Wildlife
Refugees
In the fall of 2015, as the world watched a flood of
Syrian
refugees struggle to gain acceptance into the societies of Europe, another
group of refugees from Swaziland
was encountering opposition in the U.S.
Three U.S. zoos
had applied to import 18 elephants that were scheduled to be culled from wild
herds, and opposition by animal
rights supporters was intense.
Syrians
and elephants
The comparison of Syrians and elephants may seem a
stretch, but when a homeland is under siege or a specific group is being
persecuted, seeking refuge in a foreign land would seem to be a reasonable alternative
– for both groups.
When people argue against human migrations it is
almost always on social or economic grounds. When people argue against animals
being relocated to a foreign country they usually cite the need for animals to
remain in their native land. Is that a double standard?
If elephant habitat is
disappearing and they are being hunted to near-extinction for their ivory, is
it acceptable to attempt relocation of animals to the U.S.?
Or should elephants, lions, and other creatures be
forced to remain in Africa, even if that means certain extinction?
Would opponents be more accepting if zoos were more
like ‘sanctuaries’ or ‘refuges’ and less like ‘prisons’?
What do you think?
