So, here’s another side to the previous post (http://www.aapukuruvi.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/tiger.html). Injured tigers in
the wild often turn man-eaters since men are typically easier prey. This brings
these tigers into villages. In one such village in south India, a man-eater had
killed a woman and was spotted by villagers who promptly called the officials.
After a tense chase and some drama, the tiger was hunted down and shot – but not
to kill, he was shot with a tranquiliser dart and taken to the local zoo. A
stark, stark difference in attitude with the tiger in Cologne. This tiger had
killed a woman – not in any attempt to escape – and killing it would therefore
have been justified. But the villagers
and the officials chose to tranquilise it and send it to a zoo. The headline
for this article? “Man-eater tiger of HD Kote caught.” (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/274416/man-eater-tiger-hd-kote.html). It could just as easily
have been “Village rid of murdering tiger” but thank goodness it wasn’t!
The other issue here is on my stand with zoos. I have had a
lot of discussions with friends (and family!) since the previous post on whether zoos should
be abolished. The main arguments for zoos are a)they protect endangered animals
that human beings would otherwise kill in the wild and b) they raise awareness amongst
the public. I shall answer the second argument first. Raising awareness I think
is not as strong an argument nowadays as before – we have excellent cinematic
and other visual media that provide us with a wonderful sense of the world
these animals live in. In fact, I think it is rather demeaning to see predators
being fed, and rather than raising awareness actually diminishes their majesty.
This episode presents strong support for the first argument. What happens when
a tiger is injured in the wild, by natural causes – is it then alright to ship
it to a zoo? In such a case, I accept a zoo can serve as a nursing home – we cannot
afford to let an injured tiger die since we have so few of them left, so our
only option is to nurse them in a zoo – with a view to releasing them back in
the wild if and as soon as possible (this may not be feasible in case of a man-eater since once they taste man-flesh they find that the preferable option!) . Do I still think zoos should be abolished?
Yes – as zoos, as tourist attractions that cage healthy animals, they should. Their existence as tourist attractions lets us escape having to make the choice between having animals in the wild and letting them die out. However, I concede they could serve a good purpose as temporary nursing pens - or in this particular case as an old age home, for
injured wild animals.
Would love your comments on the fascinating debate this is turning out to be!
6 comments:
Hey Sid,
True that. This is the attitude that must've been followed in the Germany case too. Sad, it was otherwise. Tigers when injured can be shipped 2 zoos, but once they are ok, they should be set back into the wild, where they belong.. not in some cage where they build up all that agression.!!
I have to be very candid and admit that I've always liked going to zoos. But I will, however, also mention that I've most enjoyed those zoos which have large open spaces for the animals to roam around in (such as Bannerghatta).
I completely agree with you - I think it is becoming more of an excuse to put up animals in zoos and claim that they arent being poached - seems to be some sort of easy way out. I would liken it to people turning off their lights for an hour on World Environment day and then continuing their usual lives. Its just a pathetic excuse for showing solidarity towards the environment.
Exactly! It lets people get away without having to make a choice.
I've loved my trips to Bannerghatta... actually I'd wouldn't classify it as a zoo - the animals aren't caged and there is (a semblance of) a natural ecosystem there. That is a compromise I am willing to accept - as long as the animals aren't herded/paraded like the Jarava tribes in the Andamans!
Totally agree with you Sid. I'm totally against this idea of 'kidnapping' an animal from the wild and caging it in unnatural ways and subjecting it to immense mental (and physical) torture. And that is where the open-range zoos or safari parks look like a better alternative..
Conservation of species can only happen in 'protected wilderness' and public awareness can happen by many more creative and animal sensitive methods..
I do like to visit zoos once in a while, even though I have mixed feelings on whether zoos should exist or not. While in Columbia (South Carolina), we used to take the Geol 101 students to the Columbia zoo, where they will be told about the benefits of zoos including preserving endangered species.
I once went to Vandalur zoo. It is very spacious, probably the animals there are better placed than in many other zoos, but what I couldn't tolerate was the behavior of us humans. People throng the zoo especially on weekends and holidays so much so that the animals will be totally disturbed and confused. To top it, I saw many guys (egged on by their gals) - young or old, educated or not, doesn't seem to matter - shouting, throwing sticks, and generally disturbing the animals to no end. Disgusting behavior, to say the least. Zoos should have a cap on the number of visitors per day and there should be vigilance on the activities of humans!
A couple of weeks back, there was a news article...a guy jumped into the lions' enclosure in a zoo in Orissa (I think) because he wanted to end his life after a fight with his wife. Got mauled by the lions but was rescued eventually...what do you say to that?
Yes... Vandalur zoo does try and make it better by actually giving the animals space to roam around, and sort-of preserve their natural instincts... zoos can be educational, I think that is the strongest argument for keeping them...but they seriously need to change in the way the animals are kept and treated...
Ouch to the suicidal dude - must be a scary wife! Reminds me of that poem, about the Bengali man...
Post a Comment