Um, yes. This is the backbone of the American justice system: innocent until proven guilty. While I understand this may be a disappointing outcome, the "benefit of the doubt" is a necessary part of the justice system, and why should we get to pick and choose what cases it applies in? I'm not defending Natural Bridge Zoo, only saying the decision is in-line with what the law allows. Really, the issue is that the United States doesn't have more stringent animal welfare regulations, and that there are a lot of roadside zoos doing everything completely legal.
Natural Bridge Zoo Natural Bridge Zoo News
- Thread starter Smaggledagle
- Start date
TheGytrash
Well-Known Member
I totally get that, but it's weird that for each one, it's 'can you prove that this particular animal is being abused or was being mistreated at the moment it was captured?'
Because I don't think that's how they usually do it when it comes to taking custody of children, is it? Like, they don't say "You locked this child in a cupboard 24 hours a day and he's covered in injuries, so we're taking this child, but it's okay to keep your baby because he's small enough to sleep comfortably in a cupboard and his only documented injury has healed well." It was my assumption that if you proved you were an extremely abusive and unfit parent, you might at least temporarily lose custody of all of the children in your care at that time.
Like even if the animal is not currently presenting with signs of harm, you'd think the harm proven for other animals might indicate that the animal is not living with responsible guardians.
But then again, I don't really get how the legal system works.
Because I don't think that's how they usually do it when it comes to taking custody of children, is it? Like, they don't say "You locked this child in a cupboard 24 hours a day and he's covered in injuries, so we're taking this child, but it's okay to keep your baby because he's small enough to sleep comfortably in a cupboard and his only documented injury has healed well." It was my assumption that if you proved you were an extremely abusive and unfit parent, you might at least temporarily lose custody of all of the children in your care at that time.
Like even if the animal is not currently presenting with signs of harm, you'd think the harm proven for other animals might indicate that the animal is not living with responsible guardians.
But then again, I don't really get how the legal system works.
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
This is my thinking, more or less.
In this specific case, the majority of the animals were found to have not been cared for properly and subjected to mistreatment.
Ergo, it reckons that the animals which are being returned to National Bridge's custody will now be at risk, if not increased risk, for being... improperly cared for and subject to mistreatment.
It's not exactly rocket science. Those who have a lengthy, documented history of abusing and neglecting all sorts of animals rarely change their behavior.
For goodness sake, the court documents even indicated that there's a good chance that National Bridge won't be subject to increased, unannounced inspections for the next five years! Commonsense dictates that would be a good bare minimum requirement for a facility that just lost custody of two thirds of it's animals to have to comply with!
Animals aren't children. Animals are property. It is entirely different laws.
Taking this out of the court ruling, so it's written on here.
Of the 100 animals seized (not everything on property!), the zoo has been allowed to keep:
- 2 red ruffed lemurs, 3 black and white ruffed lemurs, and 6 ringtailed lemurs
- 15 macaws of unknown species, 2 galah
- 2 burmese pythons, 2 ball pythons, 1 skink (possibly means the gila monster?)
- 1 donkey, 1 miniature donkey, 2 llamas, and 1 sheep
- 1 dog
Of the 100 animals seized (not everything on property!), the zoo has been allowed to keep:
- 2 red ruffed lemurs, 3 black and white ruffed lemurs, and 6 ringtailed lemurs
- 15 macaws of unknown species, 2 galah
- 2 burmese pythons, 2 ball pythons, 1 skink (possibly means the gila monster?)
- 1 donkey, 1 miniature donkey, 2 llamas, and 1 sheep
- 1 dog
I'm curious as to how they were allowed to seize reptiles. Given that they aren't included under the Animal Welfare Act, any ideas what the legal justification was for seizing these?
I'm not sure what laws apply, you could possibly find them in the legal documents for the case. There's been plenty of examples of herps being seized for abuse, though, so there's definitely stuff out there. Same for horses, which aren't covered by the AWA (only horses for research purposes are).
