Peter Hamilton: Shutting down the Stanley Park petting zoo is the right decision
It's time to close the petting zoo and focus on Stanley Park's wildlife treasures, Peter Hamilton argues.
Stephen Hui
December 8, 2009
By Peter Hamilton
Times should be a-changing for the Stanley Park Children’s Farmyard, also known as the petting zoo. In the 1990s, Vancouverites voted for no zoo in Stanley Park. The petting zoo, a remnant of a past era, should now be closed. On November 25, the park board voted to shut it down, but the battle for the captive animals’ freedom continues.
The propaganda of the pro-zoo folks borders on fear mongering. They claim that the animals will not be provided with better homes and animal “families” will be split up. Their attacks include unfair criticisms of park board commissioners faced with tough decisions due to hard economic times. On top of this, an untruth being circulated—that the park board turned down a $1-million donation to the petting zoo—no doubt angered many who wrote letters in protest. This lobby is not interested in promoting Stanley Park’s free wildlife treasures.
See also
Sheryl Hamilton: Don’t let Vision Vancouver destroy Bloedel Conservatory
The truth is that peaceful retirement homes would be provided for all of the animals. Many would be allowed to run freely and feel the earth. Presently most are kept in substandard conditions. In sanctuaries, they will finally escape the constant chasing, petting, and noise.
Zoo supporters admit that there must be improvements, and staff may get rid of the bird and reptile menagerie. After all these years, that is too little, too late.
For years, zoo defenders claimed it was educational. Now they want to redefine it as an “educational tool”. But they still don’t know what to do. Both sides now appear to agree that there hasn’t been any true education. It didn’t connect people to how food is produced. It didn’t provide an opportunity to make humane and healthy food choices. The nature of this beast dictates that it never will.
Petting zoos hide inhumane intensive farm practices, “free range” abuse, cruel transport, and violent slaughter. They do not expose the long-term chaining of isolated calves and the veal stalls. They do not expose the pig gestation crates and farrowing stalls. People do not see the cruelty that is inherent in the meat and dairy industry. In addition, the petting zoo is secretive about its factory farming connections.
In 1988, Lifeforce stopped the selling of petting zoo animals to auction, where they were mistreated and later sold for food slaughter. Abuses included piglets being repeatedly kicked like living footballs and peacocks wrapped up with chicken wire. We found similar connections to dealers in 2008. A staffer confirmed to Lifeforce that they had first “borrowed” bunnies for their Easter display from a petting zoo breeder who dumps most of his animals at the auction at the end of the entertainment season.
Last month, staff didn’t even know exactly how many animals they had. One staffer told the Vancouver Sun the petting zoo contained about 150 animals, including reptiles, birds, and “a bunch of rabbits and guinea pigs”. Each individual should be respected. They are not countless commodities.
One group wants to change the focus of the petting zoo to help preserve farmland. Their plan could include a “Backyard Chicken 101” for any city farmers. However, Stanley Park is not farmland. Community gardens should be used for agriculture education—not animals and parkland. Teaching respect for animals can come from nature walks and volunteer work at animal sanctuaries.
The Stanley Park Children’s Farmyard is a haphazard collection of animals where people may be exposed to serious pathogens. The vast majority of people do not go and attendance records are pitiful. Let’s shut it down and use the existing buildings for an improved Stanley Park ecology centre. That is a legitimate park use. There, people would learn about the diversity of fauna and flora living freely in the park. Zoo supporters state that they want to keep the petting zoo as one of the city’s “inexpensive entertainment options”. Take off those blinders—Stanley Park itself is a free nature experience for all to enjoy.
Peter Hamilton is the founding director of Lifeforce, a Vancouver-based organization that promotes animal rights and ecological responsibility.
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Google
Comments
In terms of education, if you actually want kids to care about the environment and animal welfare, then figure out a way to create a feeling of love and connection with individual animals at an early age.
Animals are not disposable, stuffed toys for amusement. Petting zoos only serve to sugar coat the truth that animal husbandry is a harsh, brutal reality for countless animals.
And the urban backyard chicken craze? Another backward step for animals.
Peter Hamilton is right...the real education our children need, is the kind that actually benefits animals by teaching respect for them in their natural habitats. How fortunate we are to have Stanley Park...let's enrich our childrens lives by teaching them more about the unique flora and fauna right there!
Not a big, bad wildlife zoo that commits unspeakable horrors on wild animals by putting them in cages, but a petting zoo that contains mostly farm animals.
This type of exploitation of animals sends a bad message to the children that are supposedly being "educated". Children need to learn respect for all animals.
I am concerned about the Vancouver Park Board's plans to receive submissions of interest for the privatisation of the Childrens' Farmyard. My concerns are threefold and related to transparency, animal welfare, and the welfare of workers.
