Toronto Zoo Toronto Zoo Present Happenings 2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the issue with losing their AZA accrediation is unfair. I'm not sure if AZA is doing that to make the city council change their minds, but if they don't, it's not the fault of the zoo that they have to follow their wishes. And with zoos like Philadelphia Zoo that sent one of their elephants to a non AZA elephant sancutary, they should make the exception again.

Has there been any word about the polar bear cub?
 
A number of AZA zoos have sent their elephants to PAWS or the sanctuary in Tennessee in the last years and not a single one of them lost their accreditation. Not Detroit, not San Fransisco, not Los Angeles, not Philadelphia (and there are some more). AZA always threatened but never did anything. It has become an empty threat by now and I am very thankful that the Toronto city council is sticking to their decision and does not let itself being bullied by the AZA. The AZA doesn`t even have an alternative for these three except a facility that is not even built and has been delayed since years!!
 
Yassa said:
A number of AZA zoos have sent their elephants to PAWS or the sanctuary in Tennessee in the last years and not a single one of them lost their accreditation. Not Detroit, not San Fransisco, not Los Angeles, not Philadelphia (and there are some more). AZA always threatened but never did anything. It has become an empty threat by now and I am very thankful that the Toronto city council is sticking to their decision and does not let itself being bullied by the AZA. The AZA doesn`t even have an alternative for these three except a facility that is not even built and has been delayed since years!!
Click to expand...

So, your point being? I am rather sad the City Council and zoo management seemed to have bowed to public pressure from the Happy Few and that the zoo keeping fraternity has been left in the cold.

Further for what it is worth: what I would like to know now is why all these elephants go to non public facilities and not a spot of criticism from these anti zoo no-gooders. This whole vendetta on the basis of no conservation interest for elephants in zoos is a bloody hoax and a disgrace. If it where not for zoos exhibiting these fascinating animals in great exhibits in CAPTIVITY we would not have ANY conservation in the wild of elephants in the WILD.

Good question to get back on the Toronto comings and goings what will replace the elephant exhibit?

How is the Eurasia section plan coming along? Other improvements?
 
Yassa said:
A number of AZA zoos have sent their elephants to PAWS or the sanctuary in Tennessee in the last years and not a single one of them lost their accreditation. Not Detroit, not San Fransisco, not Los Angeles, not Philadelphia (and there are some more). AZA always threatened but never did anything. It has become an empty threat by now and I am very thankful that the Toronto city council is sticking to their decision and does not let itself being bullied by the AZA. The AZA doesn`t even have an alternative for these three except a facility that is not even built and has been delayed since years!!
Click to expand...

The issue of accreditation being (potentially) revoked in these situations has nothing to do with elephants per se. It's really about making sure that the zoo is in fact able to control its own destiny. When an outside entity (such as a city mayor or council) is able to unilaterally make decisions about animal management, it becomes very hard to say that the zoo is in fact ultimately responsible for its collection. While the Tennessee or California "sanctuaries" may sometimes--for the sake of argument--be the best alternative for relocating elephants, it is a very dangerous and slippery slope to have non-expert politicians making this decision.
 
It is the job of non-expert politicans to make decisions about topics they are not experts about. Because those non-expert politicans are ELECTED to make all the decisions that need to be made in a democracy (after getting all informations from the experts, certainly).

Zoos do not exist in a political vacuum. Many zoos recieve a lot of public funding and support and are often even owned and operated by the city. In this case, the city council or the mayor is not an outside entity, but the one entity which is legally and officially responsible!!!
 
Yassa,

We disagree on major issues here. There is a vacuum of difference between a city mayor and a zoo director and democracy does not come into it here. You seem somehow to be argueing that the city mayor is running the job of the zoo director. Seriously, (imagine that)! ... per se the city mayor would be running every public and private entity in his/her city!:D

What is really at stake her is the freedom of the zoo management and zoo keeping fraternity to do their own job good and proper. As to ownership: the city does not own the elephants, they are part of the zoo collection! More and more this zoo is being run by a vocal outside extremist fraternity that wants only one thing ... (see all the sometimes intentional bad press coming out of Toronto Zoo) and that is wrong, so wrong. :mad:

K.B.
 
I agree with a lot that has been said, but I am (to be honest) unfortunately not proud to say that I LOVE the Toronto Zoo anymore with everything that has been going on. IT IS A DISGRACE TO THE CITY TO HAVE THIS ZOO WITH SO MUCH TURMOIL! What disgusts me the most is that the decision to move the elephants was made by City Council and without ANY consent from the people who WORK WITH/AT THE ZOO! Just putting in my two cents.

As for what will replace the elephants, that will be the giraffes.

Eurasia: Memorial Gardens are well under way (Phase 2), the animal portion is "supposed" to start in the spring.
 
@KB, I have to correct one thing the elephants and ALL items and animals on/within the TZ are OWNED by the City of Toronto.

Unfortunately that is the case, but I do agree that the zoo needs to be run more at a distance and NOT RUN BY POLITICIANS!
 
Yeah as a dog owner I'm leery when it comes to politicians and animals. :/ I think it sucks that they're not letting the keepers speak to the public about the elephant issue. You'd think they'd want to educate the public to the fullest.

Finally, something positive featuring Toronto Zoo in the media! I did go behind the scenes to visit with the roos before, and as I'm going to go there on Christmas eve, I might do it again. I didn't know it was for enrichment :) It's amusing because I have a domestic dog, resembling the dholes, that could care less if she has new people looking at her :P

Toronto Zoo still buzzing with activity this winter | CTV Toronto
 
Last edited:
What I am trying to point out is that zoo directors are not entitled by god or fate. Zoo management is always appointed by the entity (city, zoo society, company) or the person who owns the zoo, and unless the director owns the zoo by himself, every zoo director has to report to the organisation/person that owns the zoo. No zoo manager is totally free to do whatever he pleases, because he/she has someone to report to, unless it`s a private zoo and he`s the owner (then and only then the director can do whatever he wants). In case of a public owned zoo, there is no freedom of the zoo director to protect, because it never existed in the first place.

In Torontos case, the city owns and runs the zoo, so all elephants are indeed owned by the city!! It is not that unusual that in case of a highly controversial issue, the entity which owns the zoo made a decision, after the zoo management totally FAILED to come up with an alternative plan.

I personally think it`s the best for the elephants to go to PAWS, so I am pleased, but apart from that, I am shocked at the amount of disrespect you all have for the city councillors who just did the job they were elected to do, after consulting with experts from all sides (not just with Peta). The zoo had more then one opportunity to present its side, but apparently, they weren`t very convincing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top