why-animals-do-the-thing:

Y'all regularly send in questions wanting to know how to report concerns you’ve observed at zoos you’ve visited. I’ve been able to point people at the USDA (regulatory) option, but with regard to accrediting groups I haven’t had a good answer. I spent the last six months or so really digging into why there hasn’t been a good answer. What I’ve found is that the majority of zoological accrediting groups in the United States don’t provide any way for the public to report issues they’ve observed at accredited facilities, and none of said organizations have a mechanism for truly supporting / protecting staff who might choose to report issues at their own facilities. Which is. not great.

I wrote a whole Substack post about it a few days ago, arguing that in order to remain credible institutions accrediting groups must facilitate public reporting, anonymous reporting, and commit to enforcing penalties for any retaliation against staff who choose to utilize the option. I’m linking it below for anyone who is interested in all the details. CW at the beginning for animal abuse mentions - I started the piece by discussing a truly egregious welfare situation that occurred last year at a Miami facility, which might have been prevented or at least caught earlier if the two groups that accredit the facility had had a reporting mechanism in place.

What I want to talk about here, though, is specifically why accrediting orgs need to not only have an anonymous reporting option for staff, but why they must ban retaliation and penalize any facility that does it anyway. Whenever something terrible happens at a zoo or sanctuary, people always ask “why didn’t the staff say something?” And the answer is, basically, because taking that risk can get you not just fired, but blacklisted from the field. People literally end up having to choose between their careers and making noise about issues that aren’t being resolved, and that’s absolutely not freaking okay. But I want to explain for you the extent of the issue.

If you’re not industry, something you might be surprised to learn is that most zoo staff don’t have any special reporting options above and beyond what the public does. Most zookeepers and other low-level staff never interact with people from accrediting groups except during an actual inspection - so if there’s a problem, it’s not like they know someone they can back-channel a concern to if they don’t feel safe reporting it publicly. And for the most part, reporting things your facility is doing to an accrediting group will always be considered inappropriate and probably get a keeper in trouble (even if it’s a really valid issue).

The zoological industry runs on a strongly hierarchical system. Staff are expected to “stay within their lanes” and work within the established bureaucracy to resolve issues. Deviating from this, if staff feel like management are suppressing issues or something needs to be addressed urgently, is very heavily frowned upon. Basically, going around management to bring something to an accrediting group (or USDA, or the media) is seen as indicating that your facility has failed to address a problem, or that the individual making the report feels they know more than their superiors. At most places, no matter how extreme an issue may become, there’s never a point at which it would be acceptable for a staff member to reveal a facility’s internal issues to their accrediting body. 

The thing is, attempting to resolve issues through the proper internal channels at a facility doesn’t always work! It can result in an issue being covered up (especially if the company is kinda shady) or suppressed rather than addressed. If staff decide to push the issue, it can really backfire and jeopardize their job, because it’s expected that if management says something is fine, staff need to acquiesce and go along with it.

There have been a couple high-profile examples of this in the last decade: the incident I mention in my Substack where new management at the Miami Seaquarium decided to starve dolphins to coerce them into participating in guest programs, and an issue at the Austin Zoo five-ish years ago where the director was perpetuating serious welfare issues and ignoring staff feedback. In both cases, there’s always the questions of where the accrediting group was. We don’t know anything about what happened with the Seaquarium (it’s been over six months since the USDA report documenting the diet cuts was released and AMMPA and American Humane haven’t said a thing), but I remember hearing that ZAA had no idea what was happening at Austin because nobody had reached out to them about it.

This is why I’m arguing that all zoological accrediting groups need to make visible reporting options and make sure staff feel safe enough to use them! If you’ve got a facility perpetuating or not dealing with major issues, it’s pretty probable that they’re going to be unhappy if their staff reports those issues to any oversight body. That’s not a situation where it’s currently safe to speak up right now - and four out of five zoological accrediting groups in the US don’t have standards prohibiting retaliation against staff for bringing up issues like that! (Surprisingly, it’s not AZA. It’s the sanctuary accrediting group, GFAS). Without any option for internal reporting, issues may not get addressed - which hurts animal welfare - or people risk losing their job, possibly their entire career in the field (which is a huge part of people’s identities!), and their financial stability to advocate for their animals.

Currently, the two accrediting groups that do have reporting options (AZA and GFAS) stay they’ll attempt to keep reports anonymous, but acknowledge it may not be possible to do so. (Which tracks, because zoo jobs are highly specialized and only a few people may be exposed to an issue). However, only GFAS prohibits facilities from retaliating against people who make reports. On top of that, there’s absolutely no transparency about what happens next: GFAS, ZAA, AMMPA and AH have no information about how the process transpires and if someone making a report will get any information back about what happened. AZA straight up says that all accreditation stuff is proprietary (read: confidential) so you just have to trust that they dealt with it appropriately. Just yeet your report into the void and hope the groups doing oversight handle it correctly when there’s no accountability? That’s… not a great look for animal welfare concerns.

