How is an animal sanctuary any different from a zoo? If zoos are slavery, then what does that make farm sanctuaries?

Not 100% my field of knowledge but zoos are basically human entertainment yeah they make conseravtion efforts but the intention is profit under the guise of conservation. Animal sanctuaries rely on donations and are born out of necessity.

Sorry, I don’t follow. Do they make conversation efforts, or are they just for profit? And why does making profit mean it’s slavery? Because it seems to me that you’re confusing zoos of the past with zoos of the present.

Sorry I wrote this in a rush, let me be clear I don’t know an awful lot about the subject but what I do know is that animals don’t do well in captivity and I wouldn’t necessarily describe zoos as slavery but shipping wild animals across the globe for “conservation” and then profiting of them by putting them on display raises a lot of red flags. It seems to me that effort would be better off used setting up reservations on natural habitats (imo)

Making a profit from an animal does not make it slavery, but it does make it exploitation. Animal sanctuaries exist solely for the purpose of taking care of animals who have been discarded by or rescued from animal agriculture industries; they never profit from animals. Animals in sanctuaries are there because there is nowhere else for them to go, that species or that individual cannot be released into the wild and so they need care. While some zoos are run by non-profit foundations, most still do turn a profit, and while there have been significant conservation success stories from zoos, an institution have always been primarily about human entertainment. You can read more about the problems with zoos in this excellent essay by Derrick Jensen.

I think that if the zoos take good care of the animals, then there isn’t a problem with it, because it’s not just about entertainment, it’s also about education. If children go to zoos and learn all about the animals there and the environmental issues surrounding their conservation, they’re more likely to care in the future. If a zoo does not take care of their animals (and I have seen and reported instances of this, but surprise surprise the local animal protection society didnt care…) then that is a big problem.

The issue with that is, if zoos are about education, they fail miserably at this task. Knowledge retention in visitors is abysmal and your average visitor only spends about thirty seconds to two minutes viewing any given exhibit, including reading any information signs. The majority of children studied show no change in learning or, worse, experienced negative learning during their trip to the zoo.

Animals in zoos also demonstrate vastly different behaviours than their wild counterparts, with many exhibiting repetitive stress behaviours, depression and increased aggression. This begs the question of what we can possibly learn about wild animals by observing the behaviour of their unhappy, stressed and atypically behaved captive counterparts. Biologists and animal behavioural experts routinely dismiss studies performed on captive animals as evidence of naturally occurring animal behaviour, because zoos present such a warped picture of animal behaviour and social interaction. Even a zoo which is “looking after their animals” is completely unable to provide anything even close to something resembling a wild habitat, and therefore the animals don’t behave anything like how they would in the wild either.

We don’t need to keep animals in glorified cages so that children can learn about them. TV documentaries like Planet Earth and Deep Blue Sea inspired generations of conservationists, all without holding animals captive for it. From watching a documentary like that they learn what animals actually look like in the wild, how they behave, and why it is better to let them live in their natural environments than lock them up, which is far more than they will ever learn by pointing at a caged animal at the zoo. Honestly, I’d really recommend reading the linked essay which addresses all of your points and more.

Animal rights activism https://www.defendanimals.com/vegan-shirts-C295673/

Is there still hope? :’(

The second tweet is citing the 2017 Guardian article “100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says - A relatively small number of fossil fuel producers and their investors could hold the key to tackling climate change.”

If the 80,000 people who reblogged this uncritically bothered to read their sources carefully and then take out a calculator they would find out that the meat industry is responsible for as many GHG emissions as 70 of these companies combined. 

You go from number 34 (Qatar Petroleum Corp - 0.54%) all the way down to number 100 (Southwestern Energy Co - 0.04%) and you get 14,5%*, which is the percentage of GHG emissions animal agriculture is responsible for.

*14.5% is if you don’t count the consumption of fossil fuel along the sector supply chains - it obviously doesn’t make sense to count it since that fossil fuel is produced by the companies listed in the article, so it’s already included in the 71% figure reported above. 

To be more precise, the livestock sector accounts for 14,5% percent of GHG emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. Livestock are responsible for much larger shares of some gases with far higher potential to warm the atmosphere. The sector emits 37 percent of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2) most of that from enteric fermentation by ruminants. It emits 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2), the great majority from manure. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds (64 percent) of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

Between 2010 and 2050, as a result of rising demand, these shares could increase by 50–90%: the environmental impacts of the food system will exceed the planetary boundaries for food-related GHG emissions by 110%, for cropland use by 70%, for bluewater use by 50%, for nitrogen application by 125%, and for phosphorus application by 75%. Some estimates suggest that meeting projected demands for livestock products alone will exceed the sustainability boundary condition for reactive nitrogen mobilization by 294%. This means the livestock sector alone will significantly overshoot recently published estimates of humanity’s “safe operating space”.