It is a general rule that transparency is greatly reduced when private operators are allowed to operate on public lands, and this is and always will be a threat to the public interest. There are a few prime examples in the board's jurisdiction, the Vancouver Aquarium, the Horse Carriage Operator in Stanley Park, and private parking operators, all of which have been the object of public concern for their treatment of animals or the public. It is my contention that If the board is going to run a publicly accountable facility, it must be kept it in public hands,
Animal welfare concerns have existed for years over the treatment of animals at the Childrens' Farmyard. If the city goes to a private operator, these issues will only worsen due to lack of transparency and the fear of non-union workers to speak up in cases of abuse.
The animals currently at the facility should be either adopted out into forever homes where they will be treated with respect and all their needs are met, or failing that, allowed to live-out the rest of their lives at the current facility even after it closes its doors to the public. Park Board has for years exploited these animals and now that this is at an end, should at the very least provide a safe retirement for these, the most vulnerable workers in the board's employ.
The Board must not slough off these innocent creatures to places where they will be sent to slaughter, as has happened in the past, or subjected to sub-standard living conditions in other "petting zoos" or poorly vetted foster homes. As the board has been made aware of the serious concerns concerning the disposition of the animals at the farmyard, and the same goes for those at the Bloedel Conservatory, they will be held responsible both ethically and legally for their fate, and should consider carefully all the concerns raised by members of the public on this matter, as we are following this matter with deep concern.
Ideally the Park Board should strike a committee or working group specifically to deal with the disposition of the animals in the Childrens' Farmyard and the Bloedel Conservatory. In addition, a fund should be set up to meet their ongoing and future needs, or the Board will be liable under the provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for failure to provide food, shelter, and veterinary care to animals in the Board's care. The Board should also consider carefully both municipal and federal laws concerning non-native wildlife (aka "exotic animals") in either facility. I would strongly recommend the inclusion of Lifeforce Society in the process of disposition phase due to the society's long involvement in the issue and wide knowledge of the needs of the animals concerned. The society has proven itself again and again a selfless and devoted advocate for the animals in the farmyard and elsewhere in the Board.
(cont'd below)
The welfare of the workers in Park Board facilities is greatly increased if they are part of a union and not a minimum wage worker with no benefits. A privatised company is under no obligation to offer anything other than the provincial minimum wage to its workers. This creates a substandard working environment for the workers, and a lower level of care to the animals and visiting public. You have only to look at how poor sanitary conditions have resulted in our public health care system when the cleaning services were privatized. Do we really need more unnecessary and avoidable risks to human and animal health? Do we really want Vancouver to be known as the city that contracts out services to the lowest common denominator? I think not.
Workers at the Farmyard should also be involved in the disposition of the animals, as they work with them and care for them daily. They know their personalities and needs. Some of the workers should be kept on if the animals cannot all be placed in good and loving new homes which will provide for their needs on a permanent basis. Workers who lose their jobs as a result of the closure should be offered other jobs within the Board, and not lose access to their benefits and seniority.
While closure of the Childrens' Farmyard will cause a temporary disruption for the animals and workers, this can be minimized by the implementation of a comprehensive disposition plan for the animals and consideration for the workers involved.
The public is, and always has been best served by the Stanley Park Ecology Society. Board funds should go towards the expansion of the Society and the development of improved services for wildlife currently making their homes in the city. Improved educational facilities and programs, and improved and expanded wildlife rehabilitation facilities should be at the top of the list.
Hoping for a happy solution for all creatures great and small,
Roslyn Cassells, former Park Commissioner (1999-2002) and Canada's first elected Green
Of course we all know that Peter lives a 100% animal cruelty free life style.
He doesn't drink tap water as our water comes from a reservoir that surely must be harming fish and other living things that get sucked into the water system.
He also doesn't use electricity generated by hydro dams. Nor does he drive a car that used exotic metallic elements like chromium in it's construction.
I think Peter needs to take a hint from the name of his organization and he should 'Get a Life'
To address the $1million question: I cannot confirm whether or not this happened. I have been given conflicting information and am in the process of trying to get the whole story. I could start naming names to bring the truth out of the woodwork, but that’s not my style. What I was told by someone who was there, is that, in a closed meeting an informal offer of $1million over 10 years was offered and shot down by another manager at this meeting because it was “not enough” to sustain the Farmyard. This offer was not to single-handedly operate the Farmyard, but to subsidize it. Of course, the current Parks & Rec staff wouldn’t have any information on this, because it never went anywhere, as it was an informal offer. The point remains that the offer was made, according to my source. At least two of the people at this meeting are now retired, so it makes this all that much more difficult to get accurate information, not to mention that it happened a number of years ago.
