Whale Shark at Display

September 11, 2008

Raja, while AnimalNepal is now in a period of transformation, with all new

board members, I can speak for the old guard: we condemn the holding of any

animal against their will for the purpose of exhibition, ³conservation,²

experimentation, etc.. This would include zoos, contained/managed wildlife

safaris, and aquariums. I am not aware of the Whale Shark situation u speak

of, so can¹t comment, but so called conservationists who want to make a buck

off these animals should be thrown in the tank instead. I googled

RSQ+Whale+Shark and only came up with this:

http://travel.msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799

Here¹s a damning quote from that travelogue:

" There's a chance these animals can become stressed because of the increase

in the amount of people in their environments, " said Lori Marino, an Emory

University biologist who studies whale biology. " Not only can it affect

their physical health, but their mental health. And we don't know how much

stress this puts on the animals or how they could respond. "

How many years in university does it take one biologist to learn that a

whale shark is not going to like being put in a tanks filled with humans?

Duh. Of course, you will always read reports that these creatures love their

belly being rubbed just like my German Sheppard does. Right. Perhaps they

are just content in the fact that they are not getting harpooned like some

many of their relatives.

In 2007 Ralph and Norton (named after low class characters of an American

sitcom) died in captivity in the Georgia Aquarium. Norton was euthanized

because he stopped eating and started lying around on the bottom of the tank

all day instead of performing for visitors. Ralph died from tank cleaning

chemicals that inflamed his abdomen (read poisoned). Personally, I would

have rather been harpooned.

Cheers,

Jigs,

Advisor

Www.animalnepal.org

On 9/10/08 11:02 AM, " raja chatterjee " <rajachatterjee1 wrote:

>

> Dear AAPN Friends,

>

> RSW's practice to keep Whale Shark in Captivity is squarely condemned across

> the world. But since it brings fast money from tourists

> around the world and in absence of right kind of Law of the Land in

> Singapore, it would be a long journey for the conservation groups to stop

> this menace quickly. Instead to put pressure in a more practical and

> ballanced way, the conservation groups may raise a voice to put them on

> public display i.e. sharks for a specific period instead of keeping them

> captive for good. After the agreed on time is over, the Whale Sharks may be

> released into the wild. I would like to hear more debating voices on the

> issue.

>

> Regards

>

> Raja Chatterjee

> Secretary, THE JUNGLEES

>

September 12, 2008

Dear Herojig,

I strongly believe that in a better and humane conditions the open air Zoos

only can exist to serve the academic and educational purpose for the

students community and also towards carrying out conservation campaign by

showing the species as to how righteous it w'd be to let them survive in

the wildlife reserves, National Parks and Sanctuaries across the world.

Unless people see them, it would be hard to convince the next generation

about the importance to protect the wildlife or animal rights.

Please remember that many great men sacrificed their lives for the

betterment of civilization on countless issues and ways, since time

immemorial. So the temporal display of animals in cage can serve a purpose

more effectively than putting off the shows altogether and allowing myths

and superstitions to do its rounds while hunting go unabated all over the

world.

Regards

Raja Chatterjee

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Herojig <herojig wrote:

> Raja, while AnimalNepal is now in a period of transformation, with all new

> board members, I can speak for the old guard: we condemn the holding of any

> animal against their will for the purpose of exhibition, " conservation, "

> experimentation, etc.. This would include zoos, contained/managed wildlife

> safaris, and aquariums. I am not aware of the Whale Shark situation u speak

> of, so can't comment, but so called conservationists who want to make a buck

> off these animals should be thrown in the tank instead. I googled

> RSQ+Whale+Shark and only came up with this:

>

> http://travel.msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799

>

> Here's a damning quote from that travelogue:

> " There's a chance these animals can become stressed because of the increase

> in the amount of people in their environments, " said Lori Marino, an Emory

> University biologist who studies whale biology. " Not only can it affect

> their physical health, but their mental health. And we don't know how much

> stress this puts on the animals or how they could respond. "

>

> How many years in university does it take one biologist to learn that a

> whale shark is not going to like being put in a tanks filled with humans?

> Duh. Of course, you will always read reports that these creatures love

> their belly being rubbed just like my German Sheppard does. Right. Perhaps

> they are just content in the fact that they are not getting harpooned like

> some many of their relatives.

