I did not spend enough time by the buffalo exhibit to notice. I was too entertained by the Allen's Swamp Monkey antics across the path
.North America's Gorilla Exhibits
- Thread starter snowleopard
- Start date
I did not spend enough time by the buffalo exhibit to notice. I was too entertained by the Allen's Swamp Monkey antics across the path
.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
>> "Inmates" are human beings who have committed a crime. "Prisons" are for people who have committed a crime. Gorillas are ANIMALS! They are not people! Thus "inmates" and "prisons" are a horrible and wrong words!
>> By the way, Zooman, I give you credit for knowing your Bible! 314 days, really? I thought it was 40 days and 40 nights.
>> We also have zoos because we want to see animals in person! Sorry, but I'm not into the human-bashing thing. We're not perfect, of course, but we don't need to keep apologizing forever.
>> I cannot?? I do deny that. Animals are better off in zoos because they get medical care, regular food, and safety from being eaten or poached. No, they don't have freedom, but they don't even know what "freedom" is. That word is a human term, and as I said, they're NOT human!
>> Our "enemies" (who want to close down ALL zoos) do NOT have a point at all. Should zoos improve? Of course. But do these enemies care about zoos improving? No! They want to DESTROY what we love.
>> Sorry, but I can't agree. The reason all of these big elephant exhibits are popping up is because zoo people realized the need for them. The PETA, IDA, and Hancocks have zero interest in seeing zoos improve their elephant exhibits! Zero! If you need any proof of this, look at what just happened in Los Angeles. The LA Zoo was in the middle of building one of these "multi acre elephant exhibits" and did that make them happy? NO! The IDA and Hancocks were very, very involved in trying to stop this nice new exhibit. Why? Because they are against zoos no matter what. So I would suggest that they do ZERO good! They only want to destroy what we love. If they accidentally do some good, it's just accidental, and they deserve no credit.
But folks, I mean no disrespect. I understand your points. I'm just trying to get people to THINK about who are our enemies, and shouldn't we stop surrendering to them? Even with our terminology.
I could not have said any of that better
I absolutely agree. Zoos change because the people who run them, love their animals and when new information or new technologies come to light zoos move towards improvement on their own so much as the funds allow. All IDA has accomplished with their anti-elephant crusade is it's gotten various city entities to realize what they have with their zoo and decide that they'd best dump some more money into it. That isn't their goal, but it has been a polarizing affair where both sides strengthen their own opinions. This is what has led to the new elephant exhibits. Those exhibits probably would have been built eventually anyway, but now zoos are able to get the funding to build these elephant exhibits because those who pay for zoos (ie city governments, private donors etc...), don't want to see them lose their elephants at the hands of their enemies. It's much easier to get funding if you can say "we need to do this, or we will not longer be able to keep elephants".
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Believe it or not, I'm going to confess some of are right, to a point. Yes, the critiques of the IDA, PETA, and Hancocks HAVE led to some better exhibits. But that being said, I am still NOT going to give them ANY credit!
Why? Because we have to consider the INTENT of these people. Was it their intent to see zoos improve their elephant exhibits? No, Los Angeles proves this was never their intent. Their INTENT is to see all of our beloved zoos closed!
Two Historical Examples:
1. Here in the USA (and probably worldwide), it truly IS safer to fly today, thanks to the fifteen 9/11 terrorists. So should we pat them on the back and give them credit? No way! While they actually did cause the world to make flying safer, that was NOT their intent. But rather, their intent was to kill thousands of people and destroy the economy of the USA.
2. Back before World War 2, Adolf Hitler really did build an amazing highway system in Germany -- a system that is still the envy of the world, now know as the autobahns. But should we look back and thank Mr. Hitler for his wonderfulness in giving the world the first truly great highway system? Again, no way! What was Hitler's intent? He knew that he was about to invade all of his European neighbors (for one reason, to take care of that "Jewish problem"), so he needed his Army to have an efficient highway system to rush them to the front lines as they invaded Poland, France, Netherlands, and Czech. While what he created truly was good, that was NOT his intent.
