Lions and tigers and polar bears

If you saw an animated polar bear struggling to stay afloat atop a melting iceberg in “An… If you saw an animated polar bear struggling to stay afloat atop a melting iceberg in “An Inconvenient Truth,” know that it’s no joke. Last December, the The Times, a British newspaper, reported “evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf.” In May, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources moved the polar bear onto its Red List of Threatened Species, raising the bears’ status from “conservation dependent” to “vulnerable.” That’s one step below “endangered.” And according to the IUCN’s Web site, polar bear populations are expected to fall 30 percent over the next 45 years because of “habitat loss and declining habitat quality.”

Luckily for you, the Arctic Circle just got a few thousand miles closer! This fall, the Pittsburgh Zoo ‘ PPG Aquarium will open their new “Water’s Edge” exhibit featuring — you guessed it — polar bears. Sea otters and walruses will eventually join them, but for now it’s just an air-conditioned den, lots of water, and two bears awaiting names via a public contest ending on Nov. 10. Oh — and a downed sea plane to show “man’s impact on the habitat of the polar bear,” according to the Pittsburgh Zoo’s Web site.

That’s funny. I can’t think of a way to more severely impact an animal’s habitat than to remove it from its habitat altogether.

True, these particular polar bear brothers were born into captivity: in Denver two years ago on Thanksgiving Day. Maybe they don’t really know all the ice, snow and ocean they’re missing — even though, at 20,000 square miles, the “Great Bear Almanac” lists polar bears’ natural range at one of the largest of any terrestrial animal.

Still, ignorance isn’t necessarily bliss. On Aug. 21, a 7-year-old polar bear died in captivity at the Erie Zoo after breaking his leg; a polar bear’s life expectancy in the wild is at least 20 years. Lack of adequate territory and swimming space have lead to drastic measures in zoos worldwide, including a Prozac prescription for one bear at the Calgary Zoo in Alberta, Canada. A June 11 edition of the British newspaper The Independent notes that “most reputable zoos have been reconsidering the ethics of keeping” the approximately 1,000 bears in captivity around the world. Several public opposition organizations, such as Advocates for Animals and Zoo Check, have campaigns against polar bear captivity.

At least Pennsylvania gets snow every once in a while. Polar bears in warmer climates came into the limelight in February 2004 when algae caused a pair of bears’ fur to turn green in Singapore — not the first occurrence in a warm-weather zoo. According to the Web site of Animal Concerns Research ‘ Education Society, a meeting with the Singapore Zoo in June resulted in an agreement to relocate its male polar bear to a “more appropriate climate” and stop importing arctic animals. Now polar bears have two options: death by drowning or Chia-pet style, both thanks to our global warming!

Many zoos cite captive breeding as a necessary answer to rapidly decreasing populations. However, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Web site, captive breeding programs are “costly short-term repairs that may not fix original causes of the species’ decline,” noting the difficulty in reintroducing captive-bred animals into the wild and the chance of spreading foreign diseases to wild populations. Regardless, when it comes to zoos like ours in Pittsburgh, polar bears are clearly bred primarily to generate profit.

So do polar bears really belong in Pittsburgh, even if it is the world’s newest decked-out mock habitat? No. And, as usual, Sen. Rick Santorum’s involvement doesn’t help. An article in the Aug. 22 edition of The Washington Times criticized Santorum after he boasted “fetch[ing] $500,000 from federal taxpayers” toward the cost to build Pittsburgh’s “Water’s Edge” at a zoo appearance in early August. Forget the legalities of using taxpayers’ money to build a zoo exhibit — there are better things the area could do with its half a million dollars.

If zoos themselves were actually interested in conservation rather than attracting revenue, they could put the cost of exhibits like “Water’s Edge” — listed by KDKA at $12.5 million — toward protecting the threatened ecosystems that actually exist rather than attempting to build new ones. Unfortunately, declining animal populations seem to be good business for zoos; the closer polar bears dip towards extinction, the more zoos will answer the public’s desire to see some before they’re gone. Lucky for you!

It isn’t easy being green. Contact Lisa at lib2@pitt.edu.