India's Richest Family Building World's Largest Zoo

[Lafone]

Had the court found hundreds of violations people would have been content to believe that so I think you have to give some credit to the judicial system in this case if they found the collection was compliant.

All the same I have to say I also feel a degree of cynicism about how the animals were obtained, based on the numbers and variety in the collection, the speed it has grown at and the fact that the influence of monumentally wealthy people extends far and wide.

There have also been a number of high profile corruption scandals in the Indian judiciary (including at senior level) over the last few years. But the Supreme Court did order the enquiry in the first place.

Whatever the truth of how this postage stamp collection on a monumental scale has evolved, I hope the welfare standards are as high as claimed - the animals don’t get a choice to be there or not after all, however they were obtained. I wonder what really goes on behind the scenes when animals are as disposable as this. And what happens if the owner wakes up one morning and decides to collect super cars instead.

 

[Julio C Castro]

An article on the subject: No violations at Vantara, India's top court rules

Personally I find it incredibly hard to believe a zoo of that magnitude that has reportedly had very little outside oversight gets a completely clean slate. Tens of thousands of animals and you're telling me they were all acquired legally and being kept fully within regulations? At a near completely private facility no less? Can't say I'm sold.

That’s the thing, I don’t find the court findings wholly believable. While I don’t think outrightly this zoo is being malicious to their animals, I do think Ambani loves animals and has the funds to make their needs met. What I find hard to believe that the hundreds of species were all acquired ethically and through proper channels. Vantara made claims how they were working with WWF and IUCN before which both said they hadn’t. How does one make such a mistake unless trying to paint yourselves in a good light? They claim to be about conservation and not a zoo but by and large are operating like a rich man’s zoo with breeding clearly happening behind the scene. All off this to claim it’s a “sanctuary” because the word “zoo” is too taboo

 

[Zz123]

The court has delivered its verdict: Vantara committed no violations. Yet some people still refuse to accept it. I can’t help but wonder — do they really have more information than the Supreme Court, which relied on a Special Investigation Team that worked with multiple national and international agencies? In the end, many of those who argue otherwise are merely making assumptions about how things must be. Unless they can present stronger evidence than what the SIT and the Court have already examined, such doubts amount to nothing more than speculation — or even bias. As far as I’m concerned, the matter is closed: for now, Vantara has been proven innocent. But in the future, things may change. Going forward, I can only hope that the owners truly love these animals, and do not see them merely as toys, so that they may continue to live good lives for many years to come.

 

[CGSwans]

The court has delivered its verdict: Vantara committed no violations. Yet some people still refuse to accept it. I can’t help but wonder — do they really have more information than the Supreme Court, which relied on a Special Investigation Team that worked with multiple national and international agencies? In the end, many of those who argue otherwise are merely making assumptions about how things must be. Unless they can present stronger evidence than what the SIT and the Court have already examined, such doubts amount to nothing more than speculation — or even bias. As far as I’m concerned, the matter is closed: for now, Vantara has been proven innocent. But in the future, things may change. Going forward, I can only hope that the owners truly love these animals, and do not see them merely as toys, so that they may continue to live good lives for many years to come.

Do some reading about the various cases related to Amit Shah, and then get back to me on what an Indian court ruling proves or disproves about the doings of the rich and powerful.

 

[Great Argus]

In the end, many of those who argue otherwise are merely making assumptions about how things must be.

Given that the innocence came from a 2 week assessment by people that may have little animal related knowledge, I think there is plenty of reason for doubt. They really looked through everything relating to a purported 150,000 animals in 2 weeks? Highly doubtful.

Furthermore given that species known to have questionable or illegal origins have been seen in what limited media is available, it is hardly unreasonable to be doubtful. Falsified CITES and other documents are nothing new, how closely were things checked?

Far as welfare, the rows upon rows of cages and buildings in the back parts of Vantara visible in satellite imagery certainly are food for thought.

 

[Julio C Castro]

The court has delivered its verdict: Vantara committed no violations. Yet some people still refuse to accept it. I can’t help but wonder — do they really have more information than the Supreme Court, which relied on a Special Investigation Team that worked with multiple national and international agencies? In the end, many of those who argue otherwise are merely making assumptions about how things must be. Unless they can present stronger evidence than what the SIT and the Court have already examined, such doubts amount to nothing more than speculation — or even bias. As far as I’m concerned, the matter is closed: for now, Vantara has been proven innocent. But in the future, things may change. Going forward, I can only hope that the owners truly love these animals, and do not see them merely as toys, so that they may continue to live good lives for many years to come.

