Dublin Zoo Dublin zoo news

Dublin Gorillas.

I was wondering whether female 'Lena' has become pregnant again as the last time it seemed to be a false alarm- her three sons have all been born at quite regular intervals prior to that.

And is it possible the young handraised female (Mayani?) is or may soon become pregnant?
 
Last edited:
Kifaru Bwana said:
Plus: lso, if all Americans would vote you would have a completely different political landscape.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true, Kifaru, but that wouldn't necessarily true. Almost all of those Americans who don't vote are hopelessly uninformed, and most of us are very glad that uninformed people don't vote. If you want to see what happens when uninformed voters go to the polls, look at 2010 and the South Carolina Democratic senate nominee (Alvin Greene) or the Delaware Republican senate nominee (Christine O'Donnell). So I, for one, think our USA electoral system is working just fine, thank you.
 
In summary (back to the original topic), I have no problem with Dublin's Zoo Director wanting his zoo being different from Disney. I loved my experience at the Dublin Zoo last year, just as I loved my experience at Disney's Animal Kingdom earlier in the year. Dublin is not Orlando. I just wondered why the director felt the need to take a shot at Disney. Totally unnecessary.
 
There's more at stake here than whether Disney has a right to make a corporate profit.

Zoos have to support themselves, but they exist to be zoos, so if their activities go against their Mission than there's no reason for anyone to support them.

reduakari said:
The attribution (or imposition) of "humanness" to animals certainly cuts both ways. Yes, it can inspire love and interest, but also leads to the "Bambi syndrome" of which animal rights extremists represent the worst offenders.
Click to expand...

This is a fascinating and important issue.
Zoos would do well to study this issue and determine what value, if any, it has to them.

I can see with my own eyes that connecting live animals to fictional anthropomorphized characters does get the attention of children and families.
But what I'd really like to know is, does that attention ever connect to conservation issues or action?

If all it does is make the zoo-visiting children scream louder, but it does not instill any sense of protecting the environment, then how has it served the zoo's mission?
If it instead supports the faux-Nature imagery that is shown in a cartoon and thus inhibits true ecological understanding in the visitor, then I think it works in opposition to the zoo's goals. (What does Pumba teach us about warthog ecology?)

I'd love to learn of any studies on the effects of cartooning the zoo animals on the public's perceptions.

I'll have to find this article:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/theatre_topics/v017/17.2scott01.html
 
Last edited:
Two comments about Dublin Zoo:

1- That zoo has one of the best history books ever published, as it is informative and visually appealing. It was released in 2009 and I highly recommend it.

2- Kaziranga Forest Trail, the much lauded Asian elephant habitat that opened in 2007, was designed in part by the famous American design company Jones & Jones. That architectural firm was at the forefront of the immersion movement at Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo, and is no stranger to exhibit awards. After the new elephant exhibit opened at Dublin Zoo attendance increased by 20% and has remained extremely high ever since. I think that the zoo is inching close to a million visitors per year!
 
Indeed, they are! And what a fine establishment is the Seattle Woodland Park!

I presume the same design co. has been advising on the new Gorilla exhibit at Dublin Zoo too.
 
ANyhuis said:
As for providing a profit for its shareholders, that's a good thing, isn't it? That's pure American capitalism, which is the opposite of socialism. Most Americans (and many Europeans) happen to be very pro-capitalism and very anti-socialism. As long as its capitalistic ventures aren't done at the expense of the animals, I fail to see what's wrong with turning a profit.
Click to expand...

@Please ANyhuis, let us not turn ZooChat into a political forum. Also I think you will find that many many of us Europeans (and possibly others as well) are HUGELY in disagreement with your above quoted post. But that is not for discussion here :)

ANyhuis said:
In summary (back to the original topic), I have no problem with Dublin's Zoo Director wanting his zoo being different from Disney. I loved my experience at the Dublin Zoo last year, just as I loved my experience at Disney's Animal Kingdom earlier in the year. Dublin is not Orlando. I just wondered why the director felt the need to take a shot at Disney. Totally unnecessary.
Click to expand...

To be fair I don't think that he was taking "a shot at Disney". From reading what he wrote it seems that he meant the same as most other Europeans do when we don't want our zoos to reflect a "Disney version of the natural world, e.g. an anthropomorphized world where carnivores only eat well prepared steaks and are quite friendly towards their prey, etc. Basically, a natural world with all the brutal and (for some) "ugly" taken out of it.

That is certainly what I and many other people in the zoo-world think of when we think of a "Disney world".
 
snowleopard said:
Two comments about Dublin Zoo:

1- That zoo has one of the best history books ever published, as it is informative and visually appealing. It was released in 2009 and I highly recommend it.

2- Kaziranga Forest Trail, the much lauded Asian elephant habitat that opened in 2007, was designed in part by the famous American design company Jones & Jones. That architectural firm was at the forefront of the immersion movement at Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo, and is no stranger to exhibit awards. After the new elephant exhibit opened at Dublin Zoo attendance increased by 20% and has remained extremely high ever since. I think that the zoo is inching close to a million visitors per year!
Click to expand...

Yes the book is very well done. I was witing for the zoo to release one. The author is very nice too. I went on a Historical Tour of the zoo with her and she is a lovely person who is a fountain of knowledge about the zoo. It's a shame they don't do more tours both historical and general.

