|
1-6 of 6 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
REXANO in anti AZA article
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on December 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I ended up in the same article with a$$holes like H$U$ Pacelle and AZA Tilson (my personal opinion of they rear end status), The article still helps me with my strategy, remove AZA exemption from bans, that will force AZA to fight with us non AZA owners,and end result might be that instead of bans, we will end up with reasonable laws. Right now AZA has no reason to help us, they r exempt, if they are stuck with the same laws, u bet they will fight for their own survival. I want to dismantle AZA, we don’t need it, everybody shall abide by same fed and local laws, let the good people stay, regardless of label (zoo, pet, breeder…).Or if AZA stay, tehy shoudl jsut be what tehy are, glorified expensive private club, butthat shoudln't be a ticket to be exempt from laws.
Z
________________________________________
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_7842811
Tiger attack exposes oversight weakness at the nation's zoos
By John Woolfolk
Mercury News
Article Launched: 12/30/2007 01:49:56 AM PST
The tiger that escaped its San Francisco Zoo pen on Christmas did more than just kill a San Jose teenager. It exposed alarming gaps in oversight - both at the well-regarded zoo itself, and beyond.
How did no one notice until after the tragedy that killed Carlos Sousa Jr. that the 350-pound predator's pen walls were well short of industry standards?
The answer appears to lie in the weak mix of regulations and professional standards that govern the nation's zoos, a system that rests on overwhelmed federal inspectors enforcing vague animal welfare laws and industry standards that are only voluntary.
San Francisco Zoo officials are defending their operation, saying industry inspectors who reviewed the zoo's practices and facilities three years ago never cited concerns about the tiger pen. But they also have acknowledged that their own records overstated the height of its walls by 5 feet.
Ron Tilson, who oversees tiger management for the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, was baffled why neither his group's inspectors nor the zoo would notice such a deficiency. With a wall only 12 1/2 feet high, he said "the tiger can almost stand up and reach it" and would have little difficulty escaping "with a little bit of a hop."
But as Tilson notes, the AZA's enclosure guidelines "have never been compulsory."
"In no way do I have the power to implement them or demand that they be met," Tilson said.
Questions about the oversight of the nation's
________________________________________
________________________________________
zoos start at the top, with the federal government.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has the primary responsibility to regulate zoos and other animal exhibitors as part of the Animal Welfare Act. The agency can charge exhibitors with violations of the act that can lead to license revocation or fines up to $3,750 a day.
Animal welfare first
But the act itself is written more with humane treatment than public safety in mind. For one thing, it doesn't specify caging dimensions for animals, whether they are tigers or rabbits, said USDA spokesman Jim Rogers. Instead, it provides general guidelines for the animal's comfort, safety and security. The idea, he said, is to allow design flexibility.
"We don't maintain a specific measurement," Rogers said. "It's more that it must be sufficient to do the job. Our inspectors are trained to know what's sufficient for what. That sort of regulation allows everything from the old bar-and-cage zoo to the animal habitat environment you see today."
The federal agency has only about 100 inspectors, and critics say those inspectors are overwhelmed with the responsibility for regulating more than 200 accredited zoos, thousands of roadside attractions, circuses and other private animal exhibitors.
But Rogers said each institution is inspected at least every two years, and in cases of repeat violators, as many as four times a year. Zoos are required to keep a copy of their most recent inspection report, and for those like San Francisco that house dangerous animals, a copy of an emergency response plan for dealing with escapes and disasters.
San Francisco Zoo officials said they would provide the Mercury News copies of both reports, but had not done so by Friday afternoon. They also said federal inspectors would be investigating the deadly escape, and that the zoo, which has four other tigers, already plans to add fencing, surveillance cameras and electrified wiring to fortify the enclosure.
Rogers said the only serious enforcement issues he could recall in recent years involved circuses rather than industry-accredited institutions like the San Francisco Zoo.
In California, state law also governs the keeping of wild animals. However, the state exempts from its oversight zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a non-profit organization based in Maryland.
The AZA offers zoos and aquariums accreditation through a days-long review every five years by a committee of three or four volunteer curators, keepers and veterinarians from member organizations.
Inspectors review everything from governing structure, financial health, staffing levels, record keeping and safety protocols to the condition of buildings and enclosures, animal acquisition and disposal practices and educational programming.
Critics say the system still falls short.
"The issue here is that it's essentially industry self-regulation," said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, adding that federal oversight amounts to "a finger-in-the-dike situation."
Standards exist
Nevertheless, the AZA does set some standards. Tilson, head of the group's tiger program, has written guidelines covering everything from the animals' diet, health care and reproduction to holding and exhibit enclosure design.
His enclosure guidelines, written in 1994, recommend against barred cages in favor of "naturalistic fenced and moated exhibits." The recommendations specify that moats should be a minimum of 23 feet wide with a wall at least 16.4 feet high on the visitors' side, with walls that are sheer and unclimbable.
