption, and that focus on wider institutional and societal changes to enable more effective implementation of policy (2010, p. 1298).

In 1992, during the Rio Conference, the United Nations held a multilateral

Convention on Biological Diversity, from which it defines biological diversity as

the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are apart: this includes diversity of species, between species and of ecosystems (UN CBD, 1992).

The resulting convention document included Article 9, which establishes the importance of ex-situ conservation. It reads:

Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate, and predominantly for the purpose of complementing in-situ measures: (a) Adopt measures for the ex-situ conservation of components of biological diversity, preferably in the country of origin of such components; (b) Establish and maintain facilities for ex-situ conservation of and research

on plants, animals and micro- organisms, preferably in the country of origin of genetic resources; (c) Adopt measures for the recovery and rehabilitation of threatened species and for their reintroduction into their natural habitats under appropriate conditions; (d) Regulate and manage collection of biological resources from natural habitats for ex-situ conservation purposes so as not to threaten ecosystems and in-situ populations of species, except where special temporary ex-situ measures are required under subparagraph (c) above; and (e) Cooperate in providing financial and other support for ex-situ conservation outlined in subparagraphs (a) to (d) above and in the establishment and maintenance of ex- situ conservation facilities in developing countries (UN, 1992).

As a consequence of this convention, the European Union also established the following directive of zoo requirements: 1) participating in research from which conservation benefits accrue to the species, and/or training in relevant conservation skills, and/or the exchange of information relating to species conservation and/or, where appropriate, captive breeding, repopulation or reintroduction of species into the wild; 2) promoting public education and awareness in relation to the conservation of biodiversity, particularly by providing information about the species exhibited and their natural habitats; 3) accommodating their animals under conditions which aim to satisfy the biological and conservation requirements of the individual species, inter alia, by providing species specific enrichment of the enclosures; and 4) maintaining a high standard of animal husbandry with a developed program of preventative and curative veterinary care and nutrition (The Council of the European Union, 1999). However, skepticism has developed in the EC with regard to meeting the ex-situ directive. This is mainly because the majority of modern zoo research, to this point, has not been

43 conservation related and additional resources will need to be found in order to expand research efforts (Rees, 2005).

On the flip side, modern zoos financially support in-situ research to an amazing degree. Since 2004, the Columbus Zoo & Aquarium alone has contributed over $4 million in support to research conducted around the world (CZA, 2011). WAZA members collectively contribute US $350 million annually to wildlife conservation, making zoos a major contributor to modern conservation initiatives (WAZA, 2009).

3.3.3 Knowledge Production/Cooperation

In order to establish and maintain the best possible care for captive animals, it is imperative that zoos cooperate and share knowledge, and they do. Cooperation and sharing are possible given the sporadic locations of zoos, meaning there is no direct competition between zoos for market share; instead, just the welfare of the animals and the advancement of the zoological society as a whole are considered (Schmidt, 2010).

For example, when a park observes a new behavior, negative or positive, based on some type of introduced enrichment, that information is shared among the entire global zoological community to improve the care of that species in other parks. Knowledge sharing is made possible by many forms of inter-society communication avenues such as journals, newsletters, and conferences.

3.4 The New Zoo: Open-Range Zoological Parks (ORZPs)

During the 1970‟s ecology was becoming a major public issue, such as the previously discussed enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and, as a result, zoological parks made a “major paradigm shift from being natural history education centers to making conservation their central role” (Schmidt, 2009). Although animal welfare advocacy groups may have played a role in public awareness, the core for this shift has come from within the organizations (Blumer, 2010). This shift has resulted in the most recent phase of zoo evolution, The New Zoo of the twenty-first century (Figure 1): the

Open-Range Zoological Park (ORZP). As Tribe and Booth (2003) explain, there is a gap between captive collections and free-ranging wildlife; this gap, I would suggest, has been bridged with the introduction of ORZPs.

Interestingly, unlike other stages of zoo evolution, The New Zoo exists simultaneously with the previous stage, the modern zoo. This has resulted in much overlap in mission and actions, but also several distinctions. A major advantage of

ORZPs is that, given the time period when they began to appear, no old, out-of-date holdings or enclosures exist; therefore, none are in use in these new parks. This suggests that each species has state-of-the-art housing, constructed specifically to accommodate new management practices.

3.4.1 New Animal Management Philosophy

A major difference between ORZPs and modern zoos is the number of species held and the amount of space available for each species (see Table 1 for a comparison of the three

ORZPs in my case study and their nearby modern zoo counterpart). In general, modern zoos have a large, diverse number of species with fewer specimens of each, while ORZPs have a much smaller diversity of species with, in most cases, a larger number of specimens for each species. Although fewer animals are located in ORZPs, much more land is available, allowing room for the animals to roam semi-freely. (The animals are semi-free ranging and not free-ranging due to, at a minimum, the presence of outer fencing to protect the public from an animal escape.) This additional space simultaneously provides for two very important goals. First, it allows the animals more control over their interactions with the visitor, benefiting the welfare of the animals by reducing stress; and second, it is more entertaining and educational for the visitor to see these animals behave more naturally in open spaces (Fernandez et al., 2009). This unique vistor experience offers an education niche not possible in modern zoos.

Table 1 A comparison of Modern Zoos and ORZPs in the U.S., Ireland and New Zealand

3.4.2 Ex-situ Populations

A key aspect of a greater numbers of a given species living and behaving in a more natural environment is the opportunity for ex-situ (within the zoological park) research and conservation. As previously discussed in Section 1.2.2, Governmental Policies, many directives and standards have been set, both at national and international scales, for advancements in ex-situ conservation research. The World Zoo Conservation Strategy

(WZCS, 1993) encourages zoos to support both in-situ (in the “wild”) and ex-situ research, including genetic management and captive breeding (Tribe & Booth, 2003). All of these standards, directives, and encouragements are derived from the realization of habitat destruction, alteration, and fragmentation to meet humans‟ needs. As discussed in

Section 2.4, “wild” areas have been reduced to small islands containing relatively small, isolated animal populations (Hutchins et al., 2003); therefore, ORZPs provide, at least to date, the best replica of reduced “wild” environments, allowing researchers to perform ex-situ studies that directly relate to the conservation of wild counterparts. Of course, this is not a completely new concept, today or even in the 1970‟s when ORZPs were beginning. For example, national parks have existed in the U.S. since 1916 with the creation of the National Park Service Organic Act (NPS, 1916), and often they perform conservation research. However, the combination of native and non-native species in

ORZPs‟ collections, available for ex-situ research, sets ORZPs apart. In addition, safari parks exist - offering animals similar settings and semi-roaming freedom. However,

48 safari parks do not have the same impact on conservation as the ORZPs due to a lack of resources to conduct the necessary research and educational experiences. Instead, their contribution is the same as a modern zoo; accreditation and assisting with the movement of animals among zoo populations (Schmidt, 2010).

3.4.3 Public Education

As with modern zoos, public education is a key function of ORZPs. However, unlike modern zoos, ORZPs offer a unique opportunity for the public to witness more natural animal behaviors due to the new animal management philosophies discussed above.

Another contrast is that ORZPs “manage” their visitors differently. For instance, ORZPs offer either guided tours or specified routes directing their visitors through the park. This allows for a “captive” audience, giving park representatives the opportunity to not only describe the conservation issues of a particular species, but also present the larger conservation picture; one of the species‟ entire ecosystem and effects of climate change.

Guided tours present a chance to communicate human behavioral changes that are necessary to lessen human effects on the earth, suggesting a “take-home” message for each visitor.

