Gana, an 11 year old gorilla at the Alwetter Zoo in Muenster, Germany, has been carrying the body of her baby, Claudio, since his death on August 16. Zoo officials say that they are not yet sure how Claudio died, but they are suggesting that his death may have been caused by a congenital heart defect. Because Gana is protecting Claudio so closely, zoo workers cannot retrieve his body to perform an autopsy.
According to the Telegraph, Gana has been carrying Claudio on her back, lifting him up over her head, and trying in vain to revive the dead baby as zoo visitors look on in horror.
Just seeing the pictures has reduced me to tears. I cannot imagine watching this poor gorilla have to go through this tragedy while in a cage with humans staring at her all day.
Claudio was Gana’s second baby. She apparently rejected her first baby, a girl named Mary Zwo, who was then taken from her and placed at the Stuttgart Zoo, almost 500km away.
I can’t decide which part of this story is more tragic. And to think, there are people out there who believe that animals such as Gana have no feelings or emotions, and that they do not form meaningful bonds and relationships.
Sadly, it was reported today that Gezi, and eight year-old giraffe at the San Francisco Zoo, died of cardiac and respiratory arrest. Gezi’s body is scheduled to undergo a necropsy this week that will explain what led to her premature death.
On average, giraffes live to be about twenty-five years old. Gezi had lived at the zoo since 2001, and she had given birth to two calves.
The San Francisco zoo has come under scrutiny from animal rights advocates in the past for incidents involving the death of an elephant in 2004, and just last year when Tatiana, a Siberian Tiger, escaped from her enclosure (See: Are Zoos Cruel) and killed a man before she was shot to death. The zoo has long been accused of placing profit above the welfare of the animals it keeps. Check out the following youtube video, taken by an animal advocate at the San Francisco Zoo: (not graphic)
So I’d like to revisit this discussion. Are zoos inherently cruel? One has to question whether or nor forcing an animal to live in captivity for it’s entire life is ethical. The enclosures may seem beautiful and elaborate, but they are still what they are: enclosures. Animals are never free to follow their natural instincts. They aren’t free to run, to hunt, to hide, to climb, or even to be alone. They are there PURELY for human entertainment. In the past, I have often conceded that zoos are acceptable only if they are created for the purpose of rehabilitation. Now, I have to wonder if that is ever the case. If the main goal of a zoo were animal rehabilitation and welfare, it wouldn’t be a zoo. The animals would not be forced to live out their lives in unnatural enclosures where humans can watch and taunt them. Imagine if our world were surrounded by glass so that wild animals could watch us, laugh and point at us, and bang on our walls. Imagine how unsettling that would be.
Is it fair to breed and/or keep animals in captivity? Should zoos be allowed to continue to run solely for human entertainment, or should they no longer be allowed to bring animals into their establishments?