It doesn’t raise any alarms that they lied about having been associated with the WWF and IUCN who both refuted to have any association with Vantara or the affiliate company? Or the legal notices they sent in regards to inquiries of their collection to news organizations? Those questions being rather valid how they imported approximately 39,000 animals in about a 9 month period. I sincerely doubt the “committee” who did the investigation which @Great Argus pointed took over 2 weeks actually vetted all documents regarding their 150,000 animals at their facility.

 

[Zz123]

While the short investigation period can understandably raise questions, in the absence of clear evidence proving Vantara’s wrongdoing, I must rely on the court’s ruling.

For those who question the credibility of the Indian courts from the outset, even cooperation with the relevant authorities, as in this case, would still not be enough to change their view.

 

[jwer]

While the short investigation period can understandably raise questions, in the absence of clear evidence proving Vantara’s wrongdoing, I must rely on the court’s ruling.

For those who question the credibility of the Indian courts from the outset, even cooperation with the relevant authorities, as in this case, would still not be enough to change their view.

It’s not a matter of questioning the credibility of the Indian court. It’s the insane number of CITES I animals they reportedly acquired from sources that simply cannot have obtained those kinds of numbers (or species) legally. Add to that that all those animaldealers are located in countries that have a history of corruption and CITES paperwork falcification, especially when money is involved and then the doubt is still well founded.

If the investigation was focussed on mere paperwork, the outcome is logical.

 

[Zz123]

It’s not a matter of questioning the credibility of the Indian court. It’s the insane number of CITES I animals they reportedly acquired from sources that simply cannot have obtained those kinds of numbers (or species) legally. Add to that that all those animaldealers are located in countries that have a history of corruption and CITES paperwork falcification, especially when money is involved and then the doubt is still well founded.

If the investigation was focussed on mere paperwork, the outcome is logical.

The reason I mentioned the credibility of the courts is because some argued that Indian courts have a bad record. As for the number of animals, you say it’s so large that it couldn’t have been obtained legally. A large number may raise questions, but it does not in itself constitute proof of illegality, at least not without clear evidence that those animals were obtained unlawfully. Regarding the animal dealers and paperwork, such doubts may carry some weight as long as the matter has not been examined. But now the courts, working with the relevant authorities including CITES, have reviewed it and made it clear that no violation of law was found. That is why I believe those doubts no longer have a valid basis.

 

[Lafone]

While the short investigation period can understandably raise questions, in the absence of clear evidence proving Vantara’s wrongdoing, I must rely on the court’s ruling.

For those who question the credibility of the Indian courts from the outset, even cooperation with the relevant authorities, as in this case, would still not be enough to change their view.

I guess one could also say that if you wanted to see the zoo proved wholly innocent as you support it you wouldn't be open to changing your view either. I think there is a real danger in this age of social media about such entrenched views and I'd encourage you to read around the issues here vs following the (clearly) compelling arguments of someone with as much money as the owner of this zoo. A two week enquiry is very short and to be so unequivocal about the findings is actually a flag in itself (think how many enquiries take years).

I think if you look at the google pictures of the cages for the animals vs the area seen by influencers, that alone has to raise some questions, if you are concerned with animal welfare vs simply with the reputation of the collection.

As for the reputation of the courts I am afraid you simply have to look up reputable news sources with proven records to see the turmoil underway in the Indian justice system (and the bribery issues across general society and government) and I'd again encourage you to do that. The owner of this collection is one of the richest men in the world and it is sadly naiive these days to believe the same rules apply to them as to the rest of us. So I am afraid I would indeed question the outcome on that basis.

I'd also argue that the forgery of this paperwork is rife and it seems very challenging to have examined the documents of 150,000 animals in 2 weeks with a few people.

I do however accept this is far more of an official and legitimate ruling than a simple assertion by the zoo, but I don't think it quite closes the issue as definitively as you say.

 

[CGSwans]

The reason I mentioned the credibility of the courts is because some argued that Indian courts have a bad record. As for the number of animals, you say it’s so large that it couldn’t have been obtained legally. A large number may raise questions, but it does not in itself constitute proof of illegality, at least not without clear evidence that those animals were obtained unlawfully. Regarding the animal dealers and paperwork, such doubts may carry some weight as long as the matter has not been examined. But now the courts, working with the relevant authorities including CITES, have reviewed it and made it clear that no violation of law was found. That is why I believe those doubts no longer have a valid basis.

This really is wilful sophistry. There simply isn’t any reasonable basis for belief that animals like Tapanuli orangutans have been legally or ethically obtained. You can choose to be in denial about that fact but don’t expect to be unchallenged in that denial.

 

[Great Argus]

As for the number of animals, you say it’s so large that it couldn’t have been obtained legally. A large number may raise questions, but it does not in itself constitute proof of illegality, at least not without clear evidence that those animals were obtained unlawfully.