>

> In 2007 Ralph and Norton (named after low class characters of an American

> sitcom) died in captivity in the Georgia Aquarium. Norton was euthanized

> because he stopped eating and started lying around on the bottom of the tank

> all day instead of performing for visitors. Ralph died from tank cleaning

> chemicals that inflamed his abdomen (read poisoned). Personally, I would

> have rather been harpooned.

>

> Cheers,

> Jigs,

> Advisor

> Www.animalnepal.org <http://www.animalnepal.org/>

>

> On 9/10/08 11:02 AM, " raja chatterjee " <rajachatterjee1 wrote:

>

> Dear AAPN Friends,

>

> RSW's practice to keep Whale Shark in Captivity is squarely condemned

> across

> the world. But since it brings fast money from tourists

> around the world and in absence of right kind of Law of the Land in

> Singapore, it would be a long journey for the conservation groups to stop

> this menace quickly. Instead to put pressure in a more practical and

> ballanced way, the conservation groups may raise a voice to put them on

> public display i.e. sharks for a specific period instead of keeping them

> captive for good. After the agreed on time is over, the Whale Sharks may be

> released into the wild. I would like to hear more debating voices on the

> issue.

>

> Regards

>

> Raja Chatterjee

> Secretary, THE JUNGLEES

>

September 12, 2008

Dear Raja,

I am sorry that I cannot agree with you as to the " educational " value of

zoos.

There is, in my opinion, only one valid reason for such places to exist

and that is

for the captive breeding of endangered species.

Most so called zoos are sub-standard menageries which must be closed

down.

I am afraid that Herojigs is absolutely correct in what he has stated.

Regards.

S. Chinny Krishna

aapn [aapn ] On Behalf Of

raja chatterjee

12 September 2008 11:01

Herojig

Re: Whale Shark at Display

Dear Herojig,

I strongly believe that in a better and humane conditions the open air

Zoos

only can exist to serve the academic and educational purpose for the

students community and also towards carrying out conservation campaign

by

showing the species as to how righteous it w'd be to let them survive in

the wildlife reserves, National Parks and Sanctuaries across the world.

Unless people see them, it would be hard to convince the next generation

about the importance to protect the wildlife or animal rights.

Please remember that many great men sacrificed their lives for the

betterment of civilization on countless issues and ways, since time

immemorial. So the temporal display of animals in cage can serve a

purpose

more effectively than putting off the shows altogether and allowing

myths

and superstitions to do its rounds while hunting go unabated all over

the

world.

Regards

Raja Chatterjee

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Herojig <herojig (AT) gmail (DOT)

<herojig%40gmail.com> com> wrote:

> Raja, while AnimalNepal is now in a period of transformation, with all

new

> board members, I can speak for the old guard: we condemn the holding

of any

> animal against their will for the purpose of exhibition,

" conservation, "

> experimentation, etc.. This would include zoos, contained/managed

wildlife

> safaris, and aquariums. I am not aware of the Whale Shark situation u

speak

> of, so can't comment, but so called conservationists who want to make

a buck

> off these animals should be thrown in the tank instead. I googled

> RSQ+Whale+Shark and only came up with this:

>

> http://travel.

<http://travel.msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799>

msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799

>

> Here's a damning quote from that travelogue:

> " There's a chance these animals can become stressed because of the

increase

> in the amount of people in their environments, " said Lori Marino, an

Emory

> University biologist who studies whale biology. " Not only can it

affect

> their physical health, but their mental health. And we don't know how

much

> stress this puts on the animals or how they could respond. "

>

> How many years in university does it take one biologist to learn that

a

> whale shark is not going to like being put in a tanks filled with

humans?

> Duh. Of course, you will always read reports that these creatures love

> their belly being rubbed just like my German Sheppard does. Right.

Perhaps

> they are just content in the fact that they are not getting harpooned

like

> some many of their relatives.

>

> In 2007 Ralph and Norton (named after low class characters of an

American

> sitcom) died in captivity in the Georgia Aquarium. Norton was

euthanized

> because he stopped eating and started lying around on the bottom of

the tank

> all day instead of performing for visitors. Ralph died from tank

cleaning

> chemicals that inflamed his abdomen (read poisoned). Personally, I

would

> have rather been harpooned.

