I'm just confused with why the Smithsonian sent away their capybaras, nile hippos, pygmy hippos, giraffes, and indian rhinos just to build a new elephant exhibit that's relatively small compared to other new elephant exhibits in the country? Why not just send them to another facility?
Smithsonian National Zoo New Elephant Exhibit
- Thread starter Evy
- Start date
The exhibit is definitely not going to be small, and all the hippo, pygmy hippo, and capybara exhibits were all badly outdated anyway.
Some of those species will be coming back when the new Africa exhibits are built. Being the National zoo it doesn't surprise me they would put the money into elephants. They also have quite a bit of money to work with.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
What other than the giraffes are coming back?
Do they have a lot of money? It doesn't seem like they've spent a great deal on exhibits.
Definitely, I personally would much rather see elephants than hippos, pygmy hippos, and capybaras. At Cleveland we had to sacrifice nile hippos, pygmy hippos, warthogs, and malayan tapirs to build are new elephant exhibit. It will definitely be worth it. Hmmmm, a herd of elephants roaming a multi-acre savanna, or one of each animal in a badly outdated stall. Tough Choice
.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
Definitely, I personally would much rather see elephants than hippos, pygmy hippos, and capybaras. At Cleveland we had to sacrifice nile hippos, pygmy hippos, warthogs, and malayan tapirs to build are new elephant exhibit. It will definitely be worth it. Hmmmm, a herd of elephants roaming a multi-acre savanna, or one of each animal in a badly outdated stall. Tough Choice
Interesting way of interpreting what I said.
I did include money in that scenario.
Obviously that money could have went to create another or multiple other top notch exhibits. So being able to keep those other species, able to build great exhibits for them and possibly upgrade other areas of the zoo or do what the National Zoo and Cleveland are doing? Of course the option of keeping the elephants in mediocre at best exhibits is also an option and do whatever else with the money. I'm not saying how I'd rank those scenario's, but I can see an interesting debate.
Obviously ideally, you wouldn't want to lose important animals like hippos and rhinos while still being able to keep the elephants and upgrade their home.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
See my last post. One could argue that keeping the other animals while using all that money and potentially extra space if you send the elephants elsewhere could be a better way to go. I don't necessarily think that, but losing hippos and rhinos are a big blow imo.
I disagree, in the passed year Cleveland hasn't had elephants because of the construction of their new exhibit. I absolutely hate it, and a zoo without elephants is really not that great of a zoo. I think elephants are a necessity to all zoos, and I much rather loose hippos or rhinos any day of the week. Elephants are one of the most popular animals in zoos, and they are one of my personal favorites.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
You disagree with what? That one could argue which is the better way to go out of 3 scenarios, 2 of which keep elephants?
I guess you're going to have a problem with your favorite zoo in the future. Really you should have a problem with them now if elephants are one of your personal favs.
So rhinos aren't one of your favs? Given your SN, would have thought otherwise.
All three elephants at Bronx are in their thirties, so the elephant exhibit won't close for another 20 years.
I love rhinos, but I rather a zoo have elephants and not rhinos than rhinos and not elephants.
Buckeye092
Well-Known Member
Putting aside the scenario debate, the Asian Elephant SSP needs more breeding facilities or the population won't last for another few decades. This exhibit will be for the good of the species and at 3 acres I wouldn't say that's small. Many US zoos still house elephants in yards smaller than 30,000 sq. ft.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
That's why I said in the future. But also for the present, you would think you would want to see one of your personal favorites for more than 30 seconds while not even getting a chance to stop.
That's fair, but you seemed to be dismissing the loss of rhinos and both species of hippos as being no big deal.
Welcome to Lincoln Park Zoo, Blackrhino. Altho elephants can be viewed at Brookfield Zoo, it is a trek to go out there and their exhibit is outdated.
Lincoln Park Zoo turned the elephant yard into a rhino yard but it will be awhile (at least 5 years) before we see any rhino births due to the young age of the females.
*We have those wonderful zoo videos of your elephants at Columbus and they have a great keeper!
