I generally feel conflict about zoos, believing that, in a perfect world, animals belong in their natural environments, left to themselves. Sadly, we do not live in that perfect world and many species are moving toward extinction, often at the hands of humans. It seems that a last chance for some of these species might involve breeding and raising them in captivity. In fact, in some cases, wildlife conservancy efforts (including zoos and animal sanctuaries) have been successful at reintroducing species that have gone extinct or have declining populations in the wild.

That said, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper just announced China will be loaning Canada two of their endangered giant pandas for a ten year period: the first five years at the Toronto Zoo, and the remaining five at the Calgary Zoo. The touted focus of this effort is on breeding the animals, but it’s quite obvious this is part of Harper’s move to (in his words): “expand on our strategic partnership with China and…deepen the economic and trade ties between our two countries.” This will cost Canada $1 million a year for the ten year period, which does not include costs for habitat modifications, staff training, and veterinary support at the two zoos; plus the cost of obtaining bamboo (it comprises 99% of the giant panda’s diet), which has been estimated at $200,000 annually.

With my already conflicted views about zoos and my desire to believe captive breeding is beneficial to endangered species, I can’t help but feel this is nothing but political grandstanding, and that the last thing either government is considering is the welfare and preservation of these gentle animals.

When in doubt, I look to PETA for guidance and I found a 2008 news release on their Asia-Pacific site, which was published shortly after Japan lost their famous giant panda, Ling Ling. The release announces a plea to the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs to halt the acquisition of two pandas for the Ueno Zoo (the zoo where Ling Ling died). It states:

Zoos have nothing to offer pandas or any other animals except deprivation and loneliness. Animals are relegated to a lifetime of boredom and abuse. Pandas in particular suffer in captivity. Although they are shy and shun human contact, captive pandas are besieged by a constant onslaught of visitors, and they are artificially and invasively bred. Most attempts to breed pandas in captivity have failed and have done little to propagate the species.

Although it was created to encourage habitat preservation, the panda diplomacy program has shifted its focus from protecting pandas in the wild to attracting paying customers in zoos. The program has come under intensified scrutiny as experts learn more about the detrimental effects that captivity has on pandas. In 2006, Taiwan declined an offer of two pandas, saying that the endangered animals are better left in their natural habitat. In addition, pandas have become political and profitable bartering tools. With loan terms of 100 million yen a year, trading pandas has become an extremely lucrative industry for China.

I kind of think that says it all. At the very least, if giant pandas are going to be kept (and bred) in captivity, it should be at a sanctuary in China, which preserves their natural habitat. In my mind, it’s lamentable that my prime minister has agreed on the spending of millions of Canadian dollars to “rent” two animals and place them in a stress-filled situation as a symbol of “strategic partnership”, which, at the end of the day, provides more immediate (financial) benefit to China than to Canada.

I grew up going to the Toronto Zoo, either with my family or on school trips, and I still believe that a generous amount of my understanding of, and my love and compassion for animals (of all species) was cultivated by those early visits. (It’s also the best zoo I’ve been to, with regard to size and quality of animal habitats.) I’m still a bit torn, as I do love to spend hours of time watching and learning about animals. But I think humans have evolved to the point where most of us recognize species decline is directly related to habitat destruction. If we are to preserve any species, we must first preserve the natural habitat, rather than attempt to create an artificial one. Plus, we’re living in an advanced age where access to rare and endangered animals is easier than it has been in the past. As PETA states in their article, “Zoos: Pitiful Prisons“:

With informative television programming, educational opportunities on the Internet, and the relative ease of international travel, learning about or viewing animals in their natural habitats can be as simple as a flick of a switch or a hike up a mountain. The idea of keeping animals confined behind cage bars is obsolete.

We are learning. But slowly. Last year the Toronto Zoo recommended an end to the elephant program and Toronto city council made the decision to move the elephants to the PAWS (Performing Animal Welfare Society) sanctuary in California, where they will live in a warm climate and have hundreds of acres of terrain to roam. This is an absolutely monumental decision and it made my heart soar for the three remaining elephants. (Read more about the Toronto Zoo elephants here.)

But why take one small step forward only to take a huge (elephantine) one backward by bringing Chinese giant pandas on-board? For my part, I will write the letters to the zoos and to my prime minister, urging them to retract this bad decision. It would be comforting to imagine a country-wide news story such as this might bring attention to the plight of endangered species worldwide, but, as I said above: we’re learning slowly.

What are your thoughts on the panda debate and zoos in general?