In April of 2010, 37 year old indian Elephant, “Boy”, was found dead after letting out a heavy cry of pain (Marson).  With the average lifespan of an elephant being around 70 years, the investigation for intentional slaughter commenced which would be conducted by the city of Kiev. An extremely shady and corrupt management of the zoo fell into question with this scandal not being its first.  A former zoo worker stated that, “ The Indian elephant was underfed, kept in poor conditions and stressed by constant changes to the staff of handlers. By the end, you could see his ribs” (Marson). The commercial purposes for this wildlife preservatory had outweighed its mission to contribute to nature’s development and theories of privatizing the zoo’s land perfectly explained the reason of almost half the zoo’s population decreasing in the previous 1 year timespan. Although these zoos and more importantly, sanctuaries, are reportedly on a mission to improve the environment, they may be doing just the opposite in hurting innocent animals that have experienced nothing but previous pains. Animal sanctuaries do not solely promote the safety of animals, rather act as a commercial enterprise, normalize the mistreatment of animals, and disregard ethical federal policies.

Sanctuaries have long been rehabilitation centers for animals but have been questioned for possible commercial interests interfering with the true mission of these organizations.  Many of these sanctuaries are actually zoos that assume the name of a sanctuary otherwise known as a pseudo-sanctuary (Haddad). These so-called sanctuaries hold animals captive in cages as if they are equal in status with that of a prisoner in which every case, they appear to be.  There is no law that prohibits the assumption of a sanctuary however there are certain requirements that should be met according to various organizations that set the standard for the modern ethical sanctuary. Many pseudo-sanctuaries don’t have the certifications required to fit in this criteria but continue to profit through donations, internal sales and admission fees.  A valid counter-argument toward profits would be that the money made would go back into animal welfare organizations and benefit the wellbeing of future animals. However, many of these sanctuaries are already corrupt to begin with due to the fact that making a certain amount of money is illicit giving the organization no real reason to donate their profits. In general, it is not right to trust an organization that is corrupt in the first place. If the goal of the sanctuary is to rehabilitate the animal then that mission should be it’s first priority and not it’s last.

Tying into animal welfare, another problem has risen within the normalization of behaviors in which sanctuaries become less of a rehabilitation center and more into a petting zoo (University of Wollongong).  Countless amounts of people experience these kinds of environments everyday making the perception of sanctuaries one they shouldn't be at all to begin with. The true goal of a sanctuary should be the opposite of a prison like-feeling. It should be the freedom those animals failed to get back in their previous environments. According to the Performing Animal Welfare Society, a sanctuary must be a place of “refuge where abused, injured and abandoned captive wildlife may live in peace and dignity for the remainder of their lives.”  This is absolutely not the case when looking at cases such as the amount of tigers in the wild and the amount in captivity. The amount of tigers in captivity exceeds that of the number of them in the wild which is around 5,000 in total. It is questionable that 5,000 tigers fall into the category of injured, abused or abandoned. This raises concerns on where the line of ethicality should be drawn. Should more and more animals be brought in away from their habitat making domestication normalized, or should they be kept there and preserve their element of a truly wild animal?  This raises another problem which is that the environments simulated in the sanctuary do not replicate the real natural environment of the animal to any substantial degree (Haddad). This contradicts the true point of a sanctuary in where animals should live in dignity but instead are being degraded through constant pictures and insufficient needs that are not provided properly by whichever organization is responsible for them.

 According to Rachel Hartigan’s, “Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?”, public sanctuaries are required to meet certain guidelines that are set by the government making them fall into a category that can be trusted as dependable and ethical. However, private sanctuaries are obligated to no such thing. And as a private organization, who would voluntarily subject themselves to routine inspections that could possibly close down their sources of money that could end up costing them millions. Not only can these facilities avoid inspections, they can avoid the repercussions that come with cutting corners and keeping animals in terrible conditions.  When animals are turned into props and money machines, there is nothing to come to their help because those animals are technically nobody else’s property but the owners. Some of the time, these sanctuaries put on a false facade that indicates they are treating animals with respect but in reality are not providing the animals with the right nutrients and habitat that could go unnoticed by unsuspecting visitors. It is incredibly saddening to know that these animals not only suffer but do it in silence.

A solution to help all animals in desperate need of proper care could be found through a new universal sanctuary policy in where all sanctuaries are required to pass the inspections created by the government.  Inspections by other private companies could lead to corrupt and incomplete assessments making the government the best option at an unbiased inspection. This way the standard for public and private will become identical making a sanctuary what it should be all across the country or even the globe. With over half the population of tigers being in private hands (Haddad), the mistreatment of animals should not be normalized rather the opposite. The growth and proper nurturing of animals should be normalized, praised, and appreciated because that is the true definition of a sanctuary.  

An important part of concluding the ethicality of a sanctuary is to determine the boundaries in the first place. With the goals of different sanctuaries varying, it is difficult to determine if ones intent is true to the mission of a safe-haven for rehabilitating animals. It goes without saying that not everyone on planet earth can have the most righteous intentions but when one’s misconduct leaks into the lives of another living creature something must be done to solve the problem. From Rachel Hartigan's “ Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?” to Phillip Mansbridge’s “ How Animal Sanctuaries Aren’t Always What They Seem” , sanctuaries and monetary gain may never achieve true separation.  Some people make livings off of sanctuaries and that is a respectable position however, their ultimate goal should be the necessities of the animals and not of the luxuries of their own.

REFERENCES

1.Hartigan, Rachel. “Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals?” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 20 Mar. 2014.

2.Haddad, Kim. “The Truth About Sanctuaries.” Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, 14 Apr. 2013.

3.Mansbridge, Philip. “How Animal 'Sanctuaries' Aren't Always What They Seem.” One Green Planet, 25 June 2014.

4.Doyle, Catherine. “Captive Wildlife Sanctuaries.” Performing Animal Welfare Society -- PAWS, 2013.

5.Collins, James. “Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change.” Read by QxMD Icon.

6. Marson, James. “What's Killing the Animals at Ukraine's Biggest Zoo?” Time, Time Inc., 24 July 2010.