Six Flags Discovery Kingdom Six Flags Discovery Kingdom

snowleopard

snowleopard

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
Premium Member
http://www.savezooelephants.org/records/six_flags/report_070628.pdf

Yes, the above link is from IDA (In Defense of Animals) and I realize that some people do not support nor bother to read any of the material that this organization produces. I noticed on another thread, involving the recent death of a giraffe, that there seems to be some confusion as to the history of this establishment. There is an extremely lengthy list of animal abuses at this California facility, and if one googles such information there is a wealth of data on the internet. I am not advocating the phasing out of elephants in zoos, as I have come to believe that there are a lot of top-notch pachyderm habitats that are soon to open in North America (or already have!), but I am simply pointing out that Six Flags is probably one of the most notorious captive animal facilities in the western hemisphere.

I have been ecstatic over the fact that in North America by the year 2012 there will be perhaps 17 different zoos with elephant habitats that are 3.5 acres or larger in size. However, Six Flags Discovery Kingdom has 7 elephants living in a paddock one acre in size, and there have been at least 9 elephant deaths since 1995. The pachyderm deaths have been due to a number of factors, with various ages involved, and the dead elephants had a wide range of injuries and diseases. Six Flags is the ONLY AZA-accreditated establishment in existence in the United States that still allows elephant rides, and there are also circus-style training activities that go on while the elephants live in cramped surroundings close to giant rollercoasters.

In my humble opinion it is foolish to endorse such practices. Multi-acre exhibits with enrichment is fantastic (San Diego WAP, Oakland, North Carolina, Indianapolis, etc) but having circus activities near rollercoasters in a tiny space is BARBARIC. I do not care about IDA's campaigns to get rid of elephants from all North American zoos, as there are now lots of brilliant habitats being built...but I do care about the Six Flags Discovery Kingdom elephants and it is possible to endorse one campaign without giving full support to others. Just as how in politics it is possible to not endorse a candidate but to still respect what he or she has to offer, I do not fully endorse the IDA organization but Six Flags is an abomination and therefore I do not approve of that particular facility.
 
I have the EXACT opinion as you. I am all 100% for elephants in zoos, but Six Flags...er...NO!
 
While I am not a huge fan of this zoo, I do feel bad for the facility considering Six Flags might not make it to 2010 financially, then the animals are really going to suffer and money for improvements and expansions goes out the window.
 
As I said on another thread, I've been to Six Flags Discovery Kingdom and saw nothing bad, and they have been a longtime AZA-accredited facility, so that's good enough for me. There is certainly nothing "barbaric" going on there -- or else AZA would withdraw their membership. They've withdrawn it for some rather small things with other zoos.

All this being said, I plan to go see Six Flags Discovery Kingdom in early April, so I'll let you all know what I see. I'm looking forward to it, and I plan to ride an elephant!!

Regarding elephant rides, I've long wondered WHY this is the "kiss of death" to many posters here. One of the criticisms of keeping elephants in zoos is that they don't get to walk the miles and mile they supposedly would out in the wild. Well, doesn't letting elephants give rides (as they do all the time in Asia) let them do a lot more walking? I know the animal rights extremists object to elephant rides because they say it has humans "looking down on the elephant species" -- but then again, who cares what these folks think? In my research, I've noted that AZA "discourages" elephant rides -- for safety reasons. That is, they are concerned over the safety of human beings -- those riding the elephants and the keepers who are guiding them. So I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with Six Flags offering elephant rides -- but it CERTAINLY isn't the horrible thing that some of you make of it. It's controversial, sure, but morally wrong?

Sorry, SnowLeopard, but I refuse to read anymore IDA hogwash anymore. I'd rather listen to people who love zoos, rather than those who hate them.
 
@ANyhuis: if a zoo electro-shocks an elephant, keeps elephants chained for 8 hours a night, uses bullhooks to force elephants to perform circus tricks, and keeps 7 elephants in less than an acre of space...then that is BARBARIC. Six Flags is one of the most notorious establishments in the world for animal rights abuse, hence the massive amount of press that the institution has received over the past couple of decades. Just because a person can spend a day at the park, watch elephants stand on two feet and perform other tricks, does not mean that behind the scenes there are serious issues. Even in plain view there are concerns that many fellow ZooChatters cannot abide, and once again there is the precedent that zoos are no longer becoming conservational edens but rather amusement parks with a few animals tossed in for effect.
 
