‘Clumsy’ Jane Goodall Act would hinder zoos’ conservation work: Senator Plett
Tags
Since its 2022 reintroduction in the Senate by Senator Marty Klyne, the Jane Goodall Act (Bill S-241) has garnered a fair amount of interest. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the fact that Jane Goodall herself has endorsed the legislation, but it is also reflective of the growing public interest in the welfare of non-domestic animals in human care.
Bill S-241 seeks to amend federal legislation in order to give greater protection to animals held in captivity in Canada. Writers have used adjectives like “landmark” and “global leader” to describe the legislation, and Humane Society International has called it “some of the strongest legislation for wild animals in captivity and wildlife protection in the world.” There’s no question that, if passed, this bill would radically alter the landscape for zoos and non-domestic animals held in human care in Canada.
Currently, exotic wildlife in captivity in Canada falls into three categories: accredited zoos, non-accredited zoos and private ownership. Bill S-241 would dramatically change this framework by effectively removing the right to keep exotic animals in either roadside zoos or private residences.
The legislation would make it illegal to own, have custody of, import or breed more than 800 species of non-domesticated animals unless the animal care organization is deemed by the environment minister to “meet the highest standards of animal care.”
The problem is that the bill doesn’t define what it means by “the highest standards of animal care.” It leaves that job to the minister, and instead gives a pass to the seven Canadian zoos that are accredited through the American-based Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) by “deeming” them to be eligible animal care organizations. But zoos that are accredited by Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) don’t get equal treatment.
This selective categorization suggests that the AZA has superior standards to CAZA, and yet much of the evidence points in the opposite direction. The AZA is on record as vociferously opposing the current Canadian standards, and yet Bill S-241 makes them the benchmark for the proposed higher standards — with which AZA neither agrees nor complies. The hypocrisy is disturbing.
By targeting zoos accredited through CAZA, Bill S-241 threatens the exceptional conservation work currently being carried out by these institutions. For example, African Lion Safari in Ontario has been successful in breeding 30 species that are considered endangered and 20 species that are considered threatened. They are renowned for their research and conservation efforts involving giraffes, Asian elephants, blue-throated macaws, eastern loggerhead shrikes, barn owls, bald eagles and rhinos.
Parc Safari in Quebec also focuses on the conservation of endangered species through reproduction and reintroduction. They have successfully reintroduced cheetahs to Africa that were born at the park.
But while both of these institutions are accredited by CAZA, they are not accredited by AZA, which means that Bill S-241 threatens their survival — along with more than 15 other CAZA-accredited zoos — and the conservation work that depends on them.
The bill goes on to unilaterally dictate that elephants should not be held in human care in Canada. This flies in the face of expert scientific opinion as noted by the International Elephant Foundation, which states that “elephants in North America are important ambassadors for effective conservation education activities and fundraising programs to protect the habitat and animals in range countries.”
While few animal-care organizations are equipped to properly care for elephants, some are, including African Lion Safari which has a herd of 16 elephants and maintains one of the most successful conservation programs for Asian elephants in North America. As noted by the Elephant Managers Association, Bill S-241 “will effectively discontinue the ability of organizations like African Lion Safari to continue their important work.”
Regrettably, we don’t have space to get into the question of constitutional issues (animal welfare falls in provincial jurisdiction), or the fact that radical animal-rights groups are salivating because the bill will empower them to represent animals in court. The implications of these issues need to be examined at length.
In spite of its good intentions, Bill S-241 is a clumsy effort at a noble cause that is going to have more negative impacts than positive ones. In its effort to phase out bad zoos, the legislation threatens to sweep up some of Canada’s great accredited zoos in the process. The bill should be withdrawn and a better one drafted by the government after proper consultations with zoos, provincial animal welfare authorities and stakeholders.
The Honourable Don Plett is Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He represents Manitoba and is the critic of Bill S-241.
This article was published in the Hill Times on October 4, 2023.
Since its 2022 reintroduction in the Senate by Senator Marty Klyne, the Jane Goodall Act (Bill S-241) has garnered a fair amount of interest. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the fact that Jane Goodall herself has endorsed the legislation, but it is also reflective of the growing public interest in the welfare of non-domestic animals in human care.
Bill S-241 seeks to amend federal legislation in order to give greater protection to animals held in captivity in Canada. Writers have used adjectives like “landmark” and “global leader” to describe the legislation, and Humane Society International has called it “some of the strongest legislation for wild animals in captivity and wildlife protection in the world.” There’s no question that, if passed, this bill would radically alter the landscape for zoos and non-domestic animals held in human care in Canada.
Currently, exotic wildlife in captivity in Canada falls into three categories: accredited zoos, non-accredited zoos and private ownership. Bill S-241 would dramatically change this framework by effectively removing the right to keep exotic animals in either roadside zoos or private residences.
The legislation would make it illegal to own, have custody of, import or breed more than 800 species of non-domesticated animals unless the animal care organization is deemed by the environment minister to “meet the highest standards of animal care.”
The problem is that the bill doesn’t define what it means by “the highest standards of animal care.” It leaves that job to the minister, and instead gives a pass to the seven Canadian zoos that are accredited through the American-based Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) by “deeming” them to be eligible animal care organizations. But zoos that are accredited by Canada’s Accredited Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA) don’t get equal treatment.
This selective categorization suggests that the AZA has superior standards to CAZA, and yet much of the evidence points in the opposite direction. The AZA is on record as vociferously opposing the current Canadian standards, and yet Bill S-241 makes them the benchmark for the proposed higher standards — with which AZA neither agrees nor complies. The hypocrisy is disturbing.
By targeting zoos accredited through CAZA, Bill S-241 threatens the exceptional conservation work currently being carried out by these institutions. For example, African Lion Safari in Ontario has been successful in breeding 30 species that are considered endangered and 20 species that are considered threatened. They are renowned for their research and conservation efforts involving giraffes, Asian elephants, blue-throated macaws, eastern loggerhead shrikes, barn owls, bald eagles and rhinos.
Parc Safari in Quebec also focuses on the conservation of endangered species through reproduction and reintroduction. They have successfully reintroduced cheetahs to Africa that were born at the park.
But while both of these institutions are accredited by CAZA, they are not accredited by AZA, which means that Bill S-241 threatens their survival — along with more than 15 other CAZA-accredited zoos — and the conservation work that depends on them.
The bill goes on to unilaterally dictate that elephants should not be held in human care in Canada. This flies in the face of expert scientific opinion as noted by the International Elephant Foundation, which states that “elephants in North America are important ambassadors for effective conservation education activities and fundraising programs to protect the habitat and animals in range countries.”
While few animal-care organizations are equipped to properly care for elephants, some are, including African Lion Safari which has a herd of 16 elephants and maintains one of the most successful conservation programs for Asian elephants in North America. As noted by the Elephant Managers Association, Bill S-241 “will effectively discontinue the ability of organizations like African Lion Safari to continue their important work.”
Regrettably, we don’t have space to get into the question of constitutional issues (animal welfare falls in provincial jurisdiction), or the fact that radical animal-rights groups are salivating because the bill will empower them to represent animals in court. The implications of these issues need to be examined at length.
In spite of its good intentions, Bill S-241 is a clumsy effort at a noble cause that is going to have more negative impacts than positive ones. In its effort to phase out bad zoos, the legislation threatens to sweep up some of Canada’s great accredited zoos in the process. The bill should be withdrawn and a better one drafted by the government after proper consultations with zoos, provincial animal welfare authorities and stakeholders.
The Honourable Don Plett is Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. He represents Manitoba and is the critic of Bill S-241.
This article was published in the Hill Times on October 4, 2023.