But the main reason I am voting against Pairi Daiza is their ridiculous elephant policy. Very nice that they have 20 elephants in multiple enclosures but they have a hands-on method that was outdated 20 years ago. I am not sure how the elephant bathing looks like now, but the fact that it is all hands-on with mahouts all the way is just plain wrong in my view for a modern zoo....
I am not sure how the elephant bathing looks like now, but the fact that it is all hands-on with mahouts all the way is just plain wrong in my view for a modern zoo....
I have heard many things about Pairi Daiza's use of elephants, but I have one question that needs to be answered. Does Moscow use their dolphins for presentations, shows and the like?
Pairi Daiza's elephant procedures certainly sound deeply problematic. But then so are Moscow's tiny, all-concrete yards for several ungulate species. I'm keeping my vote with Pairi Daiza pending more info.
I had hoped you could give a bit more info
But in Moscow's defence, I assume they are dealing with legacy effects from a gone era when it comes to the majority of their sub-par enclosures. Pairi Daiza on the other hand has only started keeping elephants in about 2009, years after all other zoos in the lower countries had already changed to protected contact, so there was absolutely no reason to treat elephants the way they did and still do. For me that is just a red flag, regardless whether the rest is world class or not (but the Pygmy hippo who was put in a fur seal enclosure disagrees....),. The same would be if Amneville's category would have been carnivores. Even if most enclosures there are more than fine and they have a nice variety, their tiger show is just too bad....
The same would be if Amneville's category would have been carnivores. Even if most enclosures there are more than fine and they have a nice variety, their tiger show is just too bad....