Last edited:
Didn't Brookfield just expands there exhibit from a quarter acre to almost a half acre? From the video of Christy Brookfield's exhibit doesn't seem to bad now that they have expanded it. I still think they need a long term plan to move the elephants into a naturalistic habitat, but for now that yard will suffice for several years.
The fact that Lincoln Park Zoo doesn't have elephants is a major blow to that zoo, but at least you only need to drive 14 miles west to Brookfield to see them.
The zoo's three elephants have gotten used to their new homes now and Phase 1 should open on labor day(according to the site), and yes the visitors get to see the elephants once they are out. A way better home than their old one and might be competing with the St.Louis Zoo for best Asian Elephant habitat. Pic and updates(since late June) are on the site.
EDIT:An elephant Outpost will be open on labor Day(A viewing area). The zoo will like to add more elephants for their breeding program.
EDIT:An elephant Outpost will be open on labor Day(A viewing area). The zoo will like to add more elephants for their breeding program.
Last edited:
elephantking
Well-Known Member
the new exhibit here is way better than in saint louis, the new habitat has grass, a walking trail and 3 times the space
CritterBlog
Well-Known Member
washingtonpost.com
An ill-fitting new home for the National Zoo's elephants
By Peter Stroud
Sunday, August 22, 2010
I visited the National Zoo for the first time on a cold and rainy afternoon last fall. For more than 15 years, I have been deeply engaged with questions about captive elephant welfare, so I was particularly interested to see how the Smithsonian Institution had spent a colossal $50 million on Elephant Trails, the new home for its elephants set to open in early September.
Since that visit, I have continued to follow the work on Elephant Trails. As a former zoo curator and director, I know that zoo development projects are complex and time-consuming, with many competing issues to balance. There are engineering and design challenges, visitor needs to be accounted for, restrictions imposed by the landscape and climate, and, of course, the welfare of the animals to consider.
The needs of wild animals in zoos can be hard to define, but there are a few basic rules. Top of the list is checking carefully the key aspects of a creature's life in the wild. What does it do with its days and nights? How far does it move and why? How does it interact with others of its kind?
Generally speaking, this sort of accounting works well, and many zoo programs create conditions and routines for animals that are broadly analogous to life in the wild. But the bigger the animal, the more difficult this becomes, especially where space is limited, the terrain difficult and the way of life of the species so complex that it is almost impossible to simulate.
Take, for instance, elephants at the National Zoo.
Elephants need space. Zoo people will often say it's the quality of the space that matters, and indeed it is -- to a point. Why, then, is the Elephant Trails landscape so unimaginative? There are sweeping green lawns and a shallow-looking pool, but little shade or shelter. The exhibit looks more like a golf course than an elephant habitat. There is nothing to engage or challenge an elephant.
Elephants need exercise. There is what the zoo calls an Exercise Trek -- a there-and-back route up a hill -- but it seems to be designed for elephants to be walked, circus-style, up and down, under the control of a handler. Elephants have soft feet and should never be made to walk any distance on concrete or asphalt, but the route is paved.
Elephants like to dust-bathe and wallow in mud. They like to dig and clamber about, and they like to rest against mounds of soft earth. Where are the piles of loose earth and sand? Where are the scratching posts? Where is the varied terrain, the boulders and logs and mud wallows? Why all this close-cropped green grass that will be worn away in mere days by pachyderm feet?
There are some good aspects to the exhibit. It provides more room for the elephants than they had previously, always a good thing. The surroundings will be lush and green in spring and summer.
But the things that are wrong are glaring if you consider how wild elephants live and how elephants could live in captivity. Fortunately, some of what I have listed above is fixable.
Harder to address are the problems for zoo visitors. It's generally accepted by zoo designers that it's a bad idea to place the viewer high above the animals. Visitors feel disconnected; the animals look small and remote. Better to put the viewer close up, at or below animal eye level, to create a sense of immediate engagement. This works better for the animals, too. Few species feel comfortable with activity going on above their heads.
