Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
Is the zoo being sold for 600,000 with 2,000,000 of debts?
Has the minus 1,400,000 been raised too?
Les Terres de Nataé Animal rights group buying Zoo de Pont-Scorff
- Thread starter TNT
- Start date
Is the zoo being sold for 600,000 with 2,000,000 of debts?
Has the minus 1,400,000 been raised too?
There is. Getting 800,000EUR from the public for saying one wants to "release animals'' where one has no funds nor physical possibility to do it can be a scam.
Funds are not near even the hypothetical moving animals to some probably non-existing ''sanctuaries'' in their home countries.
There is a huge difference between calling a zoo bad and life-threatening conditions. In France even the barest zoo must adhere to minimum legal norms of keeping animals which are far from 'life-threatening' used by the REWILD.
Not. REWILD apparently cut the only chance to help the animals by trying to break EAZA rules. No zoo or a serious institution will nor can help, if REWILD both opposes zoo standards and lacks own expertise and skills at the same time.
The crowdfunding was for "buying the the zoo" and will be used exactly for that, every decent lawyer will have no problem defending that and organisations like Sea Shepherd certainly have access to good lawyers.
I mean that is what every zoo in every country with standard laws has right? I delibrately omitted the "life-threatening" phrase as it is something that these organisations will always use, we both know it is not true, they know it too, but use it too target feelings and we won't change that.
How can you be so sure about that? Will they help them with relasing the animals? Not really. Will they help them by taking not relasable animals? Why not? If there will be will from Rewild to do so and it will be in the best interest of animals...
I meant that they saved it as that they prevented it from bankrupcy (for now) as that can get really ugly.
The buying of the zoo by an animal rights collective is I think a very, very dangerous precedent and something that should be extremely concerning to zoo fans and the zoo world.
The animal rights activists have now achieved a major victory and it has become clear that they have substantial and vocal public support that allows them access to substantial funds.
Are zoos losing the fight over their place in the world? Are the animal rights extremists slowly winning, step by step? Does this spell the beginning of the end for zoos? I fear that is in fact the case. They certainly aren't going to stop here now that have been emboldened by their victory.
Unless these far-left criminals and extremists can somehow be controlled I think the future for zoos is now looking very, very bleak indeed as they are a prime and easy target.
The animal rights activists have now achieved a major victory and it has become clear that they have substantial and vocal public support that allows them access to substantial funds.
Are zoos losing the fight over their place in the world? Are the animal rights extremists slowly winning, step by step? Does this spell the beginning of the end for zoos? I fear that is in fact the case. They certainly aren't going to stop here now that have been emboldened by their victory.
Unless these far-left criminals and extremists can somehow be controlled I think the future for zoos is now looking very, very bleak indeed as they are a prime and easy target.
I fully understand that this is upsetting and a source of anxiety for you but I think it’s important, and hopefully useful for you and others, to have a sense of perspective.
This isn’t a major victory for anti-zoo campaigners. Firstly we don’t know what is actually going to happen and the practicalities may prove to be quite different to what they promise.
I’m not too concerned about the precedent this sets. Firstly there simply isn’t the will, capacity - including financial - or indeed opportunity for anti-zoo organisations to sweep across the world buying up zoos and closing them down.
The zoo concerned is a relatively minor collection that was apparently struggling. This isn’t a major zoo suddenly being wiped out of existence.
Zoos are booming across the world and public interest is high. Some may face different and specific challenges but people are still visiting them and new ones are opening. Look at Sydney for example.
As I said, perspective is really important when dealing with upsetting and stressful news. I recommend taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. I hope that will be of some comfort because I really believe that the zoo apocalypse you fear simply isn’t happening although I totally understand and relate to your anger and anxiety around this.
I would be also interested in details. And other attempts of buying zoos and 'freeing the animals' or in general, releasing a larger number of random large mammals in their middle ages and with no knowledge of life in the wild. Such ideas appear again and again since several decades at least. Predictably they flop.
It may be a good idea to gather a list of such cases, so people are wiser in future.
Last edited:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Totally agree with everything that you have said here Kevin. Moreover, I am inclined to believe that this is indeed a worrying development for zoos and like you I also believe that similar events are likely to occur in the near future in many countries to the great detriment of ex-situ conservation.
That said , one thing I disagree with you on is the notion that these kind of groups are composed of "far left criminals". I think that this is a bit of a mischaracterization and way too reductive. From what I have observed many animal rights activists do tend to be on the left of the political spectrum (mainly a very vague and unarticulated form of anarchism) but there are significant numbers which are apolitical / nihilistic and also a significant percentage who are actually very much far right and fascist.
