It must have been cold there in the shadow of radical gay activism, race-mongering, and all the other liberal causes that have served as the recent vanguard of the left’s culture war. But with last night’s premier of ‘Zoo’ on CBS, the animal rights activists have finally been shown a slim ray of the limelight.
Though, not too much. ‘Zoo’ is a TV adaptation of James Patterson’s novel, where humans are, in the words of Patterson himself, “doing a lot of bad stuff and they need to be reminded. 'Zoo' is a fable saying, 'Look at what's going on here. Look at our government, and look at the controls that we're accepting as human beings,' like in the case of '1984' and 'Animal [Farm].' Think about it. Here's another way to look at that same problem.”
Which, sounds like the show has the potential to be awfully biased. And it still very much does have the potential of going that way. However, at least for the most part, the series opener didn’t lay the ideology on too thick.
But come on. There was no way Hollywood was going to make an animal-on-human, turn-the-tables, struggle-for-world-power TV show, and not take a shot at hunters were they? Of course not.
Watch this scene from the first ten minutes, when one of our main characters, Jackson Oz (James Wolk) antagonizes a hunter while on safari in Botswana:
Jackson: This delta is an actual oasis in an arid climate. There have been over 70 species of fish that have been catalogued to live in this delta. Now, the thing to remember about the black rhino, which is why they're tricky to find, is that they live in transitional habitats.
(Sees hunters lining up shot and plays music to scare off black rhino.)
Hunter: The hell'd you do that for?!
J: We are opposed to animal murder in this zip code.
H: I have a valid license to hunt that rhino.
J: Well, just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
H: Are you kidding me? I paid 200 grand for that license.
J: Well, I paid nine dollars for this hat. Seems like we both got ripped off. ...
Of course, there’s no such thing as “animal murder,” especially when legal hunting is taking place, and Oz looks all too smug interfering with the hunt. I wonder how smug Oz and the Hollywood script writers who wrote that scene would appear if confronted with the reality of what happens when hunting is actually banned? In 1977, Kenya banned hunting. Between 77’ and 96’ the country saw a 40% drop in its wildlife populations. And today, thanks to poaching, not hunting, those numbers continue to fall.
There’s also the fact that preventing hunters from shooting animals means that fewer hunters will purchase the expensive licenses, which means less money will go back into the land, the animals, and the local populace. So, our hero, Mr. Oz, did far more harm than good by interfering with our would-be Black Rhino shooter.
But just like everything with liberals, never mind about the $200,000 that could have fed an entire village for a year. Or inoculated thousands against multiple communicable diseases. A liberal got to feel good about himself, and in the end, that’s all that really matters.