Toronto Zoo AZA Accreditation Denied to Toronto Zoo for 2012-13

Chungri Putki said:
Well, Allen, you yourself do. Here is just one example, your presence on the Animal Legal Defense Fund in 2010 regarding the Woodland park Zoo elephants
Click to expand...

Wow, Chungri, you are pretty good! I have to give you credit.
Honestly, I had totally forgotten that post, and I'm not even sure if -- at the time -- I realized I was in "enemy-territory" when I made that post. That was back in 2010, when my publisher suggested that I post comments all over the internet, on any media story about zoos. The idea was simply to gain exposure for our book. So while you are correct that I did this, my intention was not -- like yours -- to annoy people, it was to possibly help our book.

No hard feelings, dude! Is there any way that we can agree that the Toronto elephants would have been better off just going to a nice southern zoo (such as North Carolina)? There would have been no controversy then, and the elephants would be much better off.
 
Well, Allen, I am not sure about the Toronto Zoo elephants going to another zoo, however, if that is your opinion, I will respect that even if I do not concur.

The entire exercise has not been without its moments of humour, come what may. Beneath are some comments posted on the original story published by CBC:
Lela
@ mission impossible How long they take for decisions? The first decade they discuss them. The second decade they plan them. The third decade they reject the plans. And the fourth decade they start discussing them all over again. Complete Soap Opera TO Ciy Hall style!

myopia
Pack their trunks Maybe someone can just open the elephant pen gates and the elephants can walk to California.It seems that they would get there faster.

HF
Good! But this time around, send all of them to California, elephants and councillors, in a big crate together. None of them belong in Toronto.

Nov 28, 2012 2:21 PM
hogtownboy
here a transportation plan... Let them walk in a caravan. They are easily led and the exercise i am sure cant hurt. it would allow millions to see a real elephant up close. First toward chicago and then across route 66

live inmarkham
Next Headline `Welcome to Canada`s Premier Roadside Zoo`` ``Where Politicians decide what is best for the animals`` Average political life are in office ``six years`` Maybe we can extend a politicians political life by sending them to PAWS (Political Animal Welfare Sanctuary) BTW sunny California, just check the annual weather and snow fall at the sanctuary. They don`t have barns for nothing.
Cheers.
 
Chungri,
You seem like a decent chap! I apologize if I've said anything offensive or personally insulting to you.
 
I posted this on a photo today but not everyone glances through the brilliant but exhaustive ZooChat gallery. Thus I'll copy it here as well as it potentially fits in well with this thread:

The tendency is for zoos in the northern United States to simply get rid of their elephants due to concerns in regards to cold weather and the cost of constructing exhibits that cost tens of millions of dollars. Already zoos like Detroit, Philadelphia, Brookfield, Lincoln Park, Mesker Park, Henry Vilas, Anchorage (Alaska), Omaha and San Francisco have all sent their elephants away to southern pastures. Vancouver Zoo in Canada sent its elephants away, Calgary Zoo (Canada) is planning to in the next couple of years, Toronto (Canada) is sending its elephants away, Point Defiance and Bronx have also made announcements that upon the death of another elephant or two then the species will be phased out of their collections.

That makes 13 North American zoos that (apart from perhaps San Francisco) exist in temperate to cold climates. I could easily provide a list of at least a dozen zoos in the southern United States that have built mega elephant exhibits several acres in size, and the two major American elephant sanctuaries (PAWS and Tennessee) and the new Elephant Center (Florida) are all located in warmer surroundings. It seems reasonable that many major zoos in the north are sending their elephants away to major zoos in the south that are building huge exhibits at an enormous cost. At the end of the day the statistics show that elephants have not influenced attendance patterns as almost all of the zoos that no longer have elephants have been breaking all-time records for attendance! What will be interesting to see is whether the elephants thriving in the warmer temperatures (for surely they must be much more content in comparison to being shut inside a barn for 50% of their lives) will begin to live longer, healthier lives in captivity.
 
A very thoughtful analysis by my friend, SnowLeopard. I thought I'd add a few responses to his well thought out points.

First of all, in most cases, it probably is a good idea to send northern zoo elephants to southern climates. The only debate here has been whether or not those southern locations should include non-AZA accreditted, and anti-zoo "sanctuaries". While some here have provided some good data to show that these so-called sanctuaries are good homes for elephants, it is undeniable that these places are directly allied with those whose only goal is to shut down all zoos. For this reason, many of us oppose any contact with these "sanctuaries" -- at least until they cut off their alliances with anti-zoo extremist groups like PETA and IDA.

