(2)A Siberian tiger was killed during a fight with two other tigers at Longleat Safari Park in February, 2019, marking the secondviolent death in a week of an endangered tiger in captivity across the UK. Just a few days ago, an endangered Sumatran tigress,Melati, was killed during introductions to a male at London Zoo.Born Free, an international wildlife organization, noted that two deaths in a week was something that could not be ignored.“Both tragic incidents demonstrate just how unnatural captivity is for these wild animals,” Born Free’s Head of Animal Welfare& Captivity, Dr. Chris Draper, said. “They are denied the opportunity to choose their mates, have no control over their environment,and are unable to escape conflict.”For years, there have been arguments about zoos, especially their role in conservation. Opponents of zoos argue that ananimal’s life in captivity is a shadow of their experience in the wild. Proponents of zoos counter that the conservation benefitszoos provide outweigh the isolated (albeit tragic) costs paid by the animals involved. Some zoo supporters say that captiveanimals serve as conservation ‘ambassadors’ for their wild counterparts, and that zoos are a ‘Noah’s Ark’ that provides a bufferagainst the decline of endangered species. In truth, however, this is a script that even the zoo industry has quietly abandoned.Actually, at a deeper level, zoos are key components of an international conservation system that resembles the West’s colonialand racial past. This system believes that communities in parts of the world where most endangered species live are a problem thatmust be fixed — most often by acquiring traditional lands, establishing camps and other experiences for wealthy tourists, andemploying gun-carrying guards to patrol the boundaries of parks and reserves.Both zoo proponents and opponents rarely recognize that discussions about conservation radiate almost exclusively fromEurope, North America and Australia. Meanwhile, the voices of those who actually live alongside the animals in question areignored.第 6 頁，共 6 頁In 2015, Big Game Parks, the trust that manages three game reserves in Swaziland, sold 15 infant and 3 pregnant female wildelephants to US zoos. Local people’s views were not sought or listened to in this transaction. What would happen if the localcommunities were asked for their opinions on how best to conserve animals with which they’ve lived for generations? Instead oftransporting elephants halfway around the world, they might ask for support to move their village outside of a wild elephantmigration path. They might ask for assistance to help buffer the impact of globalization on their livelihoods so that trading, huntingand poaching could be reduced.All in all, zoos have to abandon their dominant position in debates over conservation, a position which overshadows themultitude of smaller views and the wisdom they often represent. Human and non-human cultures alike are threatened by pollution,deforestation and climate change and the destruction of the natural world impoverishes everybody. When zoos cease to dominatethe conversation, the public will be able to hear how they can empower local conservation efforts wherever apes, elephants, andbig cats are threatened. By reversing the neo-colonial structure of international conservation, this will put animals and people atthe center of the debate.
46. What is the purpose of this article?
(A) To argue for the existence of zoos.
(B) To argue against the existence of zoos.
(C) To suggest a new role of zoos in conservation.
(D) To suggest a new way of conservation in zoos.