If anyone is “fear-mongering” it is Peter Hamilton. He would like to see children educated on factory farming, presumably showing them horrific photos. Most factory farming is a terrible practice. Children need to develop empathy towards animals if they are to grow up and make changes in that industry. The best way to do this is by exposing children to the animals. Many families can’t afford a car to go to a working farm or even know where to go. Concern for the animals well-being when children visit the Farmyard were addressed by one of the staff who work there, when I questioned how they dealt with large groups of kids and even just a few at a time. This was the response that I got:
“Up until last year if we had a school group booked when we were closed to the public we would bring in an extra staff member to deal with them. Now we just use the two staff working that day. Whether we're open or not one staff member will greet the group at the entrance to go over some basic rules: no running, screaming, feeding or chasing the animals, no climbing fences or entering rest areas. Although we no longer offer guided tours, at least one staff member will follow the group around to enforce rules and answer questions. We ask that all backpacks and lunch bags be left at the entrance to avoid the temptation of feeding. If the group is very large (more than 30), they may be asked to split up and visit different areas of the farm so no one area is overcrowded, in which case we need one staff member for each group. Our animals in the contact yard have two rest areas to access when they want to escape the public. They have food and water in one of these rest areas. We do not force the animals to come out even if there are no animals in the yard, much to the public's dismay at times. Our rabbit cages always have one side of their cage closed and locked so they can escape the public. They also have hiding places in the open side. We always have two staff members to patrol the barns and yards, and clean up droppings in the contact yard. We do patrols all day when we're open, not just for school groups. Don't forget we care for these animals and will not let anyone abuse them!”
(cont'd below)
Regarding the conditions of the barns; the barn where the farm animals are kept, is hosed down twice a day. They are cleaner than most farms. My great-uncle had a working farm. His barn was clean, but never this clean. There was just no time. The animals are well-cared for and are considered by staff as part of their own families.
There are lots of ideas that the Farmyard Staff have been asking to implement for years, such as removing the bird and reptile barn. They would like to see that space used as an education area. They would like to put in a garden and teach children about where their food does come from. The would like to give the alpacas back to the woman who originally gave them to the farm, because they are not social animals, and quite frankly, are not a farm animals, although they are farmed for their hair, just as sheep are. How many of you are sporting wool sweaters this winter?
The animals are not mistreated, and for the most part they are animals that you would find on any working farm. Do you think that a farmer would know exactly how many rabbits, cats, sheep, cows, etc. he would have on a farm? My great-uncle couldn’t have given that info off the top of his head. When Ms. Schebel was asked how many animals there were, it was an out-of-the-blue question. She does not need to know 24/7 exactly how many animals there are at the Farmyard. I’m sure there is a roster that is grabbed in an emergency. She has worked there for so long, that she could probably glance around and know if one of the animals is missing, but to come up with an exact number and be on her case about it, is quite petty. I think she did a pretty good job. There are approximately 150 animals, but for that story it is not necessary to count every single one. Peter is blowing this way out of proportion. If you want to talk about abuse, go to the Vancouver Zoo in Abbotsford, where there have been actual allegations. NONE of these wild animals are in their natural habitat. At least the Farmyard is close to what a farm is like. Yes, it would be nice to have more space and a more natural setting, but with the resources they have been given, it’s just not possible. The Staff want to make changes, but are at the mercy of the Parks and Rec. The animals at the Farmyard are put in stalls at night, or if they want to not be around other animals or the children there is a place where they can go, or if they are sick. This is just like any other farm. They are not hooked up to anything unnatural.
If you think these animals are abused, I encourage you to go out there to see it for yourself. They’re open at 3 p.m. right now. Or arrange a visit with the staff. Sure, you can say that they will make everything nice for a visitor, but the truth is, that they don’t have time to do anything extra than what they already do. Some of the employees have gone to auxiliary status just so that they can continue to work there.
Get a life Peter and go help the animals who really need saving, because they are out there, just not at the Stanley Park Farmyard.
Tamara Flick-Parker
Last time I checked these animals don't have pension plans, & when they become the property of a private company who's first priority is making money, what chance do they really have? Once they hit a certain age, become less useful, or fall ill, & the cost of killing them is cheaper than making them better, what do you think will happen to them?
Peter has touched on some of the cruel livestock practices that exist in the industry today in his article. The reality is that he can't guarantee that the animals won't end up in places like this down the line, no one can. Their only guarantee for a long, happy, safe life is at the Children's Farmyard.They had a cow die recently that was 20 yrs OLD! You talk to anyone in the business and they'll tell you just how rare that is.
Peter, it's a nice fantasy, it really is, but this is the real world my friend, you should try living in it.
Peter continues to reference the same couple incidents over and over again. The farmyard stopped selling animals to auction 21 years. That practice predates all current employees but one. It really has no bearing in the argument two decades later.
He says that staff is doing too little too late, again, untrue. Staff have consistently made suggestions over the years to physical/program/advertising improvements and have always been shot down by management. They are now hoping they can institute change since there is a large public voice finally listening.
I am as big an animal lover as anyone, but these are farm animals. What utopia does he believe they will be going to? They would not be lounging in paradise elsewhere. IF they could even get adopted, the would be WORKING animals, forced to give milk, produce eggs, and likely eventually slaughtered. These are their cozy "retirement homes". These animals were mostly saved from horrendous conditions and are content and loved in Stanley Park.