San Francisco Zoo Elephant Habitats at Detroit And San Frasico Zoo

No, Lucy from Edmonton is asian - they also had one female african elephant, Samantha, who was transferred to the NC zoo to live in their fantastic new, expanded enclosure and hopefully breed there soon.

Anyhuis, you shouldn`t allow yourself to get that angry with Peta & co - you give them way more power then they deserve if you allow them to influence you in this way. On another hand, I have most likely read all reasons why AZA zoos think that regardless the individual situation, AZA zoos are always better then the 2 big sanctuaries in Tenn. and California - and I disagree. Actually, a lot of what the AZA has stated in this regard was misinformation and propaganda - just like what Peta & IDA do, just the other way around.
 
Yassa said:
Anyhuis, you shouldn`t allow yourself to get that angry with Peta & co - you give them way more power then they deserve if you allow them to influence you in this way.
Click to expand...

Again, you may be right. But I'm not sure if my emotion is "anger". It's probably more "fear", as I truly am afraid that something I love (zoos) could be threatened by this politically correct "Zoos are evil" movement, which the IDA and PETA represent. To me, it's a shame that many travel magazines will no longer feature zoos as good tourist attractions. Why? Because they are "uncomfortable" with zoos. I am a realist who identifies what IDA and PETA are -- our Enemies. Thus, whatever they are pushing for (ie, elephants to go to sanctuaries), my first reaction is to oppose it.

Yassa said:
On another hand, I have most likely read all reasons why AZA zoos think that regardless the individual situation, AZA zoos are always better then the 2 big sanctuaries in Tenn. and California - and I disagree. Actually, a lot of what the AZA has stated in this regard was misinformation and propaganda - just like what Peta & IDA do, just the other way around.
Click to expand...

Could be, but the testimony given at that Los Angeles City Council meeting in January, in which sanctuaries were clearly exposed as inferior places for Billy the LA elephant to live -- that didn't sound like "propaganda" to me. It was very convincing evidence, enough to sway LA Council members who began the meeting opposing the Zoo. When they realized that Billy was just plain better off at the Zoo, instead of at the PAWS sanctuary, they switched sides and voted in favor of the Zoo.
 
As I said before, I think you always need to look into the individual situation to determine what is best for an elephant. L.A. had already spent a great deal of money on the new elephant enclosure and Billy will hopefully get young females as companions and to breed, something not possible at PAWS because all their asian eles are older and (exept Gypsy) too frail to be introduced to a bull. He would have spent most of not all of his life there alone. I don`t know how good that new enclosure in L.A. really is, but there is a big chance I`d agree that it was best for him to stay there. While PAWS can save funds and rescue the next needy bull elephant from a circus or private owner. While it was the best for Ruby, the last african ele from L.A., to go to PAWS where she lives in a multi-acre enclosure with other female african elephants.
 
Can I just ask the question, do any zoos replicate forest/woodland like enclosures for their asian/african forest elephants with live vegetation for the elephants to move amongst?? And if any do how do they protect enough of the vegetation to keep the enclosure looking like a forest??
 
Does anybody know of any zoos that replicate jungle-like enclosures for large herbivores like asian elephants??
 
I think the only place I've seen with their elephants in a forest is pictures of one in the Netherlands, the trees are hotwired. Also, Chester's indoor area is like a forest, but all the plants are outside the enclosure.
 
Peta and IDA will not determine the fate of zoos or its inhabitants, the public will. Most people fall somewhere in the middle in their thinking. They support both zoos and sanctuaries. This "them vs. us" attitude is childish. All the public cares about is that the animals needs are being met. If you feel these sanctuaries are so sub-standard, why aren't you calling for the resignation of the directors who relocated their eles there. The AZA did not discipline these zoos for violating any standard after they relocated their eles. Why not?
 
in response to ashley-h: is there no way of having vegetation but having enough so that the elephants can't kill it all? Or is there a particular species of plant elephants don't like to eat?? Or can you protect the trees and vegetation in any way??
 
I said, they're protected with electric wire. There's no way that they could be left unprotected, elephants are eating machines and it would be all gone. Even if they didn't like the taste I'm sure they'd still tear it up.
 
Yea, that's true. Well then what zoo (in the world) has the best enclosure for asian or african forest elephants??
 
Couldn't tell you, maybe this needs a new thread?
By the way, I'm not sure if there are any African forest elephants in captivity.
 
I thought that a few zoos kept forest elephants?? Anyway, it is quite sad that these amazing creatures can't be exhibited in a very naturalistic environment, but I know it's almost impossible. Maybe we could start a new thread?!?!
 
