However, would relinquishing many of its animals to other facilities really be a bad thing?

It might be for those who profit from the local zoo, but it certainly would not be for the animals in captivity. For them, the Potter Park Zoo is an aged prison that denies these sentient beings nearly everything that is natural to them.

In the last two years, the Potter Park Zoo has been cited at least seven times during routine U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, inspections for violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

These citations have ranged from inadequate veterinary care, improper sanitation in the feeding area and housing animals in unsafe structures.

During an inspection this past summer, the USDA inspector noted several animal enclosures had peeling paint that could be ingested by animals, causing illness.

The inspector also noted the bighorn sheep enclosure had “large pieces of cement and rock missing and causing hazards for the sheep.” This same enclosure had a wall that was “buckling at the bottom,” rusty pipes and drains in disrepair.

Finally, the inspector wrote, “there is not shade available for the bighorn sheep when they are on exhibit.” Absence of shade is “likely to cause overheating or discomfort” for these animals during the warm summer months.

An inspection in April of this year uncovered more than a half-dozen expired vaccines within the veterinary facility, a broken drain in close proximately to animal enclosure that could provide a dangerous breeding area for mosquitoes and an unsanitary refrigerator holding animal feed that might have harbored bacteria.

In a 2007 State News article, zoo staff noted that many of the animals are transferred to on-site indoor facilities from mid-November until May — nearly half of the year — because of the inhospitable Lansing climate.

One zookeeper said that while the animals become “anxious” from being relegated to small, indoors stalls for such long periods of time, the staff “try to give (the animals) enrichment.” The zookeeper explains it as “the equivalent to giving a dog a chew toy.”

Basically, the Potter Park Zoo confines these animals to tiny, cramped indoor enclosures for nearly half of the year. Most of the time these animals are held at the facility, and when these animals are kept outside they are held in equally unnatural and dismal conditions.

Are we supposed to believe that all of these animals’ problems: the boredom, the loneliness, the lack of space, freedom and companionship all disappear at the sight of the “equivalent of a chew toy?”

As demonstrated in various articles concerning today’s millage, zoo officials are harping on their talking points of “species conservation” and “public education,” while stressing their on-site breeding programs as further proof of their good deeds.

Oftentimes, zoo breeding programs simply are a sham; a media ploy used to increase dwindling public interest and support while older animals are neglected, transferred or sold to make room for more desirable, youthful animals.

It is equally misleading to characterize zoos — including Potter Park Zoo — as institutions of public education about animals and their conservation.

Zoos provide children and others with a confused and inaccurate depiction of animals’ abilities, interests, habitats and other aspects of their lives.

Zoos teach others that animals are ours to cage and confine for our amusement, playthings to be enjoyed and gawked at with little regard for their needs or welfare.

This millage is about more than money, it is about the lives and well-being of animals who deserve to be at a facility that can meet their needs better.

By voting “no” on the Potter Park Zoo millage, you will give these animals a chance at a better life and taking a stand in support of animal welfare.

Mitch Goldsmith is a State News guest columnist. Reach him at goldsm4@msu.edu.