Zoos

A short case study form China about the practice of feeding a captured animal like tiger, live goats and cows as entertainment.

This paper examines the laws pertaining to zoo animals on the international, federal, and state level, along with voluntary standards, not mandated by law. On the international level there are only regulations which apply to the trade of the species between international countries, limiting how many can be imported and exported and how they are transported. On the federal level, those laws most important to zoo animals are the Animal Welfare Act and the Endangered Species Act. The AWA sets minimum standards for the care, handling, housing, and transport of animals exhibited in zoos. The ESA applies to those animals listed as threatened or endangered, but even then exhibition alone will never constitute a violation. State laws consist of anti-cruelty statutes that come into force only after a violation has occurred. Voluntary associations such as the American Zoo Association set higher standards of care for their members, in some instances, than the minimum standards set forth in the Animal Welfare Act. Using the elephant as a case study, this paper exposes the inadequacies of our existing laws, which have resulted in unfortunate incidents nationwide. It also exposes the underground trade of surplus zoo animals, which continues because of the lacking enforcement of current laws.

To address the Zoo's growing size and complexity, Defendant Woodland Park Zoo Society (WPZS) entered into an “Operations and Management Agreement” (Agreement) with the City of Seattle. The Agreement gave WPZS exclusive rights and responsibilities regarding many areas such as the care, sale, and purchase of the Zoo's animals. The Agreement also contained several provisions addressing public oversight of the Zoo.  Plaintiff Alyne Fortgang requested several categories of records, all pertaining to the Zoo's elephants. She filed the request under the Public Records Act (PRA), which requires every government agency to make records available for public inspection and copying.  The Zoo's director of Communications and Public Affairs responded to Fortgang's request by asserting that the PRA did not apply because WPZS was a private company. Fortgang filed a lawsuit and alleged that WPZS violated the PRA by refusing to disclose certain records. The trial court granted WPZS's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action on the ground that WPZS was not an agency subject to PRA disclosure requirements. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that the Telford test was the proper analytical framework for evaluating the private entity’s disclosure requirement. The Supreme Court reasoned that under the Telford analysis, WPZS was not the functional equivalent of a government agency. The court stated that although the second Telford factor was inconclusive, all the other factors weighed against PRA coverage: (1) WPZS did not perform an inherently governmental function by operating the Zoo; (2) the City did not exercise sufficient control over the Zoo's daily operations to implicate PRA concerns; (3) WPZS was created solely by private individuals and not  government action and (4) because operating a zoo is not a nondelegable, “core” government function, the case did not involve the privatization of fundamentally public services. The Court of Appeals' decision was affirmed.