Lets take a look at statistics here - the latest claims from Vantara state 150,000 animals. How exactly does that stack against other juggernauts?

To equal Vantara's number, you have to combine the following collections: SDZ and the Safari Park, Omaha, Bronx, St Louis, Chester, Berlin and the Tierpark, Prague, Plzen, and the entirety of the Mandai Wildlife Reserve. Now numbers may be a tad off, but the fact it takes fifteen of the world's best known and largest collections to equal the reported current inventory at Vantara is insane. The numbers I found for Omaha and Berlin I believe include the aquariums at that. Most of the other collections have been around a long time, 50+ years in most cases. Meanwhile Vantara started actively bringing animals in last year I believe? And you want me to believe a two week inspection stint claiming there's zero funny business? (laughs in argusese) No.

 

[merlin]

Lets take a look at statistics here - the latest claims from Vantara state 150,000 animals. How exactly does that stack against other juggernauts?

To equal Vantara's number, you have to combine the following collections: SDZ and the Safari Park, Omaha, Bronx, St Louis, Chester, Berlin and the Tierpark, Prague, Plzen, and the entirety of the Mandai Wildlife Reserve. Now numbers may be a tad off, but the fact it takes fifteen of the world's best known and largest collections to equal the reported current inventory at Vantara is insane. The numbers I found for Omaha and Berlin I believe include the aquariums at that. Most of the other collections have been around a long time, 50+ years in most cases. Meanwhile Vantara started actively bringing animals in last year I believe? And you want me to believe a two week inspection stint claiming there's zero funny business? (laughs in argusese) No.

I will add that even some of those facilities mentioned did not get some of their animals in a completely legal way - and nobody cares. And so it is very naive to think Vantara's any better. Because it is much worse, considering we are not talking just about small reptiles, but also big mammals.

 

[Lafone]

I think it is also worth highlighting the original investigation about animal numbers as highlighted in this report from the Guardian

India’s supreme court orders inquiry into giant zoo run by son of Asia’s richest person

But the investigation by Süddeutsche Zeitung and Armando Info, which looked at import data for thousands of wildlife, raised concerns about the origins of some of the animals. They reported that a mountain gorilla – which typically lives in a family group – and 14 orangutans were among more than 11,000 animals moved to the facilities from the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

More than 100 giant otters and 142 giant anteaters were brought from Venezuela, while 481 green tree pythons and 520 hawk doves were brought in from Malaysia and Indonesia respectively, according to the report. Vantara did not respond to their reporting.

If the Supreme Court ruling is factual then all these animals were captive bred or rescued with no chance of wild release and available for trade to this facility via a third party country.

Where in the countries highlighted are the captive breeding facilities or rescues for the otters, anteaters, doves and pythons in these numbers? Looking at import paperwork as the enquiry has done is fine but where are this number of animals being bred or rescued on such an industrial scale? If this collection says it is a rescue facility are there really this number of wild animals in need of rescue? I'd be interested in the source for 100 giant otters being just available for relocation, for example. And why are they being imported via UAE. That looks like an attempt to produce legitimate import papers from UAE and not the original source. 11,000 animals in total. The volume of paperwork for them alone couldn't be reviewed in 2 weeks could it?

Never mind of course why you need 100 Giant Otters or where you put them.

 

[Lafone]

I'd also add this link from 2024. This long article contains a lot of interesting information from a reputable investigative journalist and has a good degree of balance.

I think it highlights the issues presented by the different means of acquisition which vary from 'rescue', to breeding and also to explicit catching from the wild. This furthers the question as to whether this is all legitimate rescue, or just a private postage stamp collection zoo, founded in the spirit of the sort of acquisitive gathering into captivity that happened in previous centuries, going by another name.

The Costs of Reliance’s Wildlife Ambitions

 

[Great Argus]

Never mind of course why you need 100 Giant Otters or where you put them.

Quite - and about equivalent or possibly higher than the entire population in NA, Europe, Mandai, and Batu combined I think. Also coming from Venezuela? Doubt there's much oversight on that front, aside from the fact there isn't any facilities with Giant Otters listed on ZTL for the country. May well be one, but what facility is going to have that many Otters lying around to export? Even in their native range I can't imagine feeding that many Giant Otter is easy!

 

[Zz123]

To be honest, I don’t believe Vantara is 100% spotless either. But the concerns that have been raised — whether about the number of animals, the short timeframe of the inquiry, Google images, or the history of the source countries — may give reasons to ask questions, yet they are still assumptions, not evidence proving actual illegality. And since the Indian courts, working together with the relevant authorities including CITES, have already examined the case and found no violation of law, I have to accept that outcome. What remains for criticism of Vantara now seems more a matter of feelings or speculation than of concrete proof.