Last edited:
I don't really see the problem with elephant rides myself, however I've seen pictures of the enclosure, and 7 eles on an acre of land...? Not on really :(
 
@Snowleopard: As I said, I'll be going to see Six Flags myself soon, so I'll let you know. Until then, I refuse to consider any facility as "barbaric" that is able to continue in good standing with the AZA. I don't mean any disrespect, but I only wonder if all of this negative stuff you've heard about Six Flags is simply coming from the zoo-haters, the IDA and others like them. If so, just don't forget that they have an agenda -- to close down ALL zoos. Thus, their integrity can be openly questioned. I simply urge people to totally ignore them, rather than pretend anything they say can be accurate.

A few questions regarding the things you said:
(1) Have you ever seen a bullhook up close, or touched one? I have, and I found they are NOT the horrible torture instrument the anti-zoo folks say they are. The keeper who showed me one told me that bullhooks are only used (today) to "nudge" an elephant, through its THICK skin. No serious pain or injury is inflicted. Again, I'm not justifying them, but suggesting that they are not the inhumane instrument the IDA says they are.
(2) I saw an elephant stand up on it two hind legs during a demonstration show at a notable eastern zoo. I don't want to publically single out this zoo, but if I did, would you criticize them for "performing circus tricks"?
(3) I simply do NOT "turn a blind eye" at reports of abuse. I simply factor in where the reports are coming from. If Obama Bin Laden says America is an evil country, should I take that seriously, or should I just consider the source and disregard it?
(4) You are getting a little over-emotional with your charges that I'd like to ride an ostrich, that I'd advocate dangerous roller coasters, or want to feed endangered white tigers! Hopefully I've never said anything to make anyone think I'd want any of those things. When I opened for discussion WHY having elephant rides is a "kiss of death" sign of how bad Six Flags is, I was talking about an animal that is a very regular beast of burden over in India. Over there no one thinks there's anything wrong with riding an elephant.
(5) My positive outlook on zoos has nothing to do with whether or not I can get into them for free. I simply refuse to believe that the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of keepers I've met would compromise their ethics by working for a zoo that purposely mistreats their animals.
(6) I agree with you that zoos "listen" and are constantly upgrading their exhibits. But I think many of the overly-pessimistic critics are usually ignoring the economic realities that zoos can't simply "wish" for the funds to do these upgrades. They also ignore the realities that zoos MUST attract large admissions in order to have the necessary funds to not only upgrade, but also to simply survive.
(7) I continue to urge you to consider the language you use for exhibits you don't like. You call Pittsburgh's bear pits "diabolical" and "a disgrace". Again, I'd ask you to consider if you are simply adopting the language that our enemies (the IDA et al) are using. I wonder what Carl Hagenbeck would've called those bear pits. I'll bet he would have liked them, as they are the kind of barless enclosures that he pioneered. They were considered "innovative" back then. So I guess everything is relative. Are they "outdated"? Certainly. "Diabolical"? No.

All I'm trying to do is open a few minds and make people think WHY they believe the things they do about zoos. Is it because everyone else does? Is it because Cher, Lilly Tomlin, and the IDA says so?
 
I edited out a few of my earlier comments, but I suppose that I am frustrated at the sheer existence of an establishment such as Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. Having euthanized 5 elephants, and having had a total of 9 die since 1995, it is partly down to the injuries and disease that some of the pachyderms have suffered in their one-acre paddock. Why can't zoos just let elephants roam around and do whatever they want in spacious, naturalistic exhibits rather than stand on two legs, give people rides, or anything else that they would never do in the wild. Visitors can stand and watch them interact with each other without incorporating any kind of "show".
 
training...no matter what behaviors are used....can very stimulating for any animal, especially elephants...often these "circus acts" can be useful for visual and medical examinations. These "unnatural" behaviors can also be subsitutes for behaviors that would occur in the wild, but cannot necessarily be replicated for some reason in captivity, that would naturally keep and elephant's body in good condition...for several hundred years, people often had physically demanding jobs and tasks that today are no longer part of our "routine" which is why it is important for us to exercise regularly to maintain a good physical condition. Lifting weights are not necessarily "natural" behaviors of humans...however they act as subsitutes in our modern lives for the physically demanding tasks and behaviors that our ancestors had. Historically circus elephants have been much healthier than zoo elephants overall.

