# Zoo and Pet shop clash...



## bothrops (Jan 7, 2007)

discuss....


North West Evening Mail | News | Fur flies as Dalton zoo boss hits out over exotic pet shop



Despite genuine good intentions, Pet shops selling exotics mammals (i.e. specifically as a business enterprise) leads inevitably to single meerkats running around with the dog and marmosets on their own in a parrot cage eating marshmallows and lollipops......


...or hypocritical zoo decides its ok for them to make money from keeping exotic animals, as long as no-one else does.......




(I think I'm somewhere in the middle myself!)


----------



## Chris18 (Mar 22, 2009)

All people who contest the keeping of pets use the same argument...

Some people keep them really bad, but then they fail to mention more people tend to keep them in excellent conditions.
As long as they're sold and homed responsibly by that pet shop they don't have anything to attack them for in my opinion.


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

I've met her....nice lady. And she has the tiniest adult skunk (Pixie) I've ever met!

Without passing comment on the rights and wrongs of both arguments given in the article, those "contracts" won't be worth the paper they've been written on! And seriously NW evening mail....use a spellchecker!


----------



## philipniceguy (Mar 31, 2008)

it's all the same :whip:. most keep them well, a handfull don't. it's funny you never see in the news about the thousands of animals "zoos" (even uk zoos) distroy simply because they have "no room" in zoos for them, HELLO zoos are ment to breed them to let some back into the wild not detroy them :bash: gene pools so on is always talked about but rarely do you hear they have got ......... animals back in the wild now the numbers are growing . sadly zoos are in it for money, so are pet shops. they are one of the same. Zoos don't like the idea because people keep the "exotics" they have, and forget that alot of the owners and keepers also keep pets themselfs. The zoo owner has more pets than any private keeper, they just call them selfs zoos, still animals kept in cages and fed, watered, enriched daily (hopefully) as any good private keeper does with there own "pets".


----------



## readingsnakes1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Personally I don't agree with the zoo at all. Most zoo animals are untamed and dangerous. So does this mean racoons should be banned from zoos too ? All sorts of animals are kept as pets, its ridiculous that they are so against this pet shop. Hamsters are sold in pet shops.. they bite and become aggressive, the argument is useless as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## duffey (Mar 1, 2012)

One can safely say that Mr Gill of South Lakes is a first class hypocrite - and a hypocrite with a lousy track record.

Mr Gill's past history in Australia requires investigation, as does his records of losses (including numerous Lemurs in a fire!) and escapes!

A friend once worked for Gill - not a pleasant experience! Red Pandas escaped frequently because repairs to housing were not done!

Frankly feel that Pet Shops should ONLY sell Rabbits & Hamsters - most Pet Shops do not have the knowledge to provide for Exotics - but regrettably most Pet Shops (and many private keepers!) sell animals purely for profit!


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

There are more tigers in captivity in the United States (an estimated 5,000) than there are in the wild (as few as 3,200). The vast majority of captive tigers in the U.S. reside in private hands, not in accredited zoos or circuses...

private keepers must not know what they're doing....


:whistling2:

i'm just saying...


----------



## duffey (Mar 1, 2012)

Habu,

Good point - but many of the US tigers are not pure-bred sub-species - great to look at, but no b***5y good for breeding! A friend who lived in Dallas (still returns there every two weeks) sees a Tiger being taken for a walk quite regularly!

A number of Exotic species are being kept and bred privately in US - we can learn from them!

If UK (& European) Zoos were more willing to work with the private sector, both sides - and the animals - would benefit! Regrettably both UK & European Federations are so short-sighted they block the transfer of stock to the private sector.

Some years ago I attended a 2 day seminar on Doves & Passerine Birds at Bristol Zoo as a 'private individual' but in the company of a Curator of a Bird collection. The ordinary zoo keepers were fine, but the majority of senior staff had a remarkable sense of self-importance which carries over to the 'governing bodies'!

If Zoos were willing to work with the private sector, allowing surplus animals to be passed to the private sector, then Pet Shops would not be in a position to profit!


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

duffey said:


> Habu,
> 
> Good point - but many of the US tigers are not pure-bred sub-species - great to look at, but no b***5y good for breeding!


That's very true....was watching that Louis Theroux doc again the other day about dangerous pets. That ******* idiot that was breeding his tigers: "I don't care if it's bengalese and a......whatever. If it's a tiiiiger mating with a tiiiiiger, you get a f:censor:ing baby tiiiiiger!" What a :censor:!


----------



## philipniceguy (Mar 31, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> That's very true....was watching that Louis Theroux doc again the other day about dangerous pets. That ******* idiot that was breeding his tigers: "I don't care if it's bengalese and a......whatever. If it's a tiiiiger mating with a tiiiiiger, you get a f:censor:ing baby tiiiiiger!" What a :censor:!


thats the main problem with private keepers. Zoos will insure no inbreeding goes on. not always the case with private keepers BUT this could still change with zoos working with private keepers. they could do DNA checks so on then go from there, share stock / surplus rather than destroying perfectly healthy animals. The one thing zoos SHOULD do is breed to insure wild stock does not die out and I feel they do very little if anything towards this "goal". Which is a real shame as they get the money to fund this and some also have the space for a "select" few to be brought up away from humans to "help" make them more wild so they can go back there


----------



## mrcriss (Nov 2, 2010)

philipniceguy said:


