[Animals] Animal anarchy: the news of zoos in Argentina

[#Wittels-]

As there is no effective national strategy to regulate the conditions under which the specimens are exhibited, traditional zoos coexist with eco-parks, sanctuaries and reserves. Even if you change your name, the negligence is the same.

In a context of recognition of rights and promotion of animal welfare, the discussions around zoos as captivity sites return -once again-. Is it okay that it still exists? Which ones are still working in Argentina? What practices were modified to avoid that the copies are only destined to provide shows? At present, Victorian infrastructures coexist with other more modern facilities that, under different names (ecoparks, theme parks, sanctuaries or reserves), promise to improve living conditions. And they justify their operation from an educational purpose; after all, they say, "nobody can learn to take care of what they don't know" and they insist on protecting endangered species in this way. However, what is the price of this protection?

For decades, the negligence of zoo managers (public and private) was mixed with the joy of families, who enjoyed observing (feeding and petting, in some cases) exceptional animals. But the problem is the lack of planning and ordering: to date, the country lacks a strategy that regulates practices in the field. "Argentina does not have a national policy that can then be shared with the provinces and municipalities regarding where we are going in terms of animal exhibitions and their use for environmental education, as well as in relation to modernizing the concept of the zoo and the adaptation to a conception more typical of the 21st century”, says Sergio Federovisky, Vice Minister of Environment of the Nation, in dialogue with Página 12.

 

The Luján zoo, closed by the Environmental Control Brigade (BCA) of the Ministry of the Environment, is an example of mismanagement. According to the complaints made by the portfolio, there were, apparently, inconsistencies between the animals declared and those that were actually part of the place. They were also part of the menu to allege animal abuse and alleged trafficking. Not to mention the po[CENSORED]r crosses between lions and tigers, the “ligers”. Currently, the institution remains closed to the public, within the framework of a procedure validated by the courts on two occasions.

almost a jungle
The situation is dissimilar in all provinces. In Tucumán, recently, a legislative project was presented to prevent the opening of animal exhibition establishments, which sti[CENSORED]tes a period of four years for the pre-existing ones to reconvert their operation. The initiative arose as a response to the state in which the specimens were found in the San Pedro de Colalao Reserve.

Thus, in a transition stage, traditional zoological gardens coexist with others that adapt their operation to the current ones. Along these lines, although there are regulations in force --such as the national laws for Fauna Conservation (22,421), Animal Protection (14,346) and adherence to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (24,375)-- they do not guarantee the welfare of animals exhibited in captivity.

 

This is what Federovisky warns: “The concrete thing is that there are no regulations on zoos. We have a great anarchy between private, provincial and municipal zoos. In short, each one ends up being permeable to the pressures they receive from the society in which they operate, and adopt measures based on it”. Then he continues: “From Environment we fight for an animal welfare regulation, a parameter of minimum budgets. It is necessary to regulate the conditions of captivity and the profile that the institutions in which they are exhibited must have”. In general, the official assures, the reforms that have occurred are chaotic: "There are everything from eco-parks to reserves, going through conventional zoos, although with more modern cages," highlights who has also worked as a biologist and communicator.

Ecoparque BA (Palermo) began this transition process in 2016, when it replaced the Buenos Aires Zoological Garden. Today equipped with capybaras, monkeys, ducks, the occasional camel, giraffe and rhea, it is a space that must be converted amidst public knowledge controversies. Two of the cases that were on the media agenda were that of Sandra, the first orangutan in the world to be declared a non-human person by a court, and in 2019 transferred to the US; and that of Winner, the last polar bear, who died a victim of high temperatures and stress from fireworks on Christmas Eve in 2012.

“Both the Ecoparque BA and Temaikén, the one in La Plata or the one in Mendoza, represent a search to adapt the logic of old zoos to the demands of the 21st century, in relation to the bond that humans strengthen with animals. However, all the examples are different, they have different profiles and they all still have problems to solve”, details Federovisky.

A favor and against

Beyond the fact that other zoos have been recognized as places that do not guarantee the welfare of animals (a premise that, among other things, promoted the closure or conversion of a large part of these institutions), there are still voices in favor of these spaces. from captivity. Among the common reasons, those who defend its operation maintain that natural life should not be thought of as an idyllic landscape, quite the contrary. At present, it is -rather- complex scenarios with multiple threats: climate change, pollution, epidemics, accidental catches, hunting. Faced with this, the specimens that are in the zoo have veterinarians available, live (at least in theory) in better conditions and even live longer.

Likewise, the defenders of maintaining places such as zoos suggest that if knowledge is generated, they also contribute to protecting diversity because, after all, no one can learn to protect what they do not know. Zoos are spaces, from this perspective, in which knowledge is produced that benefits the entire po[CENSORED]tion. Its educational function consists, therefore, in raising public awareness: an audience that, in many cases, is going to have fun and be entertained and culminates in learning about the natural world.

For their part, the arguments against these spaces of confinement are linked to the fact that they do not guarantee the exercise of a fundamental right: freedom. In addition, its detractors argue that zoos are spaces whose infrastructure was

designed for the animals to be displayed and not to ensure their comfort. So, when offering a show, from a sociological point of view commonly applied to humans, it is possible to point out that they are also "reified".

 

 

their functioning indicate that seeing them in these confinement conditions does not contribute to understanding how nature works. Having predators and not having predators are two aspects that do not replicate real scenarios. Finally, although among its objectives are institutions that "seek to represent the planet's biodiversity", there are only the highest-grossing species.

“There are several discussions that we have to settle. First, whether or not we are going to want zoos. Then, if the answer is affirmative, we have to define what kind of zoo we want. Changing the designation from zoo to theme park, reserve, or sanctuary does not imply an underlying transformation. Ultimately, we will have to define what is pursued with the exhibition of animals: if the goal is educational, reproductive, if there will be autochthonous or exotic fauna. It is not enough, as some believe, just deciding the size of the cages”, says Federovisky.

 

Link: https://www.pagina12.com.ar/540830-anarquia-animal-la-actualidad-de-los-zoologicos-en-argentina