You wouldn't expect a zoo to host an animal-fighting contest, would you? Certainly not a dog fight, but what about a hog-dog contest? What about an event in which the contestants are unevenly matched, so that it's not so much a fight as a slaughter, as when live bait is fed to a much larger animal who happens to be higher up on the food chain?
I certainly wouldn't - not in this day and age. After all, since the 1970s or so, zoos have undergone something of a paradigm shift, reorienting themselves away from the animal-prison model, in which animals were confined, typically in appallingly inhumane and unnatural conditions - and solely for the amusement of human spectators - and, instead, began to embrace the principle of captivity for conservation. Many zoos began to see their mission not as one of entertainment but as one incorporating the twin objectives of conservation and education. It would not be unreasonable to say that zoos, toward the end of the 20th century, became more enlightened. Significantly - and consistent with that enlightenment - many zoos now subscribe to a code of ethics. Such a code can be found within the The Association of Zoos & Aquariums, which describes itself on its website as follows:
The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and aquariums in the areas of conservation, education, science and recreation. AZA represents more than 230 institutions in the United States and overseas which collectively draw more than 195 million visitors every year. These institutions meet the highest standards in animal care and provide a fun, safe and educational family experience. In addition, they dedicate millions of dollars to support scientific research, conservation, and education programs.The AZA's code of ethics states, in part,
Our profession is based on respect for the dignity of the animals in our care, the people we serve, and our fellow professionals and volunteers. . . . A consequent obligation of membership is to maintain the highest degree of ethical conduct.One of these 230 institutions is the El Paso Zoo, which was granted accreditation by the AZA in 2013. On its website, the El Paso Zoo boasts that it "is the best place in El Paso and the surrounding region for kids and families to spend time together." It proclaims its educational mission - "The El Paso Zoo educates over 350,000 visitors every year including thousands of students visiting the zoo on field trips"- and encourages teachers to "sign up your students for interactive . . . curriculum programs offered at the zoo or at your school!"
It came as something of a jolt to my sensibilities, therefore, not to mention to my understanding of the ethical and humane principles that I assumed governed most legitimate zoos nowadays, to learn that the El Paso Zoo has been promoting an event - for Saint Valentine's Day, no less - which it has entitled "Quit Bugging Me!!!" The public has been invited to send in the names of ex-lovers, boyfriends, girlfriends or spouses, which names will then be bestowed on cockroaches. The cockroaches will then be fed to hungry meerkats, in the process, ceremonially killing, or killing in effigy, each ex whose name was sent in by a resentful former partner. That seems healthy, doesn't it? As the Zoo itself has promoted it, "Watch . . . to see our meerkat mob crunch down on these little bugs!" According to CBS, all this is to be live-streamed on Facebook and on the zoo's website.
For an educational institution that is also a department of the city of El Paso and that, therefore, certainly receives tax-payer dollars for its funding, one is entitled to question the wisdom, the ethics and the educational value of promoting the message that nursing a grudge and wishing to see one's ex publicly exterminated in effigy is not only okay but good family fun. The El Paso Zoo's events coordinator, Sarah Borrego, told CBS, "This is a fun way to get the community involved in our daily enrichment activities." Really? I can only imagine the terror that a domestic-violence victim must experience when she or he sees her or his name on social media bestowed on one of the cockroaches fated for death. Sure, I can see how the victim of an abuser who is marked for symbolic extermination may derive some vindication or at least enjoy the indulgence in a fantasy of vengeance, but what if it is the other way around? What if the designated cockroach bears the name not of an abuser but of his or her victim? Will this be interpreted as a credible threat?
As I see it, however, this is offensive more than simply because it unabashedly encourages base sentiments, such as a craving for vengeance, rather than promoting love, understanding and forgiveness. It is offensive because it demeans life, and it demeans death.
I'm not opposed to meerkats consuming cockroaches, just as I'm not opposed to large cats - lions, for example - killing and eating gazelles in order to stay alive. After all, the survival of all carnivores depends upon the death of other animals. I accept and respect that harsh but necessary part of nature's design. That reality would be a valid educational objective for any zoo worthy of accreditation by the AZA. But the El Paso Zoo's Name-a-cockroach-after-your-ex event is not that. What it is, and what it is being promoted as, is nothing more than the spectacle of carnivores preying on weaker animals simply for the entertainment - to satisfy the blood-lust, to put it bluntly - of human beings. And as objectionable as it is to appeal to the violent predilections of adults, it's even more objectionable to inculcate such predilections in children by exposing them to the law of the jungle in such a gratuitous and crass way. The El Paso Zoo's Quit Bugging Me!!! event is ethically as inappropriate as it would be for their staff to put a hungry lion and a gazelle together in an enclosed space and then invite the public to watch as the fun ensues. And if this were not obscene enough, to encourage the public not just to watch such an event but to go considerably beyond the mere watching of it by symbolically personifying the prey animal as a stand-in victim for someone they loathe strikes me as being by orders of magnitude worse. Has our society come to this? Are we no better than the Romans, with their gladiatorial contests and animal-killing displays? Is this really how the El Paso Zoo wants to represent death in the natural world to children? As entertainment? As vengeance?
It's one thing for animals to kill and eat other animals in order to survive. It's another thing entirely for human beings to derive enjoyment or humor from watching it. The El Paso Zoo's Name-a-cockroach-after-your-ex event is ethically no better than dog fighting or cock fighting. It's no better than rattlesnake-killing festivals. It's essentially a hog-dog contest writ small. But the immorality of it is large and it is the same. If it is acceptable to derive a perverse satisfaction from watching a cockroach suffer and die - yes, even a lowly cockroach - why not a mouse or a gerbil? Why not a cat? Why not an elephant? Where does one draw the line, and how does one draw it?
This stunt is antithetical to the enlightened respect for animal life that modern zoos are supposed to represent. I say shame on the El Paso Zoo for providing such a depraved form of vicarious revenge. A zoo should be fostering respect for all forms of animal life because of the principle involved. It should not be treating insects as creatures whom it is permissible to kill for our own personal entertainment or gratification.