 

[Great Argus]

What remains for criticism of Vantara now seems more a matter of feelings or speculation than of concrete proof.

I'd have less reason to be critical if they were a public facility where people could go and see for themselves and have direct scrutiny. Tens of thousands of animals disappearing into a closed-door facility at the whim of a billionaire should be a very legitimate reason for concern. There are numbers of species held that exceed what entire zoological associations hold, if all these imports are actually rescues, rehabs and captive bred why couldn't we get them to bolster populations in NA and Europe? Too many questions and not hardly enough answers, however I'm not going to bother arguing when you're repeating the same sentences over and over.

 

[Lafone]

To be honest, I don’t believe Vantara is 100% spotless either. But the concerns that have been raised — whether about the number of animals, the short timeframe of the inquiry, Google images, or the history of the source countries — may give reasons to ask questions, yet they are still assumptions, not evidence proving actual illegality. And since the Indian courts, working together with the relevant authorities including CITES, have already examined the case and found no violation of law, I have to accept that outcome. What remains for criticism of Vantara now seems more a matter of feelings or speculation than of concrete proof.

I'd argue the evidence linked in the article I posted goes way beyond feelings and speculation, particularly as none of it appears to have been what the Court looked at. Just reading the information on the elephants has to give some pause for thought

Take the case of the Macaws in that article. One might argue that all this has the proper paperwork, but is it right in the spirit of conservation breeding?

At least one of Greens’ international transactions has been accused of violating CITES norms. This involves the Spix’s macaw, one of the world’s rarest birds and an Appendix 1 species. By the mid-1990s, this blue-coloured macaw had vanished from its wild habitat in Brazil, mainly due to illegal trade fed by demand from private collectors. The number of individuals in captivity dropped perilously low as well – just 39 were left by 1996. Today, that number stands at 204, almost all of them with the Association for the Conservation of Threatened Parrots.

In 2020, 52 of these 204 were flown from ACTP’s German base to Brazil, which is trying to reintroduce the species into their native habitat. In 2022–23, however, ACTP shipped 26 individuals to Greens – along with eight vulnerable St Vincent Amazons and four endangered Lear’s macaws. It was a puzzling decision: with precious few specimens of the Spix’s macaw in existence and a reintroduction programme underway in Brazil, why were 26 birds sent to a region that is not a natural habitat for them – exposing an endangered species to a unfamiliar climate – and, to boot, to a centre at the world’s biggest petrochemical refinery?

Before a key CITES meeting in November 2023, a group of wildlife conservation NGOs raised a complaint over potential violations of CITES norms in various transfers involving ACTP, including those to Greens, which had been cleared by European authorities.

At the meeting, ACTP and Greens justified the transfer stating the latter is setting up a conservation breeding centre. But Brazil’s delegation submitted that the country “had never approved the transfer of specimens” to Jamnagar, and pointed out that Greens “doesn’t formally participate in the Spix’s Macaw Population Management programme developed by the Brazilian government.” Any Spix’s macaw currently in the possession of international breeders, it said, must be sent “primarily to institutions located in Brazil, the country of their origin and from where the species was illegally removed … Any need to fragment the species for ‘risk diversification’ should prioritize sending it to institutions in Brazil, which are fully capable of implementing the management programme of the species.”

 

[Lafone]

To add, lastly, on the elephants from the same article and the question as to whether this initiative is harming conservation. If a fraction of the money spent on assembling these animals into a wedding venue was spent in the field, you can imagine the real difference it might make. None of this is 'feelings' it's all evidenced.

The alternative response, instead of doing the hard work of protecting forests and wildlife, is to label animals as “surplus” or “problems” and trap them. In the past, as biologists like Vidya Athreya have found, these animals have been released elsewhere.

Now, they are being sent to Jamnagar. Take Gajraj. In November 2020, this male tusker and his small group – two adult females and two sub-adults – was relocated to Botezari, a remote forest camp in Tadoba, in the state of Maharashtra, after complaints of human–elephant conflict. The elephants seemed to be settling down fine, but, in December 2021, they were all sent to Jamnagar. “There is nothing wrong with a wild elephant being aggressive,” a Bengaluru-based biologist said. “Why did the male tusker need to be moved?” Just as pertinently, why were the two females and two sub-adults moved as well?

When I contacted Sunil Limaye, the CWW of the state at that time, to ask for clarification, he told me to approach the office of the serving CWW of Maharashtra.

This approach not only consigns animals to a life in captivity – and weakens wild gene pools – it also allows forest officials to ignore the worsening health of the ecosystems they are meant to protect.