Political Animals

Once again, a government body is deciding whether its local zoo or aquarium should be permitted to keep a species of animal. Last year, it was the Toronto City Council weighing in on the issue of elephants at the Toronto Zoo. The Council, made up of people with no particular expertise in the matter, voted to get out of the elephant business and send the Zoo’s three African elephants to a sanctuary in California.

More recently, two members of the U.S. House from California have proposed a federal study on the impact of captivity on large marine animals, while the California State Assembly was unable to decide on proposed a bill to end killer-whale shows and discontinue orca captivity in the State.

Now, the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation is holding public hearings on the pros and cons of having captive cetaceans (whales) at the Vancouver Aquarium. The aquarium not only wants to continue keeping whales and dolphins, it also plans to invest $100 million dollars in facility upgrades. According to media reports, more than a hundred people have signed up to speak in what will no doubt be a series of emotionally charged public forums. No less an authority than Jane Goodall has already sent a letter to the Park Board in opposition to the Aquarium’s position. It is hard to argue with the opposition. Whales in the wild roam hundreds of square miles of open ocean. How can we possibly justify keeping them in swimming pools the size of an average suburban yard?

But, if we pass laws prohibiting the keeping of whales, what will happen to those animals that are rescued and cannot survive in the wild? Are we really saying they are better off dead as some zoo & aquarium critics say? And who will be making those decisions, zoo and aquarium professionals, animal rights activists who oppose zoos and aquariums altogether, or politicians who have no expertise whatsoever? Who are the real winners and losers in these public, political debates about animals in captivity? At some point, in all the heated rhetoric, you have to wonder if it is still about the animals.

Is this the end of the modern zoo?

Writer @benwallacewells steals a bit of my thunder in his recent article The Case for the End of the Modern Zoo ( http://t.co/XzoTpN42pR ). One of the central questions of my next book and of the project I have proposed to the folks at National Geographic for their Expedition Granted program (http://bit.ly/1jITOd1 ) asks some fundamental questions about the future of zoos, aquariums, and marine parks. 

Now, I don’t for one moment believe we need to do away with them. But I do suspect that zoos, aquariums, and marine parks may be at a cross-roads and may need to make some fundamental changes in the way they do business. Perhaps they will need to reconsider how (and whether) they keep certain animals – like killer whales, elephants, polar bears, and apes. Perhaps it is time for a rational discussion that explores what is truly best for the animals, asking who is right – the zoos and marine parks who want to keep doing business as usual, or the people who are lining up to shut them down altogether?  The answer, I suspect, lies somewhere in between as Wells suggests:  “In 25 years, there will likely still be some way for Americans to see exotic animals. But I will be pretty surprised if those places have cages, mirrors, smoke machines, and conference-room tanks for 12,000-pound whales. There may be nature preserves. But it seems to me that we're pretty rapidly reaching the end of the era of the modern urban zoo.”   I wonder if he will be proven correct?

A National Geographic Expedition Granted Project

A Voice for Animal Welfare

 If we could create an authoritative, international voice for animal welfare, while ensuring continuing support for zoos, marine parks, and aquariums as indispensable partners in conservation, would you be interested in participating? I know, it sounds like a pipe-dream – along the lines of world peace, human equality, or ending poverty – but it just seems like such a worthy cause. That is what my project at National Geographic is all about. http://expeditiongranted.nationalgeographic.com/project/the-search-for-eden-project/

Here is what makes this project unique – we will not be asking for money! There are already enough “conservation” organizations out there asking for money. This movement is about intellectual capital. It is about raising consciousness.

How about filling out this short survey and let’s see where it goes:

 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DAo4TzNjs1p5oQ7rBib9Gl3VQ0t3G7iFUypFvTbsGvI/viewform?usp=send_form