From: Plague von Karma [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 7:49 AM
To: peta2 <[email protected]>
Subject: Boycotting Zoos? Consider this first.

So you believe ABSOLUTELY NO animal should be kept in a zoo? I somewhat agree, but not to the extent you do. In fact, I think your campaign needs revising. I love your work, and support a lot of it. Your campaign against the Fur Trade is amazing, as is your fight for animal rights. But this Boycott Zoos Campaign is actually dangerous, so you'll definitely need to consider what I write here.

POINT 1: I AGREE WITH YOU TO AN EXTENT.
I believe only Vulnerable (VU) or worse off animals (based on the ICUN list) should be kept in captivity. Animals that are of Least Concern (LC) that are kept in a zoo are simply not necessary, and because of this I agree with PETA on THIS note. After all, why breed animals that are already healthy in population? Animals like Puffins for example are already in high numbers and are doing well don't need to be in zoos. After all, it makes no sense.

And without further ado, let's get to the parts where I disagree.

POINT 2: HABITAT RESTORATION DOESN'T WORK
However, animals that are Endangered I think SHOULD be kept in zoos, and for many reasons. The first reason is that Habitat Destruction is never the only reason animals die out. Poaching, Introduced/Invasive Species, Introduced Diseases, and more are known factors that cause extinction and depletion in numbers. It's elementary, really.

To support this, I have a couple of examples. Let's start with what happens when an Invasive Species comes up. The Case Study here is the Arapaima invading the Amazon River, causing the Red Bellied Piranha (Pygocentrus nattereri) to have a temperament shift. The Arapaima, feeding on fish, beats the piranha in the food chain. Because of this, the piranha is forced to become an aggressive fish that hunts even people in a large shoal. This allows it to survive. But, how is this relevant? Well, what if the affected animal DIDN'T manage to survive because of the introduced species?

Source for the Red Bellied Piranha:
River Monsters Episode 1: Face Ripper

Yes that involves fishing, but it still gives informative information from an expert. Cruel? Yes. Supportive of my claim? Yes. Are we chill? Of course.

So, let's have a case study. The Yunnan lake newt (Cynops wolterstorffi) sadly went extinct because of invasive species, and it's not coming back. Oh, it's just a little reptile? That would be a dumb comment, as this newt was important: it kept bugs from overpopulating the area. Luckily this species went extinct from exotic fish and frogs being introduced, as the frog means that it's balanced out. I have seen much worse in this department. This newt simply couldn't compete due to new predators and new competition in food.

Source of the Yunnan Lake Newt, albeit a small part but it says the reason:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/have-invasive-species-caused-extinctions.htm

POINT 3: CULLING DOESN'T WORK, AND IT GOES AGAINST YOUR POLICY.
Now I bet you're gonna say something like "oh, but they could just cull the invasive species". But isn't this cruel, unethical and thus against your policy? You can't just kill innocent animals who have happened to find a new home, right? And catching all these animals and "deporting" them to another area is simply too tedious and takes too much money.

Now for another example. The Green Iguana (Iguana iguana) is an invasive species in Florida due to the pet trade. Since people couldn't handle such a difficult pet to care for, they simply released their animal into the wild. Oh, jumping for joy? These animals can barely survive in Florida and it's caused the pets a lot of suffering. These iguanas are now threatening many plant species and are a general problem to people due to aggression and generally being a nuisance. Systematic extermination of these is now in place, trying to combat the problem. There are laws in Florida that now prohibit releasing Iguanas into the wild even if you took it in, and killing/deporting the animals when discovered is being done. However, it's not working because of how much they breed and how many eggs they lay. That's around 20 a clutch, and with no predators, well, they all survive. So, culling these iguanas is simply not working, and I wouldn't be surprised if Iguanas are threatening the population of other herbivorous animals as well as plants. Note that these iguanas RECOVERED AFTER A WINTER THAT WOULD KILL ANY REPTILE. This proves that they're overrun HANDS DOWN. Iguana Hunting is popular as well, so that winter would normally solve any reptile infestation. But nope, the iguana recovers. Note how it says that it is causing harm to the landscape. That's threatening to any native species.

Source of Florida being overrun by iguanas:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/fl-iguanas-rebound-20151009-story.html

POINT 4: EXTINCT IN THE WILD CLASS ANIMALS WILL DIE OUT FOR SURE
So, do I have more arguments? Oh yes. Without zoos, many animals that are extinct in the wild would be extinct entirely. Zoos do stop animals being killed, which your article sidesteps. As zoos are essentially a wall to poachers, animals are kept safe.

