You know, I subscribe to political cartoons from caglepost.com, and somehow I noticed, on the sidebar, an article heading entitled The Future of Zoos. Being an ex-zookeeper interested in the events surrounding the death, by tiger, of a "poor, innocent kid just going to the zoo on Christmas," I took a peek at it.
This broad just HAS to be a PETA member. Here's some of her column:
A smaller percentage of Americans, enlightened to the suffering animals endure in captivity, mourn as well not only the passing but the life of Tatiana, the Siberian tiger who escaped her cage under the inadequate supervision of zoo authorities.
This terrible and unnecessary loss of life, not just human but animal as well, was not Tatiana's fault. It was the immediate fault of zookeepers who managed her. On a grander scale, it was the fault of a public that continues to demand the right to view wild animals on display.
It is a public that ignores the misery it imposes on the beasts subjected to a dolorous existence indeed.
This was bad enough. As a keeper, if we had maltreated or neglected ANY of our animals we would have been out on the street in about five minutes. But then she continues:
One wonders in this era of virtual reality whether zoos and conservation societies that keep animals on display in artificial, urban environments are still necessary or a sad carryover from a bygone era? The Wildlife
Conservation Society is quick to point out, as noted above, that its captive gorillas are procreating and therefore perpetuating the species. This is critical work. But the same enormous resources needed to keep them alive unnaturally could instead be devoted to preserving native habitat for these animals, protecting against poaching and disease and allowing them to reproduce on their own.
The San Francisco zoo visitor Tatiana killed would still be alive today if the visit had taken place virtually. So would Tatiana. The two she mauled would now be unharmed. It's a question we ought to rethink as technology has changed so much else: has it obviated zoos?
At that point, I had had enough, and here is posted my response to that article (urged to do so by my wife, and thus making for an easy fast blog post, lol):
It's a common misconception, perpetuated here yet again by Ms. Erbe, that animals need hundreds or thousands of acres in which to roam in order to be "happy." First of all, that's stupid, and shows a lack of knowledge of nature beyond occasionally watching Animal Planet. Animals have three needs: food, water, shelter. All these needs are met in zoos, ending an animal's unending (in nature) search for enough calories to stay alive. In nature, when an animal eats its fill, it STOPS MOVING to conserve those calories. It would be stupid for an animal that didn't need to fill those basic needs to keep walking, walking, walking. It JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN. Animals in zoos have it MADE, except for having to deal with the general public.
Additionally, happiness, folks, is a human emotion. Applying human emotions to animals is called anthropomorphism, and downgrades what the animal actually IS, because people who think like this constantly compare them to humans rather than valuing them for what they are.
As a past keeper at the Phoenix Zoo, which is largely responsible for captive breeding and reintroduction to the wild of the Arabian oryx, I get tired of all the bleeding hearts who think animals should be "free!" Yes, animals should be free. However, most zoo animals these days are traded between zoos, rather than collecting them in the wild as was the old way. Should zoos simply release animals that have never SEEN the country from which their genes originated, because the Ms. Erbes of the world demand that this be done to avoid forcing them to have a "dolorous existence"? You want to guess how long a zoo animal would last if we sent it back into the wild to be "free," and it encountered an animal of the same species who grew up out there? Would YOU like to have been the one to stop soldiers in the Middle East from slaughtering the last of the wild Arabian oryx? How about the giant panda (everyone's favorite "cute" zoo animal)? Want to order the Chinese government to stop cutting down the bamboo corridors that allow the animals to eat as they migrate up and down slopes with seasonal temperature change? How much luck do you think you'd have in "educating" these people? HA!
I'm looking at the last section here, which says, in part: "The San Francisco zoo visitor Tatiana killed would still be alive today if the visit had taken place virtually. So would Tatiana." Yes, that's true. So would both be alive if the visitor hadn't tormented the animal until it had had enough.
As a former keeper I saw visitors pitch such things as lit cigarettes, prescription drugs and syringes into animal exhibits. We once had some classy guy use the heel of his cowboy boot to crack the shell of a Galapagos tortoise. I also saw some mother throw a soiled disposable diaper in with the elephants, and one was munching away on it for a while until I could retrieve it. You want to blame someone? It's convenient to blame zoos, and not the jerks who torture animals for their own enjoyment, but I'll tell you this: it's high time people realized that zoo animals aren't playthings, or tame; they are wild animals that happen to live in a zoo. The guy who died no doubt triggered something in the tiger that is hard-wired in the species.
San Francisco Zoo (formerly Fleischacker Zoo) is the zoo of my youth, before I moved to Arizona. I'm still alive, possibly because I was raised by parents who would have beaten the snot out of me if I had tormented caged animals. I'll tell you one thing: Ms. Erbe, your apparent disdain for zoos, in many ways the LIFEBOAT for species extinct in the wild, is misplaced.
Oh, and one other thing: I bet the friends of the dead guy aren't going to abuse any more animals at zoos in the near future. Call it a teachable moment.
An update: Tiger Brothers Had Slingshots.
From the NY Post article:
January 1, 2008 -- SAN FRANCISCO - Two brothers who were injured when a tiger attacked them at the San Francisco Zoo had slingshots on them at the time, a source said.
An empty vodka bottle was also found in a car used by Amritpal Dhaliwal, 19, and his brother, Kulbir, 23, on the day of the mauling, which left 17-year-old Carlos Sousa Jr. dead, according to the source.
The discoveries could be an indication that the brothers may have taunted the 350-pound Siberian tiger before it leapt from its grotto.
Damned dangerous zoos.
