Status: Still Kicking

Bert: Bert and I

Ernie: Bert and I, we've been best friends forever, but we're also something else too!

If you are in the United States and not employed by a zoo or sanctuary or a veterinarian working with a facility, if anyone for any reason offers to allow you to touch a big cat, please do not do it.

No matter how much you want to, no matter how much it is a dream, understand that it is a violation of federal law that could get the facility the cat lives at in very serious trouble. It does not matter if it is through the fence, or in the context of a trained behavior, or if the cat is on a leash. Even if it feels “safe” or they swear the facility condones it.

It’s starting to appear that lots of zookeepers have not been informed appropriately about the scope of the law - or in cases where they do know it’s inappropriate, they are sometimes being overridden by their management and forced to allow encounters. (Even at accredited facilities!)

We do not know exactly what the penalties could be for that happening within an accredited zoo (yay badly implemented laws) but it typically comes down to being risk to a) the cat’s welfare b) the facility’s ability to have any big cats at all and c) someone, either the facility owner or the person offering, could go to jail or pay serious fines. There are two instances of this happening at AZA zoos that were leaked recently and we may now find out how bad it’s going to get for them.

Lots of facilities will have big cat pelts as educational biofacts that they will allow you to touch. You do not ever need to take the risk associated with touching a live big cat - generally anywhere, and especially in the US.

I literally got to touch three different big cat pelts today in one zoo visit (didn’t take a photo of the lion one). You! Don’t! Need! To! Touch! Live! Cats!

Most of the animals people want to touch something from (elephants, rhinos, cats) are protected under at least one and sometimes multiple federal laws. Those laws extend to cover their bodies after they pass. States may also have additional laws regarding what can be done with the remains of endangered species or marine mammals. IIRC I’ve been told by keepers that some zoos can’t even keep chunks of elephant tusks broken off of live animals (this happens, sometimes) because of ivory laws. Even if they’re just burying them on site, they have to keep detailed records to prove they’re not illegally selling the remains of protected species. So it’s a lot more complicated than just being able to keep and do whatever with the remains, even for businesses with all the right paperwork and compliance to own the live animals.

Next, you’ve got to process the remains to turn them into a biofact that can be used. I don’t know of any zoo that does this themselves. That means they’ve got to find a credible business that can clean skeletons or process pelts, make sure they can receive the remains (laws often prohibit movement of protected species across state lines, even if not alive), and then pay for the process.

Sometimes other institutions have a claim on the remains that could preclude other options, too. I know of a number of facilities with agreements with major museums or academic research groups who will take remains to study them or prepare them for display. I don’t know if the zoo can overrule them and say they’d like to keep a specific animal’s remains for other uses - probably very contract specific.

Then, right, you run into the same issues if you want to move finished biofacts between zoos. There’s a lot of laws that govern what can move where and if money can be involved, and it can require a lot of paperwork.

You also have to think about the fact that there are extreme cultural differences across the US regarding if it’s “okay” for zoos to use their animals that way. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest where the mentality is more… anti-exploitation focused? Even about good zoos. Let animals be animals, don’t commercialize them, etc. When I walked into a big Midwestern zoo a bunch of years ago and found a docent on the front plaza with an entire tiger pelt for people to pet - from a recently deceased animal that guests remembered - I was honestly kind of horrified? But after talking to a lot of people over the years I’ve really come to understand it’s a regional difference that seems to parallel how prevalent agriculture and hands-on experience with farming or game animals is culturally. There are still some things that blow my mind, though, like the time I found an elephant education cart with an entire taxidermied ear being used for outreach, or the lemur leg a docent had that was preserved bone and fur and all to show off the grooming claw.

All of the complications - logistical, legal, cultural, emotional - mean it’s much easier to get confiscated items loaned from US Fish and Wildlife to use for education. And this actually serves a second purpose! There is a massive warehouse in Colorado that holds a fraction of the illegal animal parts that USFWS has confiscated over the years. I’ve been and it’s… incredible and horrifying and really, really full. They don’t want to destroy the items if they don’t have to, but space is finite. So loaning out items as biofacts is a really good solution. It makes space and it provides a clearly legal avenue for educational facilities to access preserved pieces of protected animals. I also feel like using confiscated biofacts honors the animals, in a way, giving a second meaningful purpose to an item produced through senseless commercialized death.

The Combat Carl action figure getting rocks thrown at it by Sid and blown up with dynamite? Standing on top of the arcade machine at Pizza Planet? The alien toy getting mauled and later buried by Scud at Sid’s own discretion? His sister Hannah’s doll getting stolen by him right in front of her face before its head is torn off and replaced with a pterodactyl head to mock her openly? Burning a hole in Woody’s head with a magnifying glass and oh yeah, the entire climax where Buzz Lightyear is strapped to a firework before Woody is casually tossed onto a barbecue grill with a matchstick implying that he’s going to burn him to a crisp after? Not to mention all the paraphernalia in Sid’s bedroom like the plastic head floating in the lava lamp. That thing is gonna melt completely some day and the only reason Sid’s toys survived for as long as they did is because they fix and mend each-other while in hiding (an act mistaken initially by Woody for “cannibalism”).

Why else would they be hiding under Sid’s bed every time he appears (a clear callback to the original Tin Toy short film that was arguably the genesis point of Toy Story) if not for the fear that Sid will continue tearing them apart and quickly disposing of them for his own bitter amusement? It’s also what makes their uprising against him so much more satisfying; Sid’s own victims emerging from the darkness to take their revenge all at once.

It’s also made clear that Sid does NOT come from a broken or abusive family; not if Hannah’s general demeanour is any clear indication. A kid like Sid also doesn’t necessarily need to come from a broken family in order to become the kind of person he is. He could be processing some things mentally yes, but the same is true of ANY growing child and clearly the way Sid does it is more-so fuelled not by a desire to create, but simply just because he can.

I understand why fans would create alternate universe fiction to explore ideas like these, but I don’t understand the need to reframe Sid’s actions within the film itself as it exists, when it doesn’t add anything to the narrative and does a very poor job of reframing it in a meaningful enough way. Maybe there WAS untapped artistry within Sid’s mind, but it was all wasted when he used it to be a bully to others and ultimately destroy everything he touched.

Sid is allowed to be a villain. We don’t have to act like he’s a victim of some nebulously tragic circumstance that (let me remind you) is never once shown or hinted at in the film at all.