For example here in Brazil one of the most rabid anti zoo animal rights extremists is Pedro Ynterian who heads the Great ape sanctuary in Sorocaba. Ynterian is a Cuban exile and former terrorist ( he is very open about his involvement in these activities too).
Pedro Ynterian is someone who is most definitely "far right" and this is hardly a trait confined to his past life either given his continued affiliation and vocal support of far right / fascist parties in Brazil and ironically the Bolsonaro administration.
Last edited by a moderator:
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
I think what you are describing is mainly the situation facing zoos in the Northern hemisphere of Europe , the USA and Canada and I agree that things in those regions do not look quite as dire at the moment. However, I don't think things are so clear cut and its pertinent to remember that these favourable conditions are actually not present in other areas of the world.
Take Latin America for example Zoos are not at all in a good way and particularly in Brazil where under the Bolsonaro administration municipal institutions are having their funding severely cut and are increasingly facing privatization and / or closure. In addition to these concerns there are very vocal and powerful animal rights groups that operate within the region that wield a considerable amount of power via social media and even politically / economically.
The example I gave in the comment above this one of Pedro Ynterian is a prime example of an animal rights activist who has both an organization with the political leanings (and contacts) , money and the will to agitate / lobby year after year for the closure of zoos.
Recent events show that even if they are unable to force the closure of a zoo these individuals can still grease the palms of the police with the ample funding at their disposal and forcibly enter an institution through strong arm tactics and "confiscate" animals. They can (and will) then engineer and dominate the narrative on social media platforms such as facebook and twitter and garner support from misguided members of the public thus further demonising zoos and portraying themselves as morally superior entities.
Last edited:
In addition to what @Shirokuma has said, it is worth reminding that buying a zoo in financial problems is the easy part. Running the zoo and relocating all the animals to fulfill their goals is the more difficult part. I do not know enough of the group behind this all, but I would not be surprised at all if it results in failure for them. It could even work as a repellent by showing how stupid some of their ideas are.
What is their longterm aim? Relocate the animals-where to?- and close it down? Keep it open to the public in the interim, or immediate public closure? Or a different plan? Or no plan announced?
I checked what order of money it costs to transport or care for wild animals. For example:
- transport of 2 Asian elephants (without the care later): - $111,000
- air transport of one rhino (without the care later): - $45,000
- care of one mid-sized monkey: - $2,500 per year, or $25,000 per lifetime
It is clear that the activists have nowhere near the money to release the animals, even if it was possible. One can only wonder, if their actions are a heroic shoot-at-the-sky or stupid risking the well-being of animals?
The problem is not, as some worry, that Rewild might set a precedent to release animals from the zoos. The problem is that Rewild will inevitably fail and many animals will need rescuing from Rewild in a short time.
As I and others say before - it is useful to follow this case to make sure it is a warning for others in future. If good intentions and an internet campaign was all that it takes to save a zoo, the Pont-Scorff zoo would do it itself without activists.
PS: sources:
Zoo not profiting from elephants’ pricey transfer
How do you get a rhino to fly?
Should aging lab monkeys be retired to sanctuaries? | Science | AAAS
- transport of 2 Asian elephants (without the care later): - $111,000
- air transport of one rhino (without the care later): - $45,000
- care of one mid-sized monkey: - $2,500 per year, or $25,000 per lifetime
It is clear that the activists have nowhere near the money to release the animals, even if it was possible. One can only wonder, if their actions are a heroic shoot-at-the-sky or stupid risking the well-being of animals?
The problem is not, as some worry, that Rewild might set a precedent to release animals from the zoos. The problem is that Rewild will inevitably fail and many animals will need rescuing from Rewild in a short time.
As I and others say before - it is useful to follow this case to make sure it is a warning for others in future. If good intentions and an internet campaign was all that it takes to save a zoo, the Pont-Scorff zoo would do it itself without activists.
PS: sources:
Zoo not profiting from elephants’ pricey transfer
How do you get a rhino to fly?
Should aging lab monkeys be retired to sanctuaries? | Science | AAAS
littleRedPanda
Well-Known Member
From what I can deduce from articles, the group will run the zoo as it is until they have the funds to relocate the animals they have 'bought'(?) to their natural homelands; I gues that would be sanctuaries that are probably underfunded as they are. The site in France will be developed into a 'sanctuary' for confiscated animals, with the intention of relocating them to their natural homelands too. Who knows how all this will be funded?
