The problem with IDA and similar accusations is that most observers do not make rational observations as were included in the recent responses in this thread. Most people accept the accusation and agree with its application against all zoos. Elephants in Swaziland face planned killing by humans with few alternatives available. Advocates fail to state they prefer their destruction by man over their transfer to small social groups in AZA approved habitats. I believe some of the previous group transferred from Swaziland are thriving and breeding. Advocates present their argument assured by its politically correct context though it has become increasingly unattainable. They know very few will challenge their facts.
I think referring to Wildlife Safari and Six Flags CA as abusement parks is more than justified given the obscene track record of death (primarily at the latter). In addition to the lack of emphasis in conservation/scientific education and information with the displays. I'm open minded when it comes to creativity in zoological display (actually loved the idea of elephant browse feeding @ Woodland Park), but in Wildlife Safari's 'elephant carwash' I fail to see the value and agree it is exploitation. #2, #4, #5, #8, #9, #10 all stand up to their scrutiny. All of the displays referenced in these are an embarrassment to the standard of animal welfare in our nation. Given the transmission of zoonotic disease possible (not to mention blatant safety risks) with direct visitor to elephant contact, such practice shouldn't be accepted anywhere. For the sake of legitimacy for zoos everywhere. Also, if you have no issue with elephants being trucked annually cross country for display and visitor-to-elephant physical contact then we're clearly inhabiting different perceptions. To some of the posters on this thread, you can certainly be in favor of animal captivity, but I don't believe that such a view forces you to justify substandard care, habitats, management, or educational framing. We're in the 21st Century- exhibits for elephants really should be no less than 2.5 acres at minimum. Protected contact is the future. Of course I disagree with the inclusion of OKC, Dallas/Sedgwick/Omaha but other than that I think a large portion of the criticism is warranted. These facilities need to adapt or die (and as Snowleopard said, many have already done so).
yeah, obviously. I personally was only defending the zoos: omaha and kansas and dallas, oregon and OKC
Protected contact and new AZA standards should not be the future but should be mandatory for AZA accreditation.
I think you accidentally posted the wrong link (that's about katydids!). Here's the IDA link: 10 Worst Zoos for Elephants 2016 Interestingly, San Antonio's acquisition of two elephants got it off the list for the first time in 8 years. While Dallas, Omaha, and Sedgwick County are mentioned, they aren't on the list. 1. Oklahoma City Zoo 2. Natural Bridge Zoo 3. Honolulu Zoo 4. Edmonton Valley Zoo (Canada) 5. Oregon Zoo 6. Buffalo Zoo 7. Wildlife Safari 8. Pittsburgh Zoo 9. Milwaukee County Zoo 10. Fort Worth Zoo Hall of Shame Award: Buttonwood Park Zoo Dishonorable Mention: Bronx Zoo Edit: just saw there's a different thread for this.