In conclusion, no, I'm not saying we can't call for zoos to improve themselves. I'm just saying that we should stop doing so by using the "weapons" of our enemies. Some of those weapons are the words they use to describe zoos, such as "animal prisons", and calling animals "inmates". Let's start recognizing our ENEMIES and not emulate them.
Thanks!!!
Why? Because we have to consider the INTENT of these people. Was it their intent to see zoos improve their elephant exhibits? No, Los Angeles proves this was never their intent. Their INTENT is to see all of our beloved zoos closed!
Two Historical Examples:
1. Here in the USA (and probably worldwide), it truly IS safer to fly today, thanks to the fifteen 9/11 terrorists. So should we pat them on the back and give them credit? No way! While they actually did cause the world to make flying safer, that was NOT their intent. But rather, their intent was to kill thousands of people and destroy the economy of the USA.
2. Back before World War 2, Adolf Hitler really did build an amazing highway system in Germany -- a system that is still the envy of the world, now know as the autobahns. But should we look back and thank Mr. Hitler for his wonderfulness in giving the world the first truly great highway system? Again, no way! What was Hitler's intent? He knew that he was about to invade all of his European neighbors (for one reason, to take care of that "Jewish problem"), so he needed his Army to have an efficient highway system to rush them to the front lines as they invaded Poland, France, Netherlands, and Czech. While what he created truly was good, that was NOT his intent.
In conclusion, no, I'm not saying we can't call for zoos to improve themselves. I'm just saying that we should stop doing so by using the "weapons" of our enemies. Some of those weapons are the words they use to describe zoos, such as "animal prisons", and calling animals "inmates". Let's start recognizing our ENEMIES and not emulate them.
Thanks!!!
It's an industry, not a religion. I won't obey any dogmatic notion that baby gorillas cry when I use the word "inmate". I speak as I please as long as it's within the boundaries of what's obscene and what's not. Fearmongering is something I've never been big on and the George W "You're with us or against us" mentality as it pertains to this subject is quite off base here.
Folks here most likely tend to put more value on an animals's quality of life than to just say "they're animals, we're people". Just b/c we decide for the moment that something is best (or most economically feasible) for them, doesn't make it the case.
If stagnation is okay with some people, then that's fine with me. They're entitled to that opinion. If that was the prevailing mentality with professionals in the industry, we'd still be paying to see apes in tiny rooms with metal platforms, elephants chained to walls going nuts, and large carnivores pacing themselves raw. I say thank god it isn't. I'd rather see constant improvement with an emphasis on the animals' well-being as opposed to it's entertainment value and blind defense of old practices for the sake of loyalty to an outdated concept.
Also, seeing an animal in a zoo and seeing an animal in it's state of nature are far from the same thing. Implying that we know what's best for them is to imply that we have figured everything out on a biological level. The thing that's best for them, without a doubt is to go through life events as they have evolved to, in the wild. If that is no longer possible without human intervention, then they are destined to become no more than domesticates. The point of keeping them in captivity, and one of the main arguments for zoos is the hope for re-establishment in the wild. It's a sad state of affairs when it goes from keeping them in captivity for preservation of biodiversity to keeping them to eventually become empty caricatures of apes, cats or elephants with no purpose outside of being stared at by people who will never know what a real wild animal does or acts like. That does not involve living in a cage or pen. Is that the best they can expect to have? Maybe. Not sure that's a good thing, though,
Last edited:
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone here, especially including me, wants "stagnation" or the old inhumane zoos back. All I'm saying is that we will be more effective in improving our zoos (and defending them) if we ignore those who want our zoos destroyed. And by ignoring them, I suggest we not emulate them.
