Zoos are controversial in some circles, and for those who campaign for animal rights and against zoos, discussing the merits of these institutions with them seems pointless. The Voices op-ed “Caged in Paradise” said as much. Zoo professionals are quick to acknowledge that critics’ concerns based on science contribute to advancing animal welfare and elevating the standards of modern zoos. When there is dialogue, there is progress, unless one believes there is no justification for keeping animals under human care.
We
live in a very complex world where the only things that are truly black and
white are left to giant pandas, Malayan tapirs, penguins, orcas, zebras, and
skunks. To believe that we will find a way to “let animals and humans coexist
in harmony” is a wonderful vision, but it ignores the reality of the trending
loss of biodiversity and the extinction of species. These losses are not a
result of natural evolution and extinction, but rather the result of phenomena
directly related to humans’ expanding ability to modify the natural landscape,
to create environmental challenges such as pollution, and to deplete wild
populations of plants and animals.
Wildlife
today, whether in the “wild” or under human care, experiences some degree of
management by people. There is a big difference between “coexisting” and
“coexisting in harmony.” Conservationists are frequently at odds with
developers and energy producers over land use issues and the destruction or
alteration of habitat. We are fortunate to live in one of our country’s six
biodiversity “hotspots,” surrounded by an incredible richness of plants and
animals, many of which are found only in California. This blessing also comes
with the responsibility of being good stewards of these priceless natural
resources and constantly trying to balance the needs of people with the needs
of the plants and animals that call the South Coast “home.”