There is, however, one other alternative to sending the elephants south -- an alternative that I've seen in Europe. At zoos over there such as Copenhagen, Rotterdam, and Amersfoort, I've seen their gigantic indoor elephant houses, with natural dirt floors, glass roofs, and even real plants growing inside. (While I haven't seen them yet, I've heard that the zoos in Hamburg and Cologne have equally good large elephant houses.) I thus believe that the elephants in Copenhagen, Rotterdam, and Amersfoort are not at all suffering from living in a colder climate. I've heard that perhaps Omaha plans to replicate this plan for their future elephant habitat. The one problem with this idea is that it obviously costs lots and lots of money. Omaha seems willing to invest such funds, but clearly the Bronx Zoo and others cannot, or will not.

As to whether SnowLeopard is correct that sending away elephants has not hurt the zoos' attendance, a more complex statistical analysis would need to be done to confirm this. One statistical concept that may be happening that makes SnowLeopard believe his statement that they haven't been hurt is "masking". That is, the otherwise reduction in attendance at some of these zoos has been "masked" (or covered up) by other factors that are making the zoos' attendance increase in spite of the loss of the elephants. One masking factor is the opening of exciting new exhibits, such as Omaha's Madagascar and Mesker Park's Amazonia. Another masking factor is the current ongoing Recession. As we've seen, the Recession has caused many Americans to forego more expensive vacations and stay closer to home, going to places like their local zoo.
 
Most of the European zoos you list (Amersfoort, Rotterdam, Cologne, Hamburg) don`t have cold winters. The winters there are usually wet and grey, but with little snow. During the day, the temperatures are well above freezing most of the time so that the elephants can usually spend at least 4-6 hours outside. I have a friend in Detroit and my understanding is that the winters in Detroit and Toronot are much colder with many days of snow and freezing temperatures.
 
This is a long and involved argument,as this thread proves...but i will say this much-if anyone thinks that the anti-elephants-in-cold-climates lobby will stop at these creatures then get your head back in the sand.Exactly the same argument will one day be given over to Giraffes,rhinos,larger primates,big cats,antelopes etc etc.The zoo fraternity concedes ground at its peril believe me..
 
Tim Brown said:
This is a long and involved argument,as this thread proves...but i will say this much-if anyone thinks that the anti-elephants-in-cold-climates lobby will stop at these creatures then get your head back in the sand.Exactly the same argument will one day be given over to Giraffes,rhinos,larger primates,big cats,antelopes etc etc.The zoo fraternity concedes ground at its peril believe me..
Click to expand...

I am normally very respectful of the opinions of Tim Brown, and in his quarterly pro-zoo magazine "Zoo Grapevine", he is not beyond being critical of aspects of the zoo industry, in particular poorly thought out new exhibits. But in this case I believe he has missed the mark.

In the UK starting in the late 1980s, there was a concerted effort by the anti-zoo group Zoo Check to get zoos to phase out polar bears due to the enclosures they were kept in and the disturbing levels of stereotypic behaviour in the vast majority of the bears. The campaign was basically successful with Mercedes at Edinburgh being the last example of her species in a zoo; I don't count Jim Clubb's bear as his facility is not a zoo in the legal sense of the word.

Anyone in ZooChat, or indeed the zoo industry, must look back at these former polar bear enclosures and cringe and begrudgingly accept, probably privately, that Zoo Check had a point. And then the Highland Wildlife Park goes and bucks modern UK zoo convention and builds what can only be called a completely unconventional polar bear enclosure and commits to keeping the species for the foreseeable future. Because they have built something so radically different that appears to give the animals a high quality of life in a space that would more than accomodate all of the former UK polar bear enclosures at one time, with room to spare, the anti-zoo/polar bear lobby has been virtually silent.

TB and accreditation issues aside, looking at the elephant facility at PAWS, as depicted in the CBC documentary, and then looking at Toronto or Edmonton's, I would defy anyone to claim that those elephants would not be "happier" in California. This is not to say that zoos should not keep elephants, but that the industry would be foolish not to heed better housing examples, even ones in a sanctuary. I think that zoos need to look critically at the large mammals they keep and how and where they keep them, especially large, social ungulates. The size of enclosures that safari parks and some of our larger rural zoos, like Whipsnade, can offer means that they can keep appropriately sized herds in appropriately large areas. Should urban zoos be focusing on non-herd, forest ungulate species that can be housed in smaller, but complex, spaces without compromising welfare?

