As a quick overview, this is a location in the rural American south, about three hours drive from the nearest major city, located along an interstate. That doesn't really narrow the field of candidates down too much though, to be honest.
I'd long been driving to and fro past this facility, traveling between my not-that-zoo job and home for visits. When I switched zoos and realized that I might never drive by again, I bit the bullet and decided to pay a visit. I figured it would be educational if nothing else. It sure was.
I was admittedly surprised by the quality of the collection. There were a fair number of species there that I hadn't expected to see in such a shabby place. The bird collection was particularly impressive - there were red-breasted geese, Chilean flamingos (a sign boasted that the zoo was the first in the state to breed flamingos), white-naped cranes, and a cassowary. The later made a major impression on me - mostly because, more on a foolish whim, I was able to touch it. It was idiotic on my part, but I was pretty young and stupid at the point, and it was mostly because I really was in disbelief that I, some random guy, would be able to walk right up to the exhibit, with no secondary barrier, and reach through the seemingly inadequate fencing to touch what is often regarded as the world's most dangerous bird. I wasn't a complete moron, so I'd stationed myself safely so I was just stroking the back (at arm's length, too). If I'd wanted to, I could have touched the head or neck... or the lethal feet.
The hoofstock collection was also pretty decent, kept in a series of barnyard like paddocks more adequate for goats and sheep than kudu, oryx, and other African antelope, as well as giraffes. There was also a large domestic collection. Many calves were in evidence, the zoo's "proof" that the animals were happy and well-cared for. In reality, many unaccredited zoos breed to surplus often. Some go to other zoos. Others go to... well, who really knows where?
The carnivores - tigers (including several white), lions, and Asian black bears - were kept in relatively small, unimpressive cages, heavily-fenced and with not much in the way of furniture other than sleeping shelves (though I was surprised that they at least had grass growing in them). I'd noticed on previous drives by that the tigers were visible from the road (not the interstate itself, but a small road where tourists would pull-off for gas and meals), perhaps intentionally placed there as a living billboard. As with hoofstock, many carnivores are bred here - many hand-raised for photo-ops while they are still young and tractable before being sold or moving into an exhibit role.
The primate cages struck me as the least suitable for all - essentially round metal cages produced by the Behlen Company, often called "corn-cribs" in the zoo community (one is visible in the background of the above tiger photo, with a blue and pink striped roof). I've used them myself, both for exhibits and for off-exhibit holding, and in some situations that are perfectly adequate... but not for larger primates, such as spider monkeys and gibbons. Furnishings were sparse, and I saw minimal evidence of enrichment. The small "reptile house" - a store front with windows set in for a hodgepodge of lizards, snakes, and turtles, with a few small mammals filling in empty spots left a lot to be desired. There seemed to be limited opportunity for hiding, thermoregulation, and other natural behaviors.
The zoo's most famous occupant is a lone African elephant, available for rides. There is no part of that that seemed ideal to me, but mostly the "lone" part. Not surprisingly, the elephant has been the lightning rod for most of the criticism that this zoo faces.
I can't say I approved much of my visit, though I am glad that I made it. It's important to see the other side of the coin of American zoos, though a better analogy might be that it was further down the continuum. There certainly are far-worse facilities in the US, such as many of those highlighted in the From the News feature a few days back... but that doesn't mean that this is ideal, or even acceptable. They may meet USDA standards, but to my mind that's just evidence that USDA needs to tighten those standards up - maybe not all the way to AZA accreditation standards, but at least acknowledging that a big cat enclosure should be more than 300 square feet.
In the age of the internet, it's a lot easier to do research about what kind of zoo or aquarium you are supporting. My role is, if they are AZA-accredited (or whatever the national accrediting body is - EAZA, ARAZPA, etc), I trust them. That's not to say that I never see things I don't completely approve of there, but I will trust that animal welfare and facilities are good enough. If they are not AZA (and I've been to some lovely, wonderful unaccredited facilities), then I do some research - read online reviews, look at their website and facebook page, maybe even read a USDA report, which is a publicly accessible.
The former can be the least-reliable: I've seen plenty of people who posted adoring reviews of zoos where they could bottle feed tiger cubs in their laps, while derisively complaining about excellent zoos because they couldn't see the animals in larger, more natural enclosures, and somehow decided that they weren't happy there. Remember, these sketchy places stay in business because people enjoy them, and they will do so until the public starts voting with their feet... and their wallets.
No comments:
Post a Comment