The IDA (