Green Bay animal exhibits raise ethics debate

By Jule-Sophie Hermann, Kaitlyn Hein, Sarah Seifert, Troy Williams, and Sam Dunkovich

GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN – The mountain lion has been pacing for over an hour.

Sarah Seifert/The Avenue

Her name is Avani, and she is a permanent resident of Green Bay’s Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. A worn wooden sign hangs next to a smudged window overlooking her enclosure, informing guests that she is an orphan of a small county in Oregon, and cannot be returned to the wild because she has imprinted on a human. Next door, two foxes bask in the late afternoon sun, sometimes taking lazy swipes at each other’s tails, but mostly drowsing, looking bored.

Avani still paces. It takes her twenty-two seconds to make a full circuit around her enclosure. She pays special attention to the fence that divides her from the foxes, and ignores the group of shrill children eagerly waving to get her attention. A nearby adult hushes them, whispering that they needed to be respectful, that the cougar might get upset if they yell too loudly.

This narrow divide between predator and prey is as controversial as it is fascinating. Although cougars might not commonly catch and eat foxes in the wild, they will eat almost any small mammal, so the predator-prey relationship here is not a stretch. Zoos often have to consider this dichotomy when building their exhibits – Gen Bando, director of Japan’s popular Asahiyama Zoo, said in a 2010 interview with the Japan Times that the zoo’s timber wolves and sika deer share a fence – deliberately. “The animals know the fence is there and that the animal on the other side can’t come any closer, but there is a degree of tension in the relationship,” Bando said. He goes on to explain that the closeness is meant to instill fear for the wolves in the sika deer, to mimic that instinct you might find in wild deer.

One of the Sanctuary’s adolescent wolves naps after feeding time. Sarah Seifert/The Avenue

The Wildlife Sanctuary’s wolves and coyotes, on the other hand, are curiously isolated from the rest of the animal exhibits. The adolescent wolves are currently sleeping in their sprawling, multi-acre run, complete with a huge glass observation window, chain-link fence, and a wooden rail separating human from beast. The two coyotes have a smaller, but respectable enclosure, shaded by old oaks and maples.

One of the Sanctuary’s non-exotic residents. Sarah Seifert/The Avenue

This is Green Bay’s largest animal refuge at approximately 600 acres. The area’s other animal exhibit, the NEW Zoo, is just a fifteen-minute drive away in quiet, wooded Suamico. It presents a more traditional zoo experience; the exhibits are interspersed with playgrounds and twee animal-fact stations. Its most popular exhibit is by far the Giraffe Feeding Experience, according to Education and Volunteer Programs Coordinator Angela Kawski-Kroening. She calls it “a wonderful way for visitors to interact with and get up-close and personal with the animals.” Many of their visitors agree. The NEW Zoo’s social media reviews are solid; their official Facebook page has been reviewed over 3,000 times, with an average rating of 4.5 stars out of 5. “When you visit, the exceptional care of the animals and the grounds is obvious,” one Facebook reviewer says.

Animal deaths at NEW Zoo raise questions

However, the NEW Zoo has seen several animal deaths in the past few years. Most notably, in June of 2016 the Green Bay Press-Gazette reported that three of the zoo’s river otters, a young mother and two pups, had died suddenly of a salmonella infection. The pups were part of the first litter born at the zoo, according to the Press-Gazette’s Doug Schneider.

Four months later in October, the zoo’s resident moose also passed away unexpectedly. ‘Finnegan’ was about eight years old and reportedly suffered from respiratory issues, and according to the Press-Gazette, NEW Zoo’s animal curator confirmed that an eight-year lifespan is not out of the ordinary for moose. According to National Geographic, the average lifespan of a moose in the wild is 15-20 years.

A potential member of the zoo’s beloved giraffe-feeding program passed away years earlier, in 2013, Green Bay’s local CBS affiliate reported. A young calf was born, but passed away about three days later due to feeding complications. According to the zoo, it was the second unsuccessful birth for the mother, and young calves often died when unable to nurse on their own.

The Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary has experienced its own share of tragic animal death. In 2017, a bald eagle, found in a park in nearby Kaukana, was brought to the sanctuary and despite overnight care by the staff, died due to lead poisoning.