And yes, the zoo is very close to the million mark, but with our limited population and tourists, I think there isn't a huge amount of room for more. I can't wait to see the Gorilla Rainforest, the current exhibit is extremely outdated and inadequate in every sense.
 
Andy DC said:
I can't wait to see the Gorilla Rainforest, the current exhibit is extremely outdated and inadequate in every sense.
Click to expand...

Can you comment on my previous question about the Dublin Gorillas? Its on the previous page now..
 
Pertinax said:
I was wondering whether female 'Lena' has become pregnant again as the last time it seemed to be a false alarm- her three sons have all been born at quite regular intervals prior to that.

And is it possible the young handraised female (Mayani?) is or may soon become pregnant?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there is little I know about the gorillas. I looked back at the old Zoo Matters and can see they definetley intend to keep breeding them, but there is no mention of Mayani. They want Lena to keep breeding (2003 Zoo Matters), but perhaps stress or other problems, like the lack of privacy, is causing miscarriages, I don't think it was a false alarm, as Dirty Harry said in an older post she was due to Pop very soon. I know the zoo has tried its best to give the gorillas more privacy, but the exhibit is too open and too small for much privacy. I also looked and in 2003 Lena was 21, so she would be approx. 29 now, Gorillas have a lifespan of 30-50 years (wiki) perhaps it is age related, but I would presume she is still young enough to reproduce, as lifespans are longer in captivity, with only a few exceptions. Sorry I couldn't help more.
 
Andy DC said:
in 2003 Lena was 21, so she would be approx. 29 now, Gorillas have a lifespan of 30-50 years (wiki) perhaps it is age related, but I would presume she is still young enough to reproduce, as lifespans are longer in captivity,.
Click to expand...

She's certainly not too old by far- females that breed regularly(as she has) can do so into their Forties- as do some of the ones at Howletts & elsewhere. Perhaps she miscarried or had a failed birth last time? But I doubt the enclosure size or any lack of privacy is a cause has she has bred successfully three times in that enclosure, though her stress levels could be higher now there are five (it was six before Kesho went) animals in it.

I would definately expect more births from her in the future- unless she has been contracepted. I'm just guessing here unfortunately.:(
 
Perhaps she is taking contraceptives to prevent the group getting too big in the samll enclosure. Maybe the last miscarriage just occurred normally like in any species. I hope they have more gorilla births, as they are great to see and boost numbers!
 
Toddy said:
@Please ANyhuis, let us not turn ZooChat into a political forum.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Toddy, I didn't mean to turn this into a political debate. I just get tired of folks who at least seem to condemn good, legitimate businesses like Disney for wanting to make a profit. I tire of terms like "corporate greed", "commercialism", and "making a profit for their shareholders". In the zoo world, there are more than just Disney who are in the animal business to both promote conservation AND to make a profit. Here in America, there's also Busch Gardens. Among our biggest and best aquariums, there are many profit-making corporations -- Ripleys (2), Landrys (2), SeaLife (2), New Jersey's Adventure Aquarium, and even the owners of the amazing Georgia Aquarium -- probably the USA's very best aquarium. All of these are owned by big profit-making corporations and I think that's great!

As I said before, making a profit is as American as baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie, so it should be celebrated, not condemned.
 
ANyhuis said:
As I said before, making a profit is as American as baseball, hot dogs, and apple pie, so it should be celebrated, not condemned.
Click to expand...

But surely only if one approves of "The American Way"? Which not everybody does, at least not completely. But like mentioned earlier that discussion shoulden't divide us here on ZooChat as it does so many other places.

And also, I really don't think that he was condemning Disney's Animal Kingdom. Like I said it means something else when something is "too Disney" on this side of the pond :)
 
Last edited:
Toddy said:
And also, I really don't think that he was condemning Disney's Animal Kingdom. Like I said it means something else when something is "too Disney" on this side of the pond :)
Click to expand...

Indeed - I wouldn't associate the expression 'too Disney' with meaning anything to do with profiteering, but more to do with the (perceived) house style of anthropomorphism, sentimentality and very heavy/too heavy theming. I've used it before to describe a restaurant in the West Midlands that was done up to look like a quaint English village green inside. I suppose in design terms it's shorthand for looking a little fake and idealistic, perhaps a little overblown.

But it's a catchphrase, and most people using it won't be intending a direct reference to the reality of Disney, any more than estate agents describing a house as 'TARDIS-like' have really got Doctor Who on the mind.
 
And to be fair, the term "too Disney" or even "like Disney" gets a mixed reaction in the USA and especially in American zoos. It is by no means a model most aspire to.
Many appreciate what DAK has accomplished but worry that 'that way madness lies.' And a loss of Mission.
 
Last edited:
I think his comments really have been taken out of context here, I dont think any self respecting zoo director would take a pop at another respected establishment, if he had any sense anyway! I agree with the above that he was referring to the anthropomorphism attitude of the cartoons rather than the way Disneys Animal Kingdom display animals. In the cartoons the animals have husbands and wives, eat of plates with knives and forks etc but in the zoo they live in large family groups rather than "in two by two".

The comments about the American attitude are quite unfound if you ask me. I have visited a few zoos in America and they certainly do not have a cushy view of how cruel nature can be. Most practice live feeding of vertebrates, both fish and small mammals!
 
I would say they will hit the million when the new Gorilla habitat is open and the new bull elephant arrives!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top