>

> Cheers,

> Jigs,

> Advisor

> Www.animalnepal.org <http://www.animalne <http://www.animalnepal.org/>

pal.org/>

>

> On 9/10/08 11:02 AM, " raja chatterjee " <rajachatterjee1@

<rajachatterjee1%40gmail.com> gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Dear AAPN Friends,

>

> RSW's practice to keep Whale Shark in Captivity is squarely condemned

> across

> the world. But since it brings fast money from tourists

> around the world and in absence of right kind of Law of the Land in

> Singapore, it would be a long journey for the conservation groups to

stop

> this menace quickly. Instead to put pressure in a more practical and

> ballanced way, the conservation groups may raise a voice to put them

on

> public display i.e. sharks for a specific period instead of keeping

them

> captive for good. After the agreed on time is over, the Whale Sharks

may be

> released into the wild. I would like to hear more debating voices on

the

> issue.

>

> Regards

>

> Raja Chatterjee

> Secretary, THE JUNGLEES

>

September 12, 2008

<<<Unless people see them, it would be hard to convince the next generation

about the importance to protect the wildlife or animal rights.>>>

I have to respectfully disagree too.

Consider the fact that Japan has 50 dolphinariums. People see the captive

dolphins everyday.

50 dolphinariums translates into millions of people who have seen the dolphin

show and are now educated and " convinced to protect wildlife and animal rights " .

The largest dolphin slaughter on the earth is going on right under their nose

and yet very little is being done to stop it. The dolphinariums and zoos in

Japan do nothing to stop the slaughter - neither does JAZA or WAZA.

The captivity industry is all about money and jobs - not education.

-- ric o'barry

www.SaveJapanDolphins.org

-

Dr.Chinny Krishna

'raja chatterjee' ; 'Herojig'

Cc: aapn

Friday, September 12, 2008 6:19 AM

RE: Whale Shark at Display

Dear Raja,

I am sorry that I cannot agree with you as to the " educational " value of

zoos.

There is, in my opinion, only one valid reason for such places to exist

and that is

for the captive breeding of endangered species.

Most so called zoos are sub-standard menageries which must be closed

down.

I am afraid that Herojigs is absolutely correct in what he has stated.

Regards.

S. Chinny Krishna

aapn [aapn ] On Behalf Of

raja chatterjee

12 September 2008 11:01

Herojig

Re: Whale Shark at Display

Dear Herojig,

I strongly believe that in a better and humane conditions the open air

Zoos

only can exist to serve the academic and educational purpose for the

students community and also towards carrying out conservation campaign

by

showing the species as to how righteous it w'd be to let them survive in

the wildlife reserves, National Parks and Sanctuaries across the world.

Unless people see them, it would be hard to convince the next generation

about the importance to protect the wildlife or animal rights.

Please remember that many great men sacrificed their lives for the

betterment of civilization on countless issues and ways, since time

immemorial. So the temporal display of animals in cage can serve a

purpose

more effectively than putting off the shows altogether and allowing

myths

and superstitions to do its rounds while hunting go unabated all over

the

world.

Regards

Raja Chatterjee

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Herojig <herojig (AT) gmail (DOT)

<herojig%40gmail.com> com> wrote:

> Raja, while AnimalNepal is now in a period of transformation, with all

new

> board members, I can speak for the old guard: we condemn the holding

of any

> animal against their will for the purpose of exhibition,

" conservation, "

> experimentation, etc.. This would include zoos, contained/managed

wildlife

> safaris, and aquariums. I am not aware of the Whale Shark situation u

speak

> of, so can't comment, but so called conservationists who want to make

a buck

> off these animals should be thrown in the tank instead. I googled

> RSQ+Whale+Shark and only came up with this:

>

> http://travel.

<http://travel.msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799>

msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799

>

> Here's a damning quote from that travelogue:

> " There's a chance these animals can become stressed because of the

increase

> in the amount of people in their environments, " said Lori Marino, an

Emory

> University biologist who studies whale biology. " Not only can it

affect

> their physical health, but their mental health. And we don't know how

much

> stress this puts on the animals or how they could respond. "

>

> How many years in university does it take one biologist to learn that

a

> whale shark is not going to like being put in a tanks filled with

humans?

> Duh. Of course, you will always read reports that these creatures love

> their belly being rubbed just like my German Sheppard does. Right.

Perhaps

> they are just content in the fact that they are not getting harpooned

like

> some many of their relatives.

>

> In 2007 Ralph and Norton (named after low class characters of an

American

> sitcom) died in captivity in the Georgia Aquarium. Norton was

euthanized

> because he stopped eating and started lying around on the bottom of

the tank

> all day instead of performing for visitors. Ralph died from tank

cleaning

> chemicals that inflamed his abdomen (read poisoned). Personally, I

would

> have rather been harpooned.

