WAZA in hot water

Beastking04 said:
How do we know this article wasn't made by a bunch of Animal Rights psychopaths?
Click to expand...

We don't and in fact I think it says that it was rights groups that brought up the complaint against WAZA. However, that does not mean that some of the complaints may not be valid. I mean one of the people quoted is the director of a WAZA member zoo (Kolmarden) stating his zoo will cancel their WAZA membership if it does not mend its ways.
 
It is a very dishonest article, unfortunately.

At a risk of saying the obvious. WAZA periodically organizes actions like financial help to Asian breeding centres, but has no means to force any zoo to anything. The only thing it could do is possibly kick out bad Asian or African zoos, but this would only cut them further from the expertise they need.

Breeding plans, in contrast, are maintained by EAZA and AZA, and certainly no animal from Europe would be currently exported to a poor zoo in Asia. Which is a contentious decision itself (Marius) - many animals are euthanized so that a breeding stock outside good zoos is not started.
 
Yes, this reads like any PETA scree. Mixes the rare fact with fantasy. Note that no one from WAZA is interviewed to respond to these "accusations."
Looking at other articles by this writer shows a consistent practice of reporting "conservationists" "accusations" without ever speaking to the accused.
It is The Guardian that ought to be embarrassed.

Feel free to Tweet your opinions to the author directly https://twitter.com/olliemilman
 
Zooplantman said:
Moving on
Japanese zoo association suspended by world body over Taiji dolphin hunts | Environment | The Guardian
Click to expand...

The fact that WAZA accepted JAZA zoos w/drive-caught dolphins in the first place is indisputable evidence of their support of animal cruelty. (I'm surprised there isn't a separate thread about this development. Maybe I missed it.)

Whether or not WAZA can encourage or discourage animal cruelty (or "force a zoo to do something") should not be an argument. By accepting certain members, they accept and normalize any practices that take place at those member's facilities. By refusing applicants or rejecting members which have proved themselves to be subpar, WAZA publicly shames them and calls attention to concerns at such substandard facilities.

In addition, WAZA defines its own reputation, goals, and priorities based on their membership. By excluding certain institutions, WAZA can develop a better reputation. WAZA's recent actions of suspending JAZA facilities and calling attention to the Surabaya Zoo's infractions are certainly beneficial for their reputation and demonstrate WAZA's principles. As they say, You have to put your money where your mouth is.

I look forward to seeing WAZA evolve and hope to see the organization take more initiative in solving zoo/aquarium issues so that the industry can reach its potential for education & conservation. The suspension of JAZA for their practices is some of the greatest news I've heard in a awhile.
 
Oh, and don't forget that Animal Rights Activists have been responsible for bringing about great change in the world and improving the zoo industry. The contention between people working in the animal industries and people trying to improve animal lives stymies progress and breeds misunderstanding and hate. I am a person who strongly believes in conservation, environmental justice, equality, and the health and happiness of animals. I think of us on this site have these traits in common - zoo folk and animal right advocates alike. We all have things to learn from one another.
 
The Vegan said:
The fact that WAZA accepted JAZA zoos w/drive-caught dolphins in the first place is indisputable evidence of their support of animal cruelty. (I'm surprised there isn't a separate thread about this development. Maybe I missed it.)

Whether or not WAZA can encourage or discourage animal cruelty (or "force a zoo to do something") should not be an argument. By accepting certain members, they accept and normalize any practices that take place at those member's facilities. By refusing applicants or rejecting members which have proved themselves to be subpar, WAZA publicly shames them and calls attention to concerns at such substandard facilities.

In addition, WAZA defines its own reputation, goals, and priorities based on their membership. By excluding certain institutions, WAZA can develop a better reputation. WAZA's recent actions of suspending JAZA facilities and calling attention to the Surabaya Zoo's infractions are certainly beneficial for their reputation and demonstrate WAZA's principles. As they say, You have to put your money where your mouth is.

I look forward to seeing WAZA evolve and hope to see the organization take more initiative in solving zoo/aquarium issues so that the industry can reach its potential for education & conservation. The suspension of JAZA for their practices is some of the greatest news I've heard in a awhile.
Click to expand...

I was gonna make a thread on the JAZA thing, but I honestly thought someone else was gonna do it. I think I'll post an article, see what people think.

Anyway, I was thinking the same thing. With WAZA not taking much action against the dolphin slaughters until after a few years of pressure, it really wouldn't surprise me to find that they're overlooking other stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top