Majestic Creatures

It’s 2:00am on Friday, the 11th of October, and I’m lying here in my room at the Intercontinental. I’m staying here for two nights while Mum is away in the Riverland because I didn’t want to stay in the house alone. The Socceroos just had a big match against China, which they won 3-1. And a man in the lift told me that the Socceroos are staying here at the Intercontinental, which I thought was a bit exciting. It makes me wish I were young and sexy so I could go down and flirt with them at the bar. Below, you can see a photo of my bed, and out of my window, you can see people walking across the bridge to Adelaide Oval for the match.

I am absolutely outraged at Adelaide Zoo. Yesterday, they euthanised their two lions. The first was Mujambi, a 19-year-old male who had a medical episode over the weekend. I understand that if he was seriously unwell, euthanising him could have been the kindest thing to do. But then they euthanised his partner of 16 years, 23-year-old Amani, claiming that "the negative welfare and aspects of her life without Mujambi were determined to outweigh any positives of remaining alone." Essentially, they are saying she couldn’t live without him.

Adelaide Zoo director Dr. Phil Ainsley stated, "In the case of lions, they are a social species, and the likelihood of safely moving or integrating Amani into another pride or environment was considered too risky and stress-provoking."

Here’s what The Advertiser reported online:

Zoos SA Chief Executive Elaine Bensted explained that the decision to euthanise was unanimous among Adelaide Zoo’s animal care team after considering the pair’s health and age.

“They were a bonded pair, they were both aged, they were both under medical treatment for quite some time, and we didn’t want what might have been Amani’s last months to be spent pining for the male she had been partnered with for so long,” Bensted said.

“It was a decision made with the welfare of the animals in mind, and now we wrap our arms around our staff and volunteers.”

I recognise that an extensive decision-making process would have been involved, particularly when euthanising Amani, who was elderly but relatively healthy. However, that was wrong. She may have been stressed and grieving, but she still had life left to live. Taking her life away because she couldn’t live without her mate is nothing short of criminal. Who are they to say she couldn’t have found some sort of meaningful life without him? It may not have been ideal, but it would have been life. They are playing God, and I believe someone should be held accountable for this.

The zoo is managed by the Royal Zoological Society of South Australia (Zoos SA), and it receives funding from the South Australian government and private sources.  Taxpayer dollars help fund the zoo’s operations, and I feel their incompetence is unacceptable. The ultimate goal of any living creature is to live. Do you think park rangers in the wild kill widowed lions because they believe the animal can’t live without their deceased mate? She may have missed him, but taking her life for that is another matter entirely. The should have at least given her a chance.

I have never been a fan of zoos; there is something grotesque about locking up these beautiful animals so we humans can gawk at them. Even those born in captivity can be released into sanctuaries or rehabilitation programs that prepare them to live in the wild. But I still visit zoos in solidarity with the animals. I believe we should create holographic zoos where people, particularly children, can engage with lifelike holograms. Zoos claim to be about conservation—well, holographic zoos would present a great opportunity to promote conservation through education and interaction.

This has really upset me. These beautiful, majestic creatures have been messed with by the staff at the Adelaide Zoo.

Whenever I read about something controversial like this, I try to assume there must have been an extremely compelling reason behind the decision. But in this case, I believe the Adelaide Zoo made the wrong choice—and now, they will have to live with that decision and what it means for the zoo’s legacy.