From the Daily Mail we have a tug-of-war zoo story.
A 'moronic' zoo has been blasted for letting children as young as eight play a tug-of-war with lions and tigers in a £15-a-ticket 'human v beast challenge'.
In a tweet to Datmoor Zoo, The Born Free Foundation said: '@.DartmoorZoo to offer 'Human vs Beast Experience' this February half-term. Is a tug of war game with a lion or tiger really the way to inspire respect for these animals? RT to urge the zoo to rethink this! #Don'tBuyCaptivity #KeepWildlifeinTheWild.'
This is while other activists said: 'Is this for real? What moron thought that this was a good idea'.
One Twitter user @paulwrites said: 'Are they living in medieval times? Whoever thought of this and backed it should think very carefully about demonising animals as commodities for profit.'
Meat is attached to a rope to bait the animals and when it picks it up the participants, which are on the other side of the fence, take up the other end of rope for a tug-of-war.
Suppose the zoo had built a machine which did the same thing as this tug-of-war game, it made the lions and tigers fight for their meat in the same way. The public would not be allowed to watch the machine in operation at feeding time.
Or suppose the public are allowed to watch the machine in operation at feeding time.
Or suppose the zoo had built a similar machine but members of the public could operate it from outside the animal enclosure.
I'm sure there was a time when such counterfactual arguments were fairly common as a way to analyse arguments, dilemmas and social problems. They require a modicum of imagination but that's all. Simple counterfactual arguments are powerful and interesting do not seem to be nearly as common in the public arena as they could be.
Of course we know this dispute has nothing to do with animal welfare in zoos, its driver is an implacable opposition to zoos. I'm not that keen on them but it is perfectly conceivable that they are more useful than their detractors claim.
3 comments:
This is one of those situations where your distinction between belief and advocacy might be usefully deployed. The animal rights zealots have been taught advocacy around a particular position, but how many of them have enough knowledge of big cat psychology to formulate an actual belief? I would probably listen to anyone who had a reasoned opposition to such practices, and then applied it to a real-life situation which arose. But they are obviously encountering an idea for the first time, and claiming a pre-existing expertise.
Another sign of it being mere advocacy is the axiomatic assumption that something must be bad for cats because it makes money for someone.
Most zoos today are run on a conservation model, many very successfully, but that does not necessarily put bums on seats which they need to keep going.
This Dartmoor zoo could be onto something, the idea just needs tweaking, I suggest weekend Lion fests with politicians chosen by public vote are forced to hang onto the rope till one side is victorious and prodded with sharpened sticks to remain at their posts, I can guarantee very large crowds, it worked in the Roman Coliseum !
Sam - good point, it is advocacy. It feels like the free-floating version you suggested - the profit aspect certainly feels like that. Quite disturbing in some ways.
Wiggia - that's a fine idea and you are right about the crowds.
Post a Comment