The AZA said the Christmas incident in San Francisco marked the first escape leading to the death of a visitor among the organization's accredited zoos. After the tragedy, the AZA called the San Francisco Zoo an accredited "member in good standing," and stood by that statement even after zoo officials revealed the moat wall in the tiger grotto was as low as 12 1/2 feet.
Zoo officials said the tiger enclosure was built in 1940, and Tilson said it was likely "grandfathered in" as an acceptable enclosure.
Defending procedure
Tilson insisted the deficient wall height isn't an indication of shoddy accreditation practices. Instead, he said, it demonstrates the complexity involved in managing and overseeing zoos with dozens of different animals, each with their own specific enclosure guidelines.
"For a visiting committee to be on top of all these specifications would be a formidable job," Tilson said.
It's not just animal-rights groups who lament the state of zoo regulation. Exotic pet keepers and unaccredited exhibitors say government regulators put too much faith in the AZA to police its own.
"Obviously they didn't do a very good job making sure the facilities were up to the standards they require," said Zuzana Kukol, a Las Vegas big-cat trainer, and co-founder of the non-profit REXANO - Responsible Exotic Animal Ownership.
While the AZA's standards are voluntary, its accreditation is potent clout that it can withhold when a zoo fails to measure up. In 1995, the AZA postponed accrediting the Los Angeles Zoo after its inspectors documented conditions that jeopardized animal health including overcrowding, enclosures with poor drainage and vermin infestations.
The zoo responded by spending $1.7 million on improvements, and its accreditation was restored.
"That's a huge hammer that the AZA has," Tilson said. "If you lose accreditation, you're screwed."
But the Humane Society's Pacelle said that "sometimes these problems don't really get on the radar screen until there's an incident."
"You can be sure that the directors of other zoos have their tape measures out now," Pacelle said.
________________________________________
Contact John Woolfolk at jwoolfolk@mercurynews.com or (408) 975-9346.
|
| |
|
RE: REXANO in anti AZA article
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on December 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not sure I agree with your strategy on this, for a few reasons.
1) If AZA has to go by the same rules, they will just push for requirements that only they can meet. Many are publicly funded after all, so it's no skin off their noses if it costs $3M to build a tiger enclosure.
2) Even if they are the enemy, they are the good guys in the eyes of the average Joe. Picking on them will probably hurt us in the long run.
3) The REAL enemies (PETA, HSUS) will be just as happy to shut down every zoo in the country if that's what it takes to take us out... That's what they want anyway.
|
| |
|
RE: REXANO in anti AZA article
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on December 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. After recent SF fiasco where city and non profit groups running the zoo might (hmm, they will) get sued, who will pay in AZA accredited zoo cases? TAXPAYERS. This will make donors more reluctant to donate to AZA zoos, people want their money to go to animals, not bottom of the lake ‘fish food’ lawyers.
2. I am not sure if they will be good guys in public eye after all this is done and over, this is our chance to show public we are the good guys, after all, many AZA zoos learned so much from private sector, especially in bird, reptile and small mammal breeding world, time for the private sector get the credit they publicly deserve too, it is long overdue.
3. I know real enemy is AR. I know they r good people who work at AZA, but publicly they have to repeat AZA party line ( I know how that works, I grew up in in communist/socialist country and came to the USA as a legal political refugee). I want AZA to stop helping the enemy AR by helping AR to put private sector out of business, just look at NC or even Detroit zoo director Kagan, he even won Peta proggy award, WTF! Time for AZA to wake up, AZA did so much damage to private sector trying to save their a$$, that I have no sympathy, we big cat owners often get it from behind unlubed first, big and venomous snakes and primates follow.
4. If private AAA membership doesn’t exempt me from traffic laws, why should AZA membership exempt them from animal laws??? AZA can stay as a private $$$ animal club, but they shall NOT be exempt from the laws, that is unconstitutional IMHO.
Z
==
PS:Larry, Glad u enjoyed santa vs. Lion video YTube video, actually, there is a footage where I was taking the bag with taw meat from him and I am fine;-)He is a great lion.:)
|
| |
|
RE: REXANO in anti AZA article
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on December 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Larry, Aquaherp Guy, OK, you are the good guy, u do get it, good to know:)I used to work on FCF website before Rexano, although I am not the one who uploaded your article below.I also like Steve McCusker, he is a good giuy willing to say publcily he started as private pet owners, as i said, good people work at AZA, but AZA itself, the mouth piece is the PROBLEM.
Anyway, aftre being in exotic community so long,I don't see it very likely we will ever unite and form accreditation that will work, sicne so amny peopel fight over little things, too many drama estrogen queens in our midsts.
