Third party can end Lucy debate

August 19, 2009

by: Jermey Loome, Edmonton Sun

There is one simple truth about Lucy the elephant that neither side in the debate over her future will state: most of the people commenting on her publicly have absolutely no expertise in the issue.

Yes, Bob Barker loves animals and is well-read, I'm sure. But he's not an animal behaviourist or a veterinarian specializing in pachyderms. Yes, Linda Sloan always means well. But she's a council stereotype, not an elephant expert.

Similarly, few if any of those councillors and Edmontonians supporting the zoo have either the expertise or the first-person knowledge. They're relying on trust in public officials.

But the loudest voices in the debate --the zoo on one side and animal rights' groups like Zoocheck and PETA on the other -- both have vested interests. Both PETA and Zoocheck have a long history of overstating possible risks and threats as imperatives, while the zoo has a major financial involvement stemming from its expansion plans.

In an era where, finally, the public is starting to consider the animal's rights first and the vested interests of other parties second, the sensible position is to allow an independent third party, agreed to by both sides, to inspect Lucy and her day-to-day existence.

Initially, the opposition to moving Lucy was that she is too old and, at the time that it was first suggested, that her health was too suspect due to an ongoing foot infection -- a fact Barker and PETA intimated was being kept from the public, when it fact it has been common knowledge for a long time.

But her handlers have recently stated that her foot is no longer a problem. If that's the case, the remaining impediment to a potential move would be the zoo arguing that she's not unhappy here, not too confined and not lonely-- or, alternately, that she might not adapt well to the new environment.

Those are issues easily determined by behaviourists and health experts. Again, aside from taking umbrage with others' perspectives on their intentions, what harm could Lucy's handlers do by allowing those inspections, assuming they've agreed in advance that the party involved is able to stay neutral.

We've reached an era where making sport of animals is quickly becoming socially unaccepable. Circuses are phasing out animal acts in light of withering exposes on their practices.

Zoos are being replaced by larger sanctuaries, where animals can have freedom to live and behave with a modicum of normalcy. Hunting and poaching is under siege and trophy hunting, in particular, is almost taboo.

The very fact that the zoo's future plans include one-quarter tropical animals, unsuited to this environment except through artifice, will provoke controversy in and of itself.

Letting a third party inspect Lucy's circumstances can go some way towards reassuring the public it's the animals that are the first consideration.