Last month, Phil and I went to the Lowry Park zoo in Tampa. It was uncrowded the day we went, what with it being the Monday after Thanksgiving and all, so we had much of the place to ourselves. We were the only ones in front of the white tiger habitat. The mother padded around on paws as big as dinner plates; you could see the muscles under her coat rippling, smooth and powerful as waves under whitecaps. The cubs were gangly, but their thin limbs still contained a promise of menace.
"That poor silly magician never had a chance," I murmured appreciatively.
Last Friday, Phil and I took our younger nephew to the Oakland Zoo. We arrived not long after it opened, so the animals were still lively, relaxed in their unexamined state. We passed the tiger habitat. One tiger was bounding up and down, pouncing on branches and amusing itself; the other flopped on its back and began arching and wriggling appreciatively. It was almost like watching a cat -- except it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the tiger could take you out with a well-aimed cuff.
This week, I have been reading all about the terrible tragedy at the San Francisco Zoo ("Tiger Kills One San Franciso Zoo Patron, Injures Two Others," SFChron, Dec 25, 07).
The terrible tragedy I refer to is the destruction of the Siberian tiger Tatiana. These animals are rare, and the emerging accounts suggest she died because she acted like what she was ("SF Zoo's Tatiana Acted Her Part As An Alpha Predator, Experts Say," SFChron, Dec 27, 07) once she had been goaded by someone or several people ("Trail of Blood Apparently Led Escaped Tiger to Victims," SFChron, Dec 27, 07).
One of the more infuriating side effects of this whole thing has been to listen to the vox populi natter on about how this proves zoos are bad things and animals are better off in the wild, yada yada. To which I say: balderash, bosh and buffaloshit.
There are bad zoos and mediocre zoos, but there are also very good zoos, and the one thing all these zoos do is sustain the possibility that someone will look upon an animal utterly unlike anything they're likely to run across in everyday life, and they'll decide, "Yes -- I think it's worth giving a damn about a living being, even when it doesn't affect me directly." Zoos impart an important truth, early on: we are not alone on this planet, and there are marvelous creatures that can live and do things we can't. But the one thing we can do is be aware of how precious every species is, how vital to others -- and to preserve what we can. Zoos reconnect us to the primitive fear and wonder our ancestors had; they reconnect us to our roots.
And zoos are often responsible for keeping animal species going when they'd die in the wild. I'm currently reading Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, and he mentions that the Korean DMZ has become an important -- albeit inadvertent -- ecological refuge for species that are losing their homes across the rest of Asia. This narrow, uninhabited slice of Korea is all some species have left.
Safer in the wild? Only when man's not around. Consider the terrible casualties that war has visited on gorilla populations. Or consider what's happening on America's rural roads: bears and people die when the former get in the way of the latters' cars ("As Cars Hit More Animals on Roads, Toll Rises," NYT, Dec 22, 07).
Zoos are keeping some species alive and thriving. If the accounts in the Amy Sutherland's Kicked, Bitten and Scratched are to be believed (and I see no reason why not), zoos don't do this because they like subjugating animals to human whim. They don't do it because they disrespect animals. They do it because they respect what different species are, and can do, and they want them -- and us -- to thrive by the virtue of their existence.
So -- go, zoos! Take time soon to go to your local zoo soon. Support it. Without it, how can we understand what else lives on this pale blue dot? Or how they make us more fully human?
Recent Comments