Andrew C. Revkin, “After Harambe’s Death, Rethinking Zoos.” New York Times, June 2, 2016.
ON May 9, 2004, when he was6, my younger son took his first photographs. I know the date because digital photography is relentlessly precise. We were at the Bronx Zoo. While wandering the glass-lined corridors in the extraordinaryCongo Gorilla Forest, Jack snappedthis portraitof one of the western lowland gorillas.
The exhibit was powerful and memorable; my wife and I are still haunted by our eye contact with sucha close hominid relation.
That exhibit is similar to ones at many zoos around the world, including Gorilla World in Cincinnati, where a silverback named Harambe wasshot deadon Saturdayafter a young boy fell intohisenclosure.
There are plenty of arguments in favor of such exhibits, which engage urban audiences with an extraordinary species and educate people about the threats gorillas face from deforestation, disease and poaching. They also sustaina pool of genetic diversityfor a species that is consideredcritically endangeredand at risk of extinction in the wild.
But I’ve also come to see substantial merit in the emerging concept ofnonhuman personhood, having worked withPace University studentsandfacultymembers in trying topass legislation in New Yorkbanning circuses from using elephants, and absorbing much about animals’feelingsand rights from writers and scientists likeCarl Safina.
As a result, I’ve become convincedthatit’s time for a fresh look at zoos, way beyond the issue of how we insulate their occupants from us, which will beclosely examinedfollowing the episode in Cincinnati.
An overarching factor behind the interspecies tragedy atGorilla Worldis how we have uncritically accepted the raising and displaying of gorillas, among our closest kin, behind glass or moats or fences in the first place.
Captive apesdon’t all diefrom a gunshot; but almost all die having never really experienced what it is to be a gorilla.Harambewas bornin a zoo in Brownsville, Tex.
There are signs that times are changing. Prominent circuses areretiring their elephants. The “Blackfish” film helpedchange norms for orcas, or killer whales.
The focus of this shift so far has been on big-brained, highly social species (those most like us) — a distinction that’srejected as elitistby some animal advocates.
There’s much more to be done. This issue wascompellingly explored in Scientific Americanthis week byMarc Bekoff, who studies animals’ behavior and awarenessand is a proponent of what he calls “compassionate conservation”:
While some might say Harambe had a ‘good life’ in the zoo, it doesn’t come close to the life he would have had as a wild gorilla, with all its attendant risks. Indeed, one might argue that the animal people were seeing was not really a true western lowland gorilla, surely not an ambassador for his species.
He calls for an end to captive breeding of gorillas and an eventual shift from zoos to sanctuaries, with money saved going to conservation of species in the wild.
Acounterargument from many zoosis that they already raise millions of dollars for field conservation and science while raising public awareness of the plight of our ape kin and other wildlife.
In the short run, it’s clear to me that zoos around the world should not only be re-examining their gorilla enclosures, but also examining how well they apportion income from such exhibits to programs that can protect this remarkable species in the wild.
In the long run, this is a good time for humans to begin reassessing our relationship with captive animals on many levels, and reassess how we experience “wild” life.
I don’t agree with every position of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but the organization compellinglysummarized a prime lesson from Cincinnation its website the day after the boy andthegorilla had their momentous encounter:
Zoos cannot even begin to meet these magnificent animals’ complex needs. Choose cruelty-free entertainment. Take a hike in the woods and watch wildlife in their natural habitat.
1