Why is it "obviously too small?" The fact that there is living grass indicates they are not pacing incessantly, there is shade, a very big pool, and soft substrate, and at least a minimally-sized social group. Why would an acre, or two acres, or ten acres make this any "better?" I am perplexed by the obsession with size that so many people on this site--and even more so by anti-zoo critics--seem to be consumed by. I really think its much more about the quality of the space and the social composition of the group (in the case of elephants), not the raw square footage, that really matters.
Wild elephants often need to travel great distances to find food, water etc., and have bodies that are well-adapted to such activity. It does not mean they NEED to constantly travel great distances to live well, so long as there are outlets/replacements for such activity provided to them in a captive situation. The only real "need" for seemingly vast spaces is to make PEOPLE feel better, based solely on homo-centric assumptions about what elephants are thinking or "feeling."
But do you honestly think that less than one acre is a substantial amount of space for 4 such huge animals?
I'm not saying that they need to walk for miles etc, but with their sheer size I just think they would probably need more room. Paignton zoo has two elephants on one acre (I think it's about that size at least), and there is now way they could possibly have two more elephants in that enclosure.
It depends on what is in the acre. At Woodland Park zoo, many critics have complained that the 3/4 acre exhibit is too small, but at least 1/3 of the space (the shady "back end" of the enclosure) is rarely used by the elephants. Bigger often is better, but I believe the size argument is way overused, primarily by people whose real agenda is eliminating elephants from zoos entirely.
I assure you I do not believe elephants should be eliminated from zoos
And I don't believe it's all about size, but I do think that this enclosure's size is pushing that theory a bit.
Why is it "obviously too small?" The fact that there is living grass indicates they are not pacing incessantly, there is shade, a very big pool, and soft substrate, and at least a minimally-sized social group. Why would an acre, or two acres, or ten acres make this any "better?" I am perplexed by the obsession with size that so many people on this site--and even more so by anti-zoo critics--seem to be consumed by. I really think its much more about the quality of the space and the social composition of the group (in the case of elephants), not the raw square footage, that really matters.
Wild elephants often need to travel great distances to find food, water etc., and have bodies that are well-adapted to such activity. It does not mean they NEED to constantly travel great distances to live well, so long as there are outlets/replacements for such activity provided to them in a captive situation. The only real "need" for seemingly vast spaces is to make PEOPLE feel better, based solely on homo-centric assumptions about what elephants are thinking or "feeling."
Reduakari I agree with you 100% and honestly think this is a great enclosure for elephants. It looks nice and wide-open like a savanna and reduakri is right, the quality of the space is much more important than the quantity.
Your debate here, reduakari and ashley-h, is extremely interesting to me! I am one of the "size-of-the-enclosure-fanatics" here at ZooChat, as you will know if you have happened to discover me therfore would be familiar with my argumentation here on the site.
I will admit that this position of mine is very much shaped by the obvious atrocities that has been commited against zoo animals over the years - and is still being commited all over the planet. You know what I am talking about - "old fashioned carnivore houses", "bear pits" and so on. In short: THOSE DAMN CAGES! (The kind of enclosures that reduakari also - I am sure - would agree are absolutely indefensable.) Let me just remind you about the worst thing I have seen so far on this particular site, the nightmarish hell hole for a leopard in one of these despicable Asian zoos:
And yet, I don´t have to travel farther than to my own "home zoo" - Copenhagen - to find a, perhaps, not quite as horrible but damn near close example: the smallest bear grotto, in which I belive the male brown bear has been kept isolated for centuries. It is about as big as my apartment, 100 square meters (that is about 1/40 of an acre to you Americans) of concrete fake rock, and it is only in recent years that it seems to have been equipped with some minor attempts at "enrichment" - some rather poor "enrichment" at that: a "fishing line" attached over the enclosure, with some fur branches and used up plastic containers to chew on, attached to it.
These kind of experiencies make people like myself - recently made fun of as being soft, cute and fluffy in an current thread at this site - sad, disillusioned and VERY touchy about the issue of the SIZE of zoo enclosures.
Having said this, I must admit that the arguments of redaukari makes a lot of sense. Disregarding the obvious atrocities - that reduakari would react against in the same way that I do - I suppose he has a point: the number of acres of an enclosure is not the solely determining factor - there are many other factors to take into consideration.
But please go on debating, you two! I will follow it with great interest and mybe chip in again!
I don't believe animals such as big cats need tons of land, for example I read a review of Edinburgh zoo: "It's nice, but the enclosure are too small. Lions and tigers need acres and acres of land". Erm... no lol
But I do believe there's a limit to how small an enclosure can be. I believe an animal in a very small enclosure will get bored regardless of enrichment, as they're less likely to explore etc, than they would be in a bigger exhibit.
