(or.....DON'T GET ME STARTED! )
We all know that there are occasions when it is necessary to handrear baby animals, when their mothers can't or won't look after them, but there's a growing tendency to take animals from their mothers too young, just for our convenience, and to the disadvantage of the animals.
The best known example of this are the notorious "puppy mills " which churn out dogs for pet shops, all taken from their mothers at a too-early age so that they are tiny and cute.
Another good example is the pet parrot trade, where baby parrots are yanked too early and hand reared. It creates great pets, cute little guys who are totally screwed up. (They think they are human.)
You would think reputable zoos, with their concern for the welfare of their animals, would be above that kind of action. Not so.....
A couple of years back, the social pages of a Sydney newspaper included photos of some rich kids at a private eastern suburbs party cuddling three tiger cubs.
These cubs had been bred at Mogo zoo on the NSW south coast to be sent to Steve Irwin's Australia zoo.
The cubs at that stage were only three weeks old, an age when they should still have been with their mum. Instead, they had been yanked early and were now being handed from child to child for photo opportunities.
I wrote a letter to the newspaper, which was published, deploring the situation and pointing out that the whole thing seemed to have more to do with showbiz than genuine conservation.
A week later a reply to my criticism was published, written by some mob called Australian Animal Conservationists (a title designed not to give too much information away, but who are apparently a support group for Mogo zoo.)
I was told that the cubs had been removed from their mother "under appropriate veterinary supervision," as if that made it all right .(It doesn't!)
I was told that the cubs were intended for an "interactive display at Australia zoo" and that the cubs therefore needed to be used to humans.
("Interactive display" I assume means handled a lot. What is it with Queensland animal parks? they always seem to want to handle their tigers like dogs.)
Apparently the rich kids party paid Mogo $10,000, as the letter finished,"..... the idea of using the tiger cubs as a photo opportunity to raise a quick $10,000 should be commended, not criticised."
Anyone got any opinions of all this?
We all know that there are occasions when it is necessary to handrear baby animals, when their mothers can't or won't look after them, but there's a growing tendency to take animals from their mothers too young, just for our convenience, and to the disadvantage of the animals.
The best known example of this are the notorious "puppy mills " which churn out dogs for pet shops, all taken from their mothers at a too-early age so that they are tiny and cute.
Another good example is the pet parrot trade, where baby parrots are yanked too early and hand reared. It creates great pets, cute little guys who are totally screwed up. (They think they are human.)
You would think reputable zoos, with their concern for the welfare of their animals, would be above that kind of action. Not so.....
A couple of years back, the social pages of a Sydney newspaper included photos of some rich kids at a private eastern suburbs party cuddling three tiger cubs.
These cubs had been bred at Mogo zoo on the NSW south coast to be sent to Steve Irwin's Australia zoo.
The cubs at that stage were only three weeks old, an age when they should still have been with their mum. Instead, they had been yanked early and were now being handed from child to child for photo opportunities.
I wrote a letter to the newspaper, which was published, deploring the situation and pointing out that the whole thing seemed to have more to do with showbiz than genuine conservation.
A week later a reply to my criticism was published, written by some mob called Australian Animal Conservationists (a title designed not to give too much information away, but who are apparently a support group for Mogo zoo.)
I was told that the cubs had been removed from their mother "under appropriate veterinary supervision," as if that made it all right .(It doesn't!)
I was told that the cubs were intended for an "interactive display at Australia zoo" and that the cubs therefore needed to be used to humans.
("Interactive display" I assume means handled a lot. What is it with Queensland animal parks? they always seem to want to handle their tigers like dogs.)
Apparently the rich kids party paid Mogo $10,000, as the letter finished,"..... the idea of using the tiger cubs as a photo opportunity to raise a quick $10,000 should be commended, not criticised."
Anyone got any opinions of all this?
