this debate is taking over a few differnt threads at present so i thought id'e start a new one for it.
its actually surprising to read how many of my fellow forum members have commented on their belief that zoos "need" large animals like elephants to survive. one member (NZ) just mentioned on another thread, their view that the public expect to see river hippo over pygmy hippo. this seems a bit silly, since one thing we all appear to agree on is that the average zoo visitor doesn't know a tapir from an elephant and is more interested in feeding the screaming kids...
most of you, "zoos need big animals" supporters are saying that us zoofans would personally be happy to visit a zoo with smaller animals, yet the public won't.
and yet in truth i think theres an aweful lot of subconcious projection going on.
i think the idea of your local zoo no longer featuring the A-Z doesn't appeal to you, but not so much the public, who in reality are not as interested in animals as we are.
sun wukong, i'll happily admit i am finding this conversation very frustrating. you seem determined to want me to spell out every point in such fine detail that we have become detoured from the original debate that was essentially "can a zoo survive without big animals like elephants?". i think there are enough examples of successful elephantless zoos worldwide to prove that they can, and thus find it very odd that somehow there sems to still be opposition to this.
but okay, to answer your question. (from the oregon thread)
your absolutely right to a degree. a large gorilla troop (or two as since zoos are now having to mainatin their own batchelor groups) certainly do take up a large area of space. in fact removing the weather issue, there is nothing saying a city zoo can't theoretically cater likewise for an elephant, however, the amount of space this would require would make you wonder if its worth it. imagine for example how many smaller species could be housed in the same amount of space.
zoos are saying they are changing into "21st century zoos" but many are missing the point of what a 21st century zoo needs to be. this whole wave of elephant exhibit renovations taking over the urban zoo world is by and large a band-aid solution. it doesn't address the publics number one issue with elephants in zoos - and thats a lack of space. we mention how the public expect to see elephants, yet are we foretting that most also mention how sorry they feel for them as well?!!
zoos have to be different. they now have to largely breed enough animals to supply their own demand. the days of acquiring animals from jungles overseas are largely fading away. fortunately a new style of zoo has popped up over the last few decades. its the open range zoo concept. and its a very good concept. zoos in more rural environments can afford to give their animals copious amount of space, manage population better and lend themselves well to a safari-themed experience that visitors relish in.
many good zoos developed sister properties that gave people this kind of experience. the idea was that they catered for large herd dwelling animals - essentially ungulates.
but it also alleviated the need somewhat to display quite so many ungulates in city zoos thus giving them more space to modernise and develop larger enclosures for the species that stayed behind.
most zoos however were reluctant to give up on the staples however. the elephants, a couple of giraffe and often hippo and one or two rhino stayed behind. this was to satisfy the city dwellers apparent need of A-Z in one experience. to me its ridiculous that open range zoos founded on the "large herd dwelling" principle so often refused the eligibility of the worlds largest herd dwelling mammal, the elephant.
unfortunately, lack of space is still a big issue in many city zoos. i believe that most city zoo exhibits are roughly half the size they should be. this, is in general, across the board.... meerkats, otters and tamarins just as much as bears and gorillas - urban zoo animals still get seriously short-changed in the space department.
i'm adament about this.
so what do we do? how do city zoos create more space to better co-ordinate their breeding programs, give the inhabitants more room and keep larger population sizes. the only logical way is to reduce collection sizes. so do you phase out ten smaller species to make way for a new elephant exhibit that houses one species or do we stop keeping relict populations of elephants and rhinos in small city zoos and capitalise on what makes open range-zoos so fantastic? why give them the competition of a cramped city zoo with a giraffe in a barn? make them THE place to see "megafauna" not just another option.
so you may ask what happens to the city zoo? will they close down as all zoo patrons jump in their cars and head for the countryside? well, i wonder, would that be such a bad thing afterall?
but regardless thats not going to happen. because just as popular as elephants are, so too are gorillas. if you split the animal collection roughly down the middle and capitilise on each zoos stregnths, the outcome is two very differnt kinds of zoos that don't really compete with one another.
on one side you have the open-range zoo with its safari style experience and herds of elephants, giraffes rhino and every ungulate imaginable and then you have the city zoos with hi-tech immersion exhibts we all equally love. tropical glasshouses full of butterflies, primates and reptiles, underwater seal, tapir and pygmy hippo pools, colonies of orangutans on elevated boardwalks and gorilla troops in large naturalistic habitats.
you forget we love this stuff just as much, in fact more, that we enjoy watching two bored elephants sway in the concrete corner.
city zoos need elephants about as much as the world needs oil. if you contunue to deliver it to us we will accept and expect it. give us a viable alternative and no choice about it and we will equally accept that too.
so thats about it. i'm not gonna give you a divided list of what animals go where. your smart people, you work it out. will there be crossovers? sure, you might find tigers at both kinds of zoo, but ultimately there is a clear definition of what each kind of zoo provides and each has equally engaging yet different animal attractions. the true 21st century zoo is in fact not one zoo at all.....
it will not be a question of whether or not to visit the zoo, but which type of zoo to visit. and i doubt very much the urban zoo with all it still has to offer, will disappear...