In addition, ORZPs offer a tremendous living “laboratory” for collaboration with university-based research directed toward improvement of husbandry techniques and technological advances, such as artificial insemination (AI) in exotic species. Although it may seem similar to the research opportunities offered by modern zoos, the difference

49 lies in the natural behaviors and settings found in ORZPs. In the same vein, ORZPs offer education programs for secondary and sometimes even primary students through camps and workshops, and in some cases provide classroom credit for completing educational programs.

3.4.4 Communities of Practice

When Lave and Wenger first wrote of Communities of Practice (CoPs), they defined it as

“a system of relationships between people, activities, and the world; developing with time, and in relation to other tangential and overlapping communities of practice” (Amin

& Roberts, 2008, p. 11). Wenger later expounded this definition with the identification of three main characteristics of CoPs: “mutual engagement, sense of joint enterprise, and shared repertoire” (Delemarle & Laredo, 2008, p. 182). Lave also included that CoPs are a “distinctive kind of learning environment” (Amin & Roberts, 2008, p. 13).

ORZPs are unique in the zoological park world because they generate both codifiable and tacit knowledge that is shared globally for the betterment of wildlife conservation. It is true, as previously discussed, that modern zoos also create knowledge and work in cooperation, but that knowledge is generally specific to the zoological community and cannot necessarily be useful in in-situ conservation. By contrast, knowledge generated in ORZPs, due to their distinctive animal management philosophies, is applicable in in-situ populations as well as ex-situ. The manner in which

ORZPs‟ knowledge is generated and distributed makes them an example par excellence of Wenger and Lave‟s definition of CoPs; that is, the parks, although spread sparsely across the globe, share a sense of joint enterprise and mutual engagement in wildlife conservation efforts, as well as the shared repertoire of animal husbandry, animal behavior, and animal reproduction advancements. These factors make ORZPs a distinctive kind of learning environment.

3.5 Constructing a New Wilderness

One question came to mind during the course of this research. If the wilderness that we know is actually socially constructed, that is if Adams, Cronon, Denevan, McKibben,

Morton, and Neumann are correct, then is it possible to construct a new wilderness? And if so, is it possible to make this new wilderness in such a way to appease the political, social, and economic issues facing endangered species today? I think the answer is yes and as responsible agents in this complex system, not only should the answer be yes, but it must be a resounding yes. So, how can this be accomplished? The new wilderness must provide space for endangered species to behave naturally, including normal social interaction. It would need to offer adequate habitat conditions, such as access to food, water, and shelter to assure the best animal welfare possible. This new wilderness must be free of human-human and human-animal conflict; therefore, it cannot be created by human displacement. Finally, it cannot be void of human involvement, for without

51 political, social, and especially economic support, it would simply fail. I argue that

ORZPs are the new wilderness.

This idea prompts many issues. First, whether this creation is necessary? The sad reality is yes. Each day the earth is losing more and more endangered species, so the time for action is now, before it is too late. But, land availability and the means to obtain it become an issue. The solution is a mix of philanthropy, government interaction, and ethical corporate behavior to reclaim land no longer in use. Also, could the new wilderness ever be “good” enough? That is to say, if it is constructed by humans for animals, is it possible to know exactly what is needed? This can only be answered yes with the cooperation and involvement of a pool of international experts. This may seem very anthropocentric, but it can already be argued that “there is very little that is left that isn‟t managed to some extent” (Blumer, 2010; Ellis & Ramankutty, 2008). Lastly, there is the question of which animal species could be kept in this new wilderness? Regardless of this answer, animals that are introduced must be obtained in cooperation with the native nation as an alternative to extinction and not as an attempt to steal native treasures from the South for the North, as a new form of colonialism. As already discussed, people of the industrialized world have had, and continue to have, a major impact on the earth; therefore, we must also be responsible for it. The major objective of this research is to demonstrate that ORZPs offer the venue to undertake this responsibility. In addition, this research has identified five major pieces of wildlife conservation, and offers ORZPs as the solution to this part of the conservation puzzle.

Chapter 4: Case Study

As demonstrated by this paper, wildlife conservation is a complex puzzle, each piece affecting and dependent on the other. However, what appears to be missing is a nexus where these pieces come together and are synthesized. I argue that open-range zoological parks (ORZPs), as I have defined in Chapter 3, are that nexus (Figure 3).

Wildlife Conservation

Social Constructing Concerns a New Wilderness New Public The Awareness New Zoo

Zoo Where is the Evolution Wild?

Figure 3 Open-Range Zoological Park as The Nexus

To support my argument, I have included a case study of three geographically dispersed open-range wildlife parks. The three parks are the Wilds, located in

Cumberland, Ohio, USA, Fota Wildlife Park, located in Co. Cork, Republic of Ireland, and Orana Wildlife Park, located in Christchurch, New Zealand. These parks were selected, first, because I had the opportunity to visit each park personally; second, because they are all located in English speaking nations and there would be no language barrier; and third, because each offered a unique perspective of ORZPs. A more descriptive explanation of the parks is offered below (parks are listed in the order of my visits), as well as the methods and findings of my study.

4.1 Methods

My initial research began with visiting the websites of the three parks in my case study.

From the sites, I was able to collect background knowledge regarding the history, mission, conservation projects, events, press releases, news coverage, etc. In addition, I visited the websites of the “brethren” zoos: the Columbus Zoo & Aquarium (CZA),

Dublin Zoo, and Auckland Zoo. This allowed me a comparison not only among the three

ORZPs, but also what distinguishes them from traditional zoos.

Next, I arranged personal visits to each park, including the corresponding traditional zoos. During my visits I participated in tours, encounters, keeper talks, as well as simply walking (or riding) the park. This provided me the visitor perspective needed in

54 order to better “test” the proclamations of conservation messages presented by each park for the public.

In addition to visiting the parks as a representative of the general public, I arranged private interviews with key personnel at each of the ORZPs. The personnel selected were based on their involvement in the park, including Directors, Education

Managers, Public Relations, and Animal Management Managers. In the case of the

Wilds, I included Dale Schmidt, Executive Director of CZA due to the partnership of the

Columbus Zoo and the Wilds, and Jack Hanna, due to his wildlife conservation expertise and his former position on Board of Directors for the Wilds. I used a set of twenty-five open-ended questions for each interview (Appendix A). This provided structure and the opportunity for comparison, and also allowing the conversation to flow according to the specifics of each park. Each interview was recorded (with the exception of my interview with Dan Beetem, which I transcribed during the interview) to assure accuracy of the information. The research was determined to be exempt from human subjects,

Institutional Research Board Review by The Ohio State University Office of Responsible

Research Practice, 2009E0863.

In addition to these sources of information, I also requested financial reports from each park in order to obtain a better feel for the types of funding available, the proportion of their budget dedicated to different areas of conservation, and the overall financial health of the park. Unfortunately, thus far, only Fota Wildlife Park has granted me access.

4.2 the Wilds (USA)

The Wilds is an amazing place. As Jack Hanna described it “there‟s nowhere like it anywhere on the earth” (Hanna, 2010). It was originally conceived as a private-public partnership involving the Ohio Departments of Natural Resources and Development, the

Ohio zoological parks, and the private sector. In 1984 it incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non- profit corporation under the name The International Center for the Preservation of Wild

Animals, Inc. (ICPWA), and in 1986 it received a gift of 9,154 acres of land from the

Central Ohio Coal Company, a subsidiary of American Electric Power Company. In 1987 and again in 1992, the Ohio General Assembly appropriated $400,000 in capital funding, matched by private funds, for reclamation of the former coal mining land and for the development of a visitor center, animal shelters, and perimeter fencing. In 1992, the first animals arrived at the park: North American red wolves, African Hartmann‟s mountain zebra, scimitar-horned oryx, Cuvier‟s gazelle, and Asian Przewalski‟s horses (Wilds,

2011a). Since this time, the park has continued to reclaim and develop the land and add species. As of 2010, the Wilds cares for 25 different species, totaling over 300 animals, which roam over 1,200 acres, thus far developed.

