Les Terres de Nataé Animal rights group buying Zoo de Pont-Scorff

Antoine said:
@Kifaru Bwana From what I know french law is one of the more restrictive about creating or running a zoo. But you know better than me that there is law and there is economy.
This zoo was really in a poor situation (zoological and economical) for a few years now and for me no one could save it. It would take more money to get this zoo back on its feet than to create another one. But it was a visitors attraction and it gave some jobs to the area....always the same.
It's exactly the case of Zoo des Trois Vallées which was closed by a minister and will be save by the local authorities (even if it is one of the two worst in the country).
Click to expand...
I am aware of its recent history, I just envisioned that the current management should have been disqualified and been given custodial sentences for failure to manage a zoological collection, ensure good standards and procedures as well as animal welfare failures since taking over (the black rhino passing being a particularly poignant animal welfare negligence and dereliction of duty of care and animal welfare).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ned
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
As I said before all of these issues were predictable and I do still believe that this case should be seen a cautionary tale by other (and perhaps all) zoos.
Click to expand...
This story is complicated, and it cannot really be avoided by zoos. As mentioned before, the zoo was already below standards when the former owner (a medical doctor, who owns two other zoos) bought it. No normal person would have bought it from him, knowing the amount of money that wass needed to bring it to modern standards, so he sold it to the "animal right group" that has no idea of the investment needed, even if it would only be used for rescuing animals. What must be done better?

1) The authorities should have intervened earlier. For political reasons this is often not done in France but there is also the other problem: what to do with the animals if you close a zoo? This could be an important reason for the authorities to keep a low-standard zoo open, they may just hope that things will improve with the years. In my experiences in France, the authorities have too much other work (production animals) to take good care of zoos.
2) The French Zoo Organisation (AFdPZ) should make minimum standards for their membership. The zoos are not critical enough about their colleagues, still not understanding that bad zoos are negative for all zoos. AFdPZ has among its members some very low-standard zoos, an attraction parc where tigers and lions perform in an arena with gladiators, and for a long time some animals trainers that use their animals on markets and for movies. The AFdPZ should have removed Pont Scorff many years ago from membership.
AFdPZ should also work with the authorities on a "screening system", such as countries as the Netherlands and UK have.
3) EAZA should have removed Pont Scorff much earlier from membership, but was possibly not aware of the problems (because the AFdPZ didn't report anything).

Zoos and their associations (AFdPZ, EAZA) cannot close zoos. But they can show that they consider a zoo as below standards by not allowing them membership and by no longer sending such zoos their animals.
 
I agree that French zoos and EAZA will be finally forced to take care of the surviving animals anyway. Probably better as soon as possible, before more animals die. And that the Covid pandemics only made the problems worse. And it should be publicized as much as possible as a cautionary tale.
However, the animal right groups is still responsible:
- Why they bought the zoo without experience in caring of diverse wild animals? We do not live in a Simpsons cartoon.
-Why they bought the zoo without funds for running it?
-Why they mislead the donors they will 'release the animals' which was impossible practically and financially?
- Why they did not immediately appeal for funds and help?
That they possibly meant well does not remove their responsibility for harming animals and misleading the donors. If a person buys a dog or a horse which he does not know how to care well, he is still responsible. Now this is happening in the scale of a whole zoo.

What EAZA should do about a failing zoo is a different matter. I see it that ultimately EAZA can do little but hope. In my understanding, EAZA has little funds and little formal legal authority over zoos. Animal welfare is a job of regional government authorities.
 
Pepe said:
The French Zoo Organisation (AFdPZ) should make minimum standards for their membership.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, it has some of the weakest zoo association standards in Europe.

Currently, the "AFdPZ helps its members to apply the EU Zoo Directive 1999/22 implemented in French legislation through the national decree of the 25th march 2004". (A quote from the AFdPZ)

The word "Helps" doesn't bring much confidence, standards should be a requirement... even then, the EU ZD are only minimum standards, with many other associations striving for much more.
 
Pepe said:
This story is complicated, and it cannot really be avoided by zoos. As mentioned before, the zoo was already below standards when the former owner (a medical doctor, who owns two other zoos) bought it. No normal person would have bought it from him, knowing the amount of money that wass needed to bring it to modern standards, so he sold it to the "animal right group" that has no idea of the investment needed, even if it would only be used for rescuing animals. What must be done better?