its actually surprising to read how many of my fellow forum members have commented on their belief that zoos "need" large animals like elephants to survive. one member (NZ) just mentioned on another thread, their view that the public expect to see river hippo over pygmy hippo. this seems a bit silly, since one thing we all appear to agree on is that the average zoo visitor doesn't know a tapir from an elephant and is more interested in feeding the screaming kids...
most of you, "zoos need big animals" supporters are saying that us zoofans would personally be happy to visit a zoo with smaller animals, yet the public won't.
and yet in truth i think theres an aweful lot of subconcious projection going on.
i think the idea of your local zoo no longer featuring the A-Z doesn't appeal to you, but not so much the public, who in reality are not as interested in animals as we are.
sun wukong, i'll happily admit i am finding this conversation very frustrating. you seem determined to want me to spell out every point in such fine detail that we have become detoured from the original debate that was essentially "can a zoo survive without big animals like elephants?". i think there are enough examples of successful elephantless zoos worldwide to prove that they can, and thus find it very odd that somehow there sems to still be opposition to this.
but okay, to answer your question. (from the oregon thread)
your absolutely right to a degree. a large gorilla troop (or two as since zoos are now having to mainatin their own batchelor groups) certainly do take up a large area of space. in fact removing the weather issue, there is nothing saying a city zoo can't theoretically cater likewise for an elephant, however, the amount of space this would require would make you wonder if its worth it. imagine for example how many smaller species could be housed in the same amount of space.
zoos are saying they are changing into "21st century zoos" but many are missing the point of what a 21st century zoo needs to be. this whole wave of elephant exhibit renovations taking over the urban zoo world is by and large a band-aid solution. it doesn't address the publics number one issue with elephants in zoos - and thats a lack of space. we mention how the public expect to see elephants, yet are we foretting that most also mention how sorry they feel for them as well?!!
zoos have to be different. they now have to largely breed enough animals to supply their own demand. the days of acquiring animals from jungles overseas are largely fading away. fortunately a new style of zoo has popped up over the last few decades. its the open range zoo concept. and its a very good concept. zoos in more rural environments can afford to give their animals copious amount of space, manage population better and lend themselves well to a safari-themed experience that visitors relish in.
many good zoos developed sister properties that gave people this kind of experience. the idea was that they catered for large herd dwelling animals - essentially ungulates.
but it also alleviated the need somewhat to display quite so many ungulates in city zoos thus giving them more space to modernise and develop larger enclosures for the species that stayed behind.
most zoos however were reluctant to give up on the staples however. the elephants, a couple of giraffe and often hippo and one or two rhino stayed behind. this was to satisfy the city dwellers apparent need of A-Z in one experience. to me its ridiculous that open range zoos founded on the "large herd dwelling" principle so often refused the eligibility of the worlds largest herd dwelling mammal, the elephant.
unfortunately, lack of space is still a big issue in many city zoos. i believe that most city zoo exhibits are roughly half the size they should be. this, is in general, across the board.... meerkats, otters and tamarins just as much as bears and gorillas - urban zoo animals still get seriously short-changed in the space department.
i'm adament about this.
so what do we do? how do city zoos create more space to better co-ordinate their breeding programs, give the inhabitants more room and keep larger population sizes. the only logical way is to reduce collection sizes. so do you phase out ten smaller species to make way for a new elephant exhibit that houses one species or do we stop keeping relict populations of elephants and rhinos in small city zoos and capitalise on what makes open range-zoos so fantastic? why give them the competition of a cramped city zoo with a giraffe in a barn? make them THE place to see "megafauna" not just another option.
so you may ask what happens to the city zoo? will they close down as all zoo patrons jump in their cars and head for the countryside? well, i wonder, would that be such a bad thing afterall?
but regardless thats not going to happen. because just as popular as elephants are, so too are gorillas. if you split the animal collection roughly down the middle and capitilise on each zoos stregnths, the outcome is two very differnt kinds of zoos that don't really compete with one another.
on one side you have the open-range zoo with its safari style experience and herds of elephants, giraffes rhino and every ungulate imaginable and then you have the city zoos with hi-tech immersion exhibts we all equally love. tropical glasshouses full of butterflies, primates and reptiles, underwater seal, tapir and pygmy hippo pools, colonies of orangutans on elevated boardwalks and gorilla troops in large naturalistic habitats.
you forget we love this stuff just as much, in fact more, that we enjoy watching two bored elephants sway in the concrete corner.
city zoos need elephants about as much as the world needs oil. if you contunue to deliver it to us we will accept and expect it. give us a viable alternative and no choice about it and we will equally accept that too.
so thats about it. i'm not gonna give you a divided list of what animals go where. your smart people, you work it out. will there be crossovers? sure, you might find tigers at both kinds of zoo, but ultimately there is a clear definition of what each kind of zoo provides and each has equally engaging yet different animal attractions. the true 21st century zoo is in fact not one zoo at all.....
it will not be a question of whether or not to visit the zoo, but which type of zoo to visit. and i doubt very much the urban zoo with all it still has to offer, will disappear...
Last edited:
)