These stories really fry my ass when I read them for so many reasons. Zoo's are meant to be educational, informative, and safe for visitors and animals alike. They are supposed to have the animal's health and well being looked after and are supposed to provide a clean, well maintained space for animals to live and roam while enclosed. Unfortunately, roadside zoos often disregard all of these things for the sake of profits. Small, cramped enclosures, lack of veterinary care, and animals that are obtained illegally are all common among these pop up zoos. With that in mind, this takes us to Indiana where PETA recently visited Maple Lane Wildlife Park and discovered a slew of problems regarding animal welfare.
What's especially interesting is that this is not the first time the USDA has been involved with Maple Lane. In 2011, they were slapped with official warnings regarding lack of veterinary care, lack of clean space for animals, and lack of maintained safe enclosures for animals. Considering all of these things, is it really surprising that PETA discovered what they did at this attraction? Not at all. Despite all of this, there's a much bigger picture here that needs to be addressed. With this and really any roadside zoo or attraction, it seems that there is a real problem with accountability. This roadside zoo in particular has apparently received official warnings several times since 2011 and yet here they are, operating without addressing a single issue. Animals continue to live in unsafe, dirty enclosures. They're apparently still lacking veterinary care and are still displaying signs of distress and emotional torment. So how does this happen? Things need to get a lot stricter and punishments must start being doled out to prevent further neglect and abuse. It's evident that the USDA is aware of the issues with this zoo but their warnings are falling on deaf ears. This investigation by PETA proves that since their original warnings in 2011, nothing has changed. What do these official warnings even mean as far as accountability? Clearly they're a problem under the law, so why is nothing being further done about these problems? 2011 - 2017 is a long time. That's 6 years that Maple Lane has been warned repeatedly and continued to operate at the same level. This is not acceptable by any means. In my opinion, there needs to be much more focus put on offering fines, punishments, and deadlines to rectify the problems. Had there been appropriate pressure put on Maple Lane in 2011, who's to say they'd even be operating at this point? Those animals could have been in a sanctuary somewhere by now if more had been done or at the very least cared for by a veterinarian. The USDA needs to step up their investigations and do more to ensure change.
What do you guys think? Do you think the USDA needs to step things up? Leave your comments on twitter, fb, or here of course!
HAPPY VEG
0 Comments
I became a Vegetarian 16 years ago, and since then I've eaten meat only 3 times with two out of the three times being a complete accident. (The other time involved too much booze mixed with excruciating hunger) My question here is why are they eating it when there are plenty of solutions to this miniscule problem. Solution number one is follow through with your commitment to animals and find a job as a vegetarian / vegan chef. Admittedly, I worked at KFC when I was younger and became a Vegetarian during that time. I wasn't as passionate as I am now and would never consider working in a kitchen that served meat. I haven't had anything to do with meat for years and would never compromise my beliefs for the sake of a job regardless of the pay. In my opinion, you can't truly be devoted to a vegetarian and cruelty free lifestyle while eating meat for the sake of a job. It's a bit of a hypocrisy if you ask me. Solution number two would be to have the second chef in command the designated taster. I understand it being the chef's kitchen and any bad food is a reflection on them but eating it is a direct compromise of the supposed beliefs they hold. If you have a staff that you truly trust and appreciate, how can you not put your trust in them to taste for the very things you claim to be tasting for. Frankly, it makes no sense to me that they would continue eating meat for any reason.
Anyone can be a vegetarian or vegan if they want, but without a passion for the lifestyle, it's quite obviously easy to compromise those beliefs.
What do you guys think? Would you be willing to compromise your beliefs for the sake of a job? I'd love to hear your thoughts! HAPPY VEG I found this story this morning and after reading it I realized it was right in line with everything I've been saying about animal cruelty charges. The story comes from the U.K. and it reports that almost 92% of animal cruelty convictions avoid jail time. It also reports that the current laws only see a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail which is the lowest in all of Europe. Knowing that very few cases see jail and that the maximum sentence is so miniscule, it is evident that there is a problem with the current system in the U.K.
With that being said, the same problems are happening here at home as I've reported in the past. Unfortunately, jail time doesn't accommodate convictions as often as it should and this is a real problem. Our punishments for convictions are harsher than those in the U.K but we will struggle to see jail time doled out as often as it should be in animal cruelty cases. The problem with this is without an example being set, these things are going to continue happening. Animal cruelty is a serious problem and unless it is treated as a serious problem, there is no deterrent from committing the crime. Laws are put in place to deter someone from committing a crime, punishments that associate a conviction should be adequate and support the nature of the crime. As I've said, if there are little to no punishments associated with the crime, what is there to stop someone from taking part in animal cruelty? In my opinion, animal cruelty needs to be viewed as a serious crime. Someone who abuses, neglects, exploits, or tortures a defenseless, innocent animal, needs to be punished to the full extent of the law. Jail time must be associated with animal cruelty simple as that. Without jail time, what kind of punishment is that? When you consider that any kind of crime against an animal is comparable to a crime against a child, it's hard for me to fathom that the punishment doesn't support the nature of the crime. Things most definitely need to change. To read the full story, visit the link at the top of the post. What do you guys think? Do you think jail time should be mandatory for animal cruelty convictions or do you feel the current system is working? Would love to get your comments! HAPPY VEG |
Stay educated and remain involved in animal welfare. Together, we can all make a difference!
Archives
January 2025
Categories |