1) The authorities should have intervened earlier. For political reasons this is often not done in France but there is also the other problem: what to do with the animals if you close a zoo? This could be an important reason for the authorities to keep a low-standard zoo open, they may just hope that things will improve with the years. In my experiences in France, the authorities have too much other work (production animals) to take good care of zoos.
2) The French Zoo Organisation (AFdPZ) should make minimum standards for their membership. The zoos are not critical enough about their colleagues, still not understanding that bad zoos are negative for all zoos. AFdPZ has among its members some very low-standard zoos, an attraction parc where tigers and lions perform in an arena with gladiators, and for a long time some animals trainers that use their animals on markets and for movies. The AFdPZ should have removed Pont Scorff many years ago from membership.
AFdPZ should also work with the authorities on a "screening system", such as countries as the Netherlands and UK have.
3) EAZA should have removed Pont Scorff much earlier from membership, but was possibly not aware of the problems (because the AFdPZ didn't report anything).

Zoos and their associations (AFdPZ, EAZA) cannot close zoos. But they can show that they consider a zoo as below standards by not allowing them membership and by no longer sending such zoos their animals.
Click to expand...

Interesting and thank you for your reply @Pepe, this is a really succint analysis of the situation.
 
Blijdorpenaar said:
Doesnt the EAZA have the authority to pull some of the EEP animals out from that sh*tshow?
Click to expand...
EAZA is not owner of the animals, individual zoos are. And the zoos transferred most (EEP) animals as a donation to Pont Scorff, when it still was EAZA member. So nothing can be done. They (REWILD) just tried to send to tortoises to the Seychelles, but that was halted as these were on loan to them and the owner zoo claimed the animals.
 
Jurek7 said:
In my understanding, EAZA has little funds and little formal legal authority over zoos. Animal welfare is a job of regional government authorities.
Click to expand...

EAZA may have enough funds, but it is "just" an organisation of zoos, they have of course no enclosures and can give advice to the authorities about the situation, if requested.
 
Important news : the zoo has just been placed in legal recovery as there is no money to pay (the employees were not payed in january).
It seems that Sea Shepherd wants the "zoo" back on their own (not shared with the Biome) and will present a project to the court in this way. Of course, there could be other projects from others companies...not really sure the court want to keep Sea Shepherd in the zoo !
 
Do they still have all of their animals, or have they at least downsized a bit due to costs?
 
Antoine said:
Important news : the zoo has just been placed in legal recovery as there is no money to pay (the employees were not payed in january).
It seems that Sea Shepherd wants the "zoo" back on their own (not shared with the Biome) and will present a project to the court in this way. Of course, there could be other projects from others companies...not really sure the court want to keep Sea Shepherd in the zoo !
Click to expand...

So there is basically two or more factions of animal rights activist groups fighting over it now ?
 
TinoPup said:
Do they still have all of their animals, or have they at least downsized a bit due to costs?
Click to expand...
Frol what we know they still have the major part of the animals except them who died.

Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
So there is basically two or more factions of animal rights activist groups fighting over it now ?
Click to expand...
No as the Biome is nothing real and doesn't have any money. So there is just Sea Shepherd to go on but I am quite sure the local authorities are not happy with that. Maybe some zoo companies will come to the table to see if a new project is possible ?
 
Antoine said:
Frol what we know they still have the major part of the animals except them who died.


No as the Biome is nothing real and doesn't have any money. So there is just Sea Shepherd to go on but I am quite sure the local authorities are not happy with that. Maybe some zoo companies will come to the table to see if a new project is possible ?
Click to expand...

Yes, certainly hope that some zoo comes to the table as it definitely doesn't seem a sustainable situation at the moment.
 
Antoine said:
Important news : the zoo has just been placed in legal recovery as there is no money to pay (the employees were not payed in january).
It seems that Sea Shepherd wants the "zoo" back on their own (not shared with the Biome) and will present a project to the court in this way. Of course, there could be other projects from others companies...not really sure the court want to keep Sea Shepherd in the zoo !
Click to expand...
That means ... those that have not learned from history are condemned to make the same mistakes. Sea Shepherd organisation is a equally badly equipped to manage a zoological collection as is Biome with both subscribing to unrealistic rewilding dreams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top