The Balance Beam

I never wanted to think of zoos and aquariums are political entities, but on some level it's inevitable.  Political issues closely impact not only zoos and aquariums themselves (USDA inspections, regulations on the acquisition/transport of animals, government-owned species, etc), but on topics central to our core mission, such as conservation and education.  Still, I never suspected that the country would become so politicized that everything would start to be seen through the lens of right and left, red and blue, authoritarian or "woke."

I see a long, difficult walk ahead of us on a narrow balance beam, high off the ground.

On one side, we lean heavily into messaging that pushes for advocacy and change.  We continue to loudly and vocally express support for conservation initiatives, including calling out government and industry practices that harm species and their environments - as Monterey Bay Aquarium was willing to do over lobster-trapping, and now faces a lawsuit.  We advocate for continued reintroduction programs and habitat restorations, working with such government agencies as will still participate in these projects (I suspect more at a state level for the next four years).  We are open and honest about our history.  We continue to try to make our own campuses sustainable, and encourage visitors to do the same.  We continue to recruit, employ, and celebrate a diverse workforce, and strive to make our facilities open and accessible to all.

This is the position I favor - though I acknowledge that it carries the risk of angering powerful people if pushed too far.  Suppose, say, a zoo were to build an exhibit complex themed on the US-Mexican borderlands, with a giant, ugly wall running through some of the habitats that illustrated how such a construction would negatively impact ocelots, desert bighorn sheep, pronghorns, and other species.  It would be a bold, powerful statement.  It might also result in boycotts, funding pulled, and, the way things are going with this admin, legal harassment.

On the other side, we keep our heads down, just focus on exhibiting and breeding animals (for exhibit purposes) for the next few years.  We offer ourselves up as a fun, relaxing, and, above all, apolitical oasis for the next few years, a place where visitors can think about tigers instead of tariffs, rhinos instead of racism.  Scrub our signage of anything "political."  End our DEAI programs.  Some of our shadier colleagues would doubtlessly benefit from the reduced focus on regulation; I wouldn't be shocked if we saw less of USDA inspectors over the next few years.  Maybe more animals get kicked off the Endangered Species list, making it easier to do what they will with them without permits.  Maybe importing animals from the wild becomes a lot easier.  Heck, some people may be tempted to cozy up to the new admin with flattery and signs of fealty ("Presenting the President Donald J. Trump Lion House!") to curry favor.

Leaning this way takes us from our core mission, and turns us back to what our critics always said we were - animals in boxes, assembled for the amusement of the public.  We become the "circus" part of "bread and circuses."  When this political scenario is finally played out, we may be relatively unscathed - but we'll be remembered as cowards.  As magnificent as the facility was (well, before the bombs fell), people tend to remember the Berlin Zoo of the Third Reich in a certain, less-flattering way.

I know which direction I want to lean into... but I guess we'll all have to make our own choices.