Tina, Jewel, Shaunzi and Patty are chopped liver to these ARAs, essentially. What else can I say that hasn't been said already? Selective outrage isn't justifiable in this instance - either you care about all the elephants in these zoos or you don't care about any of them because you want to act and feel self-righteous. They don't care. None of these egomaniacs care.
I would not say that none of them care. Sure, some of the leaders may feel this way, but I do think a lot of them truly care about animals, but are misinformed or ignorant, basing their opinion on emotional perceptions or anthropomorphizing animals, and being manipulated/persuaded by the PETAs of the world. As zoo people, it is important in my opinion to not blast these people as not caring/self-righteous/egomaniacs/etc., as it's impossible to have legitimate discourse with someone if you refuse to listen and blow them off. This applies to Animal Rights Activists as well, just in reverse. Keep in mind that in essence, while the two groups may differ in opinions or approaches, both reputable zoos and ARAs both have some of the same ideals, wanting to make the lives of animals better. If these two groups could actually debate these issues, utilize scientific knowledge to truly understand what's best for these animals, and allow for the free-flow of ideas, there's a good chance that we'd make more progress, both in changing the minds of some followers of these groups and in improving the lives of animals. Think about how much money has been spent in court fees, etc. over Happy the Elephant, from both sides. How much good could be done if, instead of having costly battles over the elephants, WCS and ALDF were willing to discuss how to best help improve the welfare of their elephants. This would require ALDF to accept some facts so far they've been unwilling to (especially about Happy's personal history, unwillingness to get along with other elephants), but this would also require the zoo to acknowledge that ALDF may have legitimate concerns as well, that can best be addressed by working together for a mutually agreeable solution. Perhaps this could've meant, like
@StoppableSan mentioned an enrichment drive, or it could mean money for exhibit improvements, or looking into the feasibility of finding a companion for Patty after Maxine's death. If we treat ARAs as the enemy, we are not going to win, as it'd be a constant stream of court cases and deflecting the worst of whatever they try to throw next hoping it sticks. The way to win is to actually get our point across to the people, and allow for legitimate discourse, part of which requires zoos to acknowledge what we can be doing better, and working to find ways to create mutually agreeable solutions. Love it or hate it, the Big Cat Public Safety Act was an example of this, a bill that was able to be passed attempting to improve the lives of animals when both groups worked together. I'm certain there are other places that, working together, the AZA and ARAs could find common ground. Perhaps for starters increasing the welfare standards under the AWA. Under the AWA it's technically considered legal/decent enough husbandry for me to keep six gorillas in my college dorm room. Obviously, my room is not big enough for one gorilla, let alone six. If AZA and ARA groups wanted to work together, rather than fighting between each other, we could see some genuine improvement on the legal standards for animal welfare.