There have been a few single forest elephants kept with african savannah elephants in western zoos in the last decades. After my knowledge, they have all died now so there are no forest elephants left in captivity. They have never bred in western zoos.
 
CritterBlog said:
Peta and IDA will not determine the fate of zoos or its inhabitants, the public will. Most people fall somewhere in the middle in their thinking. They support both zoos and sanctuaries. This "them vs. us" attitude is childish. All the public cares about is that the animals needs are being met.
Click to expand...

You can feel that we shouldn't have a "them vs us" attitude, and that it's "childish", but our opponents (the zoo-haters, who really DO want to shut down all zoos) will never stop. Here's just another such case:

Advocates express concern about elephants' new home | Philadelphia Inquirer | 06/26/2009

In this case, the Philly Zoo is moving its 2 elephants to a 700-acre conservation site, run by the Pittsburgh Zoo. So is that good enough? Nooooo! Why not? Is it because the "sanctuary" would be 2300 acres? I doubt it, that's not much difference. What really bugs them is 2 things: (a) At Pittsburgh's site, they might breed the elephants. When we're trying to preserve a species, isn't that the point? It goes to show that the activists don't really care any species conservation; and (b) They likely don't like it that the elephants will still be on a site run by a Zoo (Pittsburgh). Face it, these folks really do see all zoos as evil -- and until those elephants are "free" of our evil zoos, they can't be happy.
 
I don't know why they have such a problem with them breeding, it's one of the most natural things they can do and (socially) benefits elephants no end.
 
I agree ashley-h. Why they have a problem with breeding makes no sense at all. It creates a larger herd which elephants thrive in. It also is an extremely enriching experience for the mother to raise the baby and the rest of the herd because they can socialize with the baby.
 
Apparently they think they're too old, but my theory is if they can physically get pregnant then it shouldn't really cause them any harm.
 
My dear fellow forumsters,

I deplore that once more we - forum readers - do see too much of this general discussion on elephants in captivity and discussion of activitism which does not relate to the current thread. It keeps cropping up from all unexpected corners. Please can we keep things on topic! If you do require to comment on current activisms (see Toronto and various others) ... there is a separate thread already devoted to this.

Right now the San Francisco thread should deal with the current perceived credit crunch crisis and the travesty that the Zoo Board - read the Municipality - is failing its zoo and just cynically slaps up all the years of neglect on the Zoo and its inhabitants (and admittedly lagging exhibitry). The new elephant habitat seemed a way forward. The municipality and even the current Director are killing all that stone dead and coming up with all the wrong solutions (like closing half the zoo and laying off its committed keeper workforce ... the gall and sheer arrogance just infuriates me no end).!@!&( :mad:
 
Sorry, got carried away :p
 
Right now the San Francisco thread should deal with the current perceived credit crunch crisis and the travesty that the Zoo Board - read the Municipality - is failing its zoo and just cynically slaps up all the years of neglect on the Zoo and its inhabitants (and admittedly lagging exhibitry). The new elephant habitat seemed a way forward. The municipality and even the current Director are killing all that stone dead and coming up with all the wrong solutions (like closing half the zoo and laying off its committed keeper workforce ... the gall and sheer arrogance just infuriates me no end).!@!&( :mad:[/QUOTE]

First of all, the zoo is operated by a private non-profit organization, The San Francisco Zoological Society, not the City of San Francisco. The city neglected the zoo to the tune of $18 million in needed repairs when the Society took over the zoo in 1993. The Zoological Society has never been able to operate the zoo in the black with the exception of fiscal years 2006 and 2007 when they actually turned a profit under the much maligned former director. The current director has no management experience and no zoological experience and is a friend of the mayor of San Francisco. Rumor has it that she has political aspirations.

In 2004 or 2005 the city forced the former zoo director to send the elephants to sanctuary or the city would withhold the $4 million annual subsidy from the Society. The city also passed legislation that would require a 15 acre exhibit for elephants if they were ever brought back to the San Francisco Zoo.

Given the zoo's current financial state, it is highly doubtful they will ever have elephants again.

Before you defend the zoo keepers at the San Francisco Zoo, you should know that 1) they are the highest paid keepers in the United States and 2) are still demanding a big increase in salary in their current labor negotiations despite the fact that other unions in San Francisco and around the state are accepting wage freezes or reductions. Labor costs are the biggest expense that the San Francisco Zoo has so I wouldn't feel too sorry for those keepers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top