Ok I'm entering the fray against my better judgement because I wish to support Zoopros arguement about listeneing and learning. Most of you would know my opinions about animal libs (esp. Peta) but that is beacuse many of themm tend to be fanatical about what they say. That doesn't mean that I don't agree with some of their viewpoints but I also understand that things are NOT black and white and that many times we have to make judgement calls that aren't perfect but are better than the other options. Mulesing is a case to point. Better to do that than face the consequences of not doing so. At the same time looking for alternatives. Having a go at Vegans, vegetarians etc is not the answer.
to quote that stupid channel ten ad, i believe theres black and white, and all shades of grey! lol i think when it comes to zoo lovers and animal welfare proponents theres always going to be a divide, but whats needed from both sides is perspective, clarity and cooperation. even as a zoo supporter, its important to recognise that zoos are certainly not without their faults. at the same time, there are different levels of cruelty, and i would certainly support the welfare agencies causes alot more if they foucused on issues of straight-out animal cruelty like battery hens and stalled pigs. both organisations should be working together to change attitudes and promote consumer responsibility. at the end of the day, both zoos and welfare agencies are trying to strike a better compromise for animal welfare, its just that sometimes the welfare organisations cant see the species for the individual, and at times zoos dont present the species within an ecosystem.
hate to play a bit of devils advocate here, but in regards to cutting off sheeps arses.... you say better to do it than let them get fly blown. but couldn't you just argue that in that case they are unsuitable stock for a hot dry continent? remember we brought them here and put them in this scenario... personally, i believe nature can be cruel. animal libbers often argue the rights of a lion to be wild and hunt, but not us humans (who arguably do it a little more effectively at times) which is kinda silly to me. us westerners have certainly developed too much of a dependancy on meat, but i don't forget that it was probably eating meat that gave us the proteins to develop such wonderfully large brains back at the dawn of humans.. i reserve the right to eat a big mac. (but only if i'm drunk and i can't remember it..)
this thread is starting to remind me of uni!!! one of the courses i do is an ethics course and alot of the time i come to the conclusion that nothing will change because of money. obviously, the lamb and wool industry is too important for australians to give up. as an industry, its far less damaging to the environement than resource recovery operations. anyway, back to the sheep. mulesing is obviously done for a humane reason. until another alternative can be introduced, such as the sheep which dont grow wool in between their legs and around their anus, then mulesing is a neccesary part of farming life. if there was a viable alternative then id be protesting too
I have posted the same thing on the animal Libbers site, I am all for animal welfare but not animal rights. These views conflict as animal rights allow nature to take its course and lead to welfare issues with overpopulation. As almost all ecosystems are efected by people it is necessary for us to manage species to protect diversity. I also try not to critise other peoples lifestyle and views, but will argue facts. For example mulsing. We mulse and I can see the benefit far outweighs the short term pain of mulsing. I also believe mulsing does not hurt lambs as much as people think. Blood makes things appear worse. This is a bit off topic.
Born free Another useless lot is the "Born Free" crowd ; based in UK , but they like to smear zoos all around the world with a bunch of half truths , total lies , getting their geography mixed up , unable to verify reports , report on non existant zoos , etc I have taken a hunk out of them numerous times for their false claims of Auckland zoos dolphin shows ( Auckland Zoo has never had dolphins at any stage ) It took Daniel quite a while to get the hint that some of his information that he publishes on his website is totally erronous . I am against all cruelty in zoos , but the Born Free bad zoo database ( under travellers alerts ) is mixed up truth and BS . The last I saw of it , they were trying to have a go at Adelaide zoo . Unfortunately I havent been to Adelaide Zoo yet , so I was not able to take another a swipe at them . Patrick has also written to them [email protected] is the email address I think the website is Born Free Foundation: Home
Idiots These guys at bornfree have a go at Pinnawela orphanage in Sri Lanka for chaining up some of their elephnts. While I was there the elephants were chained at night, orphans during feeding, bulls in musth and elephants that may pose a flight risk, as the number of eles is greater than the number of mahouts. They even say on the website that they are unsure of the reasons for the animals being chained other but they are sure it serves no purpose. Yeah it wasn't the prettiest place and was definately built for the tourists but there are now big plans in place for the sanctuary by the zoos department that Born free obviously didn't look into.
Born Free Foundation are actively critical of all zoos obviously- they also use individual cases of 'animal misery' to highlight their cases. What interests me is how poorly researched their arguments often are. Admitting not knowing whether e.g. two animals A & B. have bred or not seems an odd admission to make 1. Because its a good indicator to the general welfare/condition of the animals and 2. Any layman nowadays can find this sort of information from studbooks etc so it seems a very unprofessional approach- as mentioned by another poster above.
personally, i often find that being an "animal lover" does by no means necessarily go hand in hand with knowing anything about them. i've met my fair share of people who claim to be animal fantics but appear to be more interested in anthropomorphising them than reading natural history books.
I can accept that level of misplaced sentiment from people with a casual interest, but the anti-zoo lobby are supposed to be spearheaded by Zoocheck/Born Free Foudation etc, yet time and time again this body shows that their enquiries are only partly researched/innaccurate or even untrue. Obviously other people on this forum have noticed the same thing too.
Zoo Watch vs Born free I have found the Canadian Zoowatch to be the fairest that I have come across to date . They are not anti zoos , but are anti poor animal husbandry practices which quite often appear in roadside menageries and backyard zoos -- which often give bona fide zoos a bad name . I have also seen some shocking zoos in Asia , which even I would promote their closure ( the animals enclosures are too small for the animals to turn around in ) Canada zoowatch deal with facts rather than appearances , and in their reports they list shortcomings and recommended remedial actions that the owner should take -- as opposed to blanket closure of all zoos like Born Free
i once had an argument with a guy who was involved heavily with an animal welfare group in the uk. he told me that we (humans) should just stop eating all animals, but this was in particular reference to sheep. his reasoning was that if we stoped eating sheep, then all the sheep would be happy. unfortunately, this is the sort of mentality alot of these people seem to share.
That's exactly my criticism of the UK Born Free/Zo Check, they do the other way around, dealing with appearances rather than facts!
