theres something i always has me frowning about san diego zoo.
why are they so reluctant to attempt integrating elephants? the san diego zoo has groups of both species - yet the zoo however holds a couple of asians that live with an african cow. i have always suspected this was to maintain the prestige of having not only elephants, but both species, on display in what is the worlds largest menagarie at the zoo.
now the SDZS plans on finally consolodating and integrating its asian elephants together, i wonder if they will do the same for their african elephants and move teh female at the zoo her to the wild animal park. the article i read suggested the answer was "no".
controversially, they moved the parks african elephants to chicago (where they soon died) instead of attempting integration with the wild-captured animals that exist there now. i imagine integrating an established wildborn herd with long-time zoo animals may not be easy, but not necessarily impossible.
i applaud that the zoos asian elephants will soon be in the company of more of their own kind and think that housing a different species at each zoo is the best case scenario. i do however, hope they do the same for their african elephant as well!!
in any case, what do you guys think of this pleistocene-themed exhibit? it has strong overtones of the "pleistocene rewilding" concept i brought up a while back.
whilst i think the idea of developing a park that was entirely devoted to the concept, that did it properly with elephants roaming free in a semi-wild scenario with horses, camels etc would be fascinating, personally, its not something i expect so much from a zoo.
heres a question...(and one i have not made up my mind about)
is it just as effective, or even moreso to teach about extinction through the story of local prehistory or does it only allow people to lose touch with the seriousness of the current situation in the world?
but maybe its all about what it says, now how?
why are they so reluctant to attempt integrating elephants? the san diego zoo has groups of both species - yet the zoo however holds a couple of asians that live with an african cow. i have always suspected this was to maintain the prestige of having not only elephants, but both species, on display in what is the worlds largest menagarie at the zoo.
now the SDZS plans on finally consolodating and integrating its asian elephants together, i wonder if they will do the same for their african elephants and move teh female at the zoo her to the wild animal park. the article i read suggested the answer was "no".
controversially, they moved the parks african elephants to chicago (where they soon died) instead of attempting integration with the wild-captured animals that exist there now. i imagine integrating an established wildborn herd with long-time zoo animals may not be easy, but not necessarily impossible.
i applaud that the zoos asian elephants will soon be in the company of more of their own kind and think that housing a different species at each zoo is the best case scenario. i do however, hope they do the same for their african elephant as well!!
in any case, what do you guys think of this pleistocene-themed exhibit? it has strong overtones of the "pleistocene rewilding" concept i brought up a while back.
whilst i think the idea of developing a park that was entirely devoted to the concept, that did it properly with elephants roaming free in a semi-wild scenario with horses, camels etc would be fascinating, personally, its not something i expect so much from a zoo.
heres a question...(and one i have not made up my mind about)
is it just as effective, or even moreso to teach about extinction through the story of local prehistory or does it only allow people to lose touch with the seriousness of the current situation in the world?
but maybe its all about what it says, now how?
Last edited: