fueltransitsleep  asked:

I'm not too familiar with the Vancouver Park Board's ruling to end cetacean captivity, but are their only options an all or nothing approach? From what I understand, the controversy was the cetaceans being kept in captivity at the aquarium for display/education purposes, so couldn't they have made a more narrow ruling that made provisions for injured animals found off the coast?

From what I understand their decision was to study one of 4 options and then decide on 1 of them. Those options are:

 OPTION1: Call  on  City  Council  to  include  an  assent  question  (plebiscite)  in  the  2018 municipal election;

OPTION 2:  Accept the Vancouver Aquarium’s February 20, 2017 announced plans

As  per  their  announcement  in  February  2017,  the  Aquarium  has  voluntarily  agreed  to  not breed belugas at the Vancouver Aquarium and to phase-out beluga displays entirely by 2029.  However, in the meantime, they do intend to incorporate beluga displays in their new Arctic Exhibit starting in 2018/19, as part of their on-site conservation research program.  While this does  not  fully  address  concerns  regarding  the  other  cetaceans  in  captivity  at  the  Vancouver Aquarium, it is a quick and relatively low impact option to ultimately achieve an outcome.

OPTION 3:  Amend the Parks Control By-laws (there’s several scenarios listed here)

OPTION 4:  Maintain status quo

Read the full motion here that was voted in favour here.

So I think it should be possible to make changes/exemptions.

(Photo Credit: ZEMOS98)

“There are a number of reasons why city governments are particularly well-placed to lead resistance to Trumpism. Most obviously, much of the popular opposition to Trump is physically located in cities. With their younger, more ethnically diverse demographics, urban voters swung heavily against Trump… Not only did Clinton win 31 of the nation’s 35 largest cities, but she beat Trump by 59% to 35% in all cities with populations of over 50,000. In most of urban America, then, there are progressive majorities that can be harnessed to challenge Trump’s toxic discourse and policy agenda.

But alternative policies will not be enough to create an effective challenge to Trump; different ways of doing politics will also be needed, and local politics has great potential in this regard. As the level of government closest to the people, municipalities are uniquely able to generate new, citizen-led and participatory models of politics that return a sense of agency and belonging to people’s lives. This new process must have feminism at its heart; it must recognize that the personal and the political are intimately connected, something that is clearer at the local level than at any other. 

It’s for this reason that the municipalist movement need not be limited to the largest cities… Bringing the political conversation back to the local level also has a particular advantage in the current context; the city provides a frame with which to challenge the rise of xenophobic nationalism. Cities are spaces in which we can talk about reclaiming popular sovereignty for a demos other than the nation, where we can reimagine identity and belonging based on participation in civic life rather than the passport we hold.”

– America needs a network of rebel cities to stand up to Trump