PETA bitches about Cleveland Zoo
...because too many animals have died there.
PETA is asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture to levy "harsh penalties" against the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo after a 1-year-old kangaroo was struck by a zoo train Tuesday....In May, a female wolf was killed by other members of her pack. In 2005, three wallabies died after eating a corpse flower, a toxic plant that was placed in their enclosure by a zoo employee; a Grant's zebra died from a ruptured aorta after being kicked by another zebra; and a gorilla died after he was anesthetized for an examination. In 2003, a lion died after being attacked by another lion.
Let's see, of 6 incidents, half were animal-on-animal attacks. Just how responsible are zoo employees for these? Since animals are people too, maybe we should be administering the same punishment to the wolves, lion, and zebra that we do to humans who murder: put 'em down. And if that's not acceptable, it's because people are animals too, in which case it's perfectly appropriate for me to rip Debbie Leahy's throat out with my teeth. As for the rest: do gorillas generally die under anesthesia? Should we quit administering it and just chain 'em down and cut 'em open? Do you know what a corpse flower is, or that it's toxic to wallabies? Should everyone know that? That leaves us the train incident..and the driver has been fired and the train shut down until a fence can be built. So tell me, just how was Cleveland Zoo negligent?
Comments
Posted by: jeffrey smith
Posted on: July 27, 2007 05:07 PM
I think it's obvious why the Zoo is to blame. It didn't make all the animals register their teeth, claws, hooves, and other deadly weapons, and run background checks to make sure they were weren't felons.
Posted by: vnesaparadis
Posted on: August 1, 2007 10:58 PM
Animals being 'animals' - if the zoo does not have the capabilities to protect certain animals from being brutally attacked by another, then they shouldn't own the animals. Obviously, they are not responsible enough to protect certain animals. The wolf that was attacked and killed by her pack - didn't have much opportunity to run and hide! She didn't have a plan - because her sources were LIMITED. I remember going to the wolf exhibit, several years ago, and right before my eyes, just on the other side of the glass, were several wolves growling ferociously at one lone wolf - who happened to be cornered between glass and another man made object. This wolf was obviously TERRIFIED. Is a brutal attack something a young child should witness? Right before their eyes? It's a horrific event to witness for ANYONE, let alone a young child. I would be emotionally scarred for life had I witnessed this wolf being skinned alive before my eyes, and knowing I was unable to help in any way. If 'animals are going to be animals', let it be in THEIR OWN TERRITORY.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: August 2, 2007 12:55 PM
vnesaparadis:
Zoos have practical reasons for protecting their property. But you seem to be arguing that a zoo can't ever have enough habitat to make escape possible. It's an argument against zoos, not for Cleveland's culpability in the matter. As to whether a child should witness a brutal attack, I think it may be a good idea. Children before the 20th century witnessed death (animal and human) often, and went on to have normal lives. If more children saw animal behavior, they'd be less likely to grow up to be PETA members, because they'd see for themselves that animals don't play under the same ethical rules that humans do.