The Cat Survival Trust Cat Survival Trust

Yes with zoos dumping their unwanted animals and the owner breeding and allowing inbreeding it just fuelled the already ridiculous amount of surplus animals out there. I live very close to the site and know many of the past and recent volunteers very well, hence I know a lot about the place and the case.
 
Lafone said:
It’s an opinion you’re entitled to of course but it’s a contradictory position to have animals in zoos and no captive breeding, particularly for insurance populations and conservation, unless of course you prefer animals to be taken from the wild.

Anyway it is what it is, this collection was grim and the conditions found to be illegal (which you and the other posters here after it’s shut saying you knew all about the cruel conditions for 10 years know better than some of the rest of us). It was never in the same category as reputable collections which is made clear in the first pages of this thread alone.
Click to expand...
If the stats are correct then most animals in zoos are not endangered therefore no insurance policy is needed, they are just there for human entertainment and financial gain, and an insurance policy is only valid if animals from zoos are making it back into the wild, which of course with the exception of a very tiny number, doesn't happen. They are just traded between zoos, and habitat loss and fragmentation only increase, so again, an insurance policy has no meaning if there is nowhere to reintroduce animals. I get no enjoyment from seeing these sorts of animals in any captive setting, but of course that's my opinion and I respect that many will disagree, especially on this forum.
 
Well fair said:
If the stats are correct then most animals in zoos are not endangered therefore no insurance policy is needed, they are just there for human entertainment and financial gain, and an insurance policy is only valid if animals from zoos are making it back into the wild, which of course with the exception of a very tiny number, doesn't happen. They are just traded between zoos, and habitat loss and fragmentation only increase, so again, an insurance policy has no meaning if there is nowhere to reintroduce animals. I get no enjoyment from seeing these sorts of animals in any captive setting, but of course that's my opinion and I respect that many will disagree, especially on this forum.
Click to expand...

I don't think whether you enjoy animals in captivity has much to do with this thread. I believe you also undervalue the point of conservation in action in zoos, but there we are, it's unimportant in the scheme of things so I'll leave you to your stance.
 
Well fair said:
If the stats are correct then most animals in zoos are not endangered therefore no insurance policy is needed, they are just there for human entertainment and financial gain, and an insurance policy is only valid if animals from zoos are making it back into the wild, which of course with the exception of a very tiny number, doesn't happen. They are just traded between zoos, and habitat loss and fragmentation only increase, so again, an insurance policy has no meaning if there is nowhere to reintroduce animals. I get no enjoyment from seeing these sorts of animals in any captive setting, but of course that's my opinion and I respect that many will disagree, especially on this forum.
Click to expand...
This is the only comment I will make on this so as to not derail this thread (I apologise very much if this post in itself is doing so, I just wanted to add this), but as much as I respect the fact you’re entitled to your opinion, having been to over 300 zoos / aquaria I strongly believe that the keeping of non endangered species holds a good level of educational value. That’s not to say *all* zoos are like this, I’ve been to some certainly shoddy ones where commercial gain clearly outweighs basic husbandry and the educational aspect I’m talking about. But, take somewhere like Hamerton as a good example, they hold mainly unusual and interesting species that the general public probably havent heard of nor seen before, their entire ethos is about presenting lesser known animals to the public. Whilst granted a fair few such as the brown hyena are threatened in the wild, a lot of these species are not as vulnerable and yet still pose a great level of educational value to the public, I feel its definitely more useful being able to observe and watch them in real life as opposed to in videos / documentaries, and I’m sure you understand that a lot of families can’t afford to go and see them in the wild, so it’s certainly a good thing in my opinion, however again I do respect that you are entitled to your own:)
 
Well fair said:
If the stats are correct then most animals in zoos are not endangered therefore no insurance policy is needed, they are just there for human entertainment and financial gain, and an insurance policy is only valid if animals from zoos are making it back into the wild, which of course with the exception of a very tiny number, doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
The number may be tiny in the overall scheme, yet that still amounts to dozens and dozens.
And who is to say that when one species are saved that dozens and dozens of more
don't come along for the ride.
 
Thank you for your comments, I understand we all have differing opinions, it's just the way it is and that's a debate for another thread. But with the collection this thread relates to, it was too little, too late in regard to the re-homing of the animals. Just the two years between the owners arrest and conviction numerous cats suffered and died, all pleas to the major public collections fell on deaf ears including the one that was eventually paid to re-home them. And Roz, I would love to know more about the Argentina reserve that you say was never purchased as Mr Moore would always prattle on about it.
 
pangolin12 said:
This is the only comment I will make on this so as to not derail this thread (I apologise very much if this post in itself is doing so, I just wanted to add this), but as much as I respect the fact you’re entitled to your opinion, having been to over 300 zoos / aquaria I strongly believe that the keeping of non endangered species holds a good level of educational value. That’s not to say *all* zoos are like this, I’ve been to some certainly shoddy ones where commercial gain clearly outweighs basic husbandry and the educational aspect I’m talking about. But, take somewhere like Hamerton as a good example, they hold mainly unusual and interesting species that the general public probably havent heard of nor seen before, their entire ethos is about presenting lesser known animals to the public. Whilst granted a fair few such as the brown hyena are threatened in the wild, a lot of these species are not as vulnerable and yet still pose a great level of educational value to the public, I feel its definitely more useful being able to observe and watch them in real life as opposed to in videos / documentaries, and I’m sure you understand that a lot of families can’t afford to go and see them in the wild, so it’s certainly a good thing in my opinion, however again I do respect that you are entitled to your own:)
Click to expand...
It must be remembered too that endangered species 'lists' and classification are a human concept, and that todays 'least concern' can suddenly be tomorrows 'critical' just because someone has actually bothered to look. Reserve populations of species cannot be instantly conjured up in captivity just because the status has changed. Todays 'phase-out' can be tomorrows extinction. Just look at the disgraceful record ZSL has with the Panay Cloud Rat...
(Am I wrong, but I thought that the Brown Hyaena was listed as 'not threatened'? - it is certainly not listed on CITES)
 
Well fair said:
Thank you for your comments, I understand we all have differing opinions, it's just the way it is and that's a debate for another thread. But with the collection this thread relates to, it was too little, too late in regard to the re-homing of the animals. Just the two years between the owners arrest and conviction numerous cats suffered and died, all pleas to the major public collections fell on deaf ears including the one that was eventually paid to re-home them. And Roz, I would love to know more about the Argentina reserve that you say was never purchased as Mr Moore would always prattle on about it.
Click to expand...
Over 20 years ago we had reason to investigate Terry. I won't go into the reason why but we emailed the reserve in Argentina to confirm the purchase. We were told that although they knew of Terry, he certainly did not purchase the land. Where did all the money go that the rich, famous and family donated.
 
Interesting discourse here with 2 newbies driving it: R.I.P. The Cat Survival Trust and Next please! The management of the place sure aint pretty face....!

Having said that: I do wonder with all due respect why both posters - granted free they may be and not denying facts... - only write in on this thread to add some value to Zoochat.
 
Embu said:
Ahh ok, it's just Five Sisters in Scotland have announced the arrival of Inca, a 10yr old female puma that arrived last month "following the closure of the facility where she had been living"
Click to expand...

I think the last reported figures for pumas in the UK showed around 20 inviduals held under a DWA in 2022 so there seem to be a few in private hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top