The jury has reached a verdict, some animals to be returned to the zoo, other kept in the custody of the county
https://wset.com/news/local/jury-reaches-verdict-in-natural-bridge-zoo-case
https://wset.com/news/local/jury-reaches-verdict-in-natural-bridge-zoo-case
TheGytrash
Well-Known Member
Huh, keeping one gibbon and returning one gibbon. And returning one macaw while the other 14 are confiscated. That's interesting.
Also, worth noting that the collection does not include any larger carnivores or omnivores that the Natural Bridge Zoo used to have. We know a tiger was euthanized before confiscation, but there were no other tigers taken. No mountain lions, no mandrills, or bears, all of which are still listed on the zoo's website. Also no large hoof stock like zebra, oryx, fallow deer, etc. It's almost all monkeys, birds, farm animals, and reptiles except for the serval and the giraffes.
Also, worth noting that the collection does not include any larger carnivores or omnivores that the Natural Bridge Zoo used to have. We know a tiger was euthanized before confiscation, but there were no other tigers taken. No mountain lions, no mandrills, or bears, all of which are still listed on the zoo's website. Also no large hoof stock like zebra, oryx, fallow deer, etc. It's almost all monkeys, birds, farm animals, and reptiles except for the serval and the giraffes.
BlobfishBoy
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the jury felt the zoo should keep at least one of a certain species? Some of the choices are odd but I’m glad that most of the animals were confiscated. I wonder where the giraffes will be relocated to.
Edit: interesting that there’s been no further discussion about Asha the elephant. I know she was moved off the property but it’s curious no further case has been made.
Edit: interesting that there’s been no further discussion about Asha the elephant. I know she was moved off the property but it’s curious no further case has been made.
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
I am incredibly confused about that myself. Asha was specifically named in the seizure documents, and as far as I'm aware, she's still legally owned by Natural Bridge Zoo in-spite of her having been moved to Two Tails Ranch. (The timing of said move makes the cynic in me suspicious that it was done specifically with the intent of preventing her from being seized. But alas, that likely can't be proven in a court of law.)
So... what's going to happen to her now? Is the USDA eventually going to go after Two Tails Ranch in order to seize her, as was originally ordered? Natural Bridge Zoo didn't lose all of their animals, yes, but they were proven guilty of having abused and or neglected more then a few of them. Just because Asha was moved, doesn't mean that Natural Bridge Zoo isn't still responsible for her.
Asha not being in Virginia currently, doesn't mean that she wasn't abused or neglected while she lived there. Even if she's not being abused or neglected right this minute (A claim I am... skeptical of, to say the least, knowing of Two Tails Ranch and it's history), then surely the case for her having been mistreated by her owners in the past still needs to be made and to have it's own day in court, yes?
The reason both weren't returned was one died during the catch up by the "animal experts". It died not long into the transport
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
Natural Bridge Zoo announces new ownership, retirement of Asha the elephant
Asha, the lone African elephant has officially retired from the zoo and has gone to a sanctuary.
Asha, the lone African elephant has officially retired from the zoo and has gone to a sanctuary.
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
Yes! Frigging finally!
Here's to hoping that Asha is going to an actual sanctuary and not just being left at Two Tails Ranch.
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
Ugh! Some "sanctuary" that place is! It's a literal tourist trap where the elephants preform circus tricks!
At least Asha is in the company of other elephants there? Asian elephants, I believe... Which, isn't ideal but it's certainly better than her being alone.
Also: If you've been aware of this information for months, why haven't you mentioned it before?
The article says "new owners and management", does anyone have any idea who they are?
@Wisp O' Mist As someone who has worked at Two Tails for over a decade, you really are ignorant with your comments. Have you even been there?
Two Tails has never and will never claim to be a sanctuary.
Asha has never gotten along with other elephants and has hurt other elephants in the past when introduced (again showing your ignorance of the situation)
Two Tails has never and will never claim to be a sanctuary.
Asha has never gotten along with other elephants and has hurt other elephants in the past when introduced (again showing your ignorance of the situation)
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
Very true, I 100% agree with you on this. Also, this article mentions that she does not think she is even an elephant and if she is introduced to other elephants then she would almost certainly be killed.
New details learned in Natural Bridge Zoo investigation