Alagoas Currasow

The Alagoas Currassow (Mitu mitu) would have become extinct a long time ago without zoos. It became EW in 1988, and because of zoos, 130 are still left in captivity. When they were discovered, only 60 existed (1951). Oh, we should release them? Sorry, but that is simply not possible.

With only 130 left (which only increased because of zoos, by the way), even if their habitat was restored, they could not recover. Their numbers are too small, and because of how wide their range would be, finding a mate would be like finding a friend who's in the middle of Russia and you being on the border: nigh impossible. Because of this, they would go extinct easily. Either way, they would be euthanized because zoos won't have the money to release them.

Note that their habitat, also, does not exist anymore. It's habitat was turned into a Sugar Cane Farming Area, so it can't be restored. In 1970, authors published books on these birds to try and bring their plight to light. Thus, they cannot have their habitats returned to them. What, you want their habitat recreated? I'm sorry, but that's not how nature works. Once the bird becomes an adult, it would instinctively try to return to it's "home". Problem is, that home wouldn't exist anymore. Either way, the plants that formed their habitat are all extinct now.



Guam Rail

Another animal affected like this? The Guam Rail. This species, like the Alagoas Currassow, is only kept alive by zoos and conservation companies. One notable zoo is the Cincinnati Zoo, which has been a hate target not only because it's a zoo but because of The Killing of Harambe. It's extinct in the wild.

Since 1995, more than 100 rails have been introduced to the island (Republic of Guam) in an attempt to establish a wild breeding colony. Although at least one chick resulted from these efforts, many predators have eaten the birds and accidental deaths have been extremely high. Basically, habitat restoration simply doesn't work for these birds. The main reason for the predators being a problem was because of the Brown Tree Snake being introduced thanks to WWII, as the birds evolved due to lack of predators. It's essentially the new Dodo Bird.

So the Guam Rail simply cannot survive because of introduced species and the fact it's extinct in the wild. It's only habitat is it's enemy now.


Hawaiian Crow

One other species I am SURE you know about is the Hawaiian Crow. This species is extinct in the wild with only 115 individuals known to mankind as of August 2014. THE ONLY FACILITY BREEDING THESE BEAUTIFUL BIRDS IS THE SAN DIEGO ZOO, WHICH FALLS UNDER YOUR LINE OF FIRE.

The main threat for this animal is people. Farmers shoot them because they apparently disturb crops. They are persecuted by some groups of people, while other regard them as gods. Chicks are vulnerable to tree-climbing rats, and after they leave their nests to cats, dogs, and mongooses. Their habitat is indeed being destroyed, but it isn't the primary concern when people and other animals are destroying them left and right. Avian Malaria is also a danger to their health, which has been one of the major sources of their rapid decline.

One other thing: inbreeding is a major problem with these animals as it has been going on for a while. Due to them breeding a lot by nature, their small population has lead to inbreeding in their species, causing thinner eggshells. This means that simply releasing them is out of the question.

The main reason conservation efforts have been so unsuccessful is because of their behavior. It's not easy to breed these birds. The males are very disruptive, as they tend to sit in unfinished nests or show aggression towards potential mates. The thin eggshells on the eggs they produce as a result of incest isn't doing them any favors either. It's a disaster.

The Hawaiian Crow became one of my absolute favorite animals recently. After all. they have a certain skill: they can use sticks, etc as tools to reach their food. Why should I stand by and let them be destroyed by a pressure group aiming to "free thousands of animals" without knowing the consequences?

This bird is one of the most endangered species in the world, and it's barely even being helped. Boycotting zoos would destroy it. Is that what you want? Of course not.



This isn't just limited to birds, either. The Wyoming Toad and Scimitar Oryx are also victims. Look those ones up.

