THE past is past. Dublin Zoo is not going to dwell on the past." The zoo fights back. In a line, at the back of its full colour, determinedly up beat, consumer friendly little booklet, outlining its plan for the 21st century, the Zoological Society of Ireland (ZOI) tells its critics where to get off.
It knows its constituency. A 1990 survey by Lansdowne Market Research carried back the good news that more than 90 per cent of those surveyed favoured the retention of the zoo. Not only that, the same survey showed that the visitors' firm favourites were the apes, elephants, polar bears, lions and giraffes - the very same large creatures, in fact, that tend to stir up most disquiet among the dissidents. Ever since, the ZOI (following the lead of the Government appointed Doyle Committee which commissioned the survey) has felt able to dismiss its critics as "a very small but vociferous minority".
Virtually the same words are repeated in its new booklet. But a less publicised outcome of the Lansdowne survey was that even the zoo's well-wishers were deeply concerned about animal welfare there. By far the most common request was not for more shops, toilets or lower entry prices but more space for the animals. As well as that, a third of those who had been to the zoo once and expressed no desire to return, explained this apathy by stating simply that once was enough. Add these groups to the many concerned correspondents - to the ISPCA among others, as well as the original "vociferous small minority" and it would appear that Dublin Zoo's critics probably amount to rather more than tiny numbers.
Nonetheless, the ZOI believes that they have all been answered in the plan: "Where criticism was deserved it has been taken on board and either has already been addressed or will he addressed as the plan develops. The past is past." And the plan is indeed a cheering one, flying high with intimations of that much desired space, enlightened thinking and lofty ideals. But can we he sure it will happen? And if it does, can we be sure it will work?
A degree of scepticism exists among welfare interests which is hardly surprising. The plan itself amounts to a tacit admission that the instincts of both the vociferous critics and vaguely disturbed visitors were often right: in fact, it constitutes an implicit condemnation of the past. For example, if the promised 32 extra acres of public park and fail to materialise (and nearly a year after the plan's launch, still no one knows where the land is to come from) animals such as the lions, cheetahs, rhinos, giraffes and chimpanzees will have to go. The plan says so. This is largely because modern animal welfare standards - requiring more animals to be brought in to mimic natural social groupings and therefore more space to contain them - cannot be accommodated within the present zoo. But if that is the case now, was it not also the case 10, 15 or 150 years ago?
The ZOI's own experts' report found that a third of the 33 animal areas were so unsatisfactory as to warrant demolition; these include the areas for giraffes, hippos, jaguars, chimpanzees, polar bears, black bears and cheetahs. And frequently voiced concerns about the mental health of the polar bears have been borne out by the ZOI's decision not to replace them when they die. In fact, an ISPCA report last year (prepared by qualified vet, Simon Adams, who was unable to get the co operation of Dublin Zoo) pointed out that polar bears are no longer considered "a suitable species to include in zoo collections" and described their enclosure in Dublin Zoo as "a classic example of the infamous old style `bear pit', too small and barren for these intelligent, nomadic animals, with filthy water".
The American black bears will not be replaced either - "captive breeding", says the ZOI report, is "unnecessary". Nor will the African lions and Siberian tigers; the plan is to introduce some "rarer sub species" instead. The concern is that if the ZOI authorities got it wrong before, can they now be relied upon to get it right armed this time with £15 million of taxpayers' money?
The zoo's director, Peter Wilson, goes characteristically, bluntly, on the offensive: "I am not happy with the state of my own zoo - that's why £15 million is being spent on it. I didn't need critics to tell me it wasn't right." They tried to effect their own improvements but were working from a pathetically low capital base and with assisted Government schemes. The husbandry, he admits, was not as they would have liked it to be (and the issue of independent animal welfare monitoring remains a hot potato in spite of the director's stated commitment to the EU draft directive on the keeping of animals in zoos).
In the early 1990s, things had got so bad the ZOI was tempted to close it down. For a few years, Dublin Zoo could have been categorised as insolvent but for some State assistance and public fund raising. At one stage, they considered packing up and moving to the outskirts van idea, incidentally, that some animal welfarists would heartily welcome but then the taxpayer galloped to the rescue. In any event, Peter Wilson is delighted with the zoo's location: "It's ideal, we can be reached from all parts of Ireland, we're just beside Heuston Station and we are in a unique position to get an extra piece of land to make everything correct."
Meanwhile, the £15 million, 10 year master plan has already swung into action. The 1995 input is invisible but nonetheless significant: major engineering works include extensive new water and electricity mains as well as a ring sewer which, mercifully, will divert animal sewage from the lake, its previous repository.
The plan, says Peter Wilson, is to manage Dublin Zoo like Fota Wildlife Park "which everyone raves about".
"In 10 years time, there will be no bars in Dublin Zoo. That's the way zoos are going." Meanwhile, the plan envisages themed collections such as "Fringes of the Arctic", "World of Primates", "World of Cats", "The Americas", "Asia", "City Farm" and "African Plains", and cheering little details emerge from these. The primates will have "houses on richly planted, getaway islands dotted through the lake and to celebrate, the four chimps will be welcoming a new, ready made family of 21 to create a semblance of a group in the wild; the orangutans will also be introduced to a new companion and have five times more space than before; the two sad looking Asian elephants will have four new friends and "spacious open areas"; the poor polar bears are promised an enclosure 10 times the size of their current home.
