The killing of a western lowland
gorilla in the Cincinnati zoo to protect the life of a child which found itself
inside the moat of the Gorilla enclosure has sparked off a raging controversy. It
has pitted animal rights activists against conservationists.
None questions the safety of the
child which possibly accidentally fell into the moat in the gorilla enclosure. It
will no doubt be interesting to scientists of another genre – psychologists –
to study the impact the incident had on the child’s psychology and emotional
scars of the incident. Why and how did this happen? One thing is sure: the
mother of the child was not holding the child’s hand firmly: That tantamounts
to negligent parenting. Period.
As for the killing of a gorilla
(which in animal right’s parlance was an inmate but in bureaucratic parlance is
an ‘exhibit’) The question is one of ethics: How can a custodian – a zookeeper
meant to be the saviour of endangered species have killed it? The incident also
throws light on the scientific insignificance of zoos and reminds us of the need
to do away with zoos as amusement / entertainment destinations.
But closer examination of the
footage that is emerging from viral videos on social media points to the
gorilla Harambe looking into an opening of the moat and then dragging the child
to a wider area of the moat. http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/mom-at-zoo-hes-dragging-my-son-i-cant-watch-this-1414624?pfrom=home-topstories
It points fingers at bad maintenance / standards in zoo keeping.
That means the child was washed
into the gorilla enclosure after having fallen somewhere close-by. Inevitably questions arise about the
callousness of the parents. Ofcourse accidents happen but parenting is not just
about glamour baby showers and photo shoots of baby bumps as pregnancy is
called these days.
The incident smacks of amusement
of visitors in zoos, wholly undoing the aims of captive breeding and research
on habitat of endangered wildlife. It is in this context that puritan conservationists
are blaming the parents of the child which was injured in the incident. There
is no doubt that the parents will be questioned and charged for negligent
parenting and abetting cruelty to protected wild animals based on relevant laws in USA.
I daresay the golf courses and
helipads in and around Kruger National Park in South Africa and Masai Mara in Kenya
are recipes for pending disasters.
Harambe, - like all zoo kept
animals - deprived of its will and self-esteem had reconciled - in quiet
adaptation for food security, but didn’t realise that even such a docile
surrender will prejudice its custodians justifying their killing of a captive
Gorilla based on an unprecedented mistaken perception of the aggressive nature
of the beast.
The United States of America is
known for enforcement of its legal regimes and indeed it serves its purpose in
the current context of triggering an uncalled for killing of an endangered
specie (a western lowland gorilla) meant to have been protected by the zoo
keepers and custodians. For it had been plucked from its habitat and gene pool
only to serve the needs of human activities, that too because elaborate state infrastructure,
conservation laws and conniving politicians are unable to prevent poaching in
its endemic habitat.
Could it be that Harambe took the
child into its limbs only because it was deprived of motherhood? That was my
first thought when I saw the footage Sunday evening on Television News. The
need for animal psychologists in zoos is underlined in this incident. Had there
been a trained animal psychologist at hand; if the zoo had maintained records
of its weight and diet, tranquilising would have been easier and more instantly
effective than killing.
The zoo director’s explanation
that in the circumstances it was the right thing to do, begs answers to the
questions of zoo keeping and wildlife database management.
Zoos have been established (and
are still being tolerated by conservationists) because they are meant to be ex
situ conservation and for propagation of captive breeding of endangered
species, research and multilateral exchanges of endangered species for the
above two purposes. Rehabilitation of captive animals may be added as an
afterthought.
Zoos were never meant to be cruel
enclosures to deprive animals of their freedom of movement for the amusement of
visitors in the enclosures; especially in emerging economies; cramping
enclosures debilitate the confidence and emotional well-being of endangered
animals. On this link (http://www.indiatogether.org/2013/jun/env-animals.htm) this author has extrapolated animal cruelty and
juxtaposes how and why animal rights cannot be separated from wildlife
conservation.
In the name of studying
stimulation induced behaviour of captive animals, zoos, even in the Western
World make animals beg for food. This not only demeans the self-esteem of
captive wild animals and destroys their instinct to hunt, but leads to skewed
behaviour. Genetic isolation and inbreeding are known to occur in captive
animals… again questioning the purpose of zoo keeping. The occurrence of human
induced infections in zoo animals is also well documented.
Questioning the negligent parents
and possible / hopeful charge-sheeting them for negligence will now strengthen
the case against zoo keeping. It is on grounds of ethics of bad zoo keeping and
unethical custodial killing of an endangered species that the tragic incident
needs to be condemned, reflected and re-examined for its efficacy and
purpose.
Suggested further reading:
6.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/us/zoos-killing-of-gorilla-holding-a-boy-prompts-outrage.html?_r=0
Malini Shankar
Malini Shankar is a wildlife photojournalist, radio
broadcaster, documentary filmmaker, blogger and author based in Bangalore India.
No comments:
Post a Comment