We have examined the arguments for and against circuses and zoos and we have suggested that with certain provisoes both zoos and circuses can be mutually beneficial to the animals and the humans in them. There is no reason to suggest that this will not be the case with other animal husbandry systems as well. In this chapter we will outline what these provisoes are. We have already discussed how we can tell if we have got it wrong for the animal: he will show evidence of distress (Chapters 3 and 4).

However, there are other considerations which we have touched on (e.g. Chapter 8). For example, should we not think of the wider environmental connotations of the animal management system, as Shumaker [122] said: Think globally, act locally.

If so, what does this entail?

• When designing environments for animals, their natural habitats should be considered rather than ignored;
  
  
• To date the global implications for the development of various animal husbandry systems (e.g. intensive pig and poultry houses) has received little attention.

1. The inter-relatedness of living things with each other and the environment
   
   Although the inter-relatedness of all living things with all others in the biosphere has been stressed in recent times [92], it is as well to remember that the biosphere is made up of relatively discrete ecosystems (e.g. the pond at the bottom of the garden, the Sahara desert, the Amazonian forest, and so on [123]). The boundaries to each of these ecosystems are not obvious. For example, one can study how the ecosystem of a rotting log operates (as many ecology students do) the species that live on it, their food habits, population dynamics, and how the nutrients circulate. Alternatively, one can study the ecology of the forest where the log is found, or the island where the forest grows, and so on. Thus, although all things within the biosphere are to some degree mutually dependent, there are within the biosphere many ecosystems. Within ecosystems the mutually dependent relationships between different species are stronger than those between ecosytems.
   
   
2. The self-sustaining nature of ecosystems
   
   The dependency relationships within ecosystems are crucial. The log can go on rotting long after the wood has burnt down. This is because one of the fundamental characterisitcs of ecosystems is that they are to a large degree self-sustaining; understanding this is fundamental to developing ecologically sound systems of land management (Figure 67). It implies that, for example, there are almost no inputs to a farm, and all the animal fodder is produced on the unit [124]. This idea does not have to be confined to agriculture; a city could be both diversifed (they often are) and largely self-sustaining in this sense. Indeed for generations the city of Peking (Beijing) grew all its own vegetables on the night soil (human faeces and urine) which was collected, composted and returned to vegetable plots.
   
   
                                                                                                    .
                                     
                          Fig. 67. The self-sustaining characteristic of ecosystems.
   
   
   
   
   Understanding such basic ecological principles and applying them to land management systems is important if we are to be able to overcome many problems that confront us today. An approach based on an understanding of this, and other ecological problems can help with conservation, biological, social, political, ethical, aesthetic, economic and problems of resource utilisation and distribution [92; 93]
   
   How can zoos and circuses more nearly fulfil these aims?
   
   a) What the animals eat must be considered carefully. It would be ecologically sound to some animals waste products from the system (e.g. scrap bones and meat from animals, themselves raised in ecologically sound environments). If, on the other hand, the animals contribute to a large-scale change elsewhere in the world - for example, by being fed whale meat which threatens whale populations, or beef raised where equatorial forest has recently been cut down, then it is not ecologically sound.
       
        It is possible for many zoos to grow a considerable percentage of their own animal fodder using the manure produced by the animals. (This I suggested to Jersey Zoo in 1979, and they are now quite successful in this direction.) It is also quite possible to use existing micro-climates for this; for example, tropical aviaries can be used to grow some tropical food crops for the herbivores.
     
        This is more difficult for the travelling circus but they can insist on buying fodders that are locally produced and grown causing no ecological problems (e.g. without the use of high chemical inputs, insecticides and herbicides), rather than processed feedstuffs made from imported high-protein feeds such as soya and fish meals. They can (and usually do) use waste products from greengrocers, supermarkets and butchers.
   
   b) The animals may endanger the survival of other species in the urban habitat (e.g. by the transfer of disease), or create a nuisance to other species (e.g. by smells or noise or defaecating and urinating in the wrong places).
   
   The answer is not to ban zoos and circuses, for they contribute in many ways to the survival and happiness of human beings who create urban environments (Chapter 8). The solution may rather be to think how to overcome the problems for example by:
   
   

   providing suitable facilities and training for animals to defaecate and urinate in the right places and training for their use (see page 210). The muck can then be disposed of in a suitable way, by for example being made available to gardeners (as it often is). Groups of keen allotment holders can often be seen around the manure skip discussing the relative merits of elephant or lion muck for their brussel sprouts! investigate properly the alleged disease risk, and issue advice to the public on prevention and control.

   On the point of disease transfer, the most dangerous creature to associate with is another member of ones own species; this, however, does not result in human beings living as hermits. They have considered carefully the various modes of disease transfer and have developed preventive and curative medicine, and better levels of hygiene and nutrition. This approach has been remarkably successful over the last few decades. Surely the same approach can be used for other species.
   
   Ecologically and ethologically sound animal management results in smaller numbers of animals overall in most enterprises and an effort to provide the appropriate niche on the farm, in the zoo or circus, which they have evolved to live in. If the animals are omnivorous scavengers, like pigs, then they should be fed appropriately rather than on high-protein imported feeds, and so on.
   
   
3. The importance of diversified systems
   
   The more diverse the system in terms of the number and type of species within it, the less likely it is to succumb to large changes. The system will, on the whole, tend to be more adaptable although it is dynamic (e.g. changes in population numbers within species).
   
   Specialised monocultural systems of plants or animals tend to be more disease- prone and, in addition, there is more intra-specific competition. Thus diversification, as a general rule (although there are exceptions), leads to less competition between species and to more easily balanced sustainable systems. Usually neither zoos nor circuses have any problem with this. In fact the problem is sometimes towards too much diversity of species kept in inappropriate environments, particularly of zoos. Both zoos and circuses should be careful to restrict the numbers of their species to those which can optimise the local environmental conditions. It is possible to have very large collections of different species, or to transport water-loving species such as sea lions or penguins, but it is much more difficult to fulfil all these criteria by so doing.
   
   In the last 15 years, the importance of endangered species and active interest in conserving them has risen dramatically. The usual reason for this interest is aesthetic (it is a shame to lose irreplaceable and beautiful species). Although this is a serious consideration [9; 23], there is also a vested interest in conserving species in order to maintain the stability of the bioshere. As Erlich and Erlich [92] put it, loss of a species is like rivet popping: it weakens the biospherical structure.
   
   Many zoos justify their existence on the grounds that they are breeding rare species, extinct or nearly so in the wild. In so far as this is true, and the animals are kept in ecologically and ethologically sound environments, then this is acceptable. For it must also be considered that zoos and circuses can sometimes offer a chance for life to wild animals where culling has become essential to maintain the wild biotype. For example, there is at present an active trade in East and Central African elephants to zoos and circuses. These animals would otherwise have been shot since their wildlife parks are overpopulated, and poaching is out of control.
   
   The buildings the animals are kept in, materials for their construction, the way they are heated and so on must be considered in terms of their effect on the local and global environment. Zoos sometimes go in for high-status permanent architecture, or even for investing huge sums and sometimes scarce and theatened resources into creating naturalistic environments to put across conservation messages (e.g. Jungle World at the Bronx Zoo, New York). The environmental costs and benefits here must be assessed very carefully.
   
   Circuses often used a minimum of materials of this sort. However, even what they do use must be considered carefully in respect to their environmental effect. For example, how the tents and so on are heated must be considered. Renewable heat and energy supply from solar or wind generators might be appropriate for some.
   
   A more holistic, ecological approach for all animal husbandry systems is necessary. If animal husbandry systems cause serious environmental problems locally or globally, even if the animals are well fed, well kept and experiencing good welfare (whatever this is!) they remain unacceptable.
   
   These ecological concerns are not usually raised in welfare debates. It is curious that this is the case since they are fundamentally involved. As a hog or a human I am concerned with my own personal present and future, staying alive and preserving some quality of life for myself (what is usually called welfare). I (the hog or the human) am also concerned (conciously or not) with that of my offspring: future generations. Both the present quality of life, and that of future generations, of hogs and humans is threatened if ecological considerations are not taken into account.
   
   It is true, I am assuming here, that life itself is important. For example, it has been argued that if there is no life there can be no suffering. If there are, for example, no foxes, there can be no suffering foxes. Here it is argued that the existence of foxes is important, even though they may have to take the risk of suffering. This is in part because all forms of sentient life have some rights to life [9; 20; 24], and in part because the interaction of living systems with each other and the non-living environment ensures that having no foxes will cause other changes in the ecosystems, and this may eventually affect my (and other individuals and species) quality of life. We may not know exactly what the consequences will be, but it is sensible for our own survival and that of our offspring to be cautious.
   
   Neither an individual nor a species can exist independently of its environment; these ecological considerations are concerned with the animals or the species relationship with the environment. They are fundamental to any debate on welfare: the quality of life.

It is important not to ignore aesthetic considerations in the design and management of animal husbandry. From the humans point of view, Shoard [125] outlines many aesthetic concerns in the countryside: deafforestation, ugly farm buildings, industrialisation of agriculture, including destroying wild flowers and birds. It is possible to site and design even large farm buildings, zoos, kennels, stables, circuses and so on so that they are aesthetically acceptable, but it is something that needs much more thought.

The aesthetics of animal husbandry systems are complicated by the possibility that the animals themselves may have some form of aesthetic appreciation or objection. For example, horses appear to dislike strong human smells, and like to choose to be where they can have a good view (personal observations). A distinction here between uncomfortable or deprived environments and aesthetically unpleasing ones for the animals is difficult. This is not the place to take this further, but it is a possibility that cannot be ignored.

.

a) social organisation

b) habitat

c) the natural food, its nutrient content and textures

d) the performance of the entire behavioural repertoire

e) the species specific characteristics of the receptors

f) the species specific brain anatomy

g) the species communication system - in detail

h) how the animals learn, and what that species might be expected to learn

a) Taking account of social organisation

The animals should be kept in the social groupings that they associate in with in the wild, and that they have evolved to live in. Different species have different requirements: pigs live in family groups and cats are semi-solitary. Horses and cattle are social herbivores but have rather different social organisations; for example, horses live in family groups which can join together into larger herds, the strongest bonds appear to be between generations (mother to daughter). In cattle, the bonds between peers - within generations - are very strong. This difference is illustrated in Figure 74 where the distances between mother and young of these two species are contrasted. Consideration of such factors should give rise to different types of management for each species. For example, separating post-weaned youngsters into peer groups is reasonably appropriate for cattle, but for horses it is extremely traumatic and can trigger the start of behavioural problems and abnormalities [29] because the bond between mother and young is particularly strong.

.

b) Taking account of habitat

The place where the animals are kept should approximate the type of habitat they have evolved to live in. For example, keeping forest-living animals in large open environments with little cover is likely to cause them trauma. With thought, it is almost always possible to cater for the species demands in this way. For instance, by reversing day and night hours, it is possible for nocturnal animals to be seen active by diurnal human beings (e.g. in the Charles Clore pavilion, the small mammal house at London Zoo).

c) Taking account of animals food

The food animals are fed must also be appropriate. For example, the practice of giving high-concentrate protein diets to some herbivores - which is considered good management is often inappropriate. Cellulose converters have evolved to convert cellulose and they should be fed diets high in cellulose. If this is not done, physical and psychological problems can result. Some of the zoo antelope are now at risk from mad cow disease because of the practice of feeding them high protein concentrate foods made from other infected cattle brains!

d) Allowing for the performance of the entire behavioural repertoire which does not cause suffering to others. (Chapter 4).

e) The species specific characteristics of the receptors

For example, the horses eye differs from the humans in its anatomy and physiolog. What view of the world does the horse have that might be different from the humans? (Figure 71). Whales and mice (and maybe many other species) can hear ultra-sound; electric fish pick up electric signals, and bats eco-locate.

f) The species specific brain anatomy

This can tell us something about the relative importance of different brain functions for the species (Figure 72). Here we need much more information on species specific differences. Nevertheless what differences in the gross anatomy, or indeed the size of the brain tells us is still debatable [132]. However, the mutilation or sacrifice of many animals in order to find out more about such questions would not be ethically desirable, or ethologically sound. There is great scope for further anatomical studies on animals already slaughtered, and much more could be discovered using simple behavioural techniques, such as discrimination tests.

g) The species communication system

This is particularly important for animals that are trained and are used to help humans with tasks, or perform in one way or another, such as guide dogs, police or sheep dogs, horses, and circus animals. For successful working relationships between species (humans and others) reciprocal animal/human communication is central. Proper knowledge of inter- and intra-specific communication is also essential for the good husbandry of any animal. This can be taught, although some humans will be better than others at this as in everything else. Individual animals have their own personalities (see (i) below) even within an age or sex group, but until the species communication is reasonably well known, it is often very difficult to understand this, and to predict possible actions. One example is the sophistication of the visual communication in horses. They are able to pick up subliminal visual cues that humans find difficult or impossible (this is called the Clever Hans effect). An understanding of this aids all training and working with horses [29].

h) Grasping how animals learn, and what they might be expected to learn

This is particularly important if the animal is to be a companion or be trained. Learning plays an important part even in the everyday husbandry of large numbers of food animals. Appropriate learnt responses can simplify husbandry, and reduce trauma for the animal. For example, sheep or cattle can be trained to come to an auditory signal, instead of having to be herded or even chased to the desired point. However what, and how quickly, animals of different species learn varies, so one must have a grasp of the species specific characteristics. Little is known about this from the scientific literature at present, but there is a considerable amount of knowledge among those looking after and training different species, [See 107 for a thought-provoking critique of the scientific approach.]

The factors mentioned above are important to the species and must be taken into account when designing appropriate ethologically sound environments, but there are also factors concerned with the individual that must be considered. These are: i) the individuals past experience ii) individual personalities.

Ethically sound environments for animals

In practical terms, how then are we to conduct our relationships with other animals, and how should we design their environments? Is there a practical alternative that fulfils the criteria set and reduces the problems to the individual human, animal and the biosphere as a whole and which will in the long run benefit us individually?

1. The local and global ecological effect of the system is considered in relation to the biological, environmental and aesthetic value to humans and other animals (Figure 68).
   
   
2. The animal is in the type of environment which is ethologically sound (Figure 73) where he is happy and not showing distress, and able to perform all the behaviour within his repertoire provided this does not cause suffering to others.
   
   
3. Consideration to him as a sentient being of moral concern is shown.
   
   
4. The animal, human and rest of the environment have a symbiotic relationship, which is of mutual benefit rather than competitive. The relationship of the human to the animal could be considered rather as one of an employee than a tool or slave.

These criteria add up to what might consitute a Bill of Rights for Mammals and Birds.