Sources:
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/brazil-extinct-in-wild-alagoas-curassow-bird-hatches-in-zoo-652658

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alagoas_curassow (yes it's wikipedia, but it still mildly supports my claim)

http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2016/07/06/birds-saved-extinction-living-chicago-zoos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam_rail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_crow

http://hawaiitribune-herald.com/news/community/return-alala-local-artists-supporting-endemic-hawaiian-crow-through-volcano-art

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article101893832.html

POINT 5: YOU'RE FUNDING A HOLOCAUST OF THOUSANDS OF ANIMALS

So, you say that the animals will be released? I'm sorry, but reality doesn't work like that. They'll be euthanized. If the zoo is being boycotted and as such systematically destroyed, THEY WON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO SEND THEM TO THEIR NATURAL HABITAT. YOU ARE FUNDING A HOLOCAUST. You are sending thousands, if not millions of animals to their deaths, and also wasting a lot of resources on euthanizing these animals. No, they won't send animals to sanctuaries or other zoos, as they will be bankrupt. Boycotting them will only lead to the deaths of thousands of animals. Is this "Justice"? Is this "Ethical"? Of course not.

But let's take a step back and say they were able to. Would these animals be able to adapt to life in the wild and outside of captivity? I believe that animals should be trained to be able to survive in the wild, but if the zoo is forced to send them into the wild without help...what could happen? They could all die, or all survive. Is that risk justified?

But we both know that a bankrupt zoo will be incapable of sending their animals into the wild.



Here is my source of the harsh reality of a bankrupt zoo, which is what you strive for so much:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3439030/Lions-tigers-bear-facing-death-row-Swiss-zoo-goes-bankrupt-Owner-admits-animals-including-cubs-down.html



POINT 6: SANCTUARIES ARE NOT A SOLUTION

I know what you're going to say, and I know it's bullshit. Zoos primarily breed animals, as they have more variety than sanctuaries. Also, sanctuaries are specialized than zoos. Note that they are practically the same as zoos as well. There are companies, charities and much more around, but either way: that doesn't break my point in the slightest, and I'll tell you why.

Zoos are just like sanctuaries, only that their enclosures, etc are much smaller. Yes, I agree that they are too small. But my point is that their only source of income is to have visitors come in and view their animals for coin. Why does it have to be this way? It's just the way the cookie crumbles. Don't sanctuaries do the exact same thing though? Yes, sanctuaries allow free roaming, but it's still not that "freedom" you're campaigning for, is it?

One more thing: you're actually wrong about how ALL zoos are PUBLIC. Not all zoos are in fact, public. Many are private, such as Rodbaston Animal Zone in England. I have had work experience there, mainly to review my opinions on zoos. It's actually a very good place, and they have one species of owl that is almost extinct. Is it fair to destroy ALL ZOOS, SOME OF WHICH AREN'T EVEN OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?


YOUR POINTS ABOUT ZOOS THEMSELVES
Animals don't need to be in captivity because habitats simply need restoring and need to be guarded? Not possible. For starters, there isn't enough money on the planet to do it without causing a worldwide recession, and there isn't enough time to do it fast enough. By the time habitats are restored, well, most endangered species will be dead by poaching or lack of breeding. In a nutshell, that's plain stupid. Too much land as well. Note my point on EW-class animals: it would kill them. Note that disease, introduced species and more are all threats outside of habitats.

So, the animal's welfare is brought up in your article. Personally, I think that it's over-exaggerated. Zoos that treat their animals cruelly should be reported to the RSPCA, not used as a subject for boycotting them. After all, if animals are being treated in a cruel manner, that's a job for the authorities to get involved, correct? Report them, don't boycott them. You're killing the animals in there if you do that.

Next is the fact they're in cages. I think they're not big enough in my opinion. I think cages should be the same size as the territory they cover, which is quite large. Lack of funds? That's because they're being hurt by being boycotted by a pressure group that isn't considering the major consequences of what they're doing. Is it traumatic? Not always. Apes, for example, love their keepers. Just look at Monkey World in Dorset. It's only traumatic for animals if they're abused, kept in undersized cages, etc. Animals such as geckos could be traumatized if they were overhandled, which would kill them. That wouldn't happen normally if the zoo had knowledge of their animals (which they do). In all honesty, if humanity was under threat and aliens came to help save you in exchange for your freedom, I am pretty sure you would go along with them. Same thing going on here. Of course they aren't free, but at least they have some space. Yes it needs to be bigger: I am not disputing that.

"Zoos treat their animals like commodities". This is a narrow-minded, bias, over-exaggerated opinion. Only the worst zoos would regard animals as such. I have seen workers treat their animals like people, and their equals. Sometimes even better. Monkey World, once again, saves animals and grants them new leases of life in their breeding programs. They rehabilitate them in an amazing manner. The workers are amazing with their apes, and have bonds with them like no other zoo I've ever seen. Many zoos treat their animals in a manner like Monkey World. You probably need to visit better zoos and formulate a better opinion here.

