The Curious Case of Contraceptives in U.S. Zoos

Some of the country’s captive animals are on birth control — and sometimes it works a little too well.

National Journal
Marina Koren
June 26, 2014, 1:10 a.m.

Each year, hun­dreds of an­im­als in European zoos are killed.

None of them are sick. Some are eu­th­an­ized in or­der to main­tain the num­ber of an­im­als a zoo is able to care for, oth­ers be­cause zoo­keep­ers do not find them suit­able for breed­ing. A gir­affe named Mari­us was killed this year for the lat­ter reas­on. The Copen­ha­gen Zoo, which eu­th­an­izes ap­prox­im­ately 25 healthy an­im­als every year, shot the gir­affe and then dis­membered it in front of vis­it­ors.

You won’t hear any­thing as gory or heart­less hap­pen­ing in the United States, though. That’s be­cause Amer­ic­an zoos prefer con­tra­cep­tion over eu­thanas­ia to curb pop­u­la­tions, pre­vent breed­ing, or pre­serve ge­net­ic qual­it­ies of a giv­en spe­cies. Creatures as big as lions and hip­pos and as small as meerkats and mice take birth con­trol — it’s crushed up in their feed, in­jec­ted in­to their veins, and im­planted un­der their skins.

The As­so­ci­ation of Zoos and Aquar­i­ums, the gov­ern­ing body of U.S. zoos, al­lows eu­thanas­ia, but it’s usu­ally re­served for ill or aging an­im­als. Plus, our an­im­al-lov­ing so­ci­ety can’t quite stom­ach the idea of put­ting down a zoo an­im­al for os­tens­ibly no reas­on, es­pe­cially chim­pan­zees and oth­er prim­ates, giv­en their sim­il­ar­it­ies to hu­mans.

“On an emo­tion­al level, I can’t ima­gine do­ing it and I can’t ima­gine our cul­ture ac­cept­ing it,” Cheryl Asa, the dir­ect­or of the Wild­life Con­tra­cep­tion Cen­ter, told Leslie Kauf­man of The New York Times in 2012, sug­gest­ing that con­tra­cep­tion is the bet­ter op­tion. “By pre­vent­ing the birth of an­im­als bey­ond car­ry­ing ca­pa­city, more an­im­als can be well cared for,” she said.

The Wild­life Con­tra­cep­tion Cen­ter, an arm of the As­so­ci­ation of Zoos and Aquar­i­ums, is the cap­it­al of exot­ic an­im­al con­tra­cep­tion in the U.S. Es­tab­lished in 1999, the St. Louis cen­ter provides in­form­a­tion about and mon­it­ors the use of con­tra­cep­tion for cap­tive wild­life in 200 Amer­ic­an zoos.

In the U.S., the ad­min­is­tra­tion of hor­mon­al birth con­trol in zoos began in the 1970s. Zoos were hav­ing trouble pre­vent­ing un­wanted preg­nan­cies and were selling or giv­ing away an­im­als they no longer had room for. The prac­tice co­in­cided with a grow­ing ac­cept­ance of birth con­trol use by hu­mans.

An­im­al birth con­trol comes in many forms: hor­mon­al treat­ments like pro­gestins, es­tro­gen, and pro­ges­ter­one; GnRH ag­on­ists, which sup­press the re­pro­duct­ive en­do­crine sys­tem; vac­cines, which cre­ate an­ti­bod­ies that block fer­til­iz­a­tion; and oth­ers.

Apes and mon­keys are the easi­est an­im­als to treat with con­tra­cept­ives, thanks to their bio­lo­gic­al re­semb­lance to hu­mans. They even ex­per­i­ence some of the same side ef­fects as wo­men on hor­mon­al birth con­trol, like weight gain. Car­ni­vores are the trick­i­est — the chem­ic­als that work on prim­ates ac­tu­ally stim­u­late car­ni­vores’ uter­uses, which can res­ult in tu­mor growth. Birth con­trol can also be ad­min­istered in male an­im­als, but zoos tend to avoid that prac­tice, es­pe­cially in lions. Some con­tra­cept­ive drugs cause lions to lose their bushy manes — and, by some ex­ten­sion, what makes vis­it­ors at­trac­ted to them.

But con­tra­cep­tion use in zoos has a dark side. Many drugs haven’t been com­mer­cially ap­proved by the Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion, yet they re­main in reg­u­lar use across the coun­try. The treat­ments are con­sidered “ex­per­i­ment­al,” and their use de­pends on ap­prov­al from the In­sti­tu­tion­al An­im­al Care and Use Com­mit­tee, which re­views pro­to­cols for an­im­al re­search. They must also be in com­pli­ance with the An­im­al Wel­fare Act, U.S. De­part­ment of Ag­ri­cul­ture-en­forced le­gis­la­tion that spells out an­im­al wel­fare reg­u­la­tions.

One of these ex­per­i­ment­al drugs — and one of the first ever to be used in zoos, in 1975 — Melengestrol acet­ate (MGA), led to neg­at­ive side ef­fects in cap­tive lions, in­clud­ing le­sions, ster­il­ity, and even death. In the early 2000s, it was re­placed by an­oth­er ex­per­i­ment­al con­tra­cept­ive called Suprelor­in, a GnRH ag­on­ist about the size of a grain of rice that is im­planted be­neath the an­im­al’s skin.

Suprelor­in re­mains in use today. It has also worked al­most too well, which has the zoo com­munity wor­ried. The slow-re­leas­ing hor­mones, meant to last six months to a year, were not wear­ing off sev­er­al years after the im­plants were re­moved from lions. “I think it was sort of re­com­men­ded across the board without really know­ing what the long-term con­sequences were go­ing to be,” Re­becca Snyder, the cur­at­or of mam­mals at Zoo At­lanta, told Dav­id Hunn of the St. Louis Post-Dis­patch in Feb­ru­ary. There, zoo­keep­ers are still wait­ing for a li­on­ess to get preg­nant after she stopped re­ceiv­ing birth con­trol. “I think we all learned a les­son from that.”

Ac­cord­ing to the Wild­life Con­tra­cep­tion Cen­ter, out of more than 200 spe­cies treated with Suprelor­in, only 50 have got­ten preg­nant or pro­duced sperm again after ceas­ing treat­ment — 88 an­im­als in total.

The use of con­tra­cept­ive drugs is a re­l­at­ively new ven­ture in the zoo busi­ness (and the hu­man busi­ness, too). Over the last few dec­ades, ex­perts have de­pended on tri­al and er­ror to find the right dosage based on an an­im­al’s age and be­ha­vi­or­al and so­cial factors. And they still can nev­er be sure how long it will take for an­im­als to re­gain their fer­til­ity once they’re off the med­ic­a­tion.

Re­search­ers say it’s far too early to draw con­clu­sions. Many zoos have not yet tried to breed an­im­als who were once ad­min­istered birth con­trol. But in the case of Suprelor­in and oth­er ex­per­i­ment­al drugs, the re­turn of fer­til­ity seems not to be guar­an­teed.

“I think we all should be wor­ried,” Bud­han Pukazhenthi, a re­pro­duct­ive physiolo­gist at the Smith­so­ni­an Na­tion­al Zoo’s Con­ser­va­tion Bio­logy In­sti­tute, told Hunn. “I think we also should use a lot more cau­tion when we make the de­cision to place an an­im­al on con­tra­cep­tion.”

What We're Following See More »
Panama Papers Spur White House to Crack Down on Evasion
53 minutes ago

In the The White House on Thursday night unveiled a series of executive actions to combat money laundering—"among the most comprehensive response yet to the Panama Papers revelations." The president's orders will tighten transparency rules, close loopholes that allow "foreigners to hide financial activity behind anonymous entities in the U.S., and demand stricter “customer due diligence” rules for banks.

Who’s #NeverTrump Courting as Possible Candidates
1 hours ago

The #NeverTrump movement is now mulling the idea of recruiting a candidate to run as an independent or under a third-party banner. But who might it be? The Hill offers a preliminary list.

  • Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE)
  • Mitt Romney
  • 2012 (and perhaps 2016) Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson
  • Former Marine Gen. John Kelly
  • Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
  • Former Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
  • South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley
  • Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
362,000 JOBS ADDED
‘Mildly Disappointing’ Jobs Report
1 hours ago

The U.S. economy added 160,000 jobs in April, a "mildly disappointing" result relative to the 200,000 expected, according to the New York Times' Neil Irwin. On the plus side, hourly earnings were up 2.5% from a year ago. But on the other hand, "the labor force shrank by 362,000 people and the labor force participation rate fell by 0.2 percentage points."

Plurality of Trump Voters Just Want to Stop Clinton
2 hours ago

"Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday." When Trump supporters were asked to give their primary reason for supporting him, 47% said to block Clinton from winning. In almost a mirror image, 46% of Clinton supporters said they were primarily out to thwart Trump.

Many GOPers Still Think Trump Can Be Brought to Heel
2 hours ago