IN TOOTH AND CLAW An urge to regulate may be part of the nature of government, especially after a fatal zoo mishap.  But it can't do a better job than the professionals.  By Mitch Pearlstein

This has been a very bad season for making predictions, but let me venture one, anyway.

Because, sadly, a tiger killed a visitor to the San Francisco Zoo in December, I assume that at least one Minnesota legislator, in the session that begins this month, will suggest passing a bill aimed at preventing similar accidents from happening at major zoos here. While it's hard to imagine such a proposal not being made, it's even harder to see -- and here's the more important point -- how any new, state-mandated rules might actually wind up improving public safety at accredited institutions such as the Minnesota Zoo, Como Zoo, and Lake Superior Zoo in Duluth.

A recent Star Tribune story ("Minnesota Zoo reviews security after San Francisco tragedy," Jan. 27) noted how the question of safety codes has understandably emerged as a "huge topic." But the story also included these two statements:

And, largely because of such an excellent track record:

• "[Z]oos aren't subject to any mandatory regulations -- just national guidelines issued by their own association -- when it comes to [confinement] measures such as the height of a tiger enclosure."

If the former assertion about no escaped animal having previously killed a guest at an accredited zoo is indeed true (as credibly claimed by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums), it represents a truly remarkable validation of the nongovernmental approach to assuring safety. Nevertheless, especially in recent decades, it has come to be thoroughly unremarkable for public officials to look automatically to government whenever new safeguards are deemed necessary -- whether they really are necessary or not.

Criticizing such governmental activism is not to ridicule governmental rules and regulations indiscriminately, an easy game too often played. In my own case, I remember having a fine old time, in the mid-1970s, making fun of just-promulgated regulations regarding toilet seats -- only to properly shut up and amend what I was writing once I learned the supposedly silly rules pertained to enabling disabled individuals to use public restrooms. Say whatever mocking things you want about the Nanny State, there's no humor in that.

But the current zoo story is another animal, posing as it does a basic question: If current self-policing arrangements -- backed up by appropriately mulish insurance carriers -- are doing an exemplary job in accredited zoos across the country, where is the profit in burdening such established institutions with additional bureaucracy and costs? Costs, not incidentally, that would lead to increased admission prices for visitors who were perfectly safe to begin with?

In complete fairness, the article included a sidebar that cited four fatal or otherwise dangerous mishaps that have taken place in U.S. zoos in the last few years. An alligator at the Los Angeles Zoo, for example, escaped from where it was supposed to be secure and "wander[ed] for hours before being found." A jaguar at the Denver Zoo killed a zookeeper "who failed to follow precautions."

Unacceptable events, but they raise two key questions: Would an additional layer of government-mandated rules have prevented such incidents? And might there be a zoo official, anywhere in North America, who isn't even more acutely aware than he or she already was that fences separating tigers from visitors need to be at least 18 feet high? The answer to both questions is no. And since when have statutes ever guaranteed life and limb to those who fail to "follow precautions"?

It's easy to understand how policymakers with the best of intentions, not just intrusive ones, might feel compelled to at least investigate how the sticky reach of government might be further extended in the service of protecting zoo visitors. But it's a compulsion that needs to be resisted, as it's exceedingly hard to see how politicians and civil servants are equipped to oversee the industry any better -- or even as well -- as professionals in the field are doing already. Just think, for instance, of the thousands of species housed in zoos. How many reams of rules would it take to cover even a fraction of them?

This is a clear occasion when government's appetites need to be kept in check, as there's no sufficient reason for it to roar, growl or otherwise bite off more than it's meant to digest.

Mitch Pearlstein is founder and president the Center of the American Experiment.

This commentary originally appeared in the Star Tribune on February 5, 2008.

Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted.

Center of the American Experiment is a nonpartisan, tax-exempt, public policy and educational institution that brings conservative and free market ideas to bear on the hardest problems facing Minnesota and the nation.  Our accomplishments are made possible by the generosity of our donors.  Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our important mission by clicking here or contacting us at: 12 South 6th Street, Suite 1024, Minneapolis, MN 55402, (612) 338-3605, www.AmericanExperiment.org.  Thank you.