anonymous asked:

i don't really understand why you would be pro-zoo. like i understand nature reserves and sanctuaries where people can observe from afar, but it doesn't seem right to me when they're locked up in generally small confined areas for people to watch them do nothing all day. idk maybe i'm getting this wrong, and i still really respect you, i just don't understand this. like i interned at a zoo and felt uncomfortable with how small their living areas were and how they had no stimulation

Zoos don’t look like this anymore.

They look like this:

Good zoos do not keep their animals in “tiny spaces” with no enrichment.  I’m not pro-roadside zoo.  I’m pro-accredited zoo.  Zoos are incredibly important for conservation and education.

THESE ARE HABITATS:




AND THESE ARE PRISONS:



Orcas are one of the world’s most intelligent animals. They are highly complex, built for travelling long distances, they have cultures and languages, and yet somehow humans think it’s okay to keep them in such disgusting conditions? There is no educational value in abusing animals.
THE SHOW MUST NOT GO ON. DON’T BUY A TICKET!

10

Lion found hanging in its cage becomes the latest victim of wretched Indonesian animal park dubbed the ‘zoo of death’

  • Michael the 18-month-old lion 'got his head stuck between steel cables’
  • Zoo denies negligence saying animal must have been 'playing around’
  • His body has disappeared and police have not been able to examine it
  • More than 40 animals died at zoo between July and September last year
  • Previous expose revealed dead giraffe had 20kgs of plastic in its stomach
  • Tiger’s digestive tract rotted after being fed meat laced with formaldehyde

The world’s cruellest zoo has claimed another victim after an African lion was found hanging in its cage, it emerged today.

The Surabaya Zoo in Indonesia, which has outraged MailOnline readers around the world after an expose on the treatment of its animals, is being investigated by police following the death of the 18-month-old lion called Michael.

But the lion’s body was removed before police were able to examine it and cannot now be found.

A senior officer declined to say whether it was believed the zoo was trying to hamper the investigation.

Michael was found strangled in his cage after his head became stuck between steel cables, the Jakarta Globe reported today.

The tragedy comes just 24 hours after it was learned that a wildebeest died in its enclosure from a stomach problem, although the zoo said that the wet weather was partly to blame.

The death of Michael the lion is certain to cause further demands from animal lovers around the world for urgent action to be carried out at the zoo.

Latest statistics, covering the months between July and September last year, reveal that 43 animals died at the zoo during that period.

Among those which have died there previously is a giraffe that was found to have 20 kilograms of plastic in its stomach and a Sumatran tiger found to have a rotten digestive tract after being regularly fed meat laced with formaldehyde.

In the wake of Michael the lion’s death, zoo spokesman Agus Supangkat denied that his death was caused by zookeepers’ negligence.

'We are still investigating how the steel cables could entrap the African lion’s head,’ he told the Globe.

'Michael was relatively young. He was only one and a half years old. It could be that he was playing around and somehow his head got stuck.’

Mr Agus said each of the zoo’s lions - there are now only four left - spends its days in two different cages.

Each morning, the lions are taken to a display cage where visitors can view them. Then, in the afternoon they are moved to another cage where they sleep, said Mr Agus.

He explained that the zoo used steel cables to secure the cage so zookeepers did not have to manually open or close the cage door with their hands.

This, he said, was a safety precaution to prevent the keepers being injured.

Michael was sent to the zoo last March by the East Java Natural Resources Conservation Agency.

Surabaya Police detectives chief Senior Commander Farman told the Globe that a team of officers had visited the zoo to gather evidence but the corpse was missing.

He said that if the lion’s body could be found 'we are going to wait for the autopsy results, then we can further examine the case.’

A MailOnline investigation into the zoo before Christmas found numerous cases of animals living in miserable conditions, including a young elephant that was chained by three legs, one of which was ulcerated because of its tight shackles.

Dozens of petitions were started pleading for the zoo to be closed and animal rights groups have added their voice to the demands.

