Breeding: Elephant sanctuaries typically do not breed animals
or transfer them to other facilities for the purposes of
genetic management. Most animals going to sanctuaries are
on a one-way trip and will remain there for the rest of their
lives. This is consistent with a sanctuary’s sole focus on individual
animal welfare.
In contrast, the focus of AZA and its members is both
on the welfare of individuals and the population as a
whole, both in zoos and in nature. Participation in programs
such as Species Survival Programs (SSP) may
involve moving animals from one facility to another,
either temporarily or permanently. In AZA zoos, elephants
are seen as animal ambassadors, which play an
important role in supporting conservation of their
cousins in the wild. This is accomplished through a wide
variety of activities, including public education, professional
staff training, research, technology development,
field conservation and fundraising.
Accreditation: Although licensed by the United States
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant
Inspection Service (APHIS) and their state wildlife agencies,
the elephant sanctuaries are not accredited by AZA. This
means that they are not required to meet AZA accreditation
standards, which are considerably more detailed and comprehensive
than USDA standards. In addition, AZA established
detailed Standards for Elephant Management and
Care in 2001 and updated them in 2003. Non-members are
not required to meet these standards, nor are they obligated
to maintain them over time.
"To date only one " elephant sanctuary" is accredited by AZA. We have
to assume they have addressed the Tumai issue, which we learned
nothing about, to their satisfaction. I suggest there are a number
of agendas, on both sides of the issue?"
Friday, January 9, 2009
AZA on sanctuaries
Posted by
Wade G. Burck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Goes without saying that bio-parks aren't all on the same page these days on AR issues. Nor should they be. The AZA position is in keeping with the notion that zoos serve a conservation role. Not all member parks put conservation above political expediency or an AR influenced agenda.
It's a shame when genetically viable elephants (potential breeding animals) end up in TN or CA rather than as a part of the SSP. Unfortunately the decision to end an elephant program at any particular zoo is as often as not tied to a political/AR agenda rather than a management decision based strictly on the well being of the elephants involved. And those political agendas tend to come pre-packaged with "sanctuary" attached.
Tumai? That was 1984. Let's stipulate that AZA was "satisfied" with any resolution. I would offer that we know even less about the Winkie incident in TN two and a half years ago. If the argument is that improper training and management errors led to the death of an elephant 25 years ago, let's allow that equally improper management protocols were at fault in TN. My impression was that the "alibi" in TN was identical to the "alibi" you might hear elsewhere. "Not our fault. It was the people before us." But Winkie had a well documented history. So it was their fault in spades -- just as shows have been responsible for some unfortunate outcomes involving problem elephants.
Overall Scott Riddle deserves a lot of credit for what he's accomplished in Arkansas. He has earned his AZA credential.
Ben,
I swear sometimes you sound like Idi Amin, addressing a question by pointing to Adolf Hitler. LOL Maybe that's why nobody knows whats going on, on either side. I was belly deep in one of the biggest tug of war, pissing matches in the history of captive elephants, and I witnessed the animal getting the dirty end of the stick. Everybody was so interested in patching/tooting their own horn/pointing fingers that the elephants became inconsequential, in an effort at self-serving paper. I might have a bit of a different take on "agendas", and I might also have an idea of which industry/organization of all involved failed the most miserably.
Wade
From a private email, addressing a public forum:
Tumai. 25 years ago a then much younger trainer fucked up big time. I'd say that the real fuck ups tend to repeat their mistakes in ways that Scott hasn't.
LOL. Wade I saw The Last King of Scotland. Don't be down on Idi.
My point. One sanctuary has earned it's credential. A black mark 25 years ago only has bearing if you can connect the dots and illustrated that it was part of a failure that continues to this day. One sanctuary might not qualify for a credential at this time because of a rather more recent incident. It isn't Godzilla versus Mothra. There has to be some context and historical perspective.
I would guess there wasn't a bio-park in the country fifty years ago that could get a credential today. Standards have changed. That doesn't mean they were all bad then, it means that they're better now. Taking the arguement that in fact they were all "bad" fifty years ago would be a bit like saying that all doctors were "bad" fifty years ago because their mortalities were higher. If we want to quantify these things we need a metric that evolves to reflect the times.
Well done from the private email.Scott Riddle has offered the elephant community at large an opportunity to learn about elephants under his and other very good elephant men's tutorship.He and his wife Heidi have been stalwarts to the community in federal matters and continue to support research on their farm and in-situ.I beleieve the past can be left where it belongs.I hope future elephant guys get the opportunity to learn from Scott and those with similar skills before their chance is missed.
Glenn and Ben,
Valid points all. That's why I addressed. To understand what having an elephant on roller skates 30 years ago, has to do with what someone is doing today. Yet that will come up every time Carol Buckley's motivation/qualification's are discussed.
Ben, In regards to bettor or worse 50 years ago, in the resent papers written on longevity of elephants, as argument that they were flawed was that they used a 50 history of captive elephants as a data base, which was pointed out was unfair, and the standards were much better today.
I think at some point it has to be either/or, and if something is not relevant for one it is not relevant for another, If pertinent for one, pertinent for the other. Or they each invalidate each other.
Wade
Anonymous # 2,
Although I just posted an excerpt from the report, I will post the rest of it later. I too was kinda curious about why AZA was establishing there protocol as the standard for a sanctuary.
Wade
Wouldn't AZA setting standards for "sanctuaries" be alike to parents setting standards on orphanages?
Post a Comment