Yes urban zoos have done wonders with breeding of key species like bison, equids and savanna or desert antelopes, but they are seldom able to keep them in the required size of social group. I am as pro-zoo as anyone on this forum, but zoos would be foolish not to heed the pressure that is building and get out in front of the debate and start to look at their animal facilities with a more informed and critical eye.

To use another Highland Wildlife Park example: can there be any comparison from a professional, zoo groupie or ordinary zoo visitor's perspective when looking at the Park's herd of 18 European bison roaming over ~60 acres and the old pair in their yard at Amsterdam? This is not a dig at Amsterdam and I am sure they will not be replacing their aged pair, but I hope you see my point.
 
Tim Brown is 100% correct. The anti-zoo crowd won't be happy until ALL zoos are gone and their former parks are nothing but ducks and squirrels.

Hedigerfan, you make some good points, but under no circumstances should we let the ENEMIES of zoos (those who want them eliminated) dictate what we do with elephants, polar bears, or any animals. Yes, zoos can be improved, and they should be. But the policing of zoos should be done by zoo people, not animal rights wackos. Zoo officials have done a marvelous job at making sure things continue improving.
 
ANyhuis said:
Hedigerfan, you make some good points, but under no circumstances should we let the ENEMIES of zoos (those who want them eliminated) dictate what we do with elephants, polar bears, or any animals. Yes, zoos can be improved, and they should be. But the policing of zoos should be done by zoo people, not animal rights wackos. Zoo officials have done a marvelous job at making sure things continue improving.
Click to expand...

At no point did I suggest that we let them dictate what we should do, but that the zoo industry should be more proactive and get out in front of the debate instead of continually being reactive or in many cases not reacting at all. Certainly in the case of polar bears and how they were, and in many cases still are kept, at least in the UK, the anti-zoo lobby was correct and I believe that it was the fact that they made the industry look long and hard at what they were doing which is what stimulated change.

Keeping animals in captivity will always be a contentious issue, and so it should be as it is all to easy to do it badly; I'm sure we can all cite examples of bad enclosures in some of the zoos we have visited, and I don't mean just in the developing world. It is healthy to have a lobby that wishes to break you down as it keeps you on your toes and prior to organisations like Zoo Check/Born Free Foundation and other more unpalatible firms, zoos were pretty complacent and other than the odd moat and a bit of gunite, not a lot had changed.

Good, forward thinking zoos have improved significantly over the last 30 years, but I honestly think that some of that improvement in facilities, husbandry and conservation ethic was triggered by organisations that did not wish them well. In many other walks of life, it is a combination of driven individuals from within this or that industry and outside pressure groups that have pushed for change.

Yes many of the groups that are against zoos want to close them down, but we would be wrong to suggest that on occasion they have been the driver for positive change.
 
As has been rumored for days, the trio of African Elephants might well be transported via a C-17 military airplane, with the cost of $850,000 being supplied by animal rights supporter Bob Barker. The decision to send the elephants to the PAWS Sanctuary in California has naturally been a contentious one, but I would estimate that most people would acknowledge that years in vast, sunny paddocks is a heck of a lot better than being locked-up in a desolate, outdated barn in the middle of a Canadian winter for weeks on end. Hmmm...hundreds of beautiful acres with a herd of elephants or snow drifts for months on end?:)

Toronto elephants be flown to California on C-17 military aircraft | Posted Toronto | National Post
 
snowleopard said:
The decision to send the elephants to the PAWS Sanctuary in California has naturally been a contentious one, but I would estimate that most people would acknowledge that years in vast, sunny paddocks is a heck of a lot better than being locked-up in a desolate, outdated barn in the middle of a Canadian winter for weeks on end.
Click to expand...

They'd be BEST off if they were going to a real zoo, where the keepers are qualified and trained.
 
I was wondering the same thing. I thought we were allowed to reapply in March?
 
The zoo is allowed to reapply on March 1st 2013. I don't see why they wouldn't re-apply. Perhaps they'll get an answer later in the coming months.
 
Or perhaps they are waiting until they finalize their new management plan.
 
They will reapply, but the elephants will have to be gone before they even get considered for AZA again.
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
Only open for supporters at a gargantuan fee!

Really, Steve ... Loxodonta could not have given a more concise and suscinct review / position essay on the PAWS facility. The very person that might have visited the place - the esteemed Dan Koehl - has also be slapped with a writ by PAWS.

It is time we all fought back PAWS for their failings and take them to task. They do not fund in situ conservation, provide in situ awareness building, participate in elephant conservation (breeding) programmes and are off-site to any decent evenly minded thinking person.
Click to expand...

Heres my blog about PAT Derby: Dan Koehl's Blog: Pat Derby (1942-2013) cofounder of Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top