Oh, I agree with that, my statement went more along the lines of the whole who thing, as frankly I believe that one should narrow down the species before asking the individual. Some animals have calls regarding different species after all, so I fell it would be most polite to specify the species first.
How do you know that these facilities are awful? How do you know for sure about Emily/Ruth's and Tembo/Cora's conditions? The keepers are doing all they can to make sure their quality of life is the best that it can be, and everything possible is being done to maximize the welfare of all animals concerned. Buttonwood even *expanded* their elephant exhibit, while Topeka makes sure the elephants are always standing on soft substrates. This is extremely ignorant of you to say, and disregards all the effort the keeper-staff do to make sure these elephants are happy and healthy. If you're going to criticize a facility, take a second and make sure that you understand the big picture rather than what you see at face value. Do better.
As in not saying "Who?" "Cow." or "Who?" "Human?" If it is obvious what species, then who works, but if the species is not know, then asking the species should be called for, merely so that somebody doesn't say "Who?" "Guinea Pig" when the guinea pig in question is in fact a rock hyrax.
It makes sense in my head, and I know that you would understand what I'm trying to say, I'm just struggling to word it.
Have you seen Buttonwood's exhibit in person? Because if you have, you'd realize it's not even that bad, let alone horrible. Keep in mind that it's a small zoo keeping their two Asian Elephants (one of which is over 60) and will be phasing them out. Ruth has had problems integrating with other elephants in the past, so integrating with another herd would be next-to-impossible, even if they do survive the dangerous transfer. Furthermore, even if an expansion was possible, it would do very little to improve their lives. Ruth in particular has some rather bad arthritis, so on most days they don't even use all the space they do have access to. And once the elephants pass, the exhibit will become an incredible home for Indian rhinos!
I hope if I ever need a defense lawyer they can mount a more inspiring argument
I love how these slacktivists just paint these elephants' futures with a simple "send them to a sanctuary", as if they are pieces of furniture rather than sentient beings. Isn't the end goal to maximize the animals' welfare? I've seen how zoos bend over backwards to maximize their animals' welfare and do right by their animals as much as possible, so why don't these supercilious slacktivists put their money where their mouth is and sponsor some toys/enrichment items for the elephants? Friends of the Philly Zoo Elephants, as anti-captivity as they were (site hasn't been updated for years), at least did so and showed that they genuinely cared about Bette and Kallie during the twilight years of that particular exhibit. I'm not going to refer to this pathetic excuse of an organization by their name, because frankly, they don't deserve it. If they truly wanted to be "In Defense of Animals", they'd work *with* zoos to maximize the welfare of their animals as much as possible. This sorry excuse of an organization can go sit in the corner with Damian ASSpinall like the petulant, spoiled children they are.Well that's the problem with lists based off of limited biased opinion instead of logic and proper facts, they're frequently laughable in these sort of circumstances.
Or insulting, like how they cite EEHV as reasons a couple of the zoos are bad.
