Not if you put them in areas previously occupied by off exhibit areas or undeveloped areas.
San Diego Zoo How would you improve San Diego Zoo?
- Thread starter koala7
- Start date
But then where would the animals that were previously kept in these areas go?
If you redevelop current spaces at the zoo and displacement animals, they need somewhere to go. Moving off-exhibit animals on-exhibit in additional new spaces will only increase the number of animals displaced while diminishing the amounts of available holding space the zoo has. You're advocating for the zoo to replace existing habitats with better quality ones that are larger and also bring in new species that zoo doesn't currently have. Then you're saying they can keep all the species displaced by that development by developing non-public spaces into new habitats that can house all the displaced animals. But then you're saying all the animals that are displaced by that development (which includes animals as large as Takin, for the record) can just be moved elsewhere in the zoo into more new habitats. Now where we're at is having to figure out where to move all the animals displaced by that development. You're just shuffling animals around while removed valuable, necessary non-public spaces.
I'm all for the redevelopment of the poorer areas of the zoo, but unfortunately that's not going to happen without having to downsize the collection.
~Thylo
Ok I am going to explain this one more time. I am not suggesting bringing new species into the zoo. I am suggesting using a mix of off exhibit and all ready exhibited species and putting them in undeveloped (meaning untouched, not off exhibits) and off exhibit areas. This allows for more species to be on exhibit by putting off exhibit species in new exhibits or in the exhibits of species they were replaced by. For example let’s say there were calamian deer, visayan warty pig, and Chinese serow in the off exhibit area behind panda canyon. To put an exhibit back there they put sloth bears, Mishimi takin, and Chinese serow. The calamian deer go to the old takin exhibit and the pigs go to the sloth bear exhibit. Obviously this is fiction a real exhibit would be more complex but it’s the same system that would be employed to put a new exhibit there. Or once again in the largely undeveloped hill behind the waterfowl ponds, there would be no worry about switching species there.But then where would the animals that were previously kept in these areas go?
If you redevelop current spaces at the zoo and displacement animals, they need somewhere to go. Moving off-exhibit animals on-exhibit in additional new spaces will only increase the number of animals displaced while diminishing the amounts of available holding space the zoo has. You're advocating for the zoo to replace existing habitats with better quality ones that are larger and also bring in new species that zoo doesn't currently have. Then you're saying they can keep all the species displaced by that development by developing non-public spaces into new habitats that can house all the displaced animals. But then you're saying all the animals that are displaced by that development (which includes animals as large as Takin, for the record) can just be moved elsewhere in the zoo into more new habitats. Now where we're at is having to figure out where to move all the animals displaced by that development. You're just shuffling animals around while removed valuable, necessary non-public spaces.
I'm all for the redevelopment of the poorer areas of the zoo, but unfortunately that's not going to happen without having to downsize the collection.
~Thylo
As someone who has never been to San Diego Zoo, I for one believe that the penultimate experience of going to San Diego Zoo should be to see notable animals from all over the world. Excluding Polar Bears would only tarnish the uniqueness of San Diego, just as the loss of Panda Bears has discredited it minorly in my opinion.
They do, however, need to bring Bilbys in.
They do, however, need to bring Bilbys in.
San Diego's always put the highest amount of effort possible in keeping polar bears, especially with an in-house snow machine, shade, misters, and more natural substrate. To reiterate, polar bears are just too iconic to San Diego's message of conservation and averting climate change. To convert it to a grizzly bear habitat would be to waste this opportunity to spread this message to more people. If you want a good grizzly bear habitat that's on par with what San Diego would do with the IMO preposterous notion mentioned earlier, go to Oakland Zoo. THAT SAID, if they were able to incorporate the hoofstock from the remaining Horn and Hoof Mesa exhibits into future projects on the zoo's premises (reimagined Urban Jungle along with potential mixed-species opportunities elsewhere), *maybe* they could do a similar build to Polar Bear Plunge but for grizzlies, American black bears, Rocky mountain goats, Roosevelt elk, etc. along with any other "unique" species, that would make it stand out from other California/North American sections in Californian zoos.
Also, second on the bilbies.
I don't think Polar Bears are in San Diego's future. The habitat is fine but it's not outstanding and afaik they don't have facilities for breeding. Polar Bears likely don't have a future in the country full stop, which is why all available animals are being condensed in the northern zoos at the few institutions that can breed them. Additionally, San Diego has a major issue of too many bears not enough adequate space, as has been discussed repeatedly above. Like almost every other zoo that's lost their elderly bears, San Diego will likely end up with Brown Bears in Northern Frontier.
~Thylo
~Thylo
I agree. San Diego's, enclosure is okay atm, but is a little small and kind of outdated compared to other polar bear complexes around the country. San Diego's climate dosen't suit Polar Bears too, and neither does the terrain, so it makes a lot of sense to phase them out and replace them with their brown bears once they die.