Interesting article. I think sanctuaries can be good or bad. Just like zoos, there are fantastic ones and there are horrible ones. One thing I like that the article brings up is, what makes a sanctuary a sanctuary? There are a lot of really shady places that call themselves sanctuaries, because to a lot of people, it sounds nicer than "zoo". I'm pretty suspicious of sanctuaries that breed animals, unless I guess they were working with some good conservation organization. (are there any sanctuaries that breed under a legitimate conservation program?) If a "sanctuary" breeds animals, lets guests come and go and wander as they please without supervision, and offers touch/hold encounters with animals like tigers, it's just an un-accredited (and probably not very good) zoo. But good, responsible sanctuaries are fine in my book. Without them, what would happen to exotic pets that are seized or given up, or retired entertainment animals? Zoos might be able to take a few, as they already do, but there's only so much room. Especially since zoos do have to focus resources on breeding animals for conservation. If a zoo has to choose between a breeding pair of Sumatran tigers, or a couple of rescue mixed tigers that would not be allowed to breed, well... If the zoo takes the Sumatran tigers, it can breed them and add to the population of a critically endangered species, and the descendants of the offspring could perhaps one day be used to supplement the wild population. It's a more valuable use of resources for the species as a whole.
Sanctuaries, the real ones at least, exist as a forever home to wild animals in need first and public "zoo" second. There's legitimate sanctuaries out there who aren't even open to the public. Legitimate sanctuaries do not breed their animals and they certainly don't allow close human contact with the animals. Now, there have been a time or two when they took in an animal that was already pregnant, but sanctuaries don't purposely breed because that would defeat the purpose. In my opinion, the article is ridiculous. There is no 'grey area' when it comes to what constitutes a sanctuary vs a zoo. And as much as I like zoos, I prefer sanctuaries...but only well-run ones that care for the animals as their #1 priority. Unfortunately, there are bad ones out there just like there are bad zoos. Well-meaning people who start "collecting" animals without the resources to keep the facility going.
Agreed on the bit about the "gray area", that is kind of silly. But I think it was phrased that way the general public doesn't really know the difference as well as they think. (not saying I agree with the phrasing, but I get it) A lot of people just go with whatever the facility calls itself, and think sanctuaries only take in rescue animals and zoos only take in animals from the wild and other zoos. To most people, the differences stop there.
There certainly is no grey area in the UK. There is a legal definition, summarised by DEFRA (the relevant government department) as Sanctuaries can only open to the public for a maximum of 6 days per year; many that previously relied on visitors to fund their operations have had to close as they could not afford to upgrade their facilities to the standard required to get a zoo licence. Alan
