Thanks for responding. Please allow me to submit the following :
1) The comment made by a member "why are you even here?" is the reason why I responded likewise. It is a conventional zoo response to animal rights, but the conventional response is way off the mark because I know many zoo people who have explored the topic of animal rights in detail. Stephen Bostock is one of them, he has written a book on the subject. Besides, the moderator of this forum has not made any objection to my presence. I recognise animal rights people may similarly object to the presence of zoo people on their fora, but that is equally wrong. For the past 8 years, I have been attending the Asia for Animals conference where the majority of people are animal rights/animal welfare folk, but there is zoo representation also. Some zoo meetings invite animal rights/animal welfare people as well, so the reaction 'Why are you even here?' does not seem appropriate.
2) When I used the word 'force', it meant unwilling acceptance, or 'a force to reckon with' which the animal rights activists most certainly are. In a situation where one does not agree to an act but it ultimately does happen, it can be correctly said that one is forced to live with the outcome. This is one of the limitations of the English language.
3) I very much doubt that the Toronto Zoo elephants are being shifted because Bob Barker is footing the bill. I am in agreement that decisions should be taken in the best interests of the animals. The elephant captivity debate is happening in North America, Europe and in India too and is a logical one. When the elephants Winky and Wanda were sent away from Detroit Zoo to the PAWS sanctuary similar questions were raised. But Ron Kagan has repeatedly stood by his position that the elephants would be better off in a sanctuary.
There are several elephant experts, Joyce Poole is one of them, who have supported the elephants moving away from Toronto to PAWS. Since the debate has happened before you may like to read some material on these links :
Zoo Vs. Sanctuary: An Ethical Consideration: An All Creatures Animal Rights Article: justice, peace, love, compassion, ethics, organizations, Bible, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Holy Spirit, grass roots, animals, cruelty free, lifestyle, prolife, pro li
Nature In A Box : representations of zoo animals in Canadian literature Montreal Serai
Zoo?s demand to sanctuary could be an elephant-sized deal-breaker - thestar.com
“PAWS is an absolutely extraordinary phenomenon and I can’t stress that enough,” (Ron Kagan)he said.
You are also right in saying that any zoo staff who ever says to a paying visitor, animal rights sympathiser or not, ""Why are you even here?" risks not only termination but also a huge public relations disaster because a person who is turned out of a zoo can easily approach the press and complain since there is no stated policy in any zoo that animal rights people are not allowed inside. I met John Stoner, former curator of Toronto Zoo and told him my position on zoos and he said, "We are on the same side" although I must admit we did not discuss the elephants specifically.
The fundamental point for me is the following : zoo proponents see value in captive elephants in zoos, animal rights people do not. These views are irreconcilable. But where reconciliation can take place is in situations where both zoos and activists can agree to providing the best life for the animals that are already captive. In the case of the Toronto Zoo elephants, as I saw myself, they clearly do not have enough space. I doubt if any AZA accredited facility can give them the same space and quality of care that PAWS can and this has been emphasised by the campaigners as well because no activist would like to see the animals moved to a below standard facility.
Activists do not see a conservation benefit by breeding elephants in captivity, some zoo folks do. In any case, if the Toronto Zoo Elephants are incapable of breeding, they deserve a better life, one animal is very old, and PAWS seems like a good facility for them.
Now zoo proponents who believe are entitled to their view, ie., the animals ought to stay in Toronto Zoo or should be moved to another AZA facility and this where we have to be prepared for a conflict because these two positions cannot be resolved by discussion and agreement. It is like a court case, or a government order, one has to live with it, even if one does not agree with it in most cases.
I personally do not think we have reached a stage yet where activists can state all elephants can be satisfactorily rehabilitated, certainly not in India, but in the case of the Toronto Zoo African Elephants, I am convinced that the PAWS sanctuary is the best option for them. I understand others may differ, but that is what we are talking about, differences of opinion that individuals are entitled to. We will have to wait and see what ultimately happens to the elephants.
lol why are you even here?) which betrays a sense of intolerance for a view expressed other than the one you are entitled to? Incidentally, just to let you know, when I was in Toronto Zoo, the staff knew that I was on the side of the campaigners trying to get the elephants out and some of them talked to me. They did not ask :"Why are you even here?"
