DO ANIMALS ENJOY CAPTIVITY?
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—The two letters on this subject represent the two opposite standpoints which may be more or less legitimately taken in regard to zoos. But do not both correspondents indulge a little too freely in that sly sprite which lies in wait for the unscientific, anthropomorphism, or the ascribing of human feelings and reactions to the lower animals and the deity ?
On the one hand, as Mr. Renshaw points out in your iEsue of December 18th, no animal not gifted with conscious reasoning can " pine for freedom." On the other hand, is it, after all, for the justice-loving human being, a question of suffering ? It is the most 'universal answer to those who dislike caged-things, to say, "'Why, my canary sings its very heart out ! " or " If I let my bird go, it would be eaten by a eat in two minutes," &e. But, scientifically considered, these many manifestations of content, or of joy even, have nothing to do with the question, "Is Wright to confine birds and animals and deprive them of existing in their natural habitats ? "
The question is only one of the moral right of human beings to -deprive creatures of the surroundings for which nature destined them. To most of us there can be but one answer, NO! Mr. Renshaw, and his kind, tell us that the beauties and wonders of living nature must be brought within reach of the countless thousands who cannot travel. This, of course, is the only excuse, and its logic May be left hanging in the balance. It is a pretty good argument, though in these days of moving pictures there is less reason to have zoos than in the past.
Perhaps it is too early to judge, but I, for one, though I am an old hunter and fisherman, detest all zoos, and the sight of a canary in a cage or a gold-fish in a little globe really hurts me. I still hold with Blake,
"A Robin redbreast in a cage Puts all Heaven in a rage."
Army and Navy Club, Washington, D.C.
Previous page