>

> Cheers,

> Jigs,

> Advisor

> Www.animalnepal.org <http://www.animalne <http://www.animalnepal.org/>

pal.org/>

>

> On 9/10/08 11:02 AM, " raja chatterjee " <rajachatterjee1@

<rajachatterjee1%40gmail.com> gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Dear AAPN Friends,

>

> RSW's practice to keep Whale Shark in Captivity is squarely condemned

> across

> the world. But since it brings fast money from tourists

> around the world and in absence of right kind of Law of the Land in

> Singapore, it would be a long journey for the conservation groups to

stop

> this menace quickly. Instead to put pressure in a more practical and

> ballanced way, the conservation groups may raise a voice to put them

on

> public display i.e. sharks for a specific period instead of keeping

them

> captive for good. After the agreed on time is over, the Whale Sharks

may be

> released into the wild. I would like to hear more debating voices on

the

> issue.

>

> Regards

>

> Raja Chatterjee

> Secretary, THE JUNGLEES

>

September 12, 2008

Great example on this point ric. Big cats would be another. The collective

we have made such a mess of that, and it all began back in the ³Born Free²

days of conservationism. Human interference with this breed has just brought

chaos to untold numbers of animals, all under the guise of protection.

Imagine what it would be like today if during the 60¹s more folks & large

orgs had advocated and spent 100% of their resources on preserving habit,

and then working with governments to have all zoos deplete their stock thru

bans on import and captive breeding, perhaps encouraging them to invest in

traditional wildlife habitats as ³nature zoos.² It could have been done,

and the results of not doing so was foretold, and now in the 2000¹s we have

tigers getting loose and eating zoo patrons and Vegas stars, and all breeds

of wild animals being bought and sold and rehashed from traditional zoos to

³preserves² to hunting safari ³parks² to heck even people¹s apartments. All

the while the natural homes for animals is dwindling down to discreet bits

between human homes.

³Don¹t it always seem to go you don¹t know what you got till it¹s gone/They

paved paradise to put up a parking lot/They took all the trees, put Œem in a

tree museum/And charged people a dollar and half just to see Œem.²

-- Joni Mitchell, from ³Big Yellow Taxi,² written in 1970.

On 9/12/08 7:50 PM, " Richard O'Barry " <ricobarry wrote:

> <<<Unless people see them, it would be hard to convince the next generation

> about the importance to protect the wildlife or animal rights.>>>

>

> I have to respectfully disagree too.

>

> Consider the fact that Japan has 50 dolphinariums. People see the captive

> dolphins everyday.

>

> 50 dolphinariums translates into millions of people who have seen the dolphin

> show and are now educated and " convinced to protect wildlife and animal

> rights " . The largest dolphin slaughter on the earth is going on right under

> their nose and yet very little is being done to stop it. The dolphinariums and

> zoos in Japan do nothing to stop the slaughter - neither does JAZA or WAZA.

>

> The captivity industry is all about money and jobs - not education.

>

> -- ric o'barry

> www.SaveJapanDolphins.org <http://www.SaveJapanDolphins.org>

>

>>

>> -

>>

>> Dr.Chinny Krishna <drkrishna

>>

>> 'raja chatterjee' <rajachatterjee1 ; 'Herojig'

>> <herojig

>>

>> Cc: aapn

>>

>> Friday, September 12, 2008 6:19 AM

>>

>> RE: Whale Shark at Display

>>

>> Dear Raja,

>>

>> I am sorry that I cannot agree with you as to the " educational " value of

>> zoos.

>>

>> There is, in my opinion, only one valid reason for such places to exist

>> and that is

>> for the captive breeding of endangered species.

>>

>> Most so called zoos are sub-standard menageries which must be closed

>> down.

>> I am afraid that Herojigs is absolutely correct in what he has stated.

>>

>> Regards.

>>

>> S. Chinny Krishna

>>

>> aapn [aapn ] On Behalf Of

>> raja chatterjee

>> 12 September 2008 11:01

>> Herojig

>> Re: Whale Shark at Display

>>

>> Dear Herojig,

>> I strongly believe that in a better and humane conditions the open air

>> Zoos

>> only can exist to serve the academic and educational purpose for the

>> students community and also towards carrying out conservation campaign

>> by

>> showing the species as to how righteous it w'd be to let them survive in

>> the wildlife reserves, National Parks and Sanctuaries across the world.