And being a libertarian, i believe in constitution, aka, no private clubs exemptions, and i believe in limited government, considering my background in a communist country. We have enough laws, enforce them, stop making new ones.Idiots will break them anyway,
But I disagree with one point in your article below, I call my big cats pets, because original definition of PET is something you as human love and cherish and care for, regardless of it the animal loves you back, it is uncodnitional love/devotion/care, by that definition, my big cats are PETS.:)
Z
http://www.felineconservation.org/speak/Banlaws.asp?key=269
Originally published in the Feline Conservation Federation magazine
May/June 2005 Volume 49 Issue 3
View from a Zoo Professional: Private Ownership and Ban Laws
Doug Hotle
General Curator
Abilene ZOOlogical Gardens
I think that you would be amazed at the number of professionals in the Zoo field that are supportive of private ownership of exotics. We must all keep in mind that most of us got our start by keeping these animals in our homes, and many still have cats or extensive reptile collections of their own, thus "privately". As you are well aware, I too have kept these animals in a private capacity. After two decades as a Zoo professional I went private for a few years and had my own collection of medium sized animal. I find it odd that simply because I was a private individual at that time that there was a stigma about me that "I did not know what I was doing or that I could not provide proper care for these animals" simply because I was "private" at the time. Talk about your double standards.
As we are both fully aware, there are multitudes of people out there that are more than capable of caring for these animals in a "professional" capacity, some even more so than many of the accredited facilities I have seen. The mere fact that they do not work at a zoo does not negate the fact that they might hold the knowledge and animal sense that it takes to provide long-term husbandry for these exotics. Some of the finest and most noted zoologist in history never worked in a professional capacity. I see many zoo professionals that are opposed to private ownership and they have some pretty strong arguments. After all, these are not your everyday pets. However, the more serious of the private individuals out there do not, nor ever will, treat these animals as simply "pets". I have also been annoyed at the number of brand new zoo professionals that voice their opposition to private ownership that have been in the zoo field for all of six months and think that because they work at a zoo they know it all or have some super all-knowing knowledge simply through osmosis. Others came straight out of college and into a high ranking zoo position and sit in a curatorial role or potentially even a directorship and have never even been up close to one of these animals let alone understand what it takes to properly care and house them. Yet they still voice a strong opposition without any real background. Not many, but there's a few out there.
Don't misunderstand me though. I feel that ownership of exotic animals (at least certain ones) is not for anyone and everyone. It's Billy-Bob with a tiger in his backyard in a 6x6 chicken wire cage or Fred who breeds cobras and sells them to 12 years old kids that drive the whole private ownership reputation face first into the mud. And this is where the AR groups get their ammunition, and rightly so. Who can argue that? Sadly though, we take the bad with the good.
Now, to focus on the laws and bans that are spawning all over the countryside without any legitimate or substantial reason; that's a tough one. The biggest enemy the private sector has out there right now is not Peta, not HSUS and not USDA. It is they. Rarely if ever, do they attack the issue, rather they attack individuals. I watched them attack USDA, Fish and Wildlife from almost every state, and even Jack Hanna for about a week. Do they not think that the USDA and Fish and Wildlife monitor these listserves? Don't they think that by pissing these people off that they aren't really gaining any support for their cause??? Do they really think that attacking Jack Hanna, who supports private ownership, is doing the cause any justice? What the private sector really needs, and I mean REALLY needs, is organization and follow-through. It's not leadership. There is leadership out there, just seemingly no support for that leadership. The groups and organizations out there are wonderful entities, however they need to tighten their ranks and each individual needs to stop complaining and do what they need to do to help out the elected leadership, and hence the cause overall.
I watched the AR groups during the summer of 2000 and the big rehashing of the nuisance wildlife laws in Indiana. During all of this I observed the way that Peta and Fund For Animals conducted themselves. I thought to myself, "wow, we are going to roll over these people because we have our poop in a group and are ready for them and they are so unorganized and are just flying by the seat of their pants". And we did. We were able to knock them back resoundingly. I also thought to myself, man if these people ever got their stuff together they'd be extremely dangerous! And guess what. They are figuring that out. It's just a matter of who gets it together first. Them or us. Who wants it worse? There is no doubt that exotic animals are going to be regulated in some fashion. If anyone thinks otherwise they have their head in an untold orifice. The private sector needs to form strong associations that are legitimate and respected and create their own set of guidelines and husbandry standards. I would model after what the National Wildlife Control Operator's Association did to defeat the Animal Rights groups in state after state and I would do it soon. These have to be strong organizations (or ONE association) and NOT just a club or social event type thing. Everyone needs to take it seriously! I would implement a Certification program that is bulletproof and beyond criticism and let that be a major part of the program for keeping these animals. There needs to be an ethical foundation with not just every hilljack that wants a cougar chained to his garage can just hop on in and get certified. There needs to be a set of strict rules. This is the only way that you will stop the bans from stripping you/us from our animals. Do not rely on the "this is our right" defense to fly for much longer. Lawmakers don't necessarily want to write new regulations, if there are some already there that they can implement, those written and already in use by a "professional association" then they'll be easier to sway in your direction when that time comes.
|
| |
|
RE: REXANO in anti AZA article
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on December 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very Well Stated Doug !
Best Regards and Happy New Year !
JohnZ
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