The removing animals part is a trade-off of saving a specie. Selling or buying them is what zoos do to raise funds to help them stay active and buying them is to assist with their breeding program or help create a valid, viable colony. Once again, if aliens came to save our species in exchange for your freedom, would you do it? Yes. Of course, it can be a terrifying experience. I believe that it should be done gradually, and it normally is in the best zoos.

The zoos you source are probably the worst ones around. For the San Diego Zoo and Tampa’s Lowry Park Zoo importing elephants, the ones you cite are endangered. Animals in zoos are almost always WC, as you can't captive breed them without starting with capturing them. As for the monkey smuggling, I won't condone that. I believe it should have been done legally at least. Note that San Diego Zoo is THE ONLY ZOO THAT IS BREEDING THE HAWAIIAN CROW. THIS SLANDER WILL NOT STAND, AS YOU ARE THREATENING A SPECIES BY DOING THAT.

I agree with the point on how it is barely educational. As for people coming in? How else will the breeding programs be funded? Money doesn't grow on trees.

As for animals being kept in the back, I think they shouldn't be in the first place.



MY PERSONAL OPINION ON ZOOS
They don't need to be boycotted, but worked on. The systems you cite are flawed and would only work on a few species, and I think that instead of campaigning for them to be shut down, you should be campaigning to improve them and for governing bodies to add laws to protect animals kept in zoos, etc. Basically, you need to review your methods and what you should really be trying to do.

I agree with you on these points, and all of these are only parts of your actual points:

- Animals that are of least concern should not be in zoos

- Children coming to zoos is unnecessary

- Cages need to be bigger

- The way animals are transferred when traded need to be done in a different way



This is what should be done for zoos:

- Bad ones need to be reported to organizations such as the RSPCA

- Alternate ways to fund zoos need to be found and put into action.

- New ways to transport animals in a comforting manner need to be devised

- Better quality enclosures for animals need to be created

- Animals of Least Concern should be released into the wild, as keeping them is unnecessary

- Zoo Policy should be reviewed and revised.

- Animals sent into the wild should be trained to survive first, and be monitored through using a tagging system (which should be reviewed)


Your points are uninformed and bias. Do more research, and campaign for better zoos that support and uphold animal welfare. You need to change your campaign, as what you're doing right now is actually threatening the animals in zoos, and could potentially nuke a large amount of EW-Class Animals. If humanity was under threat and aliens came to help save you in exchange for your freedom, I am pretty sure you would go along with them.


BEFORE YOU REPLY...
Before we start to debate all of this, I would like you to listen to me. I am not attempting to hate on you in any way, shape or form. I do support many of your campaigns, such as you going against the fur trade. I applaud you for your efforts. I only decided to go AGAINST this one because of the threats this poses to the animals as well as the endangered and EW-Class species in them.

I do not want any links to your posts: I have read them. I even used them as a reference for this email. I want a full, informed and written reply to match this long rebuttal. Source your reply, and make it worth reading. I don't want a 1 or 2 liner, or a single paragraph. No sidestepping my points either.

I hope you'll agree with what I have to say, and hope we can campaign for zoos to uphold and respect animal welfare laws. Report the bad zoos, and improve the good ones.

Please, revise your campaign before it is too late.

From: PETAUKInfo <[email protected]>
Sent: 21 September 2016 11:36
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Boycotting Zoos? Consider this first.

Dear Friend of the Animals,

Thank you for contacting us about our position on zoos.

PETA believes that animals who are meant to roam, fly or swim freely don't belong in captivity. Animals kept in zoos are denied everything that is natural and important to them – every aspect of their lives is controlled and managed. They are housed in cages that don't come close to the jungles, deserts or forests that are their natural homes. They have no choice in their diets, mates or living companions. What is a few fleeting moments of distraction for visitors means a lifetime of misery for the animals.

The physical and mental frustrations of captivity often lead to abnormal, neurotic and even self-destructive behaviour in animals, called "zoochosis". This mental illness is marked by symptoms such as pacing, neck-twisting, head-bobbing, bar-biting and other repetitive behaviour.

