I have not visited so I can not say. What I can say is that elephants generally do better in larger enclosures, so if their welfare was the zoo's main objective when building this exhibit, they would not have bothered with the whole pleistocene thing and just built a massive elephant enclosure.
Not just "self-titled"! Many consider it the world's best! It is truly the gold standard, by which all others are compared. I've been to over 210 zoos worldwide and only Berlin is in San Diego's class.
I have not visited so I can not say. What I can say is that elephants generally do better in larger enclosures, so if their welfare was the zoo's main objective when building this exhibit, they would not have bothered with the whole pleistocene thing and just built a massive elephant enclosure.
I guess they could have just skipped creating a very interesting theme for this exhibit and hoped new visitors would come just out of the goodness of their hearts, coming to blow kisses at the happy elephants.
Actually, though, I've seen this new exhibit (a couple months before it opened) and it truly did look promising! Those who are calling the exhibit "ugly" are doing so based on 4 photographs of the same view. The video shows the exhibit much better. It truly does have some interesting new concepts, such as letting visitors see all of the elephant care. The elephants also do seem to have a very expansive and attractive yard. The other thing that makes this exhibit fascinating is the variety of interesting species on display, including pronghorns, jaguars, lions, and even California condors.
I have not visited so I can not say. What I can say is that elephants generally do better in larger enclosures, so if their welfare was the zoo's main objective when building this exhibit, they would not have bothered with the whole pleistocene thing and just built a massive elephant enclosure.
Well the exhibit is basically the same size as the animal parks, which is a good size. Obviously the welfare of the elephants was important, otherwise they would not have even built a new exhibit for them, or spend a ton of money on the elephant care facility or utilitrees(obviously not their for their appearance).
And as I said before, the zoo simply cannot dedicate the entire exhibit size to elephants without screwing over other species they have and/or getting rid of some species.
BTW, the North Carolina Zoos elephants do not get 7 acres as the exhibit is split in two for the two separate herds, so they get 1 acre more than the SD elephants.
Also as of this moment Elephant Odyssey is the largest Asian elephant exhibit in the United States that I know of. I realize LA will soon take that title, but as of now.
@redpanda: Your comment seems to be more along the lines of whether or not elephants should be in zoos
Apparenty redpanda is ok with zoos since he/she thinks the NC Zoo is great for them and seemed to imply that the WAP is great for them. I guess somewhere between 2.6 acres and 3.5 acres is the dividing line between shouldn't even have elephants and the best zoo for elephants in the world.
I disagree, Columbus Zoo's elephant exhibit is about 2 acres and it is one of the greatest elephant exhibits in America, as is Indianapolis with their 2 acre exhibit. Sure it is nice for a zoo to be able to say they have one of the largest elephant exhibits in the country, but biggest is not always best. More importantly is the quality of the exhibit within that amount of space.
You've finally figured me out, I'm a secret agent sent by PETA to infiltrate the hated zoochat in an attempt to ban elephants in captivity...
No, I simply feel that when people start going on about exhibits being a great size, they often have no evidence to back this up. I did, in no way, say that you were wrong, I simply asked for some sources of evidence which support what you say. Calling me a zoo-hater only demonstrates that you can not back up your claims, whether they are correct or not.
I am well aware that bigger is not necessarily better however, elephants tend to do better in larger enclosures and if a larger enclosure was available, it would be beneficial to the elephants to live in it (if only because there is a greater chance of grass being able to grow).
I am aware, however, that this is not the case and in my original post I said it was more for the WAP to provide the massive enclosures and the zoo to provide knock-out exhibits. I did not say that the elephant odyssey was unsatisfactory for the inhabitants (although, with the amount of elephant facilities expanding to over three acres, I would have thought that San Diego could do better), only that their primary objective was not providing optimum care for the elephants, but providing a realistic pleistocene environment which, incidentally, they failed in doing.
