With the departure yesterday of the animals imported to the Island for the Animal Extravaganza circus, there will presumably be a cessation in hostilities in the debate.

But it seems almost certain that the war will continue until there is a resolution one way or another on the question of captive animals.

In effect, this argument sets two groups of animal lovers against one another, although at least one of the groups would disagree with their opponents being characterised as such.

One group dislikes the idea of wild animals being tamed and then taught "tricks". The other group argues, as some of the Animal Extravaganza spectators did on Sunday, that the captive animals are better treated and certainly better fed than they would be in the wild.

For the most part, there have been no real claims that the animals were mistreated in the sense that they were beaten or starved, in contrast to the cases that occasionally come before the courts where the animals have clearly been abused and punished — sometimes to the grave.

Instead, the debate over these circus animals concerns the rights and wrongs of keeping normally wild animals in captivity, and in some cases teaching them to do "tricks" that they would never do in their genuine habitat.

It must be conceded that there is something unnatural about magnificent wild animals being reduced to doing tricks and performing like trained marionettes. But where is the line drawn?

Is it wrong for tigers to be taught these kinds of behaviours, but OK for dogs?

The recent fight over whether to allow a second dolphin park, this one at Sinky Bay, was an example of animals being trained to do some tricks with humans, in conditions that were not that natural. Similarly, DolphinQuest is unnatural, in spite of the efforts of the organisers to cloak it in a scientific aura.

But what of the Bermuda Aquarium Museum and Zoo? Animals there are kept in captivity, albeit in conditions that its operators try to make as much like their natural habitats as possible.

But the truth is that the habitats will only ever be "like" those found in the great outdoors. Inevitably, their movements are restricted and they are dependent on humans for food and survival.

But in the case of some endangered species — like the Golden Tamarind Lions — it is only in captivity that they are likely to survive and thrive. So is keeping them captive cruel or kind?

These are the kinds of broad questions Government will have had to grapple with in the last few weeks while trying to determine whether to allow the Animal Extravaganza in.

The specific questions concerned the treatment and general health of the animals being brought in, and on this question the Government Veterinarian and vets and officials in private practice (including the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) were unanimous in saying that they were in decent shape and appeared to be cared for.

Environment Minister Neletha Butterfield probably had no choice in allowing the animals in, given that the objectors could not come up with specific examples of abuse of these animals, and could only speak in generalities about the cruelty of keeping animals in captivity and transporting them. Those objections were genuinely felt, and may well be true, but under Bermuda law, there is nothing illegal in it.

So the answer for the objectors now is to pursue amendments to the law regarding the importation of captive wild animals with the Ministry and with their MPs. Launching a lobbying and education campaign may be the only way to prevent a repeat of "Animal Extravaganza".