This case calls for answers, a timeline for action, and public accountability
Sometimes, an incident doesn’t reveal a problem. It reveals how long we’ve chosen to ignore it.
The recent escape of a bear from Melios Zoo has brought to the forefront issues concerning public safety, the facility’s operating license, and the responsibilities of the relevant authorities.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
All of this is understandable. But there is also a much more troubling question: If this incident hadn’t happened, would we be discussing Melios Zoo with the same intensity today? Probably not.
The operating license for this particular zoo expired in 2017 and was not renewed, and in May 2026, the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction for operating the zoo without a renewed license.
Nearly a decade after the license expired, the fate of the animals and the enforcement of the rulings remain the subject of public debate.
The issue is not merely whether a bear escaped from its cage or crossed the outer perimeter fence. After all, the relevant authorities have clarified that the animal did not leave the fenced-in area. The incident, however, was enough to prompt the authorities to take action.
This is precisely the crux of the matter.
For human safety, the alarm was rightly sounded. But what about animal protection? How many years are considered acceptable? How many inspections and how many decisions are needed before a comprehensive plan is in place? Who is responsible for coordinating the agencies? Who monitors the implementation of these decisions? And, above all, who is held accountable when a case remains unresolved for years?
The state is a mechanism that must function before a crisis arises, not one that (re)discovers its responsibilities only when the crisis makes the news. Of course, closing a facility that houses wild animals is not a one-day affair. It requires scientifically documented records, suitable reception facilities, safe transportation, and long-term care.
But the discussion also touches on something deeper than the licensing of a facility. It concerns our relationship with wildlife and the notion that animals can be confined to spaces designed for human entertainment, often far from their natural environment.
Today we know much more about the needs of wild animals, their behavior, and their critical role in the balance of ecosystems. Protecting wildlife means protecting natural habitats, addressing biodiversity loss, and creating appropriate facilities for animals that cannot be released back into the wild. Not all sanctuaries are the same, nor can every case of captivity be handled in the same way. However, scientific knowledge and animal welfare are what must guide our decisions.
Melios Zoo should not be treated as just another incident that will make headlines for a few days and then be lost amid the next wave of news. This case demands answers, a timeline for action, and public accountability.
Unfortunately, everything that has been happening in recent days reflects not only how we perceive our relationship with wildlife, but also the responsibility that the state assumes—or fails to assume— the state.
And perhaps this is the most bitter realization: it didn’t take a bear to escape for the problem to arise. It took a bear to escape for us to no longer be able to pretend we don’t see it.
*Environmentalist, Head of the Sustainable Development and Sustainability Sector, AKEL Central Committee
