I promise this is not the case. They are not anti-zoo.
Roadside Zoo News website (re Jack Facente Serpentarium)
- Thread starter birdsandbats
- Start date
I promise this is not the case. They are not anti-zoo.
They have published many misleading articles and ones that attack accredited institutions as if they are roadside zoos. They are textbook anti-zoo that are simply good at masquerading otherwise.
You posted one photo in the gallery of a tank, is that what you're referring to as an above-average terrarium?
I am *telling* you. They are not anti-zoo.
What would make you believe that? I see no evidence for that and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
The level of misleadingness in the previously posted article is frankly on a Blackfish level.
Because you're looking for things that support your pre-conceived notion. Comparing any of this to Blackfish is absolutely absurd and is really showing that you're unwilling to listen to anything.
This is it? You might have an ethical issue with selling animals, though it's pretty common outside of public sector zoos, but it has nothing to do with whether the facility has good welfare standards. I think it's important to separate subjective values-judgements from objective welfare ones.
I, for one, and I'm sure many others, would also like to see proof/a source than Roadside Zoo News is not "anti-zoo". No matter who on this site posts it, I am always skeptical of "trust me, I'm correct" type statements as there's been too many problems in the past of either misinformation or leaked information. I am not saying that anyone who has commented on this thread is guilty of that, and I am not accusing @TinoPup of being ill-intended, but a source or deeper explanation would still be appreciated.
Please reread my first sentence. I should have phrased the "it's about money" part better; it has everything to do with the facility when they're letting animals go to places with poor husbandry and breeding practices.
I'm not at liberty to explain further. I understand if my history of being correct with information isn't enough to satisfy.
SusScrofa
Well-Known Member
There are AZA zoos that are guilty of that too, though.
Sorry, this isn't good enough. If you want to make representations, fine, but state your case. Do not just demand people believe you without being willing to support your contentions.
FWIW, I wasn't familiar with this website before this thread but a cursory flick through the articles includes stories on Dallas, St Louis, Henry Vilas (which the site boasts of having reported on) and Gladys Porter zoos. Are they "roadside zoos"? I guess they do have roads running alongside them.
I haven't demanded a single thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
If they are not anti-zoo then why do their posts on facebook feel like they are anti-zoo? That's all I want to know. I'm not trying to pick a fight or argue with you Tino.
I
Attachments
You have made claims about the reputation of this site, and simply asked (perhaps a better word than "demanded", I'll admit) that people trust you without giving any reasons. It's called an "appeal to trust" fallacy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeez. A quick look at the most recent dozen or so posts on their Facebook page adds Philadelphia, Columbus and North Carolina to the roadside zoo list.
But it's not anti-zoo.
I am curious, are you personally affiliated with RZN/known about this site for a time before you went on ZooChat? Obviously, if you aren't able/won't put it out in the public I can't stop you, but at least saying why you are being cryptic would be nice.
No, it doesn't
Are you really comparing your three bullet points, of which you have continued to ignore everyone asking for proof of your claims, to a 32 page document with a plethora of sources? Even comparing Mtoxins to SeaWorld, at a base level, is just silly.