I think they're pretty much ignored now. I can only imagine that administrators view them as a nuisance. The general public and mainstream media acknowledge them only to laugh and point out their insanity. It may not be the case, but I view these kinds of groups as more publicity-oriented than result-seeking.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
They're not ignored when we repeat their propaganda with our own words ("animal prisons", "inmates"). They're also not ignored when the Director of a major European zoo (Antwerp) calls zoos "a necessary EVIL". And they're not ignored when a former American zoo director is still reverred and respected -- even though he's clearly siding with those who want all zoos destroyed. Finally, they're not ignored when some of the main posters on ZooChat are constantly discussing which zoos are on the IDA's worst exhibits lists.
But at least I'm glad you are with me in the need to ignore these enemies.
taun
Well-Known Member
If you look up prison, you will find something like the following,
When looking up prison it will also refer to confinement
And a inmate
It defines what we call enclosures and exhibits; let’s not attack someone for using what the English language defines as perfectly adequate words, just because you think it associates with the "ENEMY"
taun
Well-Known Member
You obviously not seen the state of the UK prison service, they may aswell as call them all "Hilton Hotels".
taun
Well-Known Member
Completely disagree with the first point. You are blind to the inadequateness of zoos and can only pick out the worst aspects of being free.
You’re always going to get people who disagree, but these groups are "a necessary EVIL". They are because the majority of the generally public will sympathises with there cause which adds some pressure on the zoos to create the best conditions for their charges.
These enemies as you put it, are laughable sometimes but you seem to have an unnatural hatred of these people when all they are doing is standing up for what they believe in and now seem to be going about it in the correct manner.
Maybe you should spend more energy into proving you enemies wrong instead of just attacking them (which is just as bad as them in some cases).
How inapropriate do you really want to show yourself as being !!
We are talking about western lowland gorilla enclosures in North America.
The above statement to me shows that Peta is at 1 end of the sea saw and you are on the other. Where as l belive most of us are more in the middle of the zoo debate.
To question or doubt my afection for a great exhibit or zoo is ridicoulous!
I find it ridiculous and annoying that the simple mentioning of a word like "inmate" promts some members here to start a long, totally off-topic discussion about which words we must not use in order not to encourage some "enemies". Letting groups like Peta, IDA and others dictate what we say and what words we use is giving them an importance that they don`t deserve, in my opinion!!
It is totally annoying that you have converted this very interesting and useful thread about north american gorilla enclosures into a discussion about Peta and other AR groups!! If you want to adress the point that members of zoochat shouldn`t use words like "INMATE" then start a seperate topic about that in the future, without distroying very interesting discussions, please.
It is totally annoying that you have converted this very interesting and useful thread about north american gorilla enclosures into a discussion about Peta and other AR groups!! If you want to adress the point that members of zoochat shouldn`t use words like "INMATE" then start a seperate topic about that in the future, without distroying very interesting discussions, please.
I am just confused as to why so many of you want to convince me that zoos are actually prisons!
They are NOT
They are NOT
There are quite a number of people that have taken this thread off on a tangent that is completely opposite from its original intent. This thread should be a celebration of the truly outstanding gorilla habitats in North America, and therefore if anyone has anything to add to that please feel free to contribute to the discussion. It is wonderful how great ape exhibits have progressed over the years, and ever since the Woodland Park Zoo in 1979 opened the first ever truly naturalistic gorilla exhibit there have been loads of spectacular gorilla enclosures throughout the world. There are many grassy, large ape habitats in North America, and I simply decided to choose the 6 best that I've personally visited.
Its amazing that Woodland Park has the oldest naturalistic gorilla exhibit yet still one of the three or four best!
I have to say that the Regenstein Center for African Apes was a major improvement aesthetically over the old institutonal Lincoln Park exhibits. Honestly like the chimp section better than the area for gorillas, but it's still a great exhibit in a zoo that is otherwise in need of some serious updates.
Has anyone seen either Kansas City or St. Louis' gorilla exhibits?
Both seem quite good.
Both seem quite good.