Another thing to add to those elephant deaths statistics...no elephants have died at Six Flags in 6 years (since 2003). And they have the oldest elephant in North American captivity (Taj is supposedly 69 yrs old)....just something to think about when using statistics ;)
 
okapikpr said:
Another thing to add to those elephant deaths statistics...no elephants have died at Six Flags in 6 years (since 2003). And they have the oldest elephant in North American captivity (Taj is supposedly 69 yrs old)....just something to think about when using statistics ;)
Click to expand...

Good point. Actually, I just remembered something, and then looked it up. When I went to this park a decade ago, it was called "Marine World Africa USA". As it turns out, the Six Flags people bought the park in 1999. Is it not possible that the bad record with elephant deaths that some of you are alluding to was due to the old management? Perhaps it took the Six Flags folks 4 years to get things ironed out, and ever since then (2003), they've had a perfect record with elephants.

So let's not hate this park so quickly. Its infamy is likely due to two factors: exaggerations and lies from the zoo-haters (IDA), and old management that is no longer there.
 
Sorry, I wanted to make a point that statistics alone can be skewed...i certainly dont want to make it seem that they have a perfect record with elephants....no one can.
 
snowleopard: I just want to point out that the SDWAP, which you praised here, had an elephant show before they moved the asian elephants to the zoo.
 
Yes, but this show was done in a protected contact environment, which is something completely different then the circus shows that are done in direct contact.
 
Yassa said:
Yes, but this show was done in a protected contact environment, which is something completely different then the circus shows that are done in direct contact.
Click to expand...

I was just responding to this line: "Why can't zoos just let elephants roam around and do whatever they want in spacious, naturalistic exhibits rather than stand on two legs, give people rides, or anything else that they would never do in the wild."

Wasn't saying the SDWAP's show was as bad.
 
Don't know much about the elephants, but...

@ANyhuis: I was a long-time (decades) 'regular' at Marine World/Africa USA long before buying them out was even a whispered voice in Six Flags' execs ears. Long before the park even moved to Vallejo, in fact.

I knew most of the animal care/training staff personally, and had nothing but respect for them all. I knew how much time, effort, and caring they put into taking care of the critters.

Although I will reserve judgment until (and if) I see for myself, I would be much more inclined to believe the real problems with the elephant areas flared AFTER Six Flags took over. They certainly didn't waste any time polluting what was once a pleasant and peaceful park with thrill rides, thus displacing large chunks of what used to be animal habitat and show areas.

And the giraffe death? Didn't happen until well after Six Flags took over. The fire that killed him was started by, according to the reports, a short in an electrical box and a defective arc-fault breaker on that circuit which failed to trip in time to prevent ignition.

Based solely on what I know of the old park's staff, I seriously doubt they would have missed something like that. The maintenance staff inspected the animal areas regularly and rigorously, and something like a wiring fault would have stood out like a solar flare.

As for AZA accreditation, I would take that with a bag of rock salt. There exist zoos that have never been accredited in their lives that do an amazing job -- and there are zoos that have been accredited for decades, and STILL have major problems.

I still believe, as I have since the takeover happened, that SFDK is stuck in an identity crisis. They still can't decide whether they want to be a thrill-rides theme park, a zoo, or an oceanarium.

They have been, since they opened under the Six Flags label, operating under the delusion they can be all three. I disagree. The basic mission of zoos and oceanariums is very clear -- and in complete contradiction to the basic mission of a theme park.

With that in mind, I don't think the two should ever have been combined with the third. Honestly, I think I would rather have seen the entire park close down than become today's sick travesty of what it once was. At least SF had the decency to drop the Marine World name (took 'em long enough, though).

Oh, for the record: Six Flags will always be known in my head as "Sick Flags." If they're falling into bankruptcy and dissolution, they have only their own greedy selves to blame.

Happier travels.
 
Just my opinion

kc7gr:
I fully respect your opinions. But you do betray some bias in your strong opinions when you say: "Sick Flags", "polluting ... with thrill rides", and that the basic mission of zoos is a "complete contradiction" to the mission of theme parks. I tend to disagree, as I've been to Disney's Animal Kingdom many times and they fulfill both basic missions (of zoos, and of theme parks) quite well.