Why, then, is one of the principal viewing points for the new exhibit a bridge soaring high above the elephant paddocks? It's hard to think of a better way to make an elephant look insignificant, an odd approach to showcasing one of nature's most spectacular creatures.
The Smithsonian Institution declares that it exists for the "increase and diffusion of knowledge." It seems strange, then, that an elephant exhibit has been created that fails to account for what sound science tells us about elephants and their needs. It's as if a lot of published knowledge has been ignored. Unless improvements are made, Elephant Trails will fail to convey any real sense of what an elephant is.
The writer, a zoological consultant based in Melbourne, Australia, is a member of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
An ill-fitting new home for the National Zoo's elephants
By Peter Stroud
Sunday, August 22, 2010
I visited the National Zoo for the first time on a cold and rainy afternoon last fall. For more than 15 years, I have been deeply engaged with questions about captive elephant welfare, so I was particularly interested to see how the Smithsonian Institution had spent a colossal $50 million on Elephant Trails, the new home for its elephants set to open in early September.
Since that visit, I have continued to follow the work on Elephant Trails. As a former zoo curator and director, I know that zoo development projects are complex and time-consuming, with many competing issues to balance. There are engineering and design challenges, visitor needs to be accounted for, restrictions imposed by the landscape and climate, and, of course, the welfare of the animals to consider.
The needs of wild animals in zoos can be hard to define, but there are a few basic rules. Top of the list is checking carefully the key aspects of a creature's life in the wild. What does it do with its days and nights? How far does it move and why? How does it interact with others of its kind?
Generally speaking, this sort of accounting works well, and many zoo programs create conditions and routines for animals that are broadly analogous to life in the wild. But the bigger the animal, the more difficult this becomes, especially where space is limited, the terrain difficult and the way of life of the species so complex that it is almost impossible to simulate.
Take, for instance, elephants at the National Zoo.
Elephants need space. Zoo people will often say it's the quality of the space that matters, and indeed it is -- to a point. Why, then, is the Elephant Trails landscape so unimaginative? There are sweeping green lawns and a shallow-looking pool, but little shade or shelter. The exhibit looks more like a golf course than an elephant habitat. There is nothing to engage or challenge an elephant.
Elephants need exercise. There is what the zoo calls an Exercise Trek -- a there-and-back route up a hill -- but it seems to be designed for elephants to be walked, circus-style, up and down, under the control of a handler. Elephants have soft feet and should never be made to walk any distance on concrete or asphalt, but the route is paved.
Elephants like to dust-bathe and wallow in mud. They like to dig and clamber about, and they like to rest against mounds of soft earth. Where are the piles of loose earth and sand? Where are the scratching posts? Where is the varied terrain, the boulders and logs and mud wallows? Why all this close-cropped green grass that will be worn away in mere days by pachyderm feet?
There are some good aspects to the exhibit. It provides more room for the elephants than they had previously, always a good thing. The surroundings will be lush and green in spring and summer.
But the things that are wrong are glaring if you consider how wild elephants live and how elephants could live in captivity. Fortunately, some of what I have listed above is fixable.
Harder to address are the problems for zoo visitors. It's generally accepted by zoo designers that it's a bad idea to place the viewer high above the animals. Visitors feel disconnected; the animals look small and remote. Better to put the viewer close up, at or below animal eye level, to create a sense of immediate engagement. This works better for the animals, too. Few species feel comfortable with activity going on above their heads.
Why, then, is one of the principal viewing points for the new exhibit a bridge soaring high above the elephant paddocks? It's hard to think of a better way to make an elephant look insignificant, an odd approach to showcasing one of nature's most spectacular creatures.
The Smithsonian Institution declares that it exists for the "increase and diffusion of knowledge." It seems strange, then, that an elephant exhibit has been created that fails to account for what sound science tells us about elephants and their needs. It's as if a lot of published knowledge has been ignored. Unless improvements are made, Elephant Trails will fail to convey any real sense of what an elephant is.
The writer, a zoological consultant based in Melbourne, Australia, is a member of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.