But a management team, headed by the Surabaya Mayor, Mrs Tri Rismaharini, has resisted improvements saying they want to retain the original structures erected by Dutch colonialists in 1916.

adoptpets: This is just horrible! How the fuck hasn’t the government of Indonesia forced this place to shut down is beyond me. Here are some previous posts that I reblogged in the past on my blog about this zoo:

http://adoptpets.tumblr.com/post/64142106956/animalcruelty-notok-second-orangutan-dies-at#notes

 (Fifteen-year-old the orangutan had difficulty breathing before she died, Surabaya Zoo spokesman Agus Supangkat said, adding she had just undergone a week of intensive treatment. The ape’s death comes two weeks after a 12-year-old Borneo orangutan named Nanik (pictured) died from an intestinal tumor and liver problems. Orangutans typically live between 50 and 60 years. This comes on the heels of a 15-year-old endangered orangutan at the zoo named Tori was forced to quit smoking. Management had allowed visitors to throw lit cigarettes at her for 10 years, making the smoking orangutan the zoo’s star attraction.)

 http://adoptpets.tumblr.com/post/54607431037/wethinkwedream-taurus-rose-saw-this-on#notes

 http://adoptpets.tumblr.com/post/22752251613/mothernaturenetwork-singer-morrissey-urges#notes

(zoo’s last remaining giraffe was found dead with a 44-pound ball of plastic in its stomach, believed to have formed from years of visitors throwing food wrappers into the pen)

 Please sign the following petitions:

http://www.change.org/petitions/dr-susilo-bambang-yudhoyono-close-surabaya-zoo

http://www.change.org/petitions/kepada-ketua-www-dprd-surabaya-go-id-shut-down-surabaya-zoo-due-to-cruel-and-scandalous-conditions

 http://www.thepetitionsite.com/230/423/458/indonesia-close-the-surabaya-zoo/

 And like on facebook:

 https://www.facebook.com/shutdownsurabayazoo

6

Celebrating Zoo Lover’s Day

To view more photos and videos of Zoo Lover’s Day, browse the #zoolovers hashtag on Instagram.

Happy Zoo Lover’s Day! Since the London Zoological Gardens were established in 1828, zoos have been a place to marvel at some of the most fascinating wild animals in the world, all in one place. Many zoos, however, have developed broader and more ambitious goals around education and conservation, engaging visitors in deeper ways with the issues that animals and their habitats may face in the wild.

Interested in learning more about zoos through the day-to-day lives of the animals they care for? Be sure to follow these zoos on Instagram:

5

11 THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW BEFORE PLANNING YOUR NEXT TRIP TO THE ZOO

If you’re like most Americans, chances are you’ve visited a zoo. Maybe you’ve only gone to one on a school field trip, or maybe it’s one of your favorite places to go, but whatever the case, zoos are popular in this country. 

To learn more about this and read the full list here.

(Source: Getty Images/ Imgur)

2

On Marius the zoo giraffe that was fed to lions

In case you missed it, the Copenhagen Zoo is under critical fire from animal rights activists after administrators decided to kill Marius, a two-year-old reticulated giraffe. This decision came about because zookeepers recognized Marius was not suitable for mating due to his inbred nature. He was killed with a bolt gun, the same type of device used to kill livestock before butchering. In addition to this, in front of a crowd of people (including children), the giraffe was skinned and disarticulated, and his meat fed to zoo lions and other predators. 

Since I’ve received a lot of requests for my opinion, here it is: 

I think this is really, really interesting, and not to be insensitive to people who may be feeling very upset about this, I think it was cool. Zoos are not in the business of saving wildlife, they are in the business of business. Breeding programs help keep that business alive, and zoos are not necessarily concerned with sacrificing resources on a ‘product’ (e.g. animal) when directors or administration do not feel that investment will pay off in the end. There is a definite return on investment here, and if they’ve got an animal that will not be viable for continuing along in the zoo’s breeding program then they’ve got a business decision to make. In this case they used the situation as an educational opportunity, teaching children and adults alike the value of understanding the circle of life. 

Could the Copenhagen Zoo have sent the giraffe to another zoo? Maybe, but then that zoo would also be faced with the business problem of investing resources into sustaining this animal knowing full well it was not suitable for breeding. In order to ensure zoos aren’t going into nature and plucking a giraffe out of the wild every time they need a new giraffe, this system of breeding within captive populations is a good one. In this case, Marius would not have been able to provide a return on the investment. In addition to this, the zoo has admitted that they cull dozens of animals for this same reason every year

We can personify this animal and say the giraffe was victimized, targeted, or simply that an innocent creature was killed, but I encourage someone who is truly upset about this issue to take their problem up with the nature of zoo breeding programs worldwide. Marius’ fate was quite possibly determined for him before he was born. The Copenhagen Zoo administrators took advantage of this situation to deliver a unique and educational message to their visitors. If this has to be the way in which zoos function - the continuous breeding, inbreeding and culling of their stock - then I hope more facilities take advantage of the inevitable by turning the process into a teaching opportunity for everyone. 