I was actually just out there at SFDK a mere 2 months ago. Honestly, my tour of the park was very brief (2 hours), as I was squeezing in my third zoological park in a single day. I can say, however, that in my short time there, I saw nothing to seriously complain about. They will likely never make it into our "Best Zoos" books however.

I guess I've been a bit of a Discovery Kingdom defender based on a few factors:
(a) Most of the criticism of SFDK has originated with the zoo-hating animal rights groups (IDA/PETA). Whatever they say, I believe it's best to believe exactly the opposite. At the very least, don't believe anything they say without confirming it first.
(b) Other criticism comes from those who simply think theme parks are bad. They don't like to hear the sounds of happy, squeeling children poisoning their peaceful time watching the animals. I just happen to think that it's possible to have both animals and fun at the same time.
(c) Many have railed against SFDK for being the only place in the USA with elephant rides. I'm not certain what I think of this, but it's never been explained to me what is so bad about elephant rides. Until someone does, I'll think they could be a good idea. My kids certainly enjoyed elephant rides when they were younger. The only thing I've seen (on the PETA/IDA websites) is that elephant rides create a belief that humans are "superior" to elephants. Is that bad? Millions of people in India and Southeast Asia ride elephants all the time, and the elephants don't seem to be harmed.
 
Clarification

Biased? Yes, I freely admit to it. I cannot be otherwise, considering my close attachment to the former Marine World. I wasn't kidding when I said I pretty much grew up with the place. Seeing it turned into a horrible parody of everything it once was, everything it once stood for, was... mmmm... 'painful' is the closest I can come and still be polite.

Oh, just a quickie. I don't have any real problem with elephant rides either, as long as the elephants involved are well treated. I know how well Marine World took care of their pachyderm department, but I have no idea how Six Flags has done along those lines.

Anyway... With that said, I apologize for not making myself clearer as regards my feelings towards theme parks vs. zoos. Permit me to expand on that, starting with Busch Gardens as an example.

Busch, when they built their parks, apparently took great care to clearly and decisively separate the 'zoo' portions of the park from those containing the rides and non-animal attractions.

I have absolutely no problem with this sort of arrangement. In fact, I admire their engineering along those lines. My wife has been to Busch Gardens in Virginia, and she had nothing but praise for the way they've handled such things. Disney has clearly done the same thing, placing their zoo elements in a park entirely separate from the main theme park. Again, no issues with that specific element.

Now, jump back to Six Flags. They took a park that was never designed to accommodate a split arrangement of that sort, and just randomly plopped down rides anywhere they could. The results are blatantly obvious, both in aesthetics and noise level.

To this day, I remain highly concerned about the effects of the coasters and carny attractions' non-stop audible barrage on what few animals SFDK has left, particularly the big cats (who have hearing that is, by nature, considerably more acute than any human). I also have to wonder what frequencies the coasters and other attractions might be producing that are inaudible to humans, but still within the range of, say, a tiger or cougar.

In summary: I have no problem if a park clearly separates its thrill-ride and zoological elements, both physically and in terms of department and budget.

What I have a huge problem with is combining the two elements right on top of each other, as Six Flags has so badly done. You're going to have to go a very long way to convince me that all the animals in such a situation suffer no long-term harm, including the elephants.

You say you saw nothing really wrong when you went to SFDK. The last time I was there (about two years ago), I clearly remember pacing behavior on the part of several big cats, and the size of the lion enclosure vs. how many animals were in it was shameful. "Cramped" would be putting it mildly. Don't even get me started on the lack of enrichment.

During the entire time the place was under its original ownership, as Marine World/Africa USA, I never saw ANY cat pacing. Ever. Also, it was common practice to walk various animals through the park. Tigers, llamas, camels, the occasional serval... and never ONCE did they have any problems with it.

Seen anything like that done recently? Even if you have, I would wager the state of mind of the animal involved could best be described as "tense." Check the position of the ears if you don't believe me.

I suspect we're going to agree to disagree, but my feeling on the place is they should simply get rid of all animal elements, and revert to the pure theme park they seem to want to be.

Assuming, that is, that Six Flags, as a company, still exists in the next year or two...

Happy travels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top