In 2005, the Wilds joined the other four ORZPs found in the U.S. (White Oak

Conservation Center in Florida, Fossil Rim Wildlife Center in Texas, San Diego Wild

Animal Park in California, and Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Virginia) to form a consortium named Conservation Centers for Species Survival (C2S2).

(Interestingly, the four parks combined include only 7,100 developed acres, 2000 acres less than the total land area available at the Wilds alone.) The C2S2 works cooperatively to develop grant funding opportunities to support their joint research (Beetem, 2010). The park collaboration could not have come at a better time because as of 2009, all public funding for the Wilds ceased and four of the five original Ohio zoos have stopped their financial support. In 2010, the Columbus Zoo & Aquarium, the remaining zoo supporter, took the Wilds under its umbrella in full partner support of the park. One major obstacle that prevented the park from being self-sustaining was the issue of distance from a major urban center, hindering access and reducing the number of daily visitors. In addition, the

Wilds only offers guided tours that have limited seat capacity, which is beneficial in public education efforts, but not for revenue generation. The park has recently added a suite of higher-end lodging to address the issues of distance and financial support, giving constituents a chance to connect in deeper ways with the park than the normal three-hour visit. Philanthropic dollars, in general, are given to home communities or somewhere that the philanthropist feels a connection with. That is why the problem of distance and short, limited visits is an issue. By offering a way to become personally connected to the park, the hope is to entice more philanthropic dollars (Blumer, 2010) in support of the park‟s mission.

However, the Wilds is still a great day trip destination and its visitor numbers continue to rise. In 2009, more than 75,000 individuals visited the Wilds (Beetem, 2010) generating revenue, making up 65% of the operating budget (Blumer, 2010). As

57 mentioned, the only way to see the park is by guided tour, either in an open-air bus or safari transports (Picture 2). As Executive Director Dr. Evan Blumer describes, this type of visitor encounter is important for two reasons: 1) it gives the public the chance to immerse in nature, be in the animals‟ place – “be in the cage so to speak;” and 2) it affords staff members a unique opportunity to inform the public of the conservation work happening at the park, which is more than just animals and plants, but really trying to teach people an ecosystem approach to conservation. (Blumer, 2010).

Picture 2 Safari Tour at the Wilds

The mission of the Wilds is “To advance conservation through science, education and personal experience” (Wilds, 2011b). The actual founding principle of the Wilds was to promote a scientific approach to conservation and not just be an exhibition center. The

Wilds takes a programmatic approach to selecting the animals cared for by the park, including more than just charismatic species, although, sometimes the species they choose fit both criteria. For example, the park has had tremendous success with its breeding program involving Southern White Rhinos. The Wilds is the only park on record in North America to have a fourth generation calf born in a managed herd (IRF,

2009) (Picture 3). This success demonstrates the natural behaviors exhibited by the

Picture 3 Fourth Generation Southern White Rhino at the Wilds 59 herd. Director of Animal Management, Dan Beetem offers another success story, the herd of Sichuan Takin (Picture 4). He is most proud of this project because it covered the full continuum of research: first, starting as a traditional zoo breeding program; second, to work in a conservation center, designing field collars and “working out the bugs” before entering the field, as well as creating a video ethogram to be shared with Chinese scientists; third, to assisting with in-situ field preparation; to fourth and finally, Chinese scientists returning to the Wilds to observe its herd due to their natural behaviors and proper social structure (Beetem, 2010).

Picture 4 Herd of Sichuan Takin at the Wilds

All work performed at the Wilds falls into six programmatic areas: 1) conservation medicine; 2) animal management, husbandry, and health; 3) restoration ecology; 4) conservation science training; 5) conservation education; and 6) field conservation. Each of these areas produces published scientific work that is accessible for the development of the real-world educational content (Wilds, 2011). This work becomes imperative with the continued reduction and fragmentation of habitats, resulting in smaller populations and loss of diversity. Since 1998, the Wilds has partnered with university programs, both undergraduate and graduate level, and both within and outside of Ohio. The programs include “in-class” lectures, on site demonstrations and laboratories, and presentations using “distance learning” technology. Additionally, collaborative research takes place, advancing both education and conservation.

Professional training is also essential, especially in animal management and husbandry, due to the unique nature of caring for large, interspersed herds of largely different species in the same open space (Picture 5).

The enormous space available at the Wilds makes it quite unique among ORZPs.

According to Dr. Blumer, the Wilds is “a little bit like a zoo, a little bit like a state/national park, a little bit like a biological field station, and a little bit like an ecotourism destination, all put together like never before. Here we do work, and that work becomes content, and the content, presented in the right way makes an incredible visitor experience” (Blumer, 2010).

Picture 5 Black Rhino and Persian Onagers at the Wilds

4.3 Fota Wildlife Park (Republic of Ireland)

Fota Wildlife Park, located in Carrigtwohill, County Cork, Ireland, was founded in 1983 as a joint project between the Zoological Society of Ireland and University College Cork, which provided the land previously purchased from the Smith-Barry family estate. Fota

Wildlife Park Ltd. is registered as a charitable company limited by guarantee. As such, its visitor entrance fees cover operating costs and the annual surplus is utilized for improvements. The park receives over 370,000 visitors a year; however, due to a semi-

62 rural location and close proximity to the coast, the local population base is small and during the winter months there is limited passing. Therefore, it is difficult to build visitor numbers (Gibson, 2009; McSweeney, 2010). All capital development projects must be accomplished through fundraising activities because the park receives no government funding. Currently, the park utilizes 70 acres, but has an additional 27 acres available for development (Fota, 2009). An amazing demonstration of Fota‟s ability to fundraise is a recent €5 million development project that took place during recessionary times

(McSweeney, 2010).

The current design of the park leads visitors either by tram or on designated walking trails (Figure 4). Walking trails enable visitors to literally come face-to-

Figure 4 Fota Wildlife Park Map 63 face with different animals that truly run free within the park, such as ring-tailed lemurs, squirrel monkeys, kangaroos, and capybara (Pictures 6 & 7), as well as native and non- native water fowl. Exploring the park by tram enables personnel to tell the story not only of the plight of the species, but also the condition of their native habitat. By conveying the entire conservation message, visitors can “go home with a greater understanding of the threats to the natural world and [we] encourage them to make life decisions which benefit this” (Gibson, 2009).

Picture 6 Ring-tailed Lemur Encounter at Fota Wildlife Park

Picture 7 Capybara Encounter at Fota Wildlife Park

Fota participates in many European Endangered Species Programs (EEPs) and currently is holder of the international studbook for the African cheetah (McSweeney,

2010). In addition, Fota has been able to financially support in-situ projects in

Madagascar, amounting to €30,000 per annum, “which is a large contribution given the scale of our project” (Gibson, 2009).

