WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 106, 28 January 1939, Page 8

WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY

Question Of Cruelty Raised

SOME OPPOSITION ON

PRINCIPLE

The question of whether it was right to keep wild animals in captivity was discussed yesterday by Mr. J. Rusilen Salt, president of the Wellington Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He said he knew many members’ of his society to be strongly opposed. to the whole principle of zoos and menageries. He himself considered that It was wrong to keep small birds, such as canaries and budgerigars, in small cages, as was done by so many people. During the past 12 months the Wellington Zoo authorities have . adopted a policy of expansion and improvement, building new quarters for the animals- and importing fresh stock and additional species from overseas, in preparation for the centennial. Luc what will overseas visitors think or the zoo? Many thinking people are today opposed on principle to zoos., and Mr. Salt said that he believed his society to be divided in opinion on this subject. No Actual Cruelty. Mr, Salt said that he was satisfied there was no actual physical cruelty at the zoo. In the past conditions had been unsatisfactory, but as a result of active campaigning on the part or the society the zoo was much unproved. The curator, Mr. J. Langridge, was a most humane man and was on the committee of the society. But the question was one of principle; whether it was right to keep certain types of animal in restricted quarters. He did not think that in his lifetime zoos were likely to be abolished. Before people were educated to that standard of humane feeling, the keeping of songbirds in small cages would have to be abolished, as well as cruel treatment of domestic animals. He ha’d seen canaries in small cages in public restaurants, placed where they were being slowly poisoned by tainted air, and yet singing in spite of t’he'conditions. What they were singing for he did not know. If any complaint were made about them, their singing would be used as an argument that they were happy and contented. He himself would never keep small birds unless he could give them a cage at least the size of an ordinary room, in which they would be able to follow a more or less natural life. The same thing applied to the keeping of large animals in zoos. Some of the smaller ones could be given adequate liberty, waterfowl and so on, but the quarters of the bigger animals must naturally be constricted. Treatment of Fann Animals. The public in general had a long way vet to go before they really understood how to treat animals. There was nothing the socieay could do in the majority of cases, as unless the evidence, was overwhelming it was difficult to obtain convictions. The attitude of the Courts was not always helpful, and moreover, the society was hampered by lack of funds, having to rely largely on voluntary contributions from the public. He thought that compared to many farm animals those at the zoo were in a fortunate position, for at least they were housed and fed regularly.