Thank you, that makes a lot of sense. I didn't know much about CWAS at all and tend to not look into sanctuaries yet so this is good to know.
Roadside Zoo News website (re Jack Facente Serpentarium)
- Thread starter birdsandbats
- Start date
While I do personally not support the so-called "rack system" husbandry for snakes, I would like to give pause to two aspects:
1) As mentioned in previous ZC posts, there's a certain cultural difference between American (but also Australian and South African) reptile keepers and their colleagues from some European countries on the aspect of adequate modern reptile husbandry, in particular in regard to enclosure size and the furnishing of exhibits. What is deemed acceptable or even great by some Americans/Australians/SAs would be severely animadverted and even considered illegal in certain European countries.
2) The professional husbandry standards of venomous snakes for the production of antivenom and research are, unfortunately for the animals kept within, quite often similar to situations in industrial livestock farming and laboratory animal husbandry: standardized basic conditions to minimalize daily maintence effort & costs to be able to keep a lot of specimens economically, while keeping in line with strict staff safety and veterinary health guidelines.
To combine modern zoo animal exhibition standards with productive animal husbandry conditions is a tricky tightrope walk.
Last edited:
The only criticism I've ever seen of White Oak on this site is that the high costs are prohibitive for many who'd be interested in visiting. Not sure why that'd be relevant in this conversation, but that's all I can think of.
I don't feel I can competently explain everything succinctly (still a bit fried from my trip), but for White Oak, it's about money. The owner (purchased 2013) is a billionaire - he also owns the LA Dodgers and Chelsea FC - and has done numerous sales of animals for $$$. For Wild Animal Sanctuary, I think roadsidezoonews does a decent job explaining the issues. They take in a massive amount of animals, then beg for funds and send animals to places as bad as what they were rescued from. The owner has threatened to euthanize *all* of the animals before.
I'm not sure how I was cryptic in saying:
"Lab monkeys and beagles have been used in work that's saved lives, too, but they're still treated horribly.
Current herp husbandry is generally well below what should be acceptable. We (rightly) get upset if parrots are stuck on a stick or mammals don't have enough room, but act like it's fine that snakes are often kept in exhibits where they can't even fully stretch out, yet alone move around much. This really shouldn't be considered "adequate", just because the animals don't die."
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
I can’t think of a single facility that I know - AZA, ZAA, or unaffiliated - that hasn’t done *something* that I disagree or disapprove of, and I can think of some things for WO that would fall into that category… but certainly nothing that I would consider unforgivable
I pass no judgement on the serpentarium, being largely unfamiliar with it, except to say that our understanding of reptile wellbeing is evolving rapidly, finally starting to catch up to that of birds and mammals, and not all facilities are catching up at an equal rate. I know that at our zoo things that were considered adequate and acceptable for years and being reevaluated, which is resulting in a constant push for improvement
I don't trust anti-zoo websites like Roadside Zoo News, and I would advise others to avoid them as well.
As discussed those holdings are temporary and really the only feasible option for venom harvesting. It was vague because it really wasn't clear at all you were referring to MToxins here.
They're not anti-zoo. They're anti-bad zoo. We should all oppose bad zoos because they hurt the good ones.
It was a reply to your quote defending MToxins and mentions herps several times, I don't know why you would think it would be about something else. What do their main holdings look like, then, if they are kept in the drawers briefly? Again, the comparison to lab monkeys and beagles is apt - they are kept in conditions that are best for product testing, but that doesn't make it okay.
The comparison @Batto made with the bioindustry is a very apt one. The holding might be very efficient and good for the goal of venom harvesting, that doesn't mean it is good welfare (the average farm pig will agree here....), despite being very well designed for the goal it has. If you claim that this is one of the best reptile displays of any American zoo that is a big stretch! There are only a few dozen terraria on site (which from a European perspective look worse than average) and there are hundreds of racked bins. So I don't get the impression they are temporary for most animals, so how this is one of the best reptile displays of any American zoo is beyond me....
Even so this is being shown to the public which may give off a the perception that it is okay to keep a lot of animals, let alone reptiles, all at once in small quarters.
The same also goes for the blue and gold macaw and the laughing kookaburra pair that I saw on their Facebook page which were kept in small cages that are barely appropriate for finches. Even if these birds do have bts enclosures that are larger, the public will be seeing them in small cages. Some may end up thinking that it is okay to keep these birds in itty bitty domains.
