Ida Worst Zoos For Eles 2007

@ Snowleopard: Your being a little extreme when you say that Detroit is the only adequate Polar Bear exhibit. San Diego & Toledo both have very adequate exhibits for Polar Bears. There are some others too. That is going a little far when you say that ONLY Detroit has an adequate Polar Bear exhibit.
When you are referring to the Sumatran Tigers what particular zoo are you talking about? I think that Bronx Zoo does an excellent job for displaying Big Cats. Tiger Mountain & Himalayan Highlands are two of the nicest exhibits for big cats and they are the perfect setting for a big cat displaying natural behaviors. Tiger River at the San Diego Zoo is another excellent tiger habitat, so is Utah's Hogle Zoo Asian Highlands. Dallas Zoo has a nice tiger habitat, so does Minnesota Zoo. So there is not a shortage of nice tiger exhibits in the country. There are also plenty more. The big cats that doing bad in captivity are the ones that are living in cages created in the 1950's. I think if any animal is given a modern habitat it will do well.
 
Some species do very poorly in captivity no matter the setting, Douc Langurs and Bush Dogs come to mind...

But many will agrue (including me) that in many cases it is just a case of finding the missing element in a zoo setting, maybe food (or lack of a certain type), habitat, sleeping quarters, lack of enrichment (or a certain type)... I often use the example that in the 30's, 40's it was thought to be a miracle to keep a Gorilla alive for more than a few years...

What do elephants need..? Enrichment and lots of it; very large enclosures with huge pools; spacious barns; a zoo in the right climate range; no concrete or packed dirt just rubber, sand and mud... Not many zoos are in the right place, have enough space or enough cash to fulfill these (basic IMO) requirements...
 
"What do elephants need?" indeed.

At the Toronto Zoo, we are undergoing a feasibility study to figure out the direction our elephant program will take, potentially with a majorly massive renovation of the facility (hopefully incorporating several additional acres). One thing that we have debated over is the need for pools. We currently have a large, natural substrate pool accessible to the elephants from spring to the fall (it is drained in winter). Although they are able to submerge in it, we see our (African) elephants using the pool out of their own volition (i.e., when we don't toss in apples or whatnot) less than ten times per year (actually we saw them in it maybe three times this summer ... ).

At least at the Toronto Zoo (and I believe this is typical for African elephants in general), they prefer to plaster themselves with mud ... we created a specific mud-station in the exhibit since they were spending their time at the waterbowls blowing water into the ground to make their own mud.

Anyways, I've often thought that (for all the good it does the elephants) the space taken up by the pool would be much better utilized as additional land area (the paddock needs to be bigger). However, the public perception that elephants "should have a pool" means that we may have to have not just one swimming pool in the expansion, but one in each paddock ...
 
Ungulate said:
"What do elephants need?" indeed.

However, the public perception that elephants "should have a pool" means that we may have to have not just one swimming pool in the expansion, but one in each paddock ...
Click to expand...


Ungulate - this is a viewpoint that I have serious problems with.

Shouldn't we, as zoo professionals, be "directing" the public's thoughts, knowledge and "perceptions" rather than pandering to their incorrect "perceptions"???

Shouldn't we be providing lovely, big, messy, mudddy, often-used wallows rather than pristine , hardly-used pools - and then tell the public why this is so??

Not looking for an argument here - just seeking other's viewpoints.
 
I think that what Ungulate was trying to say is that African elephants live in mostly dry,dusty places rather than moist,riverine forests which asians are commonly found in thus,rather than creating a huge pool in each paddock that takes up alot of spaces while the elephants may hardly use it,it would probably be good to create one large pool in a paddock and then a smaller one or a mud wallow in the other one so the elephants havew more space to walk.This may or may not have been what he was shooting.Not trying to pick a fight r anything,just pointing something out
 
That's cool Zoogoer2000.

My comments were more about the fact that as zoo people we often pander to public "perception", rather than try to correct incorrect perceptions.
 