Sources:

CNN
Photos from The New York Times: Anger Erupts After Danish Zoo Kills a ‘Surplus’ Giraffe
Time World

anonymous asked:

I did not realise you're pro zoo. May I ask why? Don't you think it's very unethical to keep cats (or any animals) locked up in cages, no matter how big, only for our own profit and enjoyment? Don't they deserve a life in freedom? I'm not trying to be rude and I know little of conservation and such so if it's anything like that just explain it. But I was a little disappointed when I realised.

I’d love first to direct you to these links first: 

First link is written by myself, and the second is a fantastic writeup by another tumblr user.  

But for a shorter version here, yes I think it’s unethical to keep any of these animals locked up in cages.  But the thing is, in good zoos, they aren’t in cages.  We call them enclosures for more than sounding nice.  

San Diego Zoo Safari Park(My photos)

Naples Zoo

Zurich Zoo(This is all one elephant enclosure)

Good zoos have evolved beyond keeping animals behind bars or in “cages.”  Good zoos can provide incredibly enriching lives to the animals in their care, animals that for the large part were all born in captivity and have no potential for a valuable life in the wild.  They give the care that allows these animals to thrive(do some animals not thrive in captivity? of course.  Am I against keeping animals that cannot thrive?  Of course).  These animals are completely dependent on their keepers, there isn’t some mythical “wild” they could go to that they would survive in.  Release any of these captive born animals and they will die.

As for conservation, I have a few examples and articles of that here.  Zoos participate in conservation and education programs all around the world, as well as in their local communities.  They have been responsible for bringing multiple species back from extinction, and will be responsible for more in the future.  Zoos are one of the entities on the front lines in the fight against extinction.  These animals aren’t just “locked up” for our own profit and enjoyment.  Of the 229 zoos and aquariums accredited by the AZA, 54% are nonprofit.   The money they make is for the animals, rather than from the animals.  They use the funds to take care of their animals and facility, and they use even more to fund conservation efforts.  

This is why I am pro zoo, because I truly believe from what I have seen and experienced myself in my involvement with two zoos so far, that they contribute immensely to the public’s awareness of the conservation issues worldwide, as well as their knowledge of various species and habitats.  

6

We’re already fond of Pink Lawn Flamingos, so we were delighted to learn about a new environmental enrichment program at the San Francisco Zoo. They’re using the iconic pink plastic birds to provide their lemurs with some unexpected psychological stimulation (which also resulted in some awesomely cute photos).

“One form of environmental enrichment involves introducing new objects for the animals to explore. The novelty provides a bit of a mental workout, and the objects provide plenty of tactile stimulation as well. As a bonus, an animal’s response to novelty is sometimes a good indicator of overall mental health: if an animal is fearful of a new object, that could indicate an excessive amount of stress. It is thought that more "optimistic” individuals are more likely to eagerly explore new objects.“

Here you see Ringtailed, Red-ruffed, Black-and-white ruffed, and Red-fronted brown lemurs checking out their new pink friends.

Photos by Jessie Greger for the San Francisco Zoo.

[via io9]

anonymous asked:

hey! i just saw your post tagged "animal welfare" "not animal rights"....i don't think i fully understand the difference between the two. why do you support animal welfare but not animal rights? thanks for any information!

What a wonderful question!! This is a very complicated issue, that can sound like picking hairs for people who aren’t intimately familiar with the animal care industry. 

For the sake of simplicity, I’ll use one example for each side of the argument. AZA will represent the side of animal welfare, and PETA will represent the side of animal rights, because both are very visible members of each ideology. I will also try to tag anything that is my personal interpretation, and keep most of this discussion balanced.

To start off, try to imagine all human interaction with animals on a scale from 0 to 10. At the 10 end, we have no regard for animal health or care, hurting and killing animals with complete disregard. At the 0 end, we have no interaction with animals, not killing them or even using byproducts. If the 0 end sounds familiar, that’s because it’s the ideal of most vegans. I’ll try to use this as a reference when describing where each group lies. 

Another thing I want to point out is that both groups have a common interest, which is treating animals fairly and humanely, and trying to achieve the most optimum standard of living for each.

Animal rights groups like PETA look to aim for that “0” end of the scale. The ultimate goal of animal rights groups is a complete dissolution of any industry that interacts with animals, from rodeos, and circuses, to zoos, farms, and even pets. From the Animal Welfare Council’s website:

Animal Rights is a philosophical view that animals have rights similar or the same as humans. True animal rights proponents believe that humans do not have the right to use animals at all. Animal rights proponents wish to ban all use of animals by humans.

Animal rights proponents support laws and regulations that would prohibit rodeos, horse racing, circuses, hunting, life-saving medical research using animals, raising of livestock for food, petting zoos, marine parks , breeding of purebred pets and any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport or recreation.