When I first saw RZN I thought the same thing as well until I saw their first post on the Naples Zoo which already raises a red flag with a thumbnail like this.
The only criticism Naples Zoo got was the fact that they allowed Rosenquist (the man who tried to interact with Eko) to work at the zoo unsupervised. The post goes on to explain how this is a result of the public’s perception of big cats being treated like pets and why the Big Cat Public Safety Act should be supported, which I say “fair enough”. The problem comes on the end of the article:
This sounds like the same rhetoric animal rights activists use. There also is no discrimination between good zoos and bad zoos. Nothing is mentioned about checking the accreditation of a zoo before visiting it. Nothing is mentioned about good zoos raising funds for in situ conservation, which the author calls “true conservation”. It just says zoos. The article finishes off repeating the thumbnail by equating Eko’s death to freedom.
Once the bad apples are taken down, I wouldn’t be surprised if the author goes on to look for dirt on accredited and good zoos as well.
^^^This. That has always been my feelings on that website.
CMTM
Well-Known Member
Temporary how? Do the animals have better enclosures not in view?
Yes, and the terrariums are rotated out.
The bins aren't exhibitry though - the terrariums are. They are certainly above-average for an American zoo.
CMTM
Well-Known Member
The snakes in bins don't live in the bins full time time? What's the schedule like if you know? That is an awful lot of venomous animals to be moving regularly.
I wouldn't know in that much detail.
The display cage for the kookaburras is outright unacceptable.
Furthermore in my looking around re the eagle incident I don't think their raptor husbandry is what it should be either. The public is allowed to pet the eagle owl under supervision, as well as be very close to it in general. I saw a couple photos where proper raptor handling was not being observed, though that may have just been photo chance. Being tethered to a indoor perch for the duration of visitor hours however, is less excusable. The owner's explanation of how the eagle died implies the eagle was tethered off display as well - and very likely incorrectly if it managed to kill itself. (Leaving a tethered bird alone too long gets increasingly risky as it is...)
Several photos I saw of the eagle showed her looking stressed.
That's my thought as well - and the more you handle and move venomous snakes, the higher risk of accidents... not to mention stressing out the reptiles.
And as far as shunting goes, they do seem to rotate birds and mammals a lot - some of them are apparently only temporarily held, but why the need for that? All kinds of things have come and gone - fennec fox, sloth, Red Kangaroo, fruit bats, Barred Owl, pied crow, ect. Why does a venom lab need any of that anyways other than trying to keep people coming through the door?
Just for photo ops I'd think - I've visited several times and have never seen visitors allowed to interact with the raptors.
This is a venom lab - it's kind of hard to operate one without frequently moving reptiles around, including in and out of enclosures.
They get moved on and off site. In most cases, they remain in the owner's collection, and are simply moved to holdings off the serpentarium property. Obviously the storefront location cannot operate as a permanent home for them. But is trying to get people through the door bad? Why do zoos keep any animal?
On their Facebook it does say "will be available to meet and pet" re Ollie the eagle owl's return - and there are photos proving it does happen. Very likely this is mainly for photo ops and while under supervision, but it's definitely not ideal.
Nothing to say re the kookaburra and macaw accommodations?
Obviously, yes - but you're implying there's a lot of shunting and handling going on with the displays themselves, more than might be expected. It is first and foremost a working venom lab of course, but even so venom takes a bit of time to regenerate. You've still not proven the off-display exhibits are better than just the tray setups. By all appearances the terrariums on display are the best housing they get.
Clearly not given the exhibits they're subjected to - all of the non-reptile display exhibits I've seen in my looking around have been below ideal. I know a few experienced professionals who would have a fit about how the birds and mammals are exhibited. Personally I'm surprised the place managed to land a Bald Eagle in the first place.
No - but animals should at least be housed appropriately, and as far as the public displays at Mtoxins are concerned, the mammals and birds are not. Just because someone is a professional in one area does not mean they are in another. There is a legal document confirming the owner falsified paperwork to cover up the death of a monitored species - that to me is a major red flag.
Have you found any evidence of this outside of the RZN article? I'm inclined not trust blatantly misleading propaganda from an anti-zoo site and I have found nothing outside of that. The local media hasn't covered it, for example.