WITH all this, we are promised, will come an emphasis on natural habitat, and various quality of life enhancements. For example, different surfaces, a filtered water system, good dens and play equipment are prescribed for the polar bears; lodge building and damming for the North American beaver; pools inside and out as well as logs for moving for the elephants; audio and feeding techniques as well as more equipment for the orangutans; a new endorse with trees for the red pandas; and "roaming with giraffes and other Savannah animals" for the zebras. (Already, however, the plan is behind schedule given that the "African Savannah" was due for completion this year though the land has yet to be identified).
The 12 unsure footed Blackfooted Penguins are scheduled to go. But they will be replaced by 20 Humbold Penguins who will get a deeper pool and wittingly or otherwise, are destined to delight the human hordes through the wonder of underwater viewing facilities.
And is that all there is for the humans? Well, no. In fact, another thorny subject in this debate is the proportion of the £15 million that is to be spent on enticing humans and their offspring along to the zoo to be entertained, fed and educated. It has been estimated that some 40 per cent of the funding is earmarked for "human" consumption and Angela McCarthy of the ISPCA, for example, has said that the £1 million allocated to the elephant area for six elephants "seems unrealistic and is considerably less than the amount being spent on the restaurant".
Peter Wilson is unapologetic. He would emphatically detach the education component from the rest, education being one of the sacred underpinnings (along with conservation) of modern zoos. And how do you categorise education? Fun diversions for children such as the orang utan arm span seat, the swinging and balancing frames to enable children to mimic the primates' behaviour, the "mug" shots to allow visitors to identify individual primates - could all be classified as playtime or education depending on your bent.
Meanwhile, the zoo's Education Officer, Michele Griffin, runs a lively schedule separate from all this which includes a programme for Transition Year students, summer camps, Young Zoologist days and time in the Zoo's Discovery Centre, run by volunteers. Zoos, said the Doyle report, are "no longer just about imparting information, but about raising consciousness, heightening awareness and changing attitudes . . . Nothing can replace the excitement and immediacy of the living animal."
As for the rest the enormous amounts to be spent on parking facilities, new entrance, restaurant and shop, for example, Peter Wilson insists: "It has to be an enjoyable experience to come to a zoo, hopefully people will stop for something to eat and buy a souvenir. Meanwhile, zoo management and staff have had to reinvent themselves in a whole new era. They now work for a limited company, took 22 redundancies on the chin leaving 37 on the payroll, leading to what is now, according to Peter Wilson, "a much slimmer, more efficient organisation".
But let's he blunt. Are zoos fair to animals? Do we need zoos at all? Is the public voting with its feet? Last year, attendances at Dublin Zoo fell below 400,000 for the first time in 10 years, over 100,000 down on 1985 for example, and 85,000 down on 1994, years during which there were no special attractions. Still, the zoo continues to be the State's second most popular fee paying heritage attraction and supposedly, one in 10 of the world's population visits, a zoo somewhere in the world each year.
At any rate, the director remains determinedly upbeat about zoos and the relatively new philosophy which provides their "green" credibility.
He has a simple credo: "If the zoos of the world were to give in, to the small minority, animals would have no future." In the caring, sharing 1990s, many shrink from the notion of captive animals as pure entertainment. The race is on for the public's hearts and mind so the key words now are conservation and education. These are the principles that provide the underpinning for zoos, their raison d'etre.
"HABITATS worldwide are under massive threat from the rising human population," says Peter Wilson, "and there is no evidence that this will abate in the next 100 years." The pressure, he is on land, which rules out the option of writing a cheque for £15 million and sending it off to an African wildlife reserve. The rainforests are disappearing at the rate of 30 hectares a minute and in some countries, the exploding human population is starting to encroach on the game reserves. Many animals, he says, are being pushed into tiny pockets in the wild with implications for their genetic well being among other things. So conservation is the philosophy and breeding the Holy Grail.
Peter Wilson says Dublin's breeding record is "excellent" and can cite various examples. Dublin Zoo for example co ordinates the European Endangered Species Programme for Golden Lion Tamarins, the most endangered monkeys in the world. It has a lively, successful (and entertaining) colony of Colobus monkeys, which are also on the endangered list. Snow Leopards have been successfully bred here and Dublin and Fota are partners in what they describe as one of the world's: most successful cheetah breeding programmes.
The Doyle Report quotes the "World Conservation Union - "a body totally divorced from vested interests" - as believing that zoos have an important role in the maintenance of biological diversity through scientifically managed programmes.
"Species facing imminent threat of extinction can be, and have been saved by captive propagation," it adds. This will probably prompt the critics to ask why only a quarter maybe of the zoo's "collection" is in organised breeding programmes, or why so many animals are there for what is described "educational purposes" only. "Every single animal here is managed in a conservation programme. Some are endangered, some are vulnerable, some have not reached that status yet. But in 20 years' time," says Peter Wilson with characteristic certainty, "every species will be endangered."
The argument for and against zoos is endless and very often, a circular one. Going to Dublin Zoo is for many a "mixed experience" as one visitor put it this week, having just left the state of the art Reptile House to eye up the desolate looking elephant. Meanwhile, out in the caring, sharing world of ordinary, everyday animal welfare, it is still legal to have a tiger in your back garden.