In addition to breeding programs and in-situ support, Fota has a tremendous record in education. The current primary to third level standard education program attracts in excess of 13,000 students annually (McSweeney, 2010). Fota also collaborates with University College Cork (UCC) to conduct undergraduate and graduate level

65 research. UCC Professor John O‟Halloran, Head of the School of Biological, Earth and

Environmental Sciences (BEES), describes Fota as offering “incredible opportunities for research” (Fota, 2009). This research is used to advance Fota‟s conservation mission:

Conservation is caring for life on Earth. It consists not only of the different species of plants, animals and other organisms, but also of the genetic variety within species and the variety of ecosystems. Biodiversity is the term given to describe the variety of all life. It is a sad fact that man and his activities have been the greatest threat to biodiversity. The variety of species is being reduced to uniform ecosystems as most of the unique species have been removed. Conservation is the activity that aims to protect biodiversity while at the same time allowing man to benefit from it (Fota, 2009).

This mission is professed throughout every Fota activity - from research, to education programs, to visitor interaction. As Lynda McSweeney, Director of Education, states,

“biodiversity conservation is essential in securing the long-term future of the planet and we can each play a role in ensuring its survival” (2010).

4.4 Orana Wildlife Park (New Zealand)

The South Island Zoological Society was formed in New Zealand in 1970, in response to a request by local Christchurch citizens for a new zoological park to be built in their area, possibly on a recently completed, reclaimed land-fill dump site. Although the original location was found unsuitable, the idea didn‟t die and as fundraising increased, the purchase was made of a dry stony riverbed area, recently cleared due to logging. It was agreed that this new park would be unique in New Zealand, offering an open-range

66 setting for its animals. Through continued fundraising and many volunteer hours, Orana3

Wildlife Park opened in 1976 with lions, tigers, donkeys, camels, water buffalo, and

Shetland ponies (Orana, 2010). Today the park encompasses approximately 500 acres total with approximately 200 of those acres actively used for animal habitat and operations. The park cares for over 400 animals representing 70 different species

(Hawke, 2010). Orana Park is part of Orana Wildlife Trust, a registered charitable trust.

As such, Orana Park continues to count on philanthropic dollars for capital campaigns, as well as volunteer work for design and development. As of 2006, less than NZ$5 million has been spent constructing Orana Wildlife Park, which is significantly less than many zoos spend on a single exhibit for one species (Orana, 2010). Operating costs are maintained by visitor entry fees, with more than 160,000 visitors each year (Hawke,

2010). Given this reality, it is imperative that Orana offer a unique visitor experience each time in order to maintain attendance. This is kept in mind when designing each new animal space. Although conservation underpins everything the park does, Orana focuses on visitor experience to teach the conservation message and it strives for point of difference (Hawke, 2010).

One of the most unique experiences a visitor can have is the lion encounter. To the park‟s knowledge, Orana is the only park in the world to offer this experience. I experienced it myself, and I can testify it is thrilling. The concept is that the keepers truly have a “captive audience” as visitors enter a cage on the back of a truck. The truck pulls

3 Orana – meaning place of refuge in Maori, the language of the indigenous people of New Zealand. 67 into the lion habitat, where the keeper then hand-feeds the lions through the cage, causing lions to be everywhere, on the sides and on top of you (Picture 8).

Picture 8 Lion Encounter at Orana Wildlife Park

Throughout the encounter, the keeper explains the plight of the lion and their native habitat and answers visitor questions. This is only one of seven special encounters offered by the park.

Additionally, Orana assures the distribution of its conservation message by managing visitor flow through the park. Visitors have the option of enjoying a guided tour on a safari shuttle, or walking the park. In order to ensure each visitor, regardless of

68 choice of transport, receives a consistent conservation message, the park was designed in a „figure 8‟ (Figure 5) which leads the flow of visitors in a particular path. Then,

Figure 5 Orana Wildlife Park Map

animal feeding schedules are timed out along this path (Pictures 9 & 10), giving staff the knowledge of where visitors will likely be at certain times, allowing them to convey

Orana‟s conservation message to the audience during the animal feeding process.

Orana also provides public education through a formal contract with the Ministry of Education entitled the “Learning Experiences Outside the Classroom” project. This contract covers both primary and secondary students with topics ranging from the technology involved in building animal enclosures to evolutionary study on primates.

Since its inception, Orana has delivered education to over 50,000 school children

(Johnson, 2010). In addition to formal education programs, Orana participates in

69 undergraduate curriculum and research with local universities. These projects are typically focused on student development, relating to outside the classroom education for primary and secondary students. A minority of projects include animal behavior and reproduction research.

Picture 9 Giraffe Feeding at Orana Wildlife Park

At this time, Orana does not participate in any post-graduate research, but is open to the opportunity if the project is fitting (Hawke, 2010). Much of Orana‟s research,

Picture 10 Cheetah Keeper Talk at Orana Wildlife Park

especially in breeding and re-introduction projects, involves native species, which for

New Zealand means non-mammalian. Orana actively supports, and has had success with, ex-situ breeding as part of WAZA Conservation Breeding Programs. Orana also focuses on in-situ support of the Sumatran tiger, funded through visitor contributions to a collection box located in front of their habitat, whereby all money collected is sent to the

21st Century Tiger program.

As demonstrated above, Orana‟s niche in wildlife conservation gravitates toward public education. Two important messages it promotes are “responsible purchasing”

(Johnson, 2010), such as package labeling for palm oil, and “conservation is everyone‟s responsibility” (Hawke, 2010). 71

4.5 Analysis

Analyzing the data collected is difficult due to the inherent, non-quantifiable nature; however, Table 2 offers some quick comparative information. In addition, more detailed data, arranged as commonalities and particularities, are discussed in the following two sections.

4.5.1 Commonalities

As indicated in Table 2 and described previously, all three parks were established by philanthropic efforts involving land (or dollars to purchase the land) donation and all were established as some form of non-profit entity. In addition, all three of the parks in my study were established in the last quarter of the twentieth century. This fact is important for two main reasons: 1) The parks have, at their core, the environmental movement which began shortly before their establishment; and 2) as such, the goal of each park was to differentiate itself from traditional zoos and offer a new means of wildlife conservation.

Differentiation was realized in several ways. First, all ORZPs practice a new animal management philosophy, one that allows for fewer species exhibited, but more animals of the same species kept together, producing more natural behaviors and social structures. Although the limitation of diverse species may seem disappointing from a

Table 2 ORZP Comparison Table

73 visitor‟s perspective, it offers better welfare for the animal, demonstrating that this comes before visitor satisfaction. The open-range spaces, which are required to manage large populations, emerged from this new management philosophy. Second, this new management philosophy acted as a catalyst for knowledge production not possible in the confines of a traditional zoo. The knowledge gained from observation of natural social structure, social interactions both with other species and humans, and reproductive behavior and processes can be directly applied to the animals‟ wild brethren. This advancement in ex-situ conservation has become critical for the advancement of in-situ wildlife conservation.

Additionally, all three parks have, at their core, the dedication to providing the public with the “bigger” conservation message. This has been accomplished by establishing a new management philosophy for visitors to ensure the opportunity to address the public and convey not only the plight of the animals and their habitats, but also a message of public responsibility and necessary actions.

Although I have not been privy to financial reports to analyze myself, another common theme during my interviews was funding sustainability, especially given the downward global economic climate of 2008 to 2010. Economic conditions become not only an issue for visitor attendance but also for philanthropic support.

4.5.2 Particularities

An obvious particularity of the Wilds is the extensive amount of land available. There is no question that it eclipses the other two parks, but it should, based on the landmass of the United States. Therefore, in an attempt to make a more “apples to apples” comparison, I calculated the ratio of park acreage per country land mass. This resulted in a more interesting comparison (Table 2). Based on this calculation, the Wilds‟ land mass represents only 3.8 acres per million acres of U.S. land mass; whereas Fota represents 5.6 acres per million acres of Ireland‟s land mass; and Orana represents 7.6 acres per million acres of New Zealand‟s land mass. Of course, this doesn‟t change the fact that the actual larger space of the Wilds affords it the opportunity to use the land in multiple ways (as previously mentioned in Section 4.2), which is not possible for Fota or Orana.