That is pretty much what I was saying, ZooGoer - thanks.
I strongly advocate your viewpoint, Steve. My sense is that - because elephants are a "hot topic" - most zoos are conservative when designing new exhibits and try not to rock the boat, especially by NOT providing something that animal may have elsewhere, regardless of whether they will use it or not (and hence snowleopard's lament that most elephant exhibits all look the same).

In some cases, I think the discordance between what an animal needs and what it gets in a new design is due to the perceptions of the decision makers. Zoo boss (who may not know a nickel's worth about elephants) perceives that elephants need a pool, ergo they get a massive pool. In an increasing number of zoos, there is a rather large gap between the group designing a new facility and those who will have to use the facility when it is built, and as a result some very important comments and suggestions don't even get heard by the design team.

The whole discussion on the merits and problems of Omaha's Lied Jungle and Desert Dome is a great illustration of animal needs vs. people-oriented exhibitry.
 
My view that a pool is useful is its application at Auckland Zoo... Keepers bathe the elephants almost daily to remove the sand and dirt on them and then supply them with more materials to protect their skin...
 
ida will be releasing their 2008 worst list for elephants in a week or so. I was wondering what zoos everyone thinks will be on the list? I am sure they will somehow manage to put on Woodland Park Zoo and St. Louis Zoo for no reason. They always manage to place these zoos on the list and it is never really for any reason. The only one that truly deserves to be on the list is Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. Other than that the whole list is pointless in my opinion.
 
I agree,

Los Angeles
San Antonio
Dallas
Six Flags Discovery Kingdom
Houston
Montgomery
Atlanta
Baltimore
Calgary
Buffalo
 
They had an elephant birth. A few years ago they decided not to take Philly's African Elephants because they would not have the money to build their new elephant exhibit sooner and their current exhibit would be unacceptable for 0.5 elephants. This past year, they acquired a pregnant female and a male from Riddle's and they are living in the current facility with Baltimore's other 2 cows. Now they have 2.3 elephants.
 
I'm still perplexed by the Buffalo Zoo's renovation. It took only a few months and added only one or a few thousand feet to their barn. If your going to renovate and you have the money (Im assuming this was the factor) do the best that you can. Isn't their barn now around 5,000 square feet?
 
BlackRhino said:
ida will be releasing their 2008 worst list for elephants in a week or so.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but I'd recommend that those of us who truly love zoos utterly IGNORE anything that zoo-hating groups like the IDA or PETA says! These groups do NOT want zoos to improve, they want them closed down! Attacking zoos for keeping elephants is just a first step in their plan. After all zoos have dropped their elephant exhibits, next will be rhinos or polar bears. Eventually zoos will be boring places where only squirrels and ducks can be seen. We should NOT let the IDA tell us anything about what is adequate for an elephant exhibit! For the Zoo world to listen to PETA or the IDA is like Israel listening to Hamas when they say what's wrong with Israel.

snowleopard said:
I love zoos to death and just visited 30 this year, but there are problems big and small at every single one of them.
Click to expand...

SnowLeopard, from having met you and walking through a zoo with you, I truly know that you love zoos. But I'd take issue with your characterization of "problems". I'd prefer the term "minor flaws" or "imperfections". Imagine if we were talking about our spouse. Would we say "I love her to death, but she has problems big and small". Maybe, but if her "problems" were that severe, I think our "love" for her would be challenged -- and we certainly wouldn't be posting her problems on a public forum like ZooChat. Again, I've visited over 210 zoos worldwide and none of them are perfect. All have minor flaws and imperfections, but I've seen very, very few real "problems" in any of the major zoos. Let the radicals and wackos from the IDA and PETA say our love (zoos) have "problems".
 