>>

>> Unless people see them, it would be hard to convince the next generation

>> about the importance to protect the wildlife or animal rights.

>>

>> Please remember that many great men sacrificed their lives for the

>> betterment of civilization on countless issues and ways, since time

>> immemorial. So the temporal display of animals in cage can serve a

>> purpose

>> more effectively than putting off the shows altogether and allowing

>> myths

>> and superstitions to do its rounds while hunting go unabated all over

>> the

>> world.

>>

>> Regards

>>

>> Raja Chatterjee

>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Herojig <herojig (AT) gmail (DOT)

>> <herojig%40gmail.com> com> wrote:

>>

>>> > Raja, while AnimalNepal is now in a period of transformation, with all

>> new

>>> > board members, I can speak for the old guard: we condemn the holding

>> of any

>>> > animal against their will for the purpose of exhibition,

>> " conservation, "

>>> > experimentation, etc.. This would include zoos, contained/managed

>> wildlife

>>> > safaris, and aquariums. I am not aware of the Whale Shark situation u

>> speak

>>> > of, so can't comment, but so called conservationists who want to make

>> a buck

>>> > off these animals should be thrown in the tank instead. I googled

>>> > RSQ+Whale+Shark and only came up with this:

>>> >

>>> > http://travel.

>> <http://travel.msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799>

>> msn.com/Guides/article.aspx?cp-documentid=527799

>>> >

>>> > Here's a damning quote from that travelogue:

>>> > " There's a chance these animals can become stressed because of the

>> increase

>>> > in the amount of people in their environments, " said Lori Marino, an

>> Emory

>>> > University biologist who studies whale biology. " Not only can it

>> affect

>>> > their physical health, but their mental health. And we don't know how

>> much

>>> > stress this puts on the animals or how they could respond. "

>>> >

>>> > How many years in university does it take one biologist to learn that

>> a

>>> > whale shark is not going to like being put in a tanks filled with

>> humans?

>>> > Duh. Of course, you will always read reports that these creatures love

>>> > their belly being rubbed just like my German Sheppard does. Right.

>> Perhaps

>>> > they are just content in the fact that they are not getting harpooned

>> like

>>> > some many of their relatives.

>>> >

>>> > In 2007 Ralph and Norton (named after low class characters of an

>> American

>>> > sitcom) died in captivity in the Georgia Aquarium. Norton was

>> euthanized

>>> > because he stopped eating and started lying around on the bottom of

>> the tank

>>> > all day instead of performing for visitors. Ralph died from tank

>> cleaning

>>> > chemicals that inflamed his abdomen (read poisoned). Personally, I

>> would

>>> > have rather been harpooned.

>>> >

>>> > Cheers,

>>> > Jigs,

>>> > Advisor

>>> > Www.animalnepal.org <http://www.animalne <http://www.animalnepal.org/>

>> pal.org/>

>>> >

>>> > On 9/10/08 11:02 AM, " raja chatterjee " <rajachatterjee1@

>> <rajachatterjee1%40gmail.com> gmail.com> wrote:

>>> >

>>> > Dear AAPN Friends,

>>> >

>>> > RSW's practice to keep Whale Shark in Captivity is squarely condemned

>>> > across

>>> > the world. But since it brings fast money from tourists

>>> > around the world and in absence of right kind of Law of the Land in

>>> > Singapore, it would be a long journey for the conservation groups to

>> stop

>>> > this menace quickly. Instead to put pressure in a more practical and

>>> > ballanced way, the conservation groups may raise a voice to put them

>> on

>>> > public display i.e. sharks for a specific period instead of keeping

>> them

>>> > captive for good. After the agreed on time is over, the Whale Sharks

>> may be

>>> > released into the wild. I would like to hear more debating voices on

>> the

>>> > issue.

>>> >

>>> > Regards

>>> >

>>> > Raja Chatterjee

>>> > Secretary, THE JUNGLEES

>>> >

>>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>> >

>>> > -- Paul Reitman, CEO

>>> > Phoenix Studios Nepal

>>> > Mobile: 9841589797

>>> >

>>> > www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

>>> >

>>

>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>

>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>

>

-- Paul Reitman, CEO

Phoenix Studios Nepal

Mobile: 9841589797

www.phoenixstudios.com.np/corporate

September 12, 2008

>I am sorry that I cannot agree with you as to the " educational " value of zoos.