Another basic difference lies in the number of visitors each park welcomes annually. Again, in order to offer a better comparison, I calculated the number of visitors as a percentage of the total country population. Although when based on actual numbers

(Table 2) the Wilds and Orana have similar attendance, when viewed as a percentage of population, there is a 3.66% difference between parks. In both actual numbers and percentage, Fota surpasses the other two parks. One important factor that could account for this is the number of zoological parks available to visitors within a specific country.

While I would not say that zoos are in competition per se, potential visitors will make choices based on availability, convenience of location, variety of experiences, etc.;

75 therefore, a larger number of parks to choose from lessens the possibility of a visit specifically to an ORZP park.

The major particularity of the three parks is their overall approach to conservation. First, the Wilds approaches conservation from a strictly scientific perspective. As previously described, it performs project-based work as its focus and then offers the public the opportunity to view the research in action. Fota addresses conservation very differently: although it too has research projects as a focus, the major method is based on human-animal interactions that take place throughout the park.

Orana‟s style is to focus more on public education, promoted through the unique animal encounters offered daily throughout the park. That is not to say that the other two parks do not offer encounters; actually they do, but Orana has made this a cornerstone to involve and educate the public.

Chapter 5: Conclusions, Discussion and Future Research Agenda

5.1 Conclusions

Environmental issues, including endangered species, were not created locally, but globally; therefore, responsibility must also be global and not just local (Speth, 2003).

However, this creates a very complex system, involving political, economic, and social issues. The key is to realize that there is no “magic bullet,” no panacea that will fix everything. Instead, like most complicated problems, one must dissect it into manageable pieces, while remembering that each piece connects back to the bigger picture. Using this methodology is why I argue that “The New Zoo,” open-range wildlife parks, are an integral piece in the wildlife conservation puzzle - the nexus of the five major issues surrounding wildlife conservation: 1) the complexity of the term conservation itself; 2) the new public awareness and social concerns; 3) the “wild” as a socially constructed space; 4) the importance of zoological park evolution; and 5) the necessity to construct a new wilderness. The realization of this argument will be demonstrated by the successes of the parks within my case study, discussed in the next section.

5.1.1 Successes

First, the three parks in my study all offer both current wildlife conservation discourses.

In accordance with the Global Environmental Management (GEM) discourse, indeed

ORZPs are protected areas managing wildlife populations, as well as the recognition that wildlife conservation is a global issue in need of global responsibility. However, ORZPs also offer the opportunity to explore factors of the populist discourse, especially the avoidance of taking additional land from indigenous peoples in the name of conservation, by offering a replacement environment for wildlife.

Second, at the core of each ORZP lie animal welfare concerns and the environmental movement. This means that from their conception, ORZPs were meant to be different. New animal management philosophies were implemented, providing more space for semi-free roaming, producing natural behaviors, natural social structures, and reproduction.

Third, it is impossible to separate humans from nature, and it always has been.

The idea of pristine places, where animals roam freely absent of humans is nothing but a myth. ORZPs recognize this by placing humans and animals in direct interaction, sharing the same space. This happens slightly differently at each of the parks in my study, but the idea is the same: we are all connected and what each of us does, regardless whether human or non-human, directly affects the other.

Fourth, the history of zoological park evolution is an important factor is human- animal interactions and wildlife conservation. Although this history is not always pleasant to realize, it has caused a growth in awareness among the public, which is essential for continued actions.

Fifth, ORZPs realize that it is a necessity to construct a new wilderness. This wilderness, similar to national parks, creates a space for animals to live and behave naturally. Unlike national parks, these animals are not necessarily native; therefore, as habitat continues to decline in some parts of the world, ORZPs can provide a comparable substitute. This also provides a space to develop a better understanding of these animals and their natural behaviors, which in turn, advances wildlife conservation.

5.1.2 Challenges

Needless to say, every solution has its challenges and ORZPs are no exception. A major challenge is the limitation of available space. Large parcels of land generously donated come few and far between. Additionally, land of this size is typically only considered for donation if it holds no other economic value. Thus, even if land is received, improvements are necessary to make the land suitable for habitat, which of course is a major undertaking and quite expensive. So funding also becomes an immediate challenge. As previously mentioned, even after the park is open, funding continues to be an area of concern for continual capital developments, as well as operating budget.

Another issue is that limited space means limited species that can call ORZPs home.

Determining which species can benefit most is an extremely difficult decision, because the unfortunate reality is that not all species can be saved.

This leads to another issue: that is a species approach to ex-situ conservation.

Although tremendous effort is made to have an ecosystem approach, especially at the

Wilds, there is no way to completely duplicate the current in-situ ecosystem so a true substitution can never be realized. Of course, substitution is not the current aim of the parks, but as current in-situ habitats are destroyed, ORZPs may become the only haven for particular animals.

The last major challenge is maintaining open dialogue and mutual respect with local in-situ governments, park rangers, and most importantly indigenous peoples. The sharing of knowledge must remain a two-way street, with animal well-being at the forefront. This may even include difficult situations like the denial of exportation of a species from its native land, or the destruction of habitat for indigenous peoples‟ survival.

In these cases, ORZPs must take an active role in explaining these issues to their public in order to promote global solidarity in conservation.

5.1.3 Wildlife Conservation in the Future

A major lesson can be derived from this case study regarding the future of wildlife conservation. Dr. Blumer of the Wilds said it best: “the binary captive/wild and in-

80 situ/ex-situ are beginning to blur – things have become gradient – „wild‟ habitats are now protected by armed guards, national parks offer veterinary intervention – maybe conservationists need a new nomenclature, intensive/extensive, where intensive is zoos and captive breeding controls and extensive are moderately monitored national parks”

(Blumer, 2010). ORZPs fit directly in this new nomenclature – they provide intensive actions through veterinary intervention and captive breeding controls; yet, simultaneously offer extensive actions by allowing the animals to socially organize and behave naturally.

5.2 Discussion/Future Research Agenda

William Adams brilliantly describes the role of conservation in the twenty-first century as follows:

Conservation is the term we use to describe the choices we make about the terms of engagement between people and other species. There can be no one conservation strategy. There is no single set of priorities or decisions that will guarantee perfection. Conservation is not like that. Indeed, nature is not like that. There will always be disputes, confusions, mistakes. There will always be diversity in the things humans want to see in nature, and in the space nature makes for humans to exercise those choices. The key point about all this is that the biosphere is not an endlessly elastic envelope. It is not even particularly vast, comprising only one part in ten billion of the earth‟s mass, a thin layer of soil, water and air just a kilometer thick stretched over a half billion square kilometers of the earth‟s surface. The resilience of the ecosystems that make up that layer must be the ultimate concern of humans, whether on ethical or simply self- interested grounds. It is the diversity of life that, somehow, creates that resilience (Adams W. R., 2004, p. 239).

This research strives to address one essential piece of the total wildlife conservation puzzle. Therefore, continued social research, identifying and explaining additional pieces must occur in order to teach the world - yes, I said world - the complicated plight for endangered animals and how, why, and what we can all do as individuals to lessen their troubles. Education is the key to making this happen, not only in natural sciences but in social as well. Only in that area is the complexity truly realized and addressed. I suspect at this point in time, it may seem cliché to use Baba Dioum‟s famous quote, but I can‟t imagine a better way to express it, “In the end, we will conserve only what we love, we will love only what we understand, and we will understand only what we are taught.”