It's hard to do it when owner doesn't care
As has been discussed on another thread I haven't been having the best of times lately after what happened at Antwerp. The upsetting stories of the Krefeld fire and the terrible bush fires in Australia haven't helped either. With all this distress, anxiety and swirling feelings that I just am not able to fully sort or process yet perhaps I overreacted a bit and posted a message that was perhaps a bit too panicky or anxious. Perhaps I have also been spending a bit too much time on social media pages dedicated to countering the animal rights narrative, and some of those pages are perhaps painting pictures that are a bit more dire than needed.
I agree that zoos are still popular and loved and continue to receive public support. However there is a vocal minority (at least I believe it is a minority) that hates zoos as well and the animal rights movement definitely remains very active.
It is not just zoos that are being targeted, any animal-related industry or business can find itself the target of the smear campaigns, disinformation, intimidation, criminal activities or lobbying work of the animal rights extremists. I also think that not enough is being done about this extreme movement and its views and activities. There is so much they are currently able to do with impunity or with extremely mild legal consequences. As such animal-related industries and businesses should I think remain hyper vigilant and should pay attention to their defense.
Perhaps there is no reason to be overly anxious or gloomy about the animal rights narrative, but I believe this is no time to be complacent or totally comfortable either.
I concede that animal rights extremism isn't limited to the far-left, but at least in Western countries most of these people would be considered to be on the far left. Also most of the politicians influenced by the lobbying of the animal rights extremism in Western countries are on the left or the far left.
Rewild is a collective of seven different organizations, according to their own website which I won't link to as I don't want to give them any more traffic than I need to. From what I gather these are both animal rights and environmental groups: Sea Shepherd France, Centre Athénas, Le Biome, HISA, One voice, Wildlife Angel and Darwin ecosystem.
I don't know nor did I look up any specifics on these organizations. So I don't know if any of them have any experience with sanctuaries or the keeping, rehabilitation and release of wildlife.
What they are trying to do might well end in failure, and that would be great to see - if it doesn't result in suffering for the animals. And we all know that some of these animal rights extremists believe that a gruesome death through disease, starvation or predation of a "freed" animal in the "wild" is preferable to an animal being given the best care in captivity. I would love to see these people fail, but only if it doesn't end up hurting the animals.
According to the article below (in French) Rewild intends to transform the zoo into a rehabilitation center for confiscated animals with the intend to return animals to the wild. The zoo will no longer be open to the public.
Quel avenir pour le zoo de Pont-Scorff ?
How are they going to fund this all? Without any source of revenue from the public I personally don't see them being able to doing it any other way than they have done to buy the zoo: campaigning to get monkey from their acolytes, or to sway some wealthy donors.
Personally my biggest concern about all this is: how is this going to end for the animals currently at the zoo? I have grave concerns about whether they will be better off now.
I think all of this is just a bunch of activist craziness that will neither do anything good for society or for animals nor is something we need in today's world.
The 7 organisations bought the zoo by crowd funding, with the major donation done by one rich entrepreneur. The zoo they bought has huge depts (not sure if this is for the new owners to solve), 17 people workforce and a running cost of around € 120.000,- per month.
At first the wanted to relocate all the animals to the wild and use the current zoo as a sanctuary for confiscated animals. They allready seem to come back a little with relocate all the animals to the wild after a lot of people and organisations questioning this idea.
At first the wanted to relocate all the animals to the wild and use the current zoo as a sanctuary for confiscated animals. They allready seem to come back a little with relocate all the animals to the wild after a lot of people and organisations questioning this idea.
This entrepreneur isn’t are friend Mr Damian Aspinall is it sound like to kind of idiotic thing he would be involved in ?
littleRedPanda
Well-Known Member
No, it's someone called Marc Simoncini, "one of the most successful web entrepreneurs in France" with no history of animal welfare.
It does remind me a little of a couple who had a bit of land and some money to spare, and took in some chimps. They didn't realise how much time and money it would take to care for them and reluctantly had to open their 'pet' collection to the paying public. Well meaning indeed, but extremely naive.
So the master is to run a zoo by a group that wants to close a zoo, with a group of people who have no idea of how to run a zoo that must put aside all of its beliefs in order to achieve financial gain to ultimately revisit its goals / beliefs of closing the zoo to release the animals. This sound like the most ridiculous plan of any type of activist group ect I’ve ever heard and could only fail and work towards the demise of such a group and the public’s preseption of them. How can they be so hypricritcal to actually need to make the zoo work to fund there goal of closing the zoo, can’t wait for there pr campaign. To think the previous owners that would have wanted it to work couldn’t and where forced to sell can only point to desaster for this group and unfortunately probably the animals to.
Ok an expert then
Last edited by a moderator:
It's Marc Simoncini, he gave a € 250.000,- donation.
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
... sounds familiar, that's exactly how a good many zoos started.