Ahhh Allen, I admire your upbeat, positive, "glass half full" outlook on life. I enjoy zoos and have lots of fun in them, and at your encouragement Debbie and I now visit every single children's area within major zoos as once we have kids we want to know where will be the best places to take them on a road trip...haha. However, myself and many others here on ZooChat are far more critical of zoos than you are, and I think that you'll defend them to the end of time. I adore visiting zoos and am constantly imagining winning the lottery and going on extensive overseas "zoo vacations", but realize that they could always be a tiny bit better than they are.

The fact remains that exhibits at any zoo could always be improved, from the spectacular "Kingdoms of the Night" nocturnal house at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo (which you know that I love) to the the cat complex at the very same institution. I chose an easy target as that is a zoo that unfortunately is always debated extensively on ZooChat, but I know that you see nothing wrong with the Cincinnati Zoo's small cat house or bear grottoes at many major collections while others shake their heads at such habitats. I laud the great exhibits I've seen, and lavish praise on the wonders of the zoo world, but I am not afraid to criticize and change the poor enclosures. There are quite a few zookeepers, exhibit designers and others in the industry right here on ZooChat, and all of us who point out deficiencies are often rewarded when an outdated enclosure undergoes a massive transformation. There is nothing that warms the heart more than when an influx of cash is put to great use in a major zoo, and I for one cannot wait for the new $6 million penguin pool that is opening soon at the Woodland Park Zoo. It will surely be an enormous improvement on the half-a-century pool that was a badly flawed habitat, and the fact that it's a 5 hour round-trip to Seattle won't deter me from visting that zoo in the early summer. There was frequent criticism of the penguin pool at the zoo on the comment cards by the south gate, and now the voices of the public have been heard! It took a cash donation from a penguin fan to make it happen, but the renovation came through a plea for change.
 
You know though Scott that IDA is not looking for zoos to improve. If they wanted zoos to improve their elephant exhibits they would create an "IDA's top 10 best zoos for elephants". That would be a whole lot more productive as it would give the zoos with poor elephant exhibits something to look off of. Surely zoos like SDWAP, Oakland, Nashville, Indianapolis, North Carolina, Kansas City, and more would make the list. I personally hate the IDA and honestly they really do nothing to help elephants. The fact that they have the St. Louis Zoo on their list just goes to show how inaccurate they are. Animal Planet had the St. Louis Zoo elephant exhibit on "Ultimate Zoo" and here IDA is bashing making no sense.
 
BlackRhino said:
You know though Scott that IDA is not looking for zoos to improve. If they wanted zoos to improve their elephant exhibits they would create an "IDA's top 10 best zoos for elephants". That would be a whole lot more productive as it would give the zoos with poor elephant exhibits something to look off of. Surely zoos like SDWAP, Oakland, Nashville, Indianapolis, North Carolina, Kansas City, and more would make the list. I personally hate the IDA and honestly they really do nothing to help elephants. The fact that they have the St. Louis Zoo on their list just goes to show how inaccurate they are. Animal Planet had the St. Louis Zoo elephant exhibit on "Ultimate Zoo" and here IDA is bashing making no sense.
Click to expand...

That's a great point--if you want to actually 'fix' something you (you being IDA) think is a problem, give people examples of how to fix them. You can't just say "See, you're doing it wrong."
 
BlackRhino said:
You know though Scott that IDA is not looking for zoos to improve. If they wanted zoos to improve their elephant exhibits they would create an "IDA's top 10 best zoos for elephants". That would be a whole lot more productive as it would give the zoos with poor elephant exhibits something to look off of. Surely zoos like SDWAP, Oakland, Nashville, Indianapolis, North Carolina, Kansas City, and more would make the list. I personally hate the IDA and honestly they really do nothing to help elephants. The fact that they have the St. Louis Zoo on their list just goes to show how inaccurate they are. Animal Planet had the St. Louis Zoo elephant exhibit on "Ultimate Zoo" and here IDA is bashing making no sense.
Click to expand...

BlackRhino is 100% correct! PLEASE ignore the IDA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top