From Where I Sit

Again, I have to commend Mark for his courage and his voice to bring issues upfront and discuss it. As I applaud your proposal to oppose Mr. Gonzalez's proposal to ban elephants at the San Francisco Zoo, I can't side with you on this matter.

First and foremost, I am against animals in captivity. Period.

I have seen some of the finest zoos in the world (San Diego, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.) and no matter how amazing these facilities are, I can't bear the fact that these animals are behind fences, and worst, caged for entertainment purposes (they claim zoos are for education and preservation purposes but we all know this is a mask for the primary purpose of commercialism). I believe animals should be free to roam around. They are not born in this world to be imprisoned and to be gawked at.

I've been to San Francisco Zoo once. I would cringe on what the state of this zoo is in. It's pathetic. Those animals are not happy campers, that's for sure. I am not just for banning elephants in the zoo, I am for the facility's eventual closure if it continues to be in the state where it is now.

This has been a silent argument I've been keeping all these years. There has not been a proper forum to discuss it. Thanks Mark for opening it up for me. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to air my opinion. My best regards to you.

I agree with Maning in principal, provided we respected the creatures with whom we shared this earth and allowed them the space to breathe and thrive. But unfortunately we do not.

Zoos often serve as sanctuaries for animals that would otherwise be slaughtered for the value of their bones or skin, are unwanted or a threat to the general populace. The sprawling expansion of the human population has made zoos necessary.

It is true that profit often kills good intentions. Greed is a great motivator. But it's hard for me to believe that the heart of every zoo keeper and every caretaker is driven only the by their bi-weekly paycheck. It's those in the trenches that really care about these animals, and realize that zoos and related facilities are in a sense a "necessary evil" until there is a fundamental shift on how we interact with the animal kingdom.

Zoos also provide a glimpse of the synergy of the larger world in which we all live, and how everything is connected. Something that can not be achieved reading a book or watching the Discovery channel. I am afraid 100 years from now children will not know the majesty of a lion's roar, or the softness of rabbit's fur.

I am sure the San Francisco Zoo has its share of problems, like any zoo, but having the city step in to oversee and manage the caretakers and those animals they protect, is simply foolish. I wouldn't entrust the city to take care of my own cat. So leave the care to the experts. Leave it to the zoo.

I have the greatest readers in the world! The comments so far make me realize that even more. The comments are written with intelligence and reason, both writers making themselves perfectly clear and using logic and fact in their arguments.

In theory, I am also appalled at the concept of a "Zoo." I am also appalled at the fact that in China, Pandas have been poached to the brink of extinction, because some believe that the gall bladder, when ground up and eaten, will improve a man's reproductive abilities. I am appalled that the Canadian Government has re-opened the cruel and brutal Harp Seal harvest. I am appalled that ivory poachers in Africa are killing thousands of young female elephants in order to line their pockets. I am appalled that in Japan, dolphin is a delicacy. I am appalled that the grand Sea Turtles have been hunted into the ground so that some can drink their blood.

These issues and the despicable care that humanity has taken over the Animal Kingdom were learned at a young age, because of the San Francisco Zoo. As a 10-year old, I picked up a book by Cleveland Amory and it made me want to learn as much as I could about the creatures with whom we share this planet. To begin on my quest for knowledge, I went to the Zoo.

The Zoo does serve a purpose - a purpose that is bittersweet.

Here are some accomplishments:

*The Zoo has given birth to dozens of American Bald Eagles who now call the Bay Area home. These birds are born and reared naturally and without human intervention.

*The Zoo has successfully bred the almost extinct Snow Leopard (hunted to a population of less than 200 in the wild becuase of their pelts). The Zoo now accounts for 10% of the world population of these marvellous cats.

*The Zoo is a world leader in breeding the Black Rhinoceros, another animal being poached into extinction.

There are many more accomplishments, but these are some of the most important.

Sadly, the capitalistic argument made above applies in every case of animals being hunted in the wild. It is monetary gain that drives the poaching of elephants, rhinos and Pandas. Ask any 20-year Zookeeper how he or she lives on the $42,000.00 salary he or she is paid and they will all say it is for the love of the animals that they do what they do, not because they are highly compensated. Even the Zoo's Director is compensated mainly in-kind and not with salary. The Board of the Zoo is unpaid and docents are all volunteers.

As for the condition of the Zoo, I have been privy to the remodelling plans of the "New Zoo," and believe me, they are incredible. The new African Savanna is a marvel in terms animal husbandry. The Zebra and Giraffes are living together and thriving. The lemur forest has resulted in many births of another vanishing creature. Groundbreaking on the new primate exhibits should happen in the Spring 2005.

I remember the days of bars and concrete - our Zoo having been built in the 1930's (when Zoos really were built for the spectators and not for the animals) and the New Zoo will have no bars and no concrete.

You may wonder why the Zoo of the 1970's and 1980's was allowed to fall into such a state of disprepair. Very simple: The City ran it! It was not until the management of the Zoo was taken over by the San Francisco Zoo Foundation that changes began to happen. I am asking that we write to keep the City's fingers out of the Zoo.

Again, I hate the concept of Zoos...but what other alternative do we have?

Mark, I admire the "preservation efforts" of Zoos as you laid out shining examples in your comment but I must give you an example of why commercialism reigns over the basic concept of a "Zoo". It is noted an ideal animal in captivity must be captured from the Wild when it is still an infant. A perfect example are the Orangutans. For every infant orangutan caught in the Wild for captivity in a Zoo, a dozen more Orangutans are beheaded and killed trying to protect it (The movie "Gorillas in the Mist" clearly portrays this). It is hard for me to note that every animal I see in zoos are kept there because we are protecting them from "extinction".

Banning of Zoos seem far fetched but I think a complete overhaul of its system is necessary. I believe Zoos should be:
1. A haven for animals of near extinction which means animals in captivity must be born in captivity as well. Animals should not be kept in captivity until they rot and die. They must be freed after a certain period of time.
2. Funded by the private sector whose generosity and intent is to protect the animals, not to display them.
3. Open by invitation to specific groups dedicated in studying and protecting the animals and not the general public who gawks at them with a bag of popcorn and an extra large Coke.

We have done enough harm to animals by driving them away from their natural habitat by having a roof over our heads. Let them enjoy the remaining open space they deserve.

I apologize if I strayed from the main issue of this blog but I simply can't discuss the core of it because of the circumstances which led me to my opinion towards "zoos".