Translator: Trish Jenkins Reviewer: Ilse S. Úziel
On the 11th of July I woke up with the image of Bantu,
the 24 year old gorilla that lived in Chapultepec Zoo;
literally decapitated.
The news transcended the front pages
of national and international newspapers
as only a few days earlier the zoo had announced that Bantu
would be transferred to Guadalajara Zoo
to try and mate him with Chencha or Faustina.
The transfer never happened, they gave Bantu two doses
when it should have been one, according to international protocols,
of four drugs.
One of those drugs was medetomidine,
a veterinary drug
prescribed by national legislation to administer in cases where the aim
is to provide a wild animal or pet with a dignified death.
It is regulated in the NOM 033
in the section on handling prior to death.
Bantu's case leaves an important question:
Can zoos protect the species they keep in captivity?
Moreover, do all zoos protect?
For those who are not aware, zoos started
as collections of animals that were deemed fascinating
by those who exhibited them.
In the 18th century human beings were also fascinating creatures.
Aztec emperor Moctezuma Xocoyotzin had in his collection
midgets, albinos and hunchbacks, while colonial and white Europeans
exhibited blacks and Indigenous.
It no longer happens
because we understood as time passed,
that there is racial prejudice in having a person
incarcerated without having committed a crime.
Nevertheless, we continue to capture and exhibit other species.
Elephants, polar bears, pandas,
tigres, lions, giraffes and gorillas, are still fascinating animals to us
and zoos put them at the public's disposal to see them.
We use a lot of resources keeping exotic animals
we wouldn't be able to see freely in our country.
For years we thought that keeping them in this way
would protect them from extinction.
But... does it?
I mean, a modern zoo is meant to be
a place for wildlife conservation.
This implies that the objective for Bantu
to be in the zoo was to positively impact those of his own species
who live free in their natural habitat.
The very World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
acknowledges that keeping species under human care
is not enough.
The challenge is to protect their ecosystems.
This means that even if Bantu had mated successfully,
which turned out to be impossible - based on post mortem reports
that indicated he was sterile-,
none of his offsprings would have ended up in Africa.
I'll say it differently:
Our North American neighbors
declared in 2011 that their gorilla population
is demographically sustainable,
meaning that there is genetic diversity
in their captive gorilla population.
This sounds good and is fine,
but there are no plans to free said population.
In fact, no zoo frees gorillas back to their natural habitat.
What I am saying contradicts popular belief
that a modern zoo preserves species.
What I am saying is that zoos carry out mere housing
and housing live animals in cages
is not preservation of the species.
Bantu was born, grew up and died in a cage without preserving his species
Do you remember this saying from Animal Farm?
"All animals are equal,
but some are more equal than others"
Its meaning was clear to me when on one occasion
I asked a group of students to look at these two pictures
and describe them.
Colour determined preference for one rat and fear towards the other.
They thought one was disgusting and the other sweet.
I think something similar happens when we visit a zoo.
What I mean is I don't know anyone that wakes up one day
anxious to get to the zoo to see the porcupine
Yet I know many who bypass it in the zoo
to get to the Panda bear.
If we observe animal distribution
in Chapultepec zoo,
we will soon notice that it's built based on these preferences
The more popular animals have the biggest spaces,
they are at the centre and in view of the zoo management.
Polar bears at the end,
elephants centre right,
Panda bears centre left,
the gorilla at the end of the route.
Modern zoos boast they educate people
about endangered species
to promote wildlife conservation.
Instead, they base their infrastructure on placing exotic animals
in strategic places.
One could think that despite Bantu
not having much impact in conservation terms
he had it in educational terms.
The thing is that Mexicans
don't come across gorillas on the streets or jungles in our day to day.
So what we learned about Bantu
has no practical implications.
Whereas we are not able to recognise this
for the animals we do see day to day.
Possums for example
are the only Mexican marsupials.
They live in the city
and people step on them thinking they are rats, a plague,
when they are in fact at risk of extinction.
Following the captivity logic
that maintains that education and conservation
must be joint and focused on endangered species,
would it not be more useful for Chapultepec zoo
to have possums instead of gorillas?
I ask because possums
don't even have a space in this zoo,
which happens to be the largest in the country.
I'll ask it differently:
Why do we lock gorillas up that we will never free?
Why do we ignore possums with whom we cohabit?
Do we discriminate against possums because they aren't as big
or as charismatic as gorillas?
Why aren't we fascinated by possums?
We discriminate against animals not only due to their species,
but also due to their behaviour.
I don't know anyone that has issue with lions eating meat.
We know it's normal considering they are carnivores.
But I do know people, particularly parents,
who would not feel very comfortable knowing they'd arrive to the zoo
to witness how lions obtain their meat.
Some would leave horrified and would consider it cruelty
that lions hunted live pray in the zoo.
I know this because something similar happened in Denmark two years ago
when Copenhagen zoo killed Marius the giraffe,
it quartered it in front of kids
and gave it to the lions to eat.
Th international news were classified
as totally unnecessary cruelty,
as there had been a petition with over 20,000 signatures
asking the zoo not to kill Marius.
I mean, there are things we like about animals
and there are things we'd rather ignore.
Lions, whose nature is to hunt and devour prey immediately
have been reduced to mere scavengers.
We give them meat in pieces,
from animals that were butchered in advance.
Just like the lions in Denmark
which devoured Marius already in pieces.
Is it becoming clear that something is not as it should?
Animals don't behave as they would naturally
and species which require attention
don't get it.
The organisation I preside, Big Ape Project,
has a clear proposition:
Relocate exotic animals
to where they will have a better quality of life.
Starting with Toto,
the surviving orangutan in Chapultepec zoo
who could go all expenses paid to a sanctuary in Brazil
belonging to the organisation.
The other option is that he goes to Indonesia
where his species is from,
with the primatologist Birute Galdikas
who came to visit him in April and could take him
to Tanjung Puting national park,
a reserve she has protected for 25 years.
This way we free up space and resources
to focus on the endemic fauna
that must be preserved in our country,
propelling its release to its natural habitat
and its conservation in an enclosure-free environment.
How?
Establishing more protected natural areas.
The proposal has already been taken to the Environment Secretary,
who said at the time that since last year
zoos in the capitals no longer buy animals
to fill empty cages.
This ended up being a lie,
it would have only been the first step in the right direction.
The functions of a modern zoo are, supposedly,
conservation and education.
But the biggest zoo in the country does not comply to this.
Chapultepec is still seen as a circus.
Its own management confirmed they sought to bring two Chinese Pandas
using tax payers money.
Have we not learnt from our mistakes?
What's left from Bantu's experience?
Why do we remove two Pandas from their natural habitat
I all they are going to do is fill a glass window?
Let's be clear,
if species were truly preserved
there would be no need for zoos.
Instead, these places have existed for centuries
and what's worse, it was in this century
that we triggered the sixth mass extinction.
What are we doing?
I refuse to be a part of it.
A zoo that complied with its true function
would by definition have an expiry date.
This idea is so powerful that I've been threatened to death
for saying it out loud.
And though I still don't know who's behind such a dirty intimidation strategy
I know that the people will know what decision to make.
I believe with the information at hand and common sense
each person listening will form a view.
I believe if these points are truly understood,
society will logically see that the closure of zoos
is not only imminent, but desirable.
We know we can help animals,
we know we can preserve species.
Yes we have been capable of big mistakes
let's take responsibility and build solutions.
If we can design buildings to contain animals
we can design plans to release them.
But to open a cage,
we need to first open our minds.
Thank you.
(Applause)