It’s unfair to compare the NEW Zoo and the Sanctuary based on animal care expectations; one is a traditional exhibit structure, and the other is focused more on education and conservation. One actively rehabilitates animals, and the other does not. “We are not a rescue/rehab facility, so we cannot and do not take animals out of the wild to rehab them.  We are only able to accept a ‘rescue’ animal after it has been successfully rehabbed by another facility, and only if it can’t be released into the wild and only if we have an appropriate space/need for that animal,” says Kawski-Kroening.

But there is an obvious overlap: animals are kept in enclosures in both spaces. How can visitors be sure that these organizations are keeping the animals safe, healthy, and content? Is one structure inherently more harmful than the other?

Controversy over zoo structure and ethics

According to CaptiveAnimals.org, presenting animals to zoo visitors as living exhibits teaches children that animals can be manipulated to fulfill a minute curiosity. “It fails to recognize that animals have their own needs to be met,” the site says. “It suggests that animals have no right to be treated as individuals who think and feel for themselves.” The controversy surrounding zoos is long and complicated. There are many advocates who strongly believe that the educational aspects far outweigh the miniature enclosures and hazardous living conditions. However, in recent years Zoos and animal sanctuaries have come under fire for the psychotic and abnormal behaviors of their captive wildlife. These issues are often times referred to as zoochosis.

Wildlife New Zealand says that “Zoochosis is the term used to describe the stereotypical behavior of animals in captivity.” It is believed that stereotypic behavior is defined as repetitive, invariant behavior with no obvious goal or function. These actions are not seen in animals in the wild and is understood to be abnormal by leading animal experts worldwide.

Zoochosis, a video produced by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

According to an article by Justin Worland published by Time Magazine earlier this year, “Study after study has shown that many animal species are far smarter and more feeling than previously understood…” This may suggest that there is a higher possibility that animals removed from their natural habitat will eventually experience depression and anxiety.

There are many different levels of captivity throughout the world, but two in Green Bay specifically; the NEW Zoo and the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary both house exotic and native animals. Is a ‘sanctuary’ more educational for the community, more ethical for animals’ happiness, than a zoo? Or would sacrificing the education value of these exhibits to make sure the animals live full, healthy lives be the more ethical choice?

The NEW Zoo and Adventure Park of Green Bay’s mission is to “connect the community with wildlife and nature through engaging, interactive experiences.” It must be asked, however, is the zoo meeting these goals? And, where does the well-being of their animals fall into their mission?

In January 2017, through a collaboration with the surrounding Brown County Reforestation Camp, the New Zoo & Adventure park released a plan to achieve said mission. According to the Zoo’s website, its Master Plan, developed over a six month planning process, will come to fruition over the next two decades. The Master Plan will reportedly include guest attractions and accommodations, recreational activities, and expanding or relocation of animal exhibits.

The NEW Zoo’s proposed plans for construction on animal enclosures. Image courtesy of the NEW Zoo.

Where does animal welfare and health fall into the NEW Zoo’s proposed plans? It is the fifth and last item on the Master Plan’s Executive Summary: “[To] exemplify the highest standards of animal care and foster a connection to conservation in all experiences, programs and partnerships.”

The rest of the Master Plan’s goal categories for 2017-2021 include internal relations, operations, and budget, being topped off with “Guest Experience.”

The proposed Master Plan includes a far-reaching budgetary schedule with estimated costs to be at least $30 million over 10 to 20 years. Relocation of animals and construction to enclosures encompasses around $17 million in expenses. Other projects include guest attractions and accommodations such as a water park, an overhead tree top course, and expansion to parking.

The NEW Zoo’s proposed plans for parking expansion and a tree top concourse. Image courtesy of the NEW Zoo.

Though the Zoo lists animal care among its core values and top goals, the Master Plan also shows that the New Zoo is quite a small portion of what the plan has in store. The map below shows the area of the Zoo (outlined in black at the center) in relation to the Brown County Reforestation Camp.

With zoo psychosis among the top issues facing animals in captivity, is lack of space is a contributing factor? According to the Captive Wildlife Pen Specifications & Transport Standards document, released by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), “Pens must be large enough to allow each captive wild animal to make normal position changes.” Because there are no exact specifications for pen size in Wisconsin Zoos, the size can vary among locations. However, enough room for normal position changes seems to diverge greatly from the animal’s natural habitats.

The DNR also states that “pens need to be cleaned at least every 2 weeks.” This, among other requirements, do not seem to have the animals’ well-being in mind, and seem to ignore the need for proper care. Also, the last these regulations were updated was in 2003, 14 years ago. It seems strange that even with the call for higher animal rights, our state has not increased regulatory requirements in over a decade.

According to GlobalAnimal.org, “Despite a zoo’s best efforts, its animals often are deprived of privacy, confined to inadequate spaces and unable to engage in natural hunting and mating activities.” Recent events have brought this idea to the minds of many. With the recent death of Tilikum, a captive orca at Seaworld responsible for the death of one trainer, and the injuries of various others, many are starting to diverge from the belief that ‘education’ is the sole purpose of animal captivity.

However, many still argue that captivity is a way to conserve and assist endangered species. Zoo.org, argues that zoos have many positives including increased population growth while providing a visual, and educational experience for all.

This leads us to the perspective of the zookeepers. Many argue that their work is focused and dedicated to care for the animals and form deep relationships with them, thus, improving their lives. A word that is often used here, as mentioned before, is conservation, defined by Worland as “the work of protecting endangered species”. In zoos, many endangered species are born in captivity, and would therefore never be able to survive in the wilderness. They will inevitably live in the zoo forever, for their own safety.

In some cases, researchers have tried to pair endangered species from the Zoo with wild animals of that species, like the Pinta Island giant tortoise. Although this particular example failed to succeed, according to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), many zoos are currently helping the organization to conserve species such as the african penguin, the cheetah, and gorilla, and the asian elephant. Adding to that, AZA reports that over thirty species have escaped the threat of extinction thanks to the work of zoos and aquarium. Over 600 species are currently under a survival plan. Zoos and aquariums working with the AZA spent approximately $160 million yearly on conservation programs. Among the zoos that are currently accredited by the AZA is the NEW Zoo in Green Bay.

According to Worland’s Time article, many zoos have also expanded their take on conservation. “Instead of saving a species, some argue, they advance conservation work by education patrons and pushing them to donate to the cause”, Worland writes. The connection to climate change and endangered species is another way to approach conservation. However, it is important that everything in the zoo is somehow connected to the wilderness. People who donate must have the feeling of being directly a part of the conservation process.

The diverging beliefs of many will continue to guide this issue forward. But, the future of zoos and captive animals remains unclear. Worland highlights a concept he describes as the “unzoo”. It involves bringing the animals to people, not people to the animals. Instead of space to stroll around and explore for humans, it gives animals the space to walk around freely, while the humans watch from an enclosure. A safari-like experience, if you will.

But there is one problem: money. Many zoos will not be able to afford this kind of change to their exhibits. Such a transformation would call for fundings most zoos would have a hard time collecting. However, zoo owners and designers alike are aware of the growing criticism and skepticism the public is showing towards animal captivity. If this trend continues to grow, every zoo will be required to revise and transform their exhibits in order to stay sustainable.

What does the public think? We asked students, faculty, and community members in Green Bay what their thoughts on zoos, wildlife “sanctuaries,” and animal exhibit legislation. Their opinions and experiences range from the enthusiastically positive to the firm thumbs-down.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

As a society, we are uncertain how to approach such issues. Do we continue rebuilding endangered species, or do we strive to take better care of our planet so their numbers can grow naturally? Is sacrificing the happiness of a few animals to educate our youth worth it, so the species as a whole can be protected and loved?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfiltered: UWGB Students Misinformed

By: Sherry Zuege

Surprise! The only hydration station on campus with a filter is in the Student Union! It’s in the corridor between the commons area and the coffee shop.

But wait. Before you decide to go cold turkey on campus water, there is some eye-opening information including water test results from five on-campus water sources.

The Fourth Estate, UW-Green Bay’s campus newspaper, recently published an article written by Colleen McCluskey about the hydration stations (water bottle refill receptacles) on campus. The writer included information like an indicator light lets users know the state of the water filter.

“These indicator lights show whether or not the water produced by the hydration station has been effectively filtered,” McCluskey said. “With filter replacements being frequent, red and yellow lights are rare, with the most stations remaining green.”

There are 16 hydration stations on campus. As of last week, five had green lights, one was red, and 10 light panels either don’t work or don’t exist.

Student Opinion

Sixty three random students were asked about the refill stations and filters. Two students didn’t know they (refill stations) existed, two students don’t drink water, two only drink bottled water, and two don’t know for sure if it’s filtered so they won’t drink it. But, 54 out of 63 students asked drink water from the refill stations. Amazing results: half, 27 would not drink the water if it was not filtered.

Dr. Michael Zorn in the chemistry department was contacted about running water tests on campus to see if filters make a difference in water quality. Zorn said that most of the units don’t have filters.

The Union Filter

The first refill station was installed four or five years ago when Union Director Rick Warpinski saw it at a trade show and thought it was a great idea. The one in the Union has a filter and it turns out is the only one on campus with a filter. The Union paid for the unit and continues to pay for regular filter changes.

“The reason for the investment was for the convenience because it fills a bottle quickly,” Warpinski said.

Literature from the manufacturer Elkay, said it fills a 16 ounce bottle in five seconds compared to a traditional fountain of at least 20 seconds.

“Quick filling for convenience and saving bottles from landfills were the selling points,” Warpinski said.

Success

The first unit was a huge success and as result the UW-Green Bay Sustainability Committee wanted to put in more units. The UWGB Sustainability Committee is made up of faculty, staff, two students and one community member. The committee chair is Dr. Scott Ashmann.

The commitment was made to install hydration stations in other campus locations because of the college focus on environmental sustainability. The cost of the unit is about $805 and installation runs about $400 to $600. The existing locations had water receptacles but the locations had to be retrofitted for the new units, according to the Director of Facilities Paul Pinkston.

Pinkston and others are unsure of who is responsible for the decision on whether or not to use filters.

“Tap water is healthy, clean and cheap. Why put in a filter that is not needed because we have no issues with our water,” Pinkston said. “A filter would be counter-productive. (It would) cause more waste, cost money, take up labor time.”

“A filter costs about $99 and would need to be changed about every three months,” Pinkston said.

“Green Bay is known for good tap water. It comes from the Lake Michigan watershed, not groundwater,” said Warpinski.

“Running the water without filters was not intended to deceive because there is no reason to,” John Arendt from the Sustainability Committee said. “It’s not an issue because we don’t need the filters.”

The general consensus is that the city water is good and filters are not a necessity but an added feature. Deborah Palenik from Elkay Manufacturing Company said the units can be used with or without a filter. The filter is made to reduce the smell and taste of chlorine, particulate class I (.05 to 1 micron), and lead.

Water Tests

To put this theory to the test, six First Alert drinking water test kits were purchased. They test to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for bacteria, lead, pesticides, nitrates, nitrites, chlorine, hardness, and pH. Water samples were gathered from Aquafina bottled water from one of the vending machines on campus, MAC hall across from Marie’s vending area, Common Grounds coffee shop tap water, filtered water from the hydration station in the Student Union, well water, and the campus tap water run through a Brita water filter.

Test Results

Tests results showed exactly the same results in six areas: Negative for bacteria, lead, chlorine, and pesticides; Zero nitrite and nitrate. MAC, well and tap water had slightly higher pH.  Brita, Union filtered, and Aquafina bottled had nearly neutral pH.

Water quality: pH

The samples all met the EPA criteria. The higher the pH the more bitter coffee will taste. This explains why Warpinski said other departments swore the water from the Union’s hydration station made great coffee. Some pH proponents say a slightly higher pH level helps boost energy and metabolism, and neutralizes acid in the bloodstream.

“Some research indicates that alkaline water may slow bone loss,” Mayo Clinic Nutritionist Katherine Zeratsky said. High pH bottled water is available for purchase at some health food stores.

Water quality: Hardness

The other test with varying results was the hardness test. MAC, tap, and Union filtered had the softest water. Aquafina bottled, well water, and Brita had the hardest water.