I hope the industry chooses to fix this problem. I hope it chooses to invest in transparency and increased credibility. I don’t know what I expect, but I’d like to see these accrediting groups do the right thing.

My full write-up on how accrediting groups in the US handle reporting and concerns (or don’t) is linked below.

Why zoological accrediting groups need a way for people to anonymously report violations

No accrediting group in the United States provides a way for staff and the public to anonymously report concerns.

whyzoosdothething.substack.com

(via headspace-hotel)

tussive:

(via plum-soup)

amiibo-king:

it’s come to my attention that a lot of people don’t know about bluemaxima’s flashpoint and genuinely think they’ll never be able to play their favorite 00s internet games ever again so i just want to remind everyone that flashpoint is a huge internet flash game preservation project that allows you to play just about any internet flash game/animation despite the death of flash. if they’ve got it in their database (and they probably do) you can play it. go forth and drink in the 00s nostalgia

even if you think there’s no way they’ll have the game u want. they probably do anyway. when i first downloaded flashpoint i thought for sure theres no way they will have the obscure flash game i played for hours as a kid that was only even available on the internet for like 2 months in 2006. but you know what. they had it. seriously, download flashpoint

(via sorcerousmotes)

memewhore:

(via imlizy)

nightlifemingus:

my dads recently been jokin a lot about “mystic runes” like i asked what we were gonna do when we took a rest stop in santa barbara and he said “look for mystic runes” and then i asked if we were gonna eat or just walk around while my mom shopped and he said “the runes will tell us”

(via henstomper)

victorvampir:

i don’t think people take me too serious when i say i’m legally blind. Like, guys I am legally never allowed to drive, I need assistance with a lot of stuff because I can’t see. People both irl and online tend to be like “oh but you’re not THAT BAD OFF” it’s not a thing of whether my eyes are “that bad off” it doesn’t matter, they’re still blind. i still use magnifying and screen readers. i’m learning braille because my eyes are getting progressively worse and I’d like to be able to still read.

I may not be totally blind, but that’s the thing, a lot of blind people AREN’T Totally blind. Blindness is a spectrum. and i don’t think a lot of people realize that. And I’m just as valid in my blindness as someone on the spectrum with better eyesight than me, or someone with worse.

(This is OK to reblog. I hope that sighted people who might read this really get it into their heads that blindness is a spectrum…)

(via nastywizard)

kurbaga:

(via gunsandfireandshit)

bizarrobrain:

(via orowyrm)

androdragynous:

as my own direct immediate list of game grievances i hate that stardew valley expects you to side against a wheelchair user who is upset that he was moved without his consent. i hate that the mass effect trilogy gives you visible scarring as a direct result of choosing mean dialogue and heals it if you’re nice. i hate that the vampire the masquerade ttrpg has a monstrous player class that can appear as horrible vampiric monsters or as visibly disabled people and both of these appearances are mechanically the same. i hate that dark souls games have a difficulty level implemented in a way that cannot be adjusted for disability. i hate that i can play as a mermaid or a werewolf or a horse in the sims games but can’t use a wheelchair. i hate that the ace attorney games have so much flashing and not all of the games can disable it. i hate that disability is constantly something that happens to teach a lesson, i hate that disability is something that happens as a punishment, i hate that disability is either compensated perfectly with no drawbacks or something that is endlessly sought to be cured. i hate that no character customization will ever include the mobility aids i use, that the player avatars that represent me will never look like me. i am so goddamn annoyed and so goddamn tired.

(via bloodbornebutch)

faceraider:

the most “cocomelon shit” i’ve ever experienced in my life was the time i was in calculus II and some girl in front of me was googling “assorted animals” and scrolling through pictures of clipart pigs and horses and shit on her laptop completely focused like it was her tax form

(via fishfag)

prokopetz:

There’s just no rhyme or reason to webcomic fandom. A webcomic that’s been keeping a regular update schedule for 25 years and boasts a six-figure readership will have absolutely no online presence outside of its own official forums, and a webcomic that ran for six weeks in 2008, went on hiatus mid scene and never updated again will have a more extensive TV Tropes writeup than fucking Star Wars.

(via averyterrible)

There’s a hot new YouTube trend called the “night at the museum challenge” where the goal is to film yourself camping in a venue after closing time and last as long as you can and I wish this was real no matter how dangerous it is

seasoflife:

Jenny Bloomfield

seasoflife

(via azpunkdotcom)

redpandarascal:

This is what Donald Glover says to the press, but he told me in confidence that he quit social media after they banned porn on here, because “this was where you could find the freakiest shit, and it was AWESOME”

I’m not commenting on that, just relaying what he told me

just because I made this up doesn’t mean it’s not truer than truth itself

Really hope they found each other

This is what Donald Glover says to the press, but he told me in confidence that he quit social media after they banned porn on here, because “this was where you could find the freakiest shit, and it was AWESOME”

I’m not commenting on that, just relaying what he told me