Re: Not all zoos are birds of a feather

Auston Chhor’s assertion that zoo breeding programs contribute to bolstering wild populations of endangered species is belied by science. Multiple studies have concluded that captive-breeding programs should be viewed as a last resort and not as a long-term solution for survival of endangered species. A 2015 study published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, for just one example, concluded that unless wild animals are protected, captive breeding is futile. The lead researcher concluded, “… Without conservation in the wild there is no point in captive breeding.” The vast majority of animals kept in zoos are not endangered nor being prepared for release into natural habitats.

No zoo can come close to replicating the complex jungles, savannahs, oceans and forests where wild animals belong. And laws don’t even require it. The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) affords captive animals only minimal protections. Cage size regulations, for example, only require that animals be provided enough space to make “normal postural and social adjustments.” In plain talk that means that a cage is “large” enough if an animal can stand up, lie down, turn and move around a bit. That’s all that’s required, and in many cases, that’s all that’s provided.

Study after study, including those conducted by the zoo industry itself, have shown that most zoo visitors simply wander around the grounds, pause briefly in front of some displays and spend their time on snacks and bathroom breaks.  Squandering resources, and adding more noise and commotion, many zoos are adding splash pads, trains and amusement rides.

One study of visitors to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., showed that people spent less than eight seconds per snake exhibit and only one minute with the lions. Researchers concluded that ‘people … treat[ed] the exhibits like wallpaper.” An article in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums magazine CONNECT detailed a study that found that most visitors to zoos did not retain much new information. When asked what they had learned at an exhibit, the most popular answer was “nothing.”  

It’s 2016. We know that animals suffer when denied everything that gives their lives meaning. Zoos are the last place people who care about animals should support.

If wildlife as we know it is to survive, the primary focus must shift from collections of animals in zoos to habitat preservation in the wild. Keeping animals in cages — in zoos or any animal display — has no positive effect whatsoever on fostering respect for animals in the wild.  They are still hunted, poached, captured for display and otherwise decimated. In-situ conservation is what will save species.  

Jennifer O’Connor, Senior Writer, PETA Foundation

Re: Postdocs make a plea for equity

I’m writing to express embarrassment at the juvenile behaviour of PSAC Local 901 representing Queen’s postdocs. How a delivery of Mr. Noodles helps to establish an atmosphere of respect for further dialogue in order to break the bargaining impasse is beyond me. These are the type of actions that attract scorn to unions and take away from the recognition of their essential role in significantly improving labour conditions throughout Canada’s history.
 
While I emphatically support the issues being raised, especially those of health and childcare access, media stunts do nothing to help the bargaining process and reflect poorly on postdocs who are training to be the scholars and thinkers of the future. The current negotiations seem to be defined by an adversarial approach that clings to the philosophy that employees and employers are fundamentally at odds with each other, and that assumes the entire relationship is defined by win-lose propositions. Should we not be able to bring an honest and creative approach, seeking win-win solutions instead?
 
Postdocs are defined and treated differently at every institution. Some are still considered students, some are staff and most fall somewhere in between. The role of a postdoc in Canada’s research landscape is muddy at best and, given the huge increase in the number of PhD graduates, needs to be clarified. However, with press coverage emphasizing the need for salary increases and distracting comparisons to how many employees earn more than $100,000, we are missing a broader opportunity to better define the role and affirm the value of postdocs to producing world-class research at Queen’s.
 
As a final suggestion to Mr. Berggold, one doesn’t ask for respect. One earns respect through actions and behaviours, exactly what a ramen delivery to Principal Woolf’s office fails to achieve.

Dr. Gregory King, Robert-Gilbert Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Geography & Planning

Antiseptic Homecoming

Kingston citizens were relieved to learn in The Whig of Sept. 2 that Queen’s principal Daniel Woolf has cleared the streets of rabble, while presenting the city with $300,000 over three years to cover safety issues in the university district. “It all comes down to safety,” said Woolf.

Very generous indeed considering that last year’s Homecoming “did not receive any out-of-the-ordinary calls for service in the university district.” Well the fear business has always been expensive, and when it comes to potentially anarchistic students, “I don’t actually think you can put a price on safety.” (Woolf again.)

We can all sleep soundly now knowing that this year’s quota of old renegades and incoming frosh will be safely contained.

Josef Reeve, Queen’s Alumni