ypsi~dixit

my dad and i took my kids to the toldeo zoo a few weekends ago. it's a lovely zoo, but i still get way depressed for the animal's lack of space and living in TOLEDO instead of their native lands.
as we were leaving my daughter climbed a bronzen statue of a little elephant. she noticed there was a cuff and few chain links around the animal's foot. this was a very old statue. she asked why it was there and i had to explain the barbaric elephant "leash". thankfully, they didn't include a bronze tazer...
blech, the circus. there's a very cool book by Will Self called Great Apes. It's about one man who wakes up to find the world inhabited by chimps. the only people are in the zoo, naked, dirty and bored out of their minds. the teenage son is mindlessly masturbating while the family just flops around their cage much to the delight of the ape spectators. it's a funny and thoughtful book.

Amanda: The Toledo zoo, just south of my folks' house, is not bad as zoos go in my opinion. But it's still depressing. And as you say: it's Toledo.

Wow, they should definitely retire that statue. Images are powerful and influential.

The book does sound inventive.

To be contrary - why get rid of the statue? If the chains on the elephant are disturbing, maybe they can serve as a reminder to what has been in the past and why we don't want it to continue into the future.

True...but could also be seen by an impressionable child as an implicit endorsement.

"outdated and embarrassing evidence that at one time we had primitive ideas about our relationship to animals."

One might well argue that this phrase could also be applied to hunting, fishing, and the use of animals as a food source.

Humans are omnivores, as the briefest of glances at one's own dentition will reveal. I myself enjoy eating meat.

The fishermen I know are C&R and so am I (when I manage to catch anything other than twigs).

Hunting is not only an honorable way to put food on the table, it's the source for huge amounts of revenue, via license fees, that actually protect wildlife and wilderness. Also, the hunters I know hunt with respect for the animals they take (and eat). If anything, it involves more respect for the animal than buying a chicken at Kroger's does.

Well, at the risk of appearing like I've started something without finishing it, I will respond very briefly to those three points.

Humans are omnivores, but they're not carnivores (check your dentition for 3" long fangs). They have the ability to select and choose what they eat, and so eat meat because, as you said, "They enjoy it". However, in a civilized society, personal gratification generally is- or should be- secondary to the collective health of the population.

Releasing a fish with a mouth wound or imbedded hook, following the stress of being caught, still isn't quite as cruelty free as not fishing at all.

Hunting is not honorable, as the animal is at an increasing technological disadvantage. The paltry licensing fees primarily go towards the maintenance of game stocking expenses, hiring people to process said licenses, and-when it's spent most wisely- on the repair of damage inflicted by hunters. There's a reason that even the DNR refers to it as "Consumptive" use of state property. This argument by hunters that they're the ones responsible for keeping the natural world healthy is laughable. It's like an arsonist donating an occasional $5 to a Fireman's charity.

Many billion more animals suffer from all of the above than from being in circuses. I don't like circuses either, but I don't understand how one can use the argument that they're primitive and embarassing, without even contemplating everything else that goes on.

And I agree with Katy about the statue, as a useful historical lesson. One of the best zoo displays I've seen is in Akron, where they have a small circa 1900 bear enclosure preserved intact (and occupied by a couple small turtles now), to show how such tiny, unnatural displays were once acceptable.

I also eat meat because I feel better when I do--perhaps because I was built for it. Measure my small intestine, please, Brett.

We have omnivorous digestive tracks, just like our teeth. I never said we were herbivores, which seems to be the only thing the article you linked to is claiming to disprove, and doing so, I might add, with much needless sarcasm.

However, in a civilized society, personal gratification generally is - or should be - secondary to the collective health of the population.

Arguably, then, we do not live in a civilized society.

You could argue that the maintenance of habitat - for hunters, at least partially - is a major contribution to the environment. I wonder if DNR lands would even exist if not for a tradition of hunting?

However, in a civilized society, personal gratification generally is - or should be - secondary to the collective health of the population.

That's the most unrealistic, Platonic, socialistic nonsense I've heard today. Ever hear of human nature?

Sandy, I would suggest that we do live in a civilized society, with both laws and rules of conduct which most members agree upon. Individuals and groups are constantly testing the limits, of course, but overall I don't think we'd have a very advanced social, technological, or economic framework in place if everyone didn't primarily agree to a certain basic code of behavior.

As far as I understand its history, the Michigan DNR evolved out of a number of forces, primarily as the result of deforestation of the state. There were early instances of hunter advocacy groups suggesting laws to conserve game species, but as this was basically a small group of hunters complaining about a much bigger group of hunters who caused the trouble in the first place, and they were complaining because they wanted to be able to hunt, too (and not simply let the animals live unmolested), the logic sort of gets a bit weak. The National Park Service, based on their own online historical data, didn't seem to have hunting at the forefront of their mission statement at any point whatsoever. I'm sure things are different in the histories of each state, and that at certain points you might find some lovable conservation-minded big game hunter like Teddy Roosevelt actually ensuring the health of an ecosystem, but I regard this archetype as the exception to the rule.

Laura,

Yikes. How should I even take that last comment? Where should I take it? What should I do with it once I get there? I will say this much- you probably haven't heard enough socialist nonsense today, if my little statement was the grandprize winner.

I do wonder, though, what exactly your apparently confident opinion is concerning human nature, which I personally feel largely involves a pretty fundamental level of self-awareness as a member of a very social species.

Now, no more name calling, you cynical libertarian.