Wonder how this will effect all other zoo's world widehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/11307205/Sandra-the-orangutan-granted-limited-human-rights.html
I don't imagine it will have much of an impact, actually. I do think that it will increase actions by animal rights groups, but won't ultimately affect zoos or aquariums internationally. I really don't see the major players handing down similar verdicts. Bidding "goodbye to zoos" is a bit premature.
May prove to be a problem in Argentina. A similar suit was brought on behalf of a chimp in the U.S. and they lost.
Who knows, maybe we could see another judge rule the opposite in a future case. Or maybe the zoo will appeal, I don't know, I didn't read the article because I don't want it ot go any higher in any google searches.
An example of a lawsuit just to make publicity. Now when an orangutan bites another, a judge in Argentina will get involved. He must explain the matter to both parties and ask them to comply with the verdict. I think Zoochatters know why male orangutans have huge canine teeth, and how young males normally mate with females?
She's going to a sanctuary, not the wild. Anyway, I doubt this will have much impact, especially not outside Argentina. People have brought up similar lawsuits lots of times but they rarely win.
Buenos aires zoo is the oldest zoo in all of latin America and much of it is very outdated. The great ape enclousures have rather small indoor quarters and regular sized outdoor spaces. Both chimps and orangs have bred in these installations. In western Europe and the U.S, these may be considered substandard, though there are far worse installations for apes in Russia and asia. But there is no information on why the sanctuary in brazil is better for sandra. Many apes actually enjoy watching people, so sandra may miss that, along with the interaction of her keepers. The whole legal case is very loose from any standpoint. The only real impact will be in Argentina itself, where zoos are underfunded and often substandard by northern standards. Remember arturo the polar bear at another argentine zoo.Zoos in argentina may face alot of criticism in the future. However, I would be surprised if the Buenos aires zoo does not appeal this.
Chantek, who was raised like a human child, understands at least some spoken English, and uses sign language was offered a home at Zoo Atlanta after spending more than a decade in what everyone here would consider poor conditions. I always thought that this was the perfect compromise for him, he can interact with humans if he feels like it as well as live as an orangutan. http://www.zooatlanta.org/media/file/FAQs_Chantek_Zoo_Atlanta_2014.pdf http://www.zooatlanta.org/meet_the_orangutans#aKqdm
Yep. Most lawsuits like this are against lower quality facilities with lots of problems. A lawsuit against a high quality zoo would almost certainly lose. If she enjoys human contact and does sent to a sanctuary, I would hope she is able to receive regular human interaction. This is kind of a big thing for many primates raised in captivity with lots of human contact, and should be taken into account in these types of cases.
The best solution would have been to send Sandra to a US zoo with a good orangutan group like Houston or San Diego, but she is a hybrid bornean - sumatran and the costs may have been too expensive. A private sanctuary in Brazil may not be any better than the Buenos Aires zoo which i have visited various times and is very outdated but with a very dedicated staff.
positive intention but risky outcome I wrote my opinion [on my own site] Shortly: I think it is very risky to mix the legal and biological system. I think we should look the animals as animals (even I know that we are also an animal species), and we should protect them as animals. The legal system can be applicable for human society only... Do you know any news about the story?
It's worth noting that when people talk about "animal personhood" and non-human rights, it rarely means personhood in the same sense that humans have it. They still wouldn't have all of the same rights or anything. The debate is whether all animals should be lumped together when it comes to legal protections. Should snakes, dogs, dolphins, falcons, fish, whatever, have different sets of protections? The idea is that some animals are more emotional, intelligent, and self-aware than others, therefore, they should have more rights. Not equal to human, but still more than other species. One could potentially make a non-human rights law for a certain species without outlawing captivity. It might raise the standards for how captive individuals could be kept, if the animal apparently has a right to a certain standard of living environment.
Without any bad assumption, but it's strange that in this country was such a judgment at this topic, but it's much weirder, that didn't produce any serious echo, neither there nor anywhere else. Actually, we enjoying the silence. Scared? We are afraid of? The reactions shows clearly: we (humans) don't really know, what should we to do in the future. What is the next step? The legislation mode is not too good because of in the cultural questions are many differences. The philosophical direction is dangerous terrain ... What can we do? Maybe each case must be examined separately.
Carlos55, as you are talking about private sanctuaries in Brazil, have you ever visited a GAP sanctuary, as this is the place she would probably be transfered to?