My own lifelong interest in animals attests in the opposite

direction. The only animals I ever saw at all until about age eight,

when my family kept a cat for about six months, were at the San

Francisco and Oakland zoos, and the long defunct Tilden Park and

Live Oak Park mini-zoos, which would be considered severely

substandard today. Even in childhood I was well aware of the

deficiencies of many zoos, but my treasured interactions with zoo

animals, on the special occasions when I could visit a zoo, were

the beginnings of my life's work.

To this day I have very little interest in screen depictions

of animals. Even the best-made screen production lacks the

interactivity of any direct experience with an actual animal -- or,

for that matter, a long-dead fossil. Fossils often hold my

attention for much longer than images on a screen.

>There is, in my opinion, only one valid reason for such places to exist

>and that is for the captive breeding of endangered species.

This is not something that zoos have ever done very well,

despite decades of effort. There have been about a dozen instances

where zoological breeding significantly contributed to the recovery

of endangered species, almost all involving North American native

species, and many dozens of failures.

What zoos could & should be doing is serving as community

wildlife rescue & rehabilitation centers. Zoos these days don't need

to be breeding or capturing animals from the wild to maintain

wonderful collections, and the restricted size of many zoo

facilities is better suited to housing injured or disabled animals

than animals who are capable of living normal lives in the wild.

The Indian zoos that operate retirement facilities for former

circus animals are among those pointing the way -- except that the

retirement facilities are not open to the public. Retired circus

animals and other formerly captive animals who are brought into

rescue centers are often more thoroughly habituated to the presence

of humans than to the presence of others of their own species. Those

who show a continuing interest in interacting with humans are

psychologically better off if they continue to have the interaction.

>Most so called zoos are sub-standard menageries which must be closed

>down.

If we followed that same logic with regard to animal

shelters, most are also substandard animal warehouses which also

should be closed down. I have seen well over 100 zoos worldwide,

and many more humane society animal shelters, & even the worst zoos

provided better facilities to the relatively few animals in their

care than the majority of the humane societies.

The cramped and often inappropriate nature of animal shelter

housing is somewhat less of a problem than it might be because most

shelters are keeping each animal in the inappropriate conditions only

temporarily.

On the other hand, the standards of animal housing at zoos

and animal shelters tend to set the acceptable norms for their

communities, by example, and the average pet would be much better

off kept according to zoo norms than the shelter norms that prevail

where dogs are housed singly in dark, narrow cement runs with

nothing to do but bark, and cats are kept in cells the size of

microwave ovens.

This is still the norm for the majority of animal shelters

worldwide, & until the animal advocacy community succeeds in

substantially improving these conditions, animal advocates are in a

poor position from which to make arguments that zoos should be shut

down due to cramped and barren housing.

Obviously zoo animal facilities need to be improved, right

around the world. On the other hand, I have seen vastly more

interest and enthusiasm from the zoo community for improving animal

facilities than from most of the humane community, whose new

shelters tend to still be built to centuries-old designs even decades

after some shelters showed significantly better ways.

Hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't proudly send me

photos of a new shelter that consists of dog runs modeled after

medieval horse stalls or group housing where dogs will soon kill each

other because they have no way to establish discreet territories,

and cat housing that wouldn't meet even U.S. laboratory housing

standards.

Considering that animal shelters handle thousands of times

more animals than zoos, shelter improvement is really where the most

opportunity exists to reduce suffering due to improper confinement.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

September 13, 2008

Nothing less than a ten year ban on human population on this Earth will the

wildlives and others are back.

Zoos and other form of entertainments are a form of earning money . How can we

call

it an education and awareness when the reality is not shown. People and

children will

learn from the practicals but not from the signboards displayed in front of the

kennel of

a tiger.

As all the hills and forest are getting occupied under various schemes and deals

by one

mode or the other without any scant respect to the species existence , it is

only a matter

of time that nothing will be left.

Even sparrows and crows are hard to find .

It is human versus the other living ones. The big question is can humans live

without them or can they live without humans. The answer you all know.

Best,

Pradep.

--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Herojig <herojig wrote:

Herojig <herojig

Re: Whale Shark at Display

" Richard O'Barry " <ricobarry, " 'raja chatterjee' "

<rajachatterjee1, " Jigme Gaton " <herojig, " Dr.Chinny

Krishna " <drkrishna

Cc: aapn

Friday, September 12, 2008, 9:51 PM