We could stop using all fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy today and even then, even if every single one of these 100 fucking companies were burned to the ground, we would still exceed the 1.5°C limit, just from raising animals for food.  

Barring unforseen technological breakthroughs worldwide animal product consumption at current North American per capita rates is utterly incompatible with a 1.5°C warming target. 

In addition to its effects on greenhouse gases, animal agriculture affects the environment by the conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture since, obviously, growing the crops used for feeding animals, such as soy and maize, eats up land. 26 percent of the earth’s terrestrial surface is used for livestock grazing. One-third of the planet’s arable land is occupied by livestock feed crop cultivation. 40% of our cereal production is not destined for human consumption, but for animal feed. So is 80% of Amazon soy.

Land use and habitat conversion are, in essence, a zero-sum game: land converted to agriculture to meet growing food demand comes from forests, grasslands, and other natural habitats. Consequently, cattle ranching is the largest driver of deforestation, accounting for 80% of current deforestation rates in South America. Seventy percent of Brazil’s deforested land is now used as pasture, with feed crop cultivation occupying much of the remainder. 

These numbers are, of course, the result of today’s meat consumption levels: If developing countries were to eat as much meat as developed countries per capita, the amount of agricultural land required worldwide would be about two thirds larger than today.

If any of the 80,000 people who agree with this post and think it is journalistic malpractice to encourage a reduction in meat consumption could enlight me as to where they plan on finding all this land without worsening deforestation, land degradation, and habitat loss, it is more pressing now than ever that they come forward with their ideas. Especially in light of the new UN report warning that “We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe”. From the Guardian:

1) The IPCC maps out four pathways to achieve 1.5C, with different combinations of land use and technological change. Reforestation is essential to all of them as are shifts to electric transport systems and greater adoption of carbon capture technology. 2) Although unexpectedly good progress has been made in the adoption of renewable energy, deforestation for agriculture was turning a natural carbon sink into a source of emissions. […] Reversing these trends is essential if the world has any chance of reaching 1.5C without relying on the untried technology of solar radiation modification and other forms of geo-engineering, which could have negative consequences.

To raise livestock also takes water: nearly one-third of the total water footprint of agriculture in the world is related to the production of animal products. The water footprint of a live animal consists of different components: the indirect water footprint of the feed and the direct water footprint related to the drinking water and service water consumed (service water refers to the water used to clean the farmyard, wash the animal and carry out other services necessary to maintain the environment). In Italy, for example, about 89% of our water footprint relates to consumption of agricultural products and 7% to industrial products. Nearly, half of the water footprint of Italian consumption is related to the consumption of animal products.  

An important distinction must be made here between water “use” and “consumption”. Hydroelectric power is one of the largest “users” of water in the USA, but actually consumes very little water. The water is used to power turbines or for cooling and is almost always returned to the source immediately. Agriculture is the largest “consumer” of water because it pulls water from the source and locks it up in products, not returning it to the source immediately, if ever.

Fishing also affects ecological processes at very large scale. The overall impact on aquatic systems has been described as comparable to that of agriculture on land. In fact, with the rise of commercial fishing methods marine animal populations are no longer able to replenish themselves fast enough. Between the 1950’s to 2011 worldwide catches increased 5 fold while the amount of fish in the sea was reduced by ½. Some scientists predict that we will see fishless oceans by 2048. 

The most obvious reason for the reduction of marine life is overfishing. 90-100 million tonnes of fish are pulled from our oceans each year, with some sources even estimating 150 million tonnes. ¾ of the world’s fisheries are exploited or depleted. But it’s not just the amount of fish being taken from the ocean for food that is the issue. there is also the method of species targeting. Humans tend to go after the biggest fish first until they are no longer available. Then they move on down the chain, a process marine biologist Daniel Pauly termed “fishing down marine food webs”. Over the last 50 years, the abundance of large predator fish, such as cod, swordfish and tuna, has dropped 90 percent. Fishing vessels now increasingly pursue the smaller forage fish, such as herrings, sardines, menhaden and anchovies, that are lower on the food chain. The removal of apex predators leads to what’s called “trophic downgrading” where the loss of predators allows other species to grow unimpeded, upsetting the entire ecosystem. One study suggests that the removal of sharks may contribute to climate change by leaving the unchecked numbers of species to feast on the ocean’s vegetation, releasing the ancient carbon found there in massive quantities. Dr. Peter Macreadie, one of the study’s authors, cautioned that “If we just lost 1 percent of the oceans’ blue carbon ecosystems, it would be equivalent to releasing 460 million tonnes of carbon annually, which is about the equivalent of about 97 million cars. It’s about equivalent to Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emissions.” With 73 million sharks killed every year for the shark fin industry and 40-50 million sharks dying every year as bycatch*, this is more than mere speculation.