> thats the main problem with private keepers. Zoos will insure no inbreeding goes on. not always the case with private keepers BUT this could still change with zoos working with private keepers. they could do DNA checks so on then go from there, share stock / surplus rather than destroying perfectly healthy animals. The one thing zoos SHOULD do is breed to insure wild stock does not die out and I feel they do very little if anything towards this "goal". Which is a real shame as they get the money to fund this and some also have the space for a "select" few to be brought up away from humans to "help" make them more wild so they can go back there


True....I think some of the incentive to work together could also come from private keepers aswell though. Some private keepers keep very rare animals with no intention of getting involved in these properly managed breeding programmes. I think it would take a little compromise and backing down from both sides of the pond, but it seems that everyone is reluctant to do so for whatever reason. That's a shame.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

the zoos are often very snobbish... thinking that only they have any right to keep wild animals... the antis are crusaders who want their will and opinions to be obeyed by all others in their self-righteousness...

the private keeper is vilified by the zoos, antis and a press that seeks to inflame the public...


joe public generally is a low-information critter that really doesn't know enough to even comment on the debate...

all i know is that everyone seeks to limit the rights of people... and that you have to fight them thoughtfully... otherwise they'll ban everything... including drinking straws...

like here... they could have banned big constrictors outright... but interstate sales was a good compromise...

these days few want to compromise....


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

duffey said:


> Habu,
> 
> Good point - but many of the US tigers are not pure-bred sub-species - great to look at, but no b***5y good for breeding! A friend who lived in Dallas (still returns there every two weeks) sees a Tiger being taken for a walk quite regularly!
> 
> ...


you saying the tigers here ain't pure








:lol2:


----------



## philipniceguy (Mar 31, 2008)

mrcriss said:


> True....I think some of the incentive to work together could also come from private keepers aswell though. Some private keepers keep very rare animals with no intention of getting involved in these properly managed breeding programmes. I think it would take a little compromise and backing down from both sides of the pond, but it seems that everyone is reluctant to do so for whatever reason. That's a shame.


your correct both sides could try but I think zoos are WAY WAY worse, I spoke to main zoo workers and most are fine, it's the "higher" people that have problems with everything "private". I know a few private keepers who keep some VERY rare animals (not on RFUK) of which they can't find a mate for other than zoos (not related to there one) but every zoo they contacted would not get involved at all. rather letting them wipe out:devil:


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Or maybe if they learned to let private keepers use the front door rather than the back and were more honest about what really goes on...
No matter how high a post they are in.
Disagree with the states.
Hppe we never get like that.
Im opposite.
They could learn from ovrr here.


----------



## kodakira (Jul 11, 2008)

PETERAROBERTSON said:


> Or maybe if they learned to let private keepers use the front door rather than the back and were more honest about what really goes on...
> No matter how high a post they are in.
> Disagree with the states.
> Hppe we never get like that.
> ...


Could not agree more with the comment about zoo's over here :2thumb:

Best Wishes

Neil


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

I just want to add that when we talk about 'why don't Zoos work with private keepers'.. who? what are you expecting? You think that BIAZA can simply start directing the Zoos to pass out their surplus to the first member of the public to apply?

Very naive.

Now if 'we' were an organisation instead of a bunch of individuals working individually, MAYBE we'd stick a chance at being taken seriously.

It is time to move on. I have begged and pleaded before for private keepers to unify and collaborate in their breeding efforts but British keepers were completely disinterested.

Threads like this make me smile because at least folks are starting to THINK about the POSSIBILITY of being taken seriously enough to catch up to modern public zoo's and their conservation efforts.

If the tide is changing and you, as a British exotics keeper think it is finally time to move on, here's your chance: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/exotic-mammals/867561-online-meeting-calling-every-exotic.html

To join together and form a society of exotics keepers IS the answer. We can fight the opposition because we have one authoratative voice. We can request that public collections begin to consider collaborating or working alongside our private ones. But only if we are a united organisation of keepers who can prove that we are breeding for genetic diversity, are serious about our hobby and strive to (and often do) out-perform public zoo efforts...

Together, we have countless amounts to offer. Individually, we are far too limited despite the best of intentions. 

Join the meeting.


----------



## animalsbeebee (May 19, 2008)

Lots of zoos sell stock to european brokers,who then i can purchase from,so in fact there is very little difference between zoos and private,apart from they profit from the animals both ways,breeding and viewing.
The trouble with some breeding programmes is you are dictated as to when you can breed your stock and where it is sent,personally spoke to several people about binturong breeding programmes and were told too stay well clear.


----------



## Pouchie (Feb 9, 2008)

Being dictated to as to where to place your own private animals is ludicrous. In my opinion the only way to operate co-operative breeding programmes is to have one Studbook Manager for each species who works WITH the breeders and keepers of the animals involved. Because you have a common goal, breeding for diversity as a group is not rocket science. I've tried and tested it and achieved results up to 5th generation.

The problems come when trying to get enough dedicated keepers on board when the species population grows...


----------



## PETERAROBERTSON (Jul 2, 2008)

Have to agree with Dave on this one.
It already does go on when they need you.
Always complicated due to it not being out in the open.
And yes due to a third party being involved.(broker)

With regard to breeders unify and collaborate in there breeding programmes.
It already does happen.

In our area we all know whats going on and with who.
Allot of the time theres plans for when thining down troops etc.

I have never advertised anything for sale primate ways that is.
And neither has any of our collegues.

If hey are moving on then theres always a place for them..
Sometimes to a zoo as an exhibit on loan.

Pair made up between unrellated stock and often involving other keepers.

But its always looked on as being private and secrative when it comes to primates.
I dont think it is.

When you are serious about what you do.
Doing it in an ok manner.
Others seem to except you...
So you form a good group of individualls working together..


----------