Oxford University researchers have concluded that animals who are wide-ranging by nature experience physical and mental anguish in captivity and should be phased out of zoos altogether. Big cats such as lions and tigers – who should be roaming vast territories – are often driven insane by the deprivation they experience in zoos. They know they aren't where they belong. In 2013, visitors to Edinburgh Zoo raised the alarm when a 7-year-old Amur leopard called Skodje was seen constantly pacing an enclosure measuring only 20 feet wide and 30 feet deep, which isn't much larger than a one-car garage.

Nevertheless, zoos continue to breed animals in order to produce crowd-pleasing babies and to bolster their inventories. Zoos tout their participation in species preservation, but the vast majority of animals displayed in zoos are not endangered. Zoo breeding programmes do nothing to help wild populations of endangered species since none of the captive-bred animals whose species face extinction in the wild – including elephants, polar bears, gorillas, tigers and chimpanzees – will ever be able to be released into their natural environments.

Furthermore, breeding programmes inevitably result in a surplus of less crowd-pleasing adult animals. There's never enough space for them all, so zoos routinely trade, loan, sell, barter and warehouse adult animals they no longer want. Others – such as the young giraffe Marius, who was infamously killed at Copenhagen Zoo in 2014 – are deemed too extraneous to live. The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria admitted that between 3,000 and 5,000 animals are "management-euthanised" in European zoos in any given year.

Species survival plans would be better titled "individual death plans". In the wake of Marius' undignified slaughter – which was performed with a shot to the head instead of a painless euthanasia injection so that his corpse could be fed to lions – the chief executive of Longleat Safari Park admitted that his zoo churned out lion cubs to "bring in more people" and a whistleblower there reported the killing of four cubs because of inbreeding.

Zoos are based on the menageries of old and hearken back to a time when Europeans used to pillage other continents and steal their treasures. Zookeepers today must recognise that their business model is dying and stop pretending that zoos make meaningful contributions to conservation. They should be at the forefront of the movement to target the root causes of extinction and the endangerment of animals all over the world: habitat destruction, poaching and the exotic-animal trade.

In 2007, when the Zoological Society of London spent £5.3 million on a new gorilla enclosure, Ian Redmond, the chief consultant to the United Nations' Great Apes Survival Partnership, lamented, "£5 [million] … for three gorillas when national parks are seeing that number killed every day for want of some Land Rovers, trained men and anti-poaching patrols. It must be very frustrating for the warden of a national park to see". The large sums of money spent on captive-breeding programmes and keeping animals in cages could instead be used for direct aid aimed at increasing the number of artificially created watering holes, developing community-based wildlife conservation programmes to increase the benefits of tourism, protecting vulnerable areas by erecting and maintaining fences and implementing other non-lethal conflict deterrents.

To learn more about ways to help animals – in zoos and elsewhere – please visit http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-are-not-ours-to-use-for-entertainment/zoos/.
Thanks for writing and for your concern for animals.

Sincerely,
Teodora

Teodora Zglimbea | Supporter Services Administrator
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
PO Box 70315
London N1P 2RG
Tel +44 (0) 20 7837 6327 ext 236
PETA.org.uk

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation – a charitable company limited by guarantee, with its registered office at 125 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5AS. Registered in England and Wales as charity number 1056453, company number 3135903
On Saturday, 24 September, I will swim 1 mile for PETA in the first-ever Swim Serpentine in Hyde Park. Please support me here: https://secure.peta.org.uk/p2p/teweop


========THE LAST EMAIL I SENT, ASKING FOR A COUNTERARGUMENT THAT WAS VALID. NEVER GOT A REPLY.===========
Re: Boycotting Zoos? Consider this first.
PK
Plague von Karma
  Reply|
Wed 21/09/2016, 17:58
PETAUKInfo ([email protected])
I'm sorry, but you clearly haven't read a single thing I have said.

In fact, you have blatantly ignored my points that EW-Class Animals do not have homes to return to (their habitats are either inundated with invasive species or don't exist anymore), and the fact that the animals you want released will be murdered by euthanasia.  Your point that all animals are meant to roam. Does that mean you should be campaigning against keeping reptiles as pets?

Please answer my original points, as you have so far ruined your credibility to me. You have sidestepped every single one of the most important ones like a pitiful politician. Please, campaign for zoos to have larger enclosures, as I said in my original message. Also, please do re-read it fully. I don't want you to ignore the minority animals that cannot survive on their own, and for the millions of animals that will die if a zoo is brought to bankruptcy.

I do hope you will actually read my original email in full and answer every point in the future.