By Richard Farinato

On Jan. 11, National Zoo workers found the zoo's two red pandas dead in their enclosure. Then, on January 27, a young pygmy hippo was found dead in her pen. The pandas and the hippo are the latest additions to a list of animals who have died or been euthanized at the zoo during the past couple of years, including large and small cats, a bear, two zebras, two giraffes, a seal, and the remaining panda from the zoo's famous original pair. Most of these deaths have occurred during the tenure of Lucy H. Spelman, the veterinarian appointed to be zoo director in June 2000.

Like all animals, zoo animals grow old and sick or suffer trauma and die. Sometimes they are euthanized because their quality of life is so diminished that to allow them to continue would be inhumane. The deaths themselves may not be problematic or indicative of poor management. But the zoo's response to the recent deaths has been troubling.

The African lion Tana died after being left alone for a night after having surgery. A bobcat euthanized for a limp was found afterward to have an ingrown claw. The zebras essentially starved to death because of insufficient or incorrect food. In each case, Spelman initially refused to admit that flaws in the zoo's leadership or management procedures could be responsible for the deaths.

The red pandas died after a contractor buried aluminum phosphide pellets in their enclosure to control rats. The zoo's explanation for their deaths was slow in coming, often contradictory, and always self-serving: Test results would not be back for several weeks. Preliminary results showed no link to poisoning. A committee will look at the situation.

After the death of the pygmy hippo and more media coverage, Spelman fired long-term, experienced animal staffers. This—and the announcement that another layer of supervision would be added to the system—seems more a ploy to deflect criticism than a solution to what may be a systemic problem.

Now The Post has shed light on a U.S. Department of Agriculture inspection that documented zoo violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The Washingtonian recently ran a story about an internal management study that cited serious morale problems at the zoo. Fewer than half of those surveyed described the zoo director as "trustworthy."

A supervisory shake-up or internal review seems unlikely to fix the problems at the zoo. The system needs scrutiny from outside the Smithsonian Institution. As an animal protection organization, the Humane Society of the United States would be willing to assist in any attempt to rectify the situation.

Spelman's job is to know what goes on at the zoo—from administrative functions to husbandry to groundskeeping issues—and to use zoo staff appropriately. Above all, her obligation is to care for every animal in her charge. Maybe Tana should have been monitored as he came out of sedation; many zoos do that routinely as a hedge against complications. Perhaps the bobcat could have been examined to see why he was limping before he was put down. And everyone should know not to put poison in an animal enclosure.

When zoo officials are questioned about the quality of life of captive animals, they often talk about how animals in the wild face disease and predation and the rigors of finding food. They point out that captive animals are spared these trials and have their needs met by professionals. In light of recent events at the National Zoo, I'd say otherwise.

Richard Farinato is The HSUS's Director of Captive Wildlife Programs. This piece first appeared in The Washington Post on Sunday, February 23, 2003.