* bycatch is a fish or other marine species that is caught unintentionally while catching certain target species and target sizes of fish, crabs etc. According to the FAO, for every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as bycatch.   

Even marine plastic is in large part a fishing issue. It turns out that 46 percent of the Great Pacific garbage patch is composed of discarded nets, and much of the rest consists of other kinds of fishing gear. To put this in perspective, things like plastic straws - which everyone seems so eager to eliminate - make up 0.03% of all marine plastic.

All these sources of global change will rival and significantly interact with climatic change in environmental and societal impacts. 

(sources)

Now, before anyone can misconstrue my argument, I 100% agree with the sentiment of that tweet. Our entire economic system needs to be turned upside down. Drastic changes - chief among them the discontinuation of the use of fossil fuels - are needed on an institutional level.

What’s my problem then, you might ask. It’s this: while that twitter guy and I might disagree on the importance of individuals taking the bus instead of driving, we both obviously acknowledge that the fossil fuels that power our cars are unsustainable. And I don’t have to wonder whether or not he would support further investments in public transport. I know he would. 

When it comes to animal products, though, I can never be so sure.

If I listen to what you’re saying, then it seems like you take issue with my telling individual consumers to eat less meat because you want to go straight to the government and after the corporations. You’d rather we demanded subsidies for plant-based foods, and policies that restrict the supply of animal products, and more investments in plant-based companies and lab-grown meat, perhaps even changes to school and workplace menus. In other words, you’d rather we held the government responsible for making delicious and nutritious plant-based food as available and convenient to the average consumer as junk food is today.

If that were your actual position, I’d be crying tears of joy. But you see, I’m not at all convinced that it is. ‘Cause your words are never backed up by actions.

If the biggest left-wing party in my country listed “reducing meat consumption” as one of their objectives, do not insult me by telling me that non-vegan “anti-capitalists” would vote for it. I know you wouldn’t, you know you wouldn’t, politicians know you wouldn’t. That’s why reducing meat consumption is not part of any political party’s objectives and it is never going to be unless this issue becomes a deal-breaker for the majority of their voters. 

That’s who consciousness raising need to start with, individual voters. Most voters are aware of the unsustainability of fossil fuels and would support reforms to reduce their use - perhaps grudgingly, but they would support them. The same cannot be said for animal products. The average citizen - even the average “anti-capitalist” - would not accept the government meddling with their diet. The meat lobby, powerful though it is, is not the only thing standing in the way, since as long as voters oppose a reform, there is no chance of it ever becoming law. Suggesting that we should back off individual consumers and go straight after giant corporations is completely out of touch with reality because it ignores this simple fact.

Furthermore, you may tweet about the futility of individual consumers taking the bus, but you then follow that up by letting politicians know that you want them to take care of electric cars and public transport. Do not tell me that non-vegan anti-capitalists are known for letting politicians know how concerned they are about animal agriculture. 

You don’t want us to leave you alone and go after corporations. You want us to leave you alone period. Most of you want to leave the livestock sector completely untouched and out of the discussion. 

That’s not possible. A global shift toward a plant-based diet is part of the institutional changes that need to take place to stop climate change. It’s not a nice little addition that we can survive without. It is an integral part of any serious climate change mitigation plan. 

This isn’t my opinion. It isn’t neoliberal propaganda. There is scientific consensus on this. In fact, there is not much difference between being a climate change denier and denying the role of animal agriculture in climate change. 

How come one study is all it takes to convince you that 100 companies are destroying the planet, but no number of studies is enough to convince that the livestock sector also plays a role??

It’s funny how quickly the faux concern for poor people gets abandoned when it’s poor vegans you’re talking to. Synthetic materials are almost always cheaper, but now we’re bad for buying them because they’re not environmentally friendly. High street fashion is more affordable than organic clothing, but that’s unethical too so now we’re hypocrites. Frozen fruit, canned veg and rice are cheap easy staples, but then apparently everything we eat is “rabbit food” and you pretend that’s the reason you aren’t vegan. Seems to me that you guys only care about being inclusive of the needs of poor people when you want to remind us for the one millionth time that not everyone can go vegan. Turns out it’s a different story entirely when the poor people in question aren’t those you can use as pawns in your half baked anti-vegan arguments.