According to Diffen, a website specializing in comparisons, hardness is a measure of the amount of calcium and magnesium salts in water. It comes from the water running over weathering rocks. The more calcium and magnesium; the harder the water.

Hard water is the most natural and the closest to drinking rainfall and may be beneficial in fighting certain types of heart and cardiovascular disease.

A disadvantage of hard water is scale builds up in the plumbing and sometimes it has an earthy or sulfur smell. Water without minerals is more likely to allow lead to leach into it.

Some experts say soft water can be harmful if drank regularly because the minerals are removed by a salt process which increases the body’s sodium level and increases cardiovascular health problems. Excess drinking of soft water can cause your cells to become dehydrated.

According to Diffen, the general consensus of experts is that drinking hard water is far superior to drinking soft water.

Water quality: Safety

Standards for bottled water are set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are no higher than the EPA’s standards which regulate tap water.

“The treated water entering Green Bay’s distribution system meets or exceeds all federal guidelines for safety,” Rob Gollman Environmental and Laboratory Division Manager at the Green Bay Water Utility said. “Green Bay water is drawn from Lake Michigan. The water is treated through a multi-step process.”

Here’s what the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) had to say about bottled water: “In a four-year review of the bottled-water industry and its safety standards, NRDC concluded that there is no assurance that bottled water is cleaner or safer than tap. In fact, an estimated 25 percent or more of bottled water is really just tap water in a bottle-sometimes further treated, sometimes not.

Saving the Earth

The latest research suggests the bottled water market is a $13 billion industry that uses 17 million barrels of oil to produce over 50 billion disposable bottles. To date, the 16 water refill stations on the UWGB campus saved almost a half a million bottles.

Marketing Effects on Water Sales

Warpinski, Ashmann, and Arendt all think the reason there is such a stigma about drinking tap water is marketing. Bottled water dates back to 1621 in the United Kingdom when commoners would take their own water vessel to the Holy Well to fill up because it was, well, promoted as holy.

The first water was bottled from a mineral spring and sold in the United States in 1767. People thought the natural minerals in the water would cure whatever ailed them. Since mineral water was a good seller, someone started selling water with carbonation in it.

In the 1800s municipal water had cholera and typhoid so bottled water was the safe alternative. In the 1900s municipal water was chlorinated and was safe to drink again. In 1977 Perrier began advertising bottled water as classy and sophisticated. Perrier was in glass bottles.

Also in the 1970s DuPont patented polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (plastic) bottles. Water for sale in plastic bottles made it even more convenient for the consumer.

Aquafina Source

Aquafina bottled water in the vending machines on campus comes from rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells and is processed as municipal water. After it’s drawn from the tap, it goes through a seven step process according to the company website. It includes additional filtration, ultraviolet light, reverse osmosis (filtered under pressure), and then ozone (O3) is added.

Bottled V. Tap

Back to the great controversy of bottled vs. tap. They are both regulated and are both safe to drink. The only discernible differences are in hardness and pH, both of which have pros and cons. Plastic bottles in general are a huge scar on the face of Mother Earth, but they’re convenient. Colleges that have banned disposable water bottles on campus have seen an increase in sugary liquid consumption. It boils down to a matter of personal preference and everything in moderation.

Bottled Water Choices

If you prefer to pay for your water in lieu of drinking it for free, you have many choices.

Ask if your relatives grew up drinking tap water. Heck, when I was a kid I rode my horse to a spring in the woods, dug a little silt out of a soggy divot, cupped my hands for my horse to drink, then I’d fill up on the ice-cold watery goodness. OMG, untested ground water!  But I lived to tell about it.

 

“Food With Integrity” chain experiences E. coli outbreak

By Taylor Navis and Sarah Seifert

Chipotle, once an escape for a hungry college student’s appetite, is now the face of questionable integrity and considerable ridicule after its E. coli outbreak earlier this month.

Foodborne illness surveillance site Food Poison journal ran an article on the poisoning, and even satirical news source The Onion spoofed Chipotle customers’ traditionally unwavering loyalty to the Mexican fast-casual chain. With Chipotle claiming their restaurants outside of Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon are safe to eat at, according to Chipotle’s website, can we really trust the chain after this?

Since August 2015, Chipotle has experienced three different outbreaks: Norovirus, Salmonella and now E. coli, according to a USA Today chart. This also is not the first time Chipotle has experienced an E. coli outbreak: in September 2009, 29 people were reported ill with E. coli.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Brad Schulz, a sophomore music major at Indiana University, went to a Chipotle near his campus Nov. 1. He wasn’t informed about the outbreak or if the Chipotle he entered had the possibility of being contaminated, “I feel like they should have made me aware of it as I came up to order, before I even ordered anything.” Yes, Schulz felt wronged but in regards to going back to Chipotle, “Maybe sometime in the future.”

In the wake of the E. coli controversy, Chipotle has experienced several negative rumors, including one suggesting all locations might be closed due to the use of dog and cat meat in their stores, according to Business Insider.  Although the gossip’s source was satirical Twitter account @conspiracystory, the tweets regarding Chipotle’s meat were liked and retweeted over 8,000 times.  Tensions about one of the nation’s trendiest Mexican food chains are running high.

As of Nov. 10, however, Chipotle announced on their website that they will be re-opening the 43 closed restaurants after listing several measures they took:

“Conducting additional deep cleaning and sanitization in all of our restaurants nationwide, replacing all ingredients in the closed restaurants, confirming that none of our employees in these restaurants had E. coli. (Note: No Chipotle employees have had E. coli stemming from this incident), and working with health officials to improve food-handling procedures.”

Critics are less willing to trust the chain’s reassurance. “The company’s focus on such buzzy items as local farms and non-GMOs, while generating the appearance of caution, ultimately distracts us from the more prosaic measures that a fast food (OK, fine, fast casual) chain needs to take in order to be consistently safe—precautions that even the best marketing genius can’t sex up,” says James McWilliams of the Pacific Standard.

These weren’t the only measures Chipotle took, but there’s one thing they haven’t completed yet: identifying the cause of the E. coli outbreak. According to NBC News, the outbreak seems to be over, and even though the chain has been conducting tests, a link to a specific ingredient hasn’t been discovered yet.

Does this mean contaminated products still linger out there? Are we safe?

Stacy Reise, a native of Green Bay, Wisconsin, felt betrayed after hearing about the outbreak. Reise went to a local Chipotle restaurant with her two kids. “(There were) no signs and no one said anything,” Reise said.

According to Reise, if she would have known about the outbreak or made aware of it, she would have walked right back out of Chipotle’s door. “I have OCD, and I’m so afraid of that kind of stuff,” Reise said, nodding toward the Clorox wipes by her computer.

According to Derek Ray, Apprentice General Manager at Chipotle in Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin, their restaurant receives their produce from a company called Get Fresh Produce. The produce delivered comes from a radius within 350 miles to the restaurant’s location, so it is highly unlikely the produce delivered to the Oregon and Washington restaurants could be delivered anywhere beyond those two states.

The possibility of the same E. coli outbreak spreading to other Chipotle locations is low. However, the number of foodborne illnesses perpetrated by the brand is starting to become alarming. The company may have to start taking its own motto, “Food With Integrity”, more seriously.

Gun violence on campus: Are we prepared?

Dylan Buboltz and Dan Norman

Umpqua Community College. Virginia Tech. Northern Arizona University. These are a few campuses that have fallen victims of school shootings. Unfortunately, incidents like these can happen anywhere at any time. Are college students and faculty nationwide prepared for active shooter situations?

Photo courtesy: Sarah Zacharias

Sarah Zacharias, a senior psychology major at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, expressed her concern over a lack of student awareness and preparation. “If there was a school shooting I don’t think I would feel prepared because I wouldn’t know what to do exactly or where I should go.”

Officer David Jones of  UW-Green Bay Public Safety stated that there are resources available for faculty, staff, and students. Jones says the Public Safety website includes presentations with proper protocol to follow in the event of a shooting.

One of the steps Jones mentions is for faculty, students, and staff to be active, and if confronted by a shooter, to do something. Jones also advised awareness of your surroundings, and to know whether to stay put or run.

