San Francisco Zoo Elephant Habitats at Detroit And San Frasico Zoo
- Thread starter Cat-Man
- Start date
In San Francisco I believe they were around the ancient pachyderm house. Detroit decided to close their exhibit because they felt the elephants could not handle the Michigan winters. They were not forced to at all by any means. San Francisco was forced to close down their elephant exhibit after the death of two out of four of their animals.
San Francisco actually had both Asians (at the 1930s Pachyderm House) and Africans (in a 1960s "African" exhibit with a medium-sized yard and tiny unheated barn). Both species were kept in awful, totally unacceptable conditions for years, and there was a spate of deaths in the early 2000s, followed by the decision to send the remaining animals to sanctuaries.
Elephant issues really signaled the start of the steep decline of the Zoo, which went into high gear (possibly irreversible) with the Christmas 2007 tiger incident.
Over half of the San Francisco Zoo's animals are kept in unacceptable exhibits.
The Detroit Zoo had a pretty big outside enclosure (1,5 acres?), but the elephants had to spend months in the barn with very little time outdoors, and they had very serious foot problems that got worse every winter, according to their vet. Since they couldn`t afford a very spacious, new big barn, they decided to send them to a better place in a warmer climate.
I really don't think elephants mind spending time in their indoor enclosures. In fact, I think they, as well as most other zoo animals prefer their indoor areas to their outdoor. When the elephants were living in the pachyderm building at the Cleveland Zoo the matriarch Jo hated to be outside and whenever she was, she would stand by the door pushing it with her tusks.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
I don't have any problems with these 2 zoos closing their elephant exhibits. Their reasons sound good. But I do struggle with their decisions to send their elephants to sanctuaries, when they could have sent them to other zoos -- couldn't they? It seems kind of "treasonous" (to the zoo world) of them to do this. It just gives the zoo-hating nutcakes more ammunition to use against our zoos -- "See, why don't you do what those nice zoos in Detroit and San Francisco did?" This is why I hope that IF the zoo up in Edmonton determines they need to close their elephant exhibit, at least send it to another zoo -- like Los Angeles.
The Executive Director at the San Francisco Zoo didn't really have a choice as the Board of Supervisors (San Francisco's governing board) threatened to cut off the $4 million annual subsidy if they did anything else. It was a lose/lose situation for the zoo.
One of elephants sent to the PAWS sanctuary died shortly after arriving there, no doubt hastened because of being moved out of her long-time home.
The elephant exhibits at SF were very small and very inadequate.
One of elephants sent to the PAWS sanctuary died shortly after arriving there, no doubt hastened because of being moved out of her long-time home.
The elephant exhibits at SF were very small and very inadequate.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
I'm glad to hear that, as it removes the thought of "treasonous".
I guess you are talking of Tinkerbelle - she was terminally ill when she was moved and according to my source, adjusted well at PAWS. She was just too far gone with foot disease and arthritis, she slipped because she was so very frail and that could have happened everywhere.
Re Detroit - I don`t agree that it doesn`t matter how much time elephants spend indoors. According to Alan Roocroft, who is an expert from within the zoo industry, there is a DIRECT LINK between the time an elephant spends being locked into small barns with concrete floors and foot abscesses and arthritis. I don`t believe the Peta rubbish that elephants need to move dozends of miles every day, but they need some exercise, and their feet are not build to withstand hard, unyielding surfaces for the majority of the 24 hours a day has, and in small barns/ single stalls, it is impossible to avoid that the eles are standing in their own feces most of the night.
In my personal opinion, no zoo should keep elephants when they can`t go out every day in winter for at least 6-7 hours = daylight time. And they need large indoor rooms with sand floor. Detroit couldn´t offer that and many US zoos can`t neither, and certainly no zoo who takes non-breeding females so it was the logical choice to do what was best for the elephants and their health (I repeat that the vet confirmed to the press that the foot problems of the 2 elephants were directly linked to time spent in the barn during winter). Today San Diego Zoo could be an option, but not at that time. The AZA recommended to send the 2 to Columbus, but neither of the females had experiences with calves and one of them had been agressive against other elephants in the past, so introducing them to the Columbus herd wasn´t a good idea and keeping them seperate there would have meant even less space for them then in Detroit. The winters in Columbus aren`t much better then those in Detroit, neither. The AZA finally agreed to move them to PAWS when one of the elephants tested positive for herpes. Winky lived there for 3 years, Wanda is still alive today.
At the Cleveland Zoo, where it can be extremely cold, the elephants were allowed outdoors everyday. The one female Moshi, actually loved to roll around in the snow. In the new African Elephant Crossing exhibit they are building a quarter acre outdoor night range that can be heated in cooler weather. This will allow the elephants to go outside in the middle of winter at night. I think all other northern zoos building new elephant habitats should incorporate this feature into them.
CritterBlog
Well-Known Member
I have followed Lulu for a long time and she is thriving at Paws. She is actually starting to behave like a normal elephant. This was not the case at SF. Furthermore, I have known Ruby for years and there can be no doubt the quality of her life has dramatically improved.
Now if only Edmonton's Valley Zoo can come to terms with losing their female elephant Lucy, who they've had for over 30 years. Being the most northerly city in North America still with an elephant enclosure Lucy spends almost 80% of her entire existence in her little barn. It sounds like the zoo should follow in the foosteps of both Detroit and San Francisco and abandon the idea of keeping elephants in shocking conditions.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but they should NOT betray the zoo world by sending her to a "sanctuary". Send her to Los Angeles -- they have a great new elephant habitat being built.
Why is sending an elephant to a sanctuary a "betray" to the zoo world?? Every zoo should do what is best for their elephants, and that can be sending it to a zoo for breeding, but it can also be the sanctuary in Tenn. or California. Don`t let the animals suffer just because you don`t like Peta or IDA!
By the way, L.A. has a bull in prime breeding age and what they need are females in breeding age. Sending Lucy to L.A. would be a waste of space and recources in L.A. We all know that the breeding record of asian elephants in the U.S. is dismal, the population is very near to be demografically dead, and Billy needs breeding age females as companions, not an elderly, sickly female who has never seen a calf in her life.
By the way, L.A. has a bull in prime breeding age and what they need are females in breeding age. Sending Lucy to L.A. would be a waste of space and recources in L.A. We all know that the breeding record of asian elephants in the U.S. is dismal, the population is very near to be demografically dead, and Billy needs breeding age females as companions, not an elderly, sickly female who has never seen a calf in her life.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Of course you're right. LA may not be the best choice, but I get an evil joy out of thinking of rubbing Lucy in the face of the PETA/IDA/Hancocks types, and especially putting her in the backyard of Hollywood celebrities who think they know what's best for elephants. But you're right, we need to do what's (really) best for the elephant.
If you heard the testimony of the LA City Council in January (over whether or not Billy should be sent to a sanctuary), there was much information on why these "sanctuaries" are simply NOT the best place for elephants -- zoos are!