Now, again, I totally understand why people support animal rights groups. It is true that animals can and do get abused for the profit of humans, and some of the treatment they get would never be allowed on another human. This is the linchpin of the Animal Rights argument. Animals should have the same rights as humans and treated accordingly. Now, let’s look at Animal Welfare.

Groups that focus on Animal Welfare, such as AZA, define welfare thusly:

Animal Welfare refers to an animal’s collective physical, mental, and emotional states over a period of time, and is measured on a continuum from good to poor. 

Explanation: An animal typically experiences good welfare when healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to develop and express species-typical relationships, behaviors, and cognitive abilities, and not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, or distress. Because physical, mental, and emotional states may be dependent on one another and can vary from day to day, it is important to consider these states in combination with one another over time to provide an assessment of an animal’s overall welfare status. 

To use my straight line measurement from above, Animal Welfare falls closer to the “5” area of the spectrum. Animal Welfare groups do not make a blanket statement that all human interaction with animals is bad, but they do maintain standards to ensure that animals are not being abused or taken advantage of for the profit of a human. Welfare groups like AZA support zoos and animal research, among other things, but only in that they are held to high standards created to ensure optimal animal welfare

They also use measurements that are as scientific as possible to assess the status of an animal. This can be done by measuring hormones like cortisol, testosterone, and dopamine through blood tests, by observing and comparing animal behavior, monitoring eating amounts and patterns, or even the presence of breeding activity and successful childrearing behavior. More unscientific methods depend on the regular keepers of the animals, and when they notice that something feels ‘off’ in an animal’s routine. 

I hope that comes off as non-biased as I meant it to. I do understand the heart of most people behind the Animal Rights groups. And it really is hard to say no when you’re asked if you’re against the mistreatment of animals.

(Here begins my opinion) That being said, I truly believe that Animal Rights does more harm than good. Very regularly, groups like PETA and the Animal Liberation Front use violence, threats, and other terroristic tactics to achieve their ends (thejunglenook can back me up on this.). If you do research on PETA, you will find that many of the animals they “rescue” from shelters are killed. They prefer animals to be dead than be in human care. 

I support animal welfare for two main reasons. One, we cannot be naive and think that we can unentwine our human lives with those of the animals we share the world with. Two, I believe that keeping animals in captivity is helpful both for the science we can learn from keeping them (normal ranges of size, food, hormone ranges, gestations, etc), and for their educational use. I and others have written extensively about the impact of seeing animals in person to help the general public gain a connection to an animal they would otherwise care little about.

I have also found that many times, decisions made by animal rights groups are selfish, human decisions. These are decisions that feel good for us to make, like “let the animal be free in the wild!” or “don’t let these poor animals get poked and prodded, look how sad they are”. A focus on animal welfare means that we look past that. Animals may not be released because there is no wild for them to return to, because the animal has been raised by humans and is unequipped to handle the wild, or because it is part of an essential breeding program. Seeing an animal be handled by vets, or even euthanized, is truly for the benefit of the animal. Just like you don’t like going to the doctor, animals don’t, either, but it is for their own good. Short term pain for long term benefit. And euthanasia is used when an animal’s quality of life has dropped below welfare standards, and there is no other option except to let the animal die a drawn-out death.

So when I post #animal welfare #not animal rights, that’s what I mean. I support the scientific support of the good health of the animal, not what my gut tells me “feels good”.

Why is so damn difficult for some people to erase the term “ zoos” from their lives? Damn just by seeing all the notes and the same messages I keep getting I see that people just read and they don’t even analyze or question what they just read, they seem to have a chip in their heads that keeps telling them: “but zoos are good” “zoos protect the animals” “vegans are too extreme, zoos aren’t bad at all”.

Stop there for a second and read this:  A zoo is a business, it makes someone else’s wallet grow each day at the expense of the animals freedom. It doesn’t matter if they have conservative programs, they are still profiting with the animals.

Now, we don’t want the animals to be left alone, to close all zoos tomorrow, we are not saying that the people that work at zoos are animals abusers either (even we all know there are some); we are saying that a new mindset should be set towards zoos; why don’t turn zoos into conservation areas? wildlife refugees? non-profit organizations that truly work for the animals itself, where animals aren’t seen as properties that can be sold or transferred from zoo to zoo, being exposed to people that just go there take some pictures and go back home, well remember those animals won’t back home, they will be there in those cages forever. Again, we know there are zoos with very good people, that truly cares and give their lives for the animals, what we are saying is that both the institution that keep the animals and the way we see animals should be changed.