When asked if there is anything campus police can do to get the word out quicker and more efficiently, Zacharias stated, “Honestly, they would have to get creative because I feel as though if they hung a poster or sent out an e-mail to all students a lot of the times, those things get overlooked. So I think a more in your face approach is best for example, a mock simulation.”

Jones mentions that the UWGB police force offers training to student organizations on Green Bay’s campus upon request. UWGB Public Safety also offers texts alerts that students, staff, and faculty can sign up for, as well as a PA system, and an armed officer on duty 24/7. When an incident happens on campus, the text alert is sent out to those signed up.  The text system is also used to keep students up-to-date on situations when a suspicious figure is still on or near campus.

Photo courtesy: WBAY.com

The common mindset for many schools, especially smaller, isolated campuses such as UW-Green Bay, is that “this could never happen to us.” School shootings have happened at many different schools that vary wildly in location, size, and student population. The importance of a safety procedure on college campuses is vital for students and faculty to be prepared in an unexpected incident.

According to Time Magazine, there have been 23 shootings on college campuses across the United States in 2015 alone. This number comes from Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun reform group which has been tracking the number of school shootings since 2012. Among the 23 shootings this year, the Umpqua Community College in Oregon shooting has been the most tragic, leaving nine people dead. Umpqua has a smaller population than UWGB.

Unfortunately these incidents occur on an almost regular basis. Benjamin Hellman, a Michigan reserve police officer with Frankenmuth Police Department and a Saginaw Valley State University alumnus, was a student and reserve officer when an incident occurred that sent the entire campus into lockdown. An alleged gang member was said to be armed on campus. Minutes after police were notified, every student received an email notifying them of the situation. “I was prepared because of my police training involving active shooters, specifically with a SWAT team, but had I just been a regular student I wouldn’t have known the procedure for that incident,” Hellman said.

Preparedness can be essential in staying safe, and keeping those around you safe in a situation with an active shooter. More often than not though, it seems students and faculty are unprepared, and therefore are panicked and can often make poor choices in these situations. Hellman stated, “I think that in the first week of every semester they should have a campus safety officer provide a demonstration or training session for active shooter situations.” Hellman also believes professors and even high school teachers should receive training before every semester so that they are always prepared.

The importance of awareness of safety procedures in active shooter situations can mean the difference between life and death. “It is extremely important for both students and faculty to be aware of emergency procedures, if they prevent a single life from being taken that would be incredible.” Hellman said.

There have been many solutions offered by the public for situations with active shooters; one that has surfaced is allowing teachers and professors to carry concealed weapons. Hellman stated, “Teachers having weapons could be an option, but unfortunately there would be many gun control issues that would come with that, and also, many teachers, and in fact their students, would not feel comfortable with their teacher having a gun visible when they are trying to lecture a class.” Hellman’s best answer for a solution is to have a faculty and student body that is aware and prepared for an active shooter situation.

Professor Shauna Froelich, a communication professor at UWGB, believes that active shooter drills should be just as important as fire drills. “If we conduct fire alarm drills annually, we should also require annual training for students and faculty.”

As a professor, Froelich is aware of the alarming amount of campus shootings each year. When asked if she is notified after a major shooting about how to deal with such a situation she stated, “Not specifically, however, I have talked to a colleague and friend, De Pere Police Chief, Derek Beiderwieden. He has trained on the ‘Run, Hide, Fight’ rule.” Froelich also believes students and faculty should receive some training demonstration for active shooter situations. Froelich believes this short video that Beiderwieden shared with her could be effective for awareness during these situations.

Unfortunately these active shooter situations continue to happen, and most likely will continue to happen. Being aware and prepared of active shooter safety procedures is the best way students and faculty can stay safe, and keep those around them safe. If we continue to go unprepared, the tragic amount of lives lost will continue. As Hellman said, one of the best ways to prevent loss of life is to have a student body and faculty members that are prepared and ready to react in such a situation.

If more college campuses take the initiative to reinforce safety procedures, hopefully, the loss of life can decrease in these situations. Umpqua Community College has approximately 3,300 students, and Virginia Tech University has approximately 31,000 students, these situations can happen at any place, at any time. We should always be prepared for an active shooter situation.