Why? Just why? 

6 zoo myths that arent true

Most behaviors that you see keepers demonstrate at the zoo or aquarium are natural behaviors that the animals do in the wild. When the animals do them, the keepers give them a treat and pair it with a gesture or a word, so that they associate them, and eventually the word or gesture is enough to elicit the behavior because the animal knows that there’s a reward. But here’s the thing: most of those behaviors are encouraged because they help veterinarians and keepers do health checks.

Yeah, its cute when they nose boop the stick, but also keepers need to check their vision and depth perception and mobility. Sea lions are so cute when they wave! But vets and keepers need to check under those flippers to make sure that they’re healthy and that they don’t have any restrictions on their motion or cuts on their skin. Why do they ask animals to jump? Again, to make sure that they’re healthy, and also because its fun and animals LOVE to move around and jump and have fun, its mentally stimulating. 

This is the most important thing I will ever reblog and anyone who is still ignorant enough to think zoos are awful can fuck off my blog. Zoos are necessary. If you think otherwise please unfollow me because I don’t want you here.

This is super important for people to see. I have worked at a zoo and I can not tell you how many times I’ve had to defend the zoo for the good they do. People need to learn that zoos are actually helping save endangered species.

Remember: Sea World is not a zoo and doesn’t really care about animals unless they can make a profit. Fuck Sea World.

Alternatively, Busch Gardens does care for their animals.

It’s 2018 and tumblr still thinks keeping wild animals in captivity for entertainment is a good thing. Here we go.

From @acti-veg

Summary of The Born Free Foundation’s study into the conservation status of animals kept in Consortium of Charitable Zoos facilities, widely considered to be the gold standard of conservation in zoos:

From my own education as a conservation biologist and ecologist alumni:

In not one of my classes was it ever stated that zoos are fundamental to wildlife conservation. In fact, my biology conservation professor said captivity in zoos is very antithetical to the physical and mental health of large land mammals, especially elephants and big cats.

Animals, especially far-roaming species, exhibit stereotypical behavior in order to cope with their cramped, unnatural living conditions (i.e. bar biting, circling, pacing).

Rehabilitation programs only work when endangered species have an environment to return to (in many cases, they do not), and the most successful programs I have seen are in closed facilities - not zoos open to the public.

Human beings are causing the sixth mass extinction event, and zoos are not going to help stop global warming, deforestation, ocean acidification, or poaching. Zoos aren’t even a temporary stop-gap solution. It’s a feel-good option for people who want to stare at wild animals in an artificial environment.

Unlike wildlife sanctuaries, which put the animals’ welfare first and foremost, zoos place a large amount of importance on giftshop and ticket sales, and that prioritizes species that are easily identifiable to the public - not animals who are the most threatened.

Often low-risk and “popular” animal species, ones which the public recognize, are referred to as “charismatic megafauna” by people in the industry. These species are specifically chosen to house in zoos because they bring in ticket sales and media attention. It has nothing to do with saving endangered species.

Captive-breeding in zoos will only go so far, and it is estimated that relying on captive-bred animals only (and not capturing more from the wild) will only allow 100-years of breeding before the species becomes so inbred they are no longer genetically viable.

Zoos have been known to kill “surplus” animals.The vast majority of zoos DO NOT release animals back into the wild.

Sometimes zoos sell “surplus” animals to circuses, canned hunting facilities, or the exotic pet trade.Chances are, many of you have seen Blackfish and boycott SeaWorld. While that is admirable, zoos are simply an extension of the captive animal entertainment industry. Some zoos even make their animals perform tricks to the detriment of the animals.Do Zoos Really Teach Visitors Anything?

Zoos teach young children, as well as adults, that it is acceptable to keep animals in cages and pens for the rest of their lives, rather than live in their natural habitats.

Zoos are inherently cruel because profits come first, and animals cannot consent to captivity.

The fact of the matter is, you don’t need a BS in Conservation Biology to understand how placing wild animals in pens for us to pay money to look at sounds dubious and suspect. We need to use our critical thinking skills and stop being dogmatically worshipful of these institutions that profit from the captivity of sentient, living beings.

The pro-zoo circlejerk on Tumblr is so aggravating