References

Adams, W. M. (2009). Green Development: Environmental and Sustainability in the Third Word (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Adams, W. R. (2004). Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation. London: Earthscan.

Adger, W Neil, Tor A Benjaminsen, Katrina Brown, and Hanne Svarstan (2001). Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Development and Change. 32: 681-715.

Amin, A., and J. Roberts (2008). The Resurgence of Community in Economic Thought and Practice. In A. Amin and J. Roberts (Eds.), Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization. Pp. 11-36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, K. (1995). Culture and nature at the Adelaide Zoo: at the frontiers of „human‟ geography. Transactions Institute of British Geographers. 20: 275-294.

Anderson, K. (1998). Animal Domestication in Geographic Perspective. Society and Animals. 6 (2): 119-135.

ASPCA. (2011). American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals: About Us. Retrieved March 6, 2011, http://www.aspca.org/about-us/about-the-aspca.aspx.

AVMA. (2011). American Veterinary Medical Association: Issues: Animal Welfare. Retrieved March 6, 2011, http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/ default.asp.

AZA [Association of Zoos and Aquariums] (2009a). Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Home: About AZA. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.aza.org/about- aza/.

AZA [Association of Zoos and Aquariums] (2009b). Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Home: Accreditation: How Does Accreditation Work? Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.aza.org/becoming-accredited/.

AZA [Association of Zoos and Aquariums] (2009c). Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Home: Accreditation: What is Accreditation? Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.aza.org/what-is-accreditation/.

AZA [Association of Zoos and Aquariums] (2009d). Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Conservation: Reintroduction Programs. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.aza.org/reintroduction-programs/.

AZA [Association of Zoos and Aquariums] (2009e). Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Conservation: Conservation Initiatives, Commitments, and Partnerships. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.aza.org/conservation-commitments- and-impacts/.

AZA [Association of Zoos and Aquariums] (2009f). Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Home: Animal Care and Management: Animal Programs: Taxon Advisory Groups. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.aza.org/taxon-advisory- groups/.

Balmford, Andrew, Georgina Mace, and N. Leader-Williams (1996). Designing the Ark: Setting Priorities for Captive Breeding. Conservation Biology. 10 (3): 719-727.

Beetem, D. (2010, October 31). Director of Animal Management, the Wilds. (K. George, Interviewer).

Black, S. (Director). (2001). Life and Debt [Motion Picture].

Blumer, E. (2010, September 24). Executive Director, the Wilds. (K. George, Interviewer).

Bowkett, A. (2009). Recent Captive-Breeding Proposals and the Return of the Ark Concept to Global Species Conservation. Conservation Biology. 23 (3): 773-776.

Boyles, S. (2010, June). Animal Science 597 class lecture. Department of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Brockington, Dan and K. Homewood (2001). Degradation Debates and Data Deficiencies: The Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Africa. 7 (3): 449-480.

Brockington, Dan, Jim Igoe and Kai Schmidt-Soltau (2006). Conservation, Human Rights, and Poverty Reduction. Conservation Biology. 20 (1): 250-252.

Brown, G. M. and J. F. Shogren (1998). Economics of the Endangered Species Act. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 12 (3): 3-20. 84

Chapin, M. (2004, November/December). A Challenge to Conservationists. World Watch Magazine. 17 (6): 17-31.

Cheyne, S. (2006). Wildlife Reintroduction: considerations of habitat quality at release site. Retrieved April 7, 2009, from BMC Ecology: http://www.biomedcentral.com/I472-6785/6/5.

Cohn, J. P. (1992). Decisions at the zoo: Ethics, politics, profit, and animal-rights concerns affect the process of balancing conservation goals and the public interests. BioScience. 42 (9): 654-659.

Colchester, M. (1995). Guatemala: the clamour for land and the fate of the forests. In M. Colchester and L. Lohmann (Eds.), Struggle for Land and the Fate of the Forests. Pp. 99-137. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed Books.

Cronon, W. (1995). The trouble with wilderness: Or, getting back to the wrong nature. In W. Cronon (Ed.), Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. Pp. 69-90. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

CZA [Columbus Zoo and Aquarium] (2011). Columbus Zoo and Aquarium: Give to the Zoo: Conservation Overview. Retrieved March 7, 2011, http://contribute.columbuszoo.org/conservation/default.aspx.

Delemarle, A. and P. Laredo (2008). Breakthrough Innovation and the Shaping of New Markets. In A. Amin & R. Joanne (Eds.), Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization. Pp. 178-202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denevan, W. (1992). The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 82 (3): 369-385.

Dublin Zoo (2009). Dublin Zoo: About the Zoo: Zoo History. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.dublinzoo.ie/.

Earnhardt, Joanne, Steven Thompson and Emily Marhevsky (2001). Interactions of Target Populations Size, Population Parameters, and Program Management on Viability of Captive Populations. Zoo Biology. 20: 169-183.

EAZA [European Association of Zoos and Aquaria] (2009a). European Association of Zoos and Aquaria: About EAZA. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.eaza.net/about/Pages/Introduction.aspx.

EAZA [European Association of Zoos and Aquaria] (2009b). European Association of Zoos and Aquaria: EAZA Activities: Conservation. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.eaza.net/activities/Pages/Conservation.aspx.

EBCC [European Bison Conservation Center] (2011). European Bison Conservation Center. Retrieved March 7, 2011, http://www.bison-ebcc.eu/.

EC Council (1996, December 9). On the Protection of Species of Wild Fauna and Flora by Regulating Trade Therein. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from Council Directive 338/97: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/customs/111023_en.htm#.

Ellis, E. and N. Ramankutty (2008). Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology.org. The Ecological Society of America. 6 (8): 439-447.

Enoch, C. (1997). Gone Today, Here Tomorrow: Policies and Issues Surrounding Wildlife Reintroduction. Hastings West Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, University of California, Hastings College of Law. 4 (1): 91-106.

EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] (2009). US Environmental Protection Agency: EPA Home: Wastes: Resource Conservation: Common Wastes & Materials: Organic Materials: Food Waste: Basic Information. Retrieved March 5, 2011, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/organics/food/fd-basic.htm.

Fahrig, L. (2001). How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation. 100: 65-74.

Fernandez, E., M. Tamborski, S. Pickens and W. Timberlake (2009). Animal-visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 120: 1-8.

Fota [Fota Wildlife Park] (2009). Fota Wildlife Park: Visitor Information. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.fotawildlife.ie/visitor-informaiton/.

Frozen Ark Project (2010). Frozen Ark Project: Aims. Retrieved April 7, 2010, http://www.frozenark.org/aims.html.

Gibson, D. (2009, October 11). Executive Director, Fota Wildlife Park. (K. George, Interviewer).

Gurd, D. Brent, Thomas Nudds and Donald Rivard (2001) Conservation of Mammals in Eastern North American Wildlife Reserves: How Small Is Too Small? Conservation Biology. 15 (5): 1355-1363.

Hanna, J. (2010, September 14). Director Emeritus, Columbus Zoo & Aquarium. (K. George, Interviewer).

Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Hawke, N. (2010, December 17). Marketing, Public Relations & Visitor Services Manager, Orana Wildlife Park. (K. George, Interviewer).

Hedrick, P. and S. Kalinowski (2000). Inbreeding Depression in Conservation Biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 31: 139-162.

Hedrick, P. and P. Miller (1992). Conservation Genetics: Techniques and Fundamentals. Ecological Applications. 2 (1): 30-46.

Hess, G. (1996). Linking Extinction to Connectivity and Habitat Destruction in Metapopulation Models. The American Naturalist. 148: 226-236.

Hoage, R. F., Anne Roskell and Jane Mansour (1996). Menageries and Zoos to 1900. In R. F. Hoage and William Deiss (Eds.), New Worlds, New Animals: From Menageries to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century. Pp. 8-18. London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Hoage, R. F. and William Deiss (1996). New Worlds, New Animals: From Menageries to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century. London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Homewood, K., E.F. Lambin, E. Coast, A. Kariuki, I. Kikula, J. Kivelia, M. Said, S. Serneels and M. Thompson (2001). Long-term changes in Serengeti-Mara wildebeest and land cover: Pastoralism, population, or policies? PNAS. 98 (22): 12544-12549.

Homewood, K. and D. Brockington (1999). Biodiversity, conservation and development in Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 8: 301- 313.

Hutchins, M., B. Smith and R. Allard (2003). In defense of zoos and aquariums: the ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 223 (7): 958-966.

Huxel, G. R. and A. Hastings (1999). Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Restoration. Restoration Ecology. 7 (3): 309-315.

IDB [US Census Bureau – International Data Base] (2011). US Census Bureau: Population Clocks: World POPClock: World Population Information: International Data Base (IDB). Retrieved March 5, 2011, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/ worldpopinfo.php.

IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] (2010). International Union for Conservation of Nature: About IUCN. Retrieved February 27, 2010, http://www.iucn.org/about/.

IUCN Red List [International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species] (2010). International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species: About: Summary Statistics. Retrieved March 5, 2011, http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/summary-statistics#How_many_threatened.

IRF [International Rhino Foundation] (2009). International Rhino Foundation: News Room: News Archives. Retrieved March 10, 2011, http://www.rhinos- irf.org/en/art/834/.

Jamieson, D. (1994). Against Zoos. In L. Gruen and D. Jamieson (Eds.), Reflecting on Nature: Readings in Environmental Philosophy. Pp. 291-299. New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, T. (2010). Education Manager, Orana Wildlife Park. (K. George, Interviewer).

Juma, C. (1989). The Gene Hunters: Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seeds. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Laurance, W., S. Laurance and D. Hilbert (2008). Long-Term Dynamics of a Fragmented Rainforest Mammal Assemblage. Conservation Biology. 22 (5): 1154-1164.

Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Linder, D. (1988). Are All Species Created Equal? And Other Questions Shaping Wildlife Law. The Harvard Environmental Law Review. 12 (1): 157-200.

Martin, A. (2008, May 18). One country‟s table scraps, another country‟s meal. The New York Times.

Maunder, M., O. Byers (2005). The IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex Situ Populations for Conservation: reflecting major changes in the application of ex situ conservation. Oryx. 39 (1): 95-98.

McKibben, B. (2006). The End of Nature. New York: Random House.

McSweeney, L. (2010, May 10). Director of Education, Fota Wildlife Park. (K. George, Interviewer).

Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Morton, T. (2007). Ecology Without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Neumann, R. (1997). Primitive Ideas: Protected Area Buffer Zones and the Politics of Land in Africa. Development and Change. 28: 559-582.

Neumann, R. (1998). Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.

NPS [National Park Service, US Department of Interior] (1916). The National Park Service: Who We Are: Legacy and Timelines: National Park Service Organic Act, 1916-. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.nps.gov/legacy/organic- act.htm.

Orana [Orana Wildlife Park] (2010). Orana Wildlife Park: About Orana. Retrieved November 19, 2010, http://www.oranawildlifepark.co.nz/about.htm.

Patterson, M., J. Montag and D. Williams (2003). The urbanization of wildlife management: Social science, conflict, and decision making. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 1: 171-183.

PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] (2011). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: About Peta: Our Views: Why Animal Rights? Retrieved March 6, 2011, http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/why-animal-rights.aspx.

Rabb, G. (1994). The Changing Roles of Zoological Parks in Conserving Biological Diversity. American Zoological Journal. 34: 159-164.

Rands, M., W. Adams, L. Bennun, S. Butchart, A. Clements, D. Coomes, A. Entwistle, I. Hodge, V. Kapos, J. Scharlemann, W. Sutherland and B. Vira (2010). Biodiversity Conservation: Challenges Beyond 2010. Science. 329: 1298-1303.

Rees, P. (2005). Will the EC Zoos Directive Increase the Conservation Value of Zoo Research? Oryx. 39 (2): 128-131.

Reichenbach, H. (1996). A Tale of Two Zoos: The Hamburg Zoological Garden and Carl Hagenbeck‟s Tierpark. In R. Hoage and W. Deiss (Eds.), New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century. Pp. 51- 62. London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Robbins, P. (2004). Political Ecology: Critical Introductions to Geography. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

RSPCA [Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals] (2011). Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals: RSPCA in Action: About Us: Our Heritage. Retrieved March 6, 2011, http://www.rspca.org.uk/in- action/aboutus/heritage.

Russello, M. and G. Amato (2007). On the horns of a dilemma: molecular approaches refine ex situ conservation in crisis. Molecular Ecology. 16: 2405-2406.

San Diego Zoo (2010). San Diego Zoo: Animals & Plants: Animal Bytes: Birds: California Condor. Retrieved April 7, 2010, http://www.sandiegozoo.org/ animalbytes/t-condor.html.

Sanderson, E., M. Jaiteh, M. Levy, K. Redford, A. Wannebo, G. Woolmer (2002). The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild. BioScience. 52 (10): 891-903.

Schipper, J., J. Chanson, F. Chiozza, N. Cox, M. Hoffmann, V. Katariya, J. Lamoreux, A. Rodrigues, S. Stuart, H. Temple, J. Baillie, L. Boitani, T. Jacher, Jr., R. Mittermeier, A. Smith, D. Absolon, J. Aguiar, G. Amori, N. Bakkour, R. Baldi, R. Berridge, J. Bielby, P. Black, J. Blanc, T. Brooks, J. Burton, T. Butynski, G. Catullo, R. Chapman, Z. Cokeliss, B. Collen, J. Conroy, J. Cooke, G. da Fonseca, A. Derocher, H. Dublin, J. Duckworth, L. Emmons, R. Emslie, M. Festa- Bianchet, M. Foster, S. Foster, D. Garshelis, C. Gates, M. Gimenez-Dixon, S. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez-Maya, T. Good, G. Hammerson, P. Hammond, D. Happold, M. Happold, J. Hare, R. Harris, C. Hawkins, M. Haywood, L. Heaney, S. Hedges, K. Helgen, C. Hilton-Taylor, S. Hussain, N. Ishii, T. Jefferson, R. Jenkins, C. Johnston, M. Keith, J. Kingdon, D. Knox, K. Kovacs, P. Langhammer, K. Leus, R. Lewison, G. Lichtenstein, L. Lowry, Z. Macavoy, G. Mace, D. Mallon, M. Masi, M. McKnight, R. Medellin, P. Medici, G. Mills, P. Moehlman, S. Molur, A. Mora, K. Nowell, J. Oates, W. Olech, W. Oliver, M. Oprea, B. Patterson, W. Perrin, B. Polidoro, C. Pollock, A. Powel, Y. Protas, P. Racey, J. Ragle, P. Ramani, G. Rathbun, R. Reeves, S. Reilly, J. Reynolds III, C. Rondinini, R. Rosell-Ambal, M. Rulli, A. Rylands, S. Savini, C. Schank, W. Sechrest, C. Self-Sullivan, A. Shoemaker, C. Sillero-Zubiri, N. De Silva, D. Smith, C. Srinivasulu, P. Stephenson, N. van Strien, B. Talukdar, B. Taylor, R. 90

Timmins, D. Tirira, M. Tognelli, K. Tsytsulina, L. Veiga, J. Ve, E. Williamson, S. Wyatt, Y. Xie and B. Young (2008). The status of the world‟s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science. 322: 225-230.

