Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@patrick: Seems I struck a nerve here...Once again: what about being less snotty and more polite? And do You need 2 posts to say the same?
Let me answer You question:
-Elephants: The issue of husbandry of elephants in zoos is a hot topic with a lot of hardened opinions. In my personal point of view, I do not think that the current husbandry is optimal and would rather advocate the centralisation of the zoo population in a few centers. this doesn't mean that in the meantime the elephants already kept in urban zoos should not get a better treatment, may it be in terms of more "space", new/rebuilt exhibits like in Taronga or "mega"-buildings like in Cologne etc. However, I do not overlook the problem of the attraction factor of elephants in zoos as well as the problem of surplus, unwanted bulls. Even if I personally could do fine with a zoo without elephants, Great Apes etc., I do not make the mistake to assume this for the general zoo audience. I'd therefore advise that zoos, even in urban surroundings, could keep and display f.e. bulls- if they can keep them adequately. If the zoo can't do that, I recommend Frankfurt's way and also the better education of the visitors why no elephants are held as well as offering a "replacement" (Elephant playground...). BTW: where did I "cite plenty of examples of zoos quite close to eachother that both house elephants"? Or: "its ethically wrong to give them such little space in urban zoos"?
-I already mentioned in various threads how I depicted part of the future of zoos & their breeding programs (do the key words "shared non-public conservation centers", "balance point specialisation", "reduced red tape", "increased international cooperation, including2/ 3rd World zoos" etc. ring a bell?)-shall I ape Your example and repeat myself again?
-You can find arguments against Your statement here as well as in various other posts of mine, f.e. "Boring" animals. Once again, You failed to grasp the argumentation by wrongly interpretating the part of the "pet shop species" without grasping the whole idea: the standardisation and unification of the collection & presentation possibily leading to ponderosity of the zoos in terms of acute species endangerement, lack of creativity in terms of husbandry & exhibit design, dubious educational "benefits" and even loss of attractiveness.
-If You have a good, solid argument, even "darting" at the "pettiest loopholes" and "micro-details" shouldn't make it stagger-and shouldn't make You behave like a bear woken up from hibernation. Especially in terms of the reality of zoos, God & the Devil sometimes are in the details. If You want to be taken seriously, You also have to cope with that-and maybe try to keep cool if someone questions details, and not consider these questions personal insults and thus flare up and argue abusively.
"pissy", "missing the point entirely" and "irrelevant"? Are You serious? Or did Your style of writing became so coarse and limited in its choice of words & good manners that You can't write a single post in a polite and less dorty manner?
"explain that, without contradicting yourself, and i'll concede that that the mighty wordsmith and devil's advocate sun wukong, has done me over, once and for all."
Sigh; it seems snowleopard is right and my choice of word seems to be too elaborate for some to grasp; what did I write about hardened feelings, hmm?
I never believed an European would say that to an Australian, but: lighten up, mate, keep Your temper-and maybe try to keep Your obligatory po-faced answer a little more on a better dispute atmosphere-beneficial side, will Ya? TIA We might benefit both from that.
Let me answer You question:
-Elephants: The issue of husbandry of elephants in zoos is a hot topic with a lot of hardened opinions. In my personal point of view, I do not think that the current husbandry is optimal and would rather advocate the centralisation of the zoo population in a few centers. this doesn't mean that in the meantime the elephants already kept in urban zoos should not get a better treatment, may it be in terms of more "space", new/rebuilt exhibits like in Taronga or "mega"-buildings like in Cologne etc. However, I do not overlook the problem of the attraction factor of elephants in zoos as well as the problem of surplus, unwanted bulls. Even if I personally could do fine with a zoo without elephants, Great Apes etc., I do not make the mistake to assume this for the general zoo audience. I'd therefore advise that zoos, even in urban surroundings, could keep and display f.e. bulls- if they can keep them adequately. If the zoo can't do that, I recommend Frankfurt's way and also the better education of the visitors why no elephants are held as well as offering a "replacement" (Elephant playground...). BTW: where did I "cite plenty of examples of zoos quite close to eachother that both house elephants"? Or: "its ethically wrong to give them such little space in urban zoos"?
-I already mentioned in various threads how I depicted part of the future of zoos & their breeding programs (do the key words "shared non-public conservation centers", "balance point specialisation", "reduced red tape", "increased international cooperation, including2/ 3rd World zoos" etc. ring a bell?)-shall I ape Your example and repeat myself again?
-You can find arguments against Your statement here as well as in various other posts of mine, f.e. "Boring" animals. Once again, You failed to grasp the argumentation by wrongly interpretating the part of the "pet shop species" without grasping the whole idea: the standardisation and unification of the collection & presentation possibily leading to ponderosity of the zoos in terms of acute species endangerement, lack of creativity in terms of husbandry & exhibit design, dubious educational "benefits" and even loss of attractiveness.
-If You have a good, solid argument, even "darting" at the "pettiest loopholes" and "micro-details" shouldn't make it stagger-and shouldn't make You behave like a bear woken up from hibernation. Especially in terms of the reality of zoos, God & the Devil sometimes are in the details. If You want to be taken seriously, You also have to cope with that-and maybe try to keep cool if someone questions details, and not consider these questions personal insults and thus flare up and argue abusively.
"pissy", "missing the point entirely" and "irrelevant"? Are You serious? Or did Your style of writing became so coarse and limited in its choice of words & good manners that You can't write a single post in a polite and less dorty manner?
"explain that, without contradicting yourself, and i'll concede that that the mighty wordsmith and devil's advocate sun wukong, has done me over, once and for all."
Sigh; it seems snowleopard is right and my choice of word seems to be too elaborate for some to grasp; what did I write about hardened feelings, hmm?
I never believed an European would say that to an Australian, but: lighten up, mate, keep Your temper-and maybe try to keep Your obligatory po-faced answer a little more on a better dispute atmosphere-beneficial side, will Ya? TIA We might benefit both from that.
Last edited:
