Saturday 21 May

Today I tagged along with Alma, our animal rehab manager, and Robin, one of the vets, who were taking a look at Simba.  Alma sees all of the animals regularly and frequently despite the fact that we have over 200 to care for here.  Our lions, Bella and Simba, are very valuable to the Sanctuary in many ways, such as that they draw many visitors, and including the high levels of pleasure the staff and volunteers have as a result of caring for them as well as we can.

Alma noted that during his last heath check about 2 months ago Simba had lost about 7 kilos in weight.  For a normal fully grown, fit and healthy adult lion a loss of this amount might not be particularly noticeable, but it is very noticeable with Simba who is so disabled and thin.  His hind end, around his tail area, would on a healthy adult lion be wide and powerful, heavily packed with muscles, but Simba’s hind quarters are a tiny 8 inches wide.  His ribs are visible when he walks or stands, and his skin hangs limply beneath him. His back legs are thin, weak and bowed.  Bella’s back legs are even more severely bowed so that her hind quarters are carried far too close to the ground.  Both have to be kept at a light weight because it becomes harder for them to walk if they carry any extra weight.  Both must suffer more or less continuous chronic pain at high levels.  And of course these health problems will never improve - both lions are old before their time because of mistreatment, and their health can only deteriorate from here.

Which of course leaves us with the question, should we be keeping such sick animals alive?  Who does it benefit? Would it not be kinder to euthanize the animals and end their lifelong suffering? To broaden the question, is it right to keep any wild animals, especially large predators like these lions, in captivity for many years. Arguments range along emotional, ethical, practical conservational lions.

Firstly, you might ask why we do not release Simba and Bella.  One answer is that as both have been born and lived as captives, neither knows how to behave like a lion. Neither knows how to hunt and catch food. Release into the wild would quickly result in death by starvation and thirst which would involve great suffering. Or, as neither knows how to behave with other lions, they would be very quickly killed by other lions, if they ever met any, because they pose a threat socially.

So we have placed them in a ‘safe place’, a large wooded enclosure identical to their natural habitat, and do our best to meet all their needs. They have appropriate social company (each other), they can mate, they have an excellent diet rich in the vitamins and minerals they need, they have pain killing medication.  They do have to put up with the presence of human being who bring them food and medication, but they are not forced to meet any other humans and certainly never ill-treated by any.  The aim is the best safe living conditions we can possible give them.

Some animal rights activists claim that no wild animals should be kept in captivity because it makes them unhappy, therefore it is cruel and unethical to do so (http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalsinentertainment/a/Arguments-For-And-Against-Zoos.htm)  But if an animal who has been rescued from a bad captive situation is then found to be too damaged by people to ever survive in the alone, what should we do?  Euthanize immediately? Just release them in their home environment and wait for them to be killed or die of starvation  Purely from their own perspective, might we not owe it to them that we who have injured them now do the best we can to make up for the damage we have caused?

Sanctuaries and zoos might offer a broader argument: seeing an animal in captivity is highly educational, and may motivate people to act on behalf of the animals who will soon otherwise be extinct because of the mistreatment of others (http://clearingmagazine.org/archives/767. Others offer experiences of actually walking with wild animals (http://theranch.co.za/conservancy/walking-with-lions/) although it is wildly held that very harmful practices have to be used by such organisation to force a wild animals to subdue all its natural instincts and attack their ‘carers’ and those they walk with.

Some facilities argue that captivity is essential for conservation of endangered species, i.e. we can breed from them and then repopulate areas where they have become extinct.  This argument is fallacious.  If the animals are so reduced in number that only very small pockets of them continue to exist, inbreeding of a tiny gene pool will soon render this impossible. In addition, an animal born and raised in captivity will not develop the social behaviour and skills to live independently in the wild. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320707004417)

There are studies on wild animals that evidence that captivity is harmful for the animals involved because they are not happy.  But how do you measure happiness in a captive animal? Today we looked at Simba closely and discussed his appearance, demeanour and behaviour. We contrasted these with his past behaviour, and the behaviour of other lions in captivity. 

When we arrived, Simba came to the fence to see us.  He lifted his head up and looked us straight in the eye.  His eyes were in fact clear and bright.  He watched us for a few moments, clearly alert, then turned and walked about 5 meters into the shade and lay down on his side.  His tail flicked occasionally.  After about 5 minutes Chico, his carer, appeared with a bucket of food.  Simba rose immediately and walked up to the fence and alongside Chico to his feeding enclosure, then rubbed his head on the fence as if requesting attention.  He seemed to peer inside the enclosure as Chico disappeared into the darkness inside, and roared.  When Chico had placed the food on his feeding table and opened his gate, Simba sent straight in and fed.  When he had finished eating - some 10 minutes later, he left the enclosure and sought the same patch of dappled ground where he again lay down and waited for his partner Bella.  When she came from her enclosure, having just eaten her meal, she lay about 3 meters away from him, and together they licked their front paws, and lips, before stretching out on their sides apparently going to sleep.

I discussed the behaviour we saw with Alma and Robin.  Simba’s behaviour has changed from the early days when he was transferred here.  He did not look at or interact in any way with his carers. He did not respond to Bella’s presence.  He did not eat.  His behaviour was consistent with depression, as seen in humans and every other species.

Simba’s behaviour today suggested he felt protective of ‘his’ space/mate, and was willing and ready to challenge anyone who threatened either. When convinced he was safe and there was no threat to his or Bella’s safety, he returned to a shaded area beside Bella, and continued to monitor us.  He immediately knew the person who arrived with his food, and rubbing head against the fence suggested he felt affection for him.  His subsequent behaviour also evidenced that he felt hunger, wished to eat, and could eat. 

I don’t know enough about the broader issues relating to conservation or the ins and outs of keeping animals in captivity.  From my own experience today and periods of observing and monitoring Simba’s behaviour (to ensure their safety and wellbeing) it appears to me that, at the very least, we are not harming Simba or Bella.  Where to go beyond that, I don’t know.  But I feel happier for seeing these beautiful, sadly harmed, creatures safe and well fed and apparently content. 

For further information see: http://theconversation.com/carnivores-in-captivity-a-question-of-motive-and-ethics-46764