Schmidt, D. (2009, November 4). Why Zoos Matter & Columbus Zoo: The integration of family entertainment and conservation education. Animal Science 494 class, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Schmidt, D. (2010, November 5). Executive Director, Columbus Zoo & Aquarium. (K. George, Interviewer).

Shogren, J., J. Tschirhart, T. Anderson, A. Whritenour Ando, S. Beissinger, D. Brookshire, G. Brown, Jr., D. Coursey, R. Innes, S. Meyer and S. Polasky (1999). Why Economics Matters for Endangered Species Protection. Conservation Biology. 13 (6): 1257-1261.

Sierra Club (2011). Sierra Club: Welcome. Retrieved February 7, 2011, http://www.sierraclub.org/welcome.

Smithsonian [Smithsonian National Zoological Park] (2010). Smithsonian National Zoological Park: Meet Our Animals: North America: Conservation & Science: Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret. Retrieved April 7, 2010, http://www.nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/NorthAmerica/Conservation/blackfootedf errets.

Snyder, N., S. Derrickson, S. Beissinger, J. Wiley, T. Smith, W. Toone, B. Miller (1996). Limitations of Captive Breeding in Endangered Species Recovery. Conservation Biology. 10: 338-348.

Speth, J. (2003). Two perspectives on globalization and the environment. In J. Speth (Ed.), Worlds Apart: Globalization and the Environment. Pp. 1-18. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

The Council of the European Union (1999). Council Directive 1999/22/EC relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos. Brussels.

TNC [The Nature Conservancy] (2011). The Nature Conservancy: About Us. Retrieved February 7, 2011, http://www.nature.org/aboutus/.

Toledo Zoo (2010). Toledo Zoo: Get Involved: Conservation Projects: Butterfly Conservation. Retrieved April 7, 2010, http://www.toldozoo.org/conservation/butterfly.html.

Treves, A., R. Jurewicz, L. Naughton-Treves and D. Wilcove (2009). The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodiversity Conservation. 18: 4003-4021.

Tribe, A. and R. Booth (2003). Assessing the Role of Zoos in Wildlife Conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 8: 65-74.

UN CBD [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity] (1992). The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity: The Convention: Text: Article 9. Ex-situ Conservation. Retrieved February 7, 2010, http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-09.

UNFPA [United Nations Populations Fund-State of World Population] (2007). United Nations Populations Fund: State of the World Population: Previous Years‟ Reports: State of the World Population 2007: English: Introduction. Retrieved February 17, 2010, http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html.

USDA AWIC [United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Welfare Information Center] (2011). The United States Department of Agriculture: Animal Welfare Information Center: Government and Professional Resources: Federal Laws: Animal Welfare Act: Public Law 91-579 Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1970. Retrieved March 6, 2011, http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php? info_center=3%20&tax+level=4&tax_subject=182&topic_id=1118&level3_id=6 735&level4_id=11093&level5_id=0&placement_default=0

US FWS [US Fish and Wildlife Service] (2010). The US Fish and Wildlife Service: FWS Midwest Home: Ecological Services: Endangered Species: Species Information: Insects: Karner Blue Butterfly. Retrieved April 7, 2010, http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered /insects/kbb/kbb_fact.html.

US FWS [US Fish and Wildlife Service] (2011). The US Fish and Wildlife Service: History. Retrieved February 7, 2011, http://training.fws.gov/history/index.html.

US FS [US Forest Service] (2011). US Forest Service: About Us. Retrieved February 7, 2011, http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/.

United States Senate (1973). ESA [Endangered Species Act]. Endangered Species Act, 108th Congress. Retrieved April 7, 2010, http://nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/ esa.pdf.

Veltre, T. (1996). Menageries, Metaphors, and Meanings. In R. F. Hoage (Ed.), New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century. Pp. 19-29. London: The John Hopkins University Press. 92

Wapner, P. (2003). World Summit on Sustainable Development: toward a post-Jo‟burg environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics. 3 (1): 1-10.

WAZA [World Association of Zoos and Aquariums] (2009). World Association of Zoos and Aquariums: About WAZA: History. Retrieved November 11, 2009, http://www.waza.org/en/site/about-waza/history.

WCED [World Commission on Environment and Development] (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. UN Document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment.

Wilds (2011a). The Wilds: About Us: History. Retrieved February 7, 2011, http://www.thewilds.org/about/history.asp.

Wilds (2011b). The Wilds: About Us: Mission. Retrieved February 7, 2011, http://www.thewilds.org/about/mission.asp.

Willis, K. (2001). Unpedigreed Populations and Worst-Case Scenarios. Zoo Biology. 20: 305-314.

Wisely, S., D. McDonald and S. Buskirk (2003). Evaluation of the Genetic Management of the Endangered Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes). Zoo Biology. 22: 287- 298.

WWF [World Wildlife Fund] (2011). World Wildlife Fund: Who We Are: About WWF. Retrieved February 7, 2011, http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html.

WZCS [World Zoo Conservation Strategy] (1993). World Zoo Conservation Strategy: Executive Summary. Retrieved February 27, 2010, http://www.brookfieldzoo.org/ pagegen/inc/wczs.pdf.

Yaffe, S. (1982). Prohibitive Policy: Implementing the Federal Endangered Species Act. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Yosemite Park (2011). Yosemite Park: Plan Your Visit: Cultural-History. Retrieved February 7, 2011, http://www.yosemitepark.com/cultural-history.aspx.

Appendix A: Open-ended Questions Used In Interviews

1. The animal welfare movement initiated during the 1960‟s and 70‟s. In the 1970‟s and 80‟s, there appears to be a trend in the development of open-range wildlife parks. Are these types of parks a result of this movement?

2. Were there, or are there still, any social pressures, pro or con, affecting the park?

3. How do animal activist groups respond to this type of park? How does that compare to their response to traditional zoos?

4. If activist groups and/or social pressures did not act as catalysts for the creation of the parks; then how did they really come about?

5. What sources of funding did the park originally have?

6. What other (new) sources are you trying to tap?

7. How is the tight economy and lower levels of funds in endowments and foundations affecting your budget and ultimately your mission?

8. What groups are role models for your fund-raising activities? What international models (if any) do you follow?

9. Your mission speaks of conservation of endangered species. Do you have any non-endangered or non-threatened species in your collection? If so, for what purpose do you keep these animals?

10. How do you determine which species of animals to keep at the park?

11. Which species do you plan to add, if any?

12. What is the origin of your current collection (i.e. captive, rescued, or wild caught)?

13. Are there any species that you wish you could have but can‟t? Which ones and why?

14. How are the animals grouped and housed?

15. How do you manage the health of the animals?

16. Do you participate in breeding programs? If so, are they performed naturally or by other methods?

17. Do you manage genetics? If so, how?

18. What is your park‟s role in research? In education? In entertainment? And how do these roles contribute to your mission? How are these roles different from traditional zoos?

19. Which projects are you most proud of and why?

20. Your mission also speaks of balanced and sustainable resource base. What success have you had in this area and what has been the response of former critics?

21. What are the biggest challenges of the park?

22. Are there any challenges affecting you due to your geographic location?

23. Are there any challenges due to your area‟s accreditation affiliation (i.e. AZA, EAZA, or WAZA)?

24. What “take home message” do you try to impress? And on your patrons?

25. Do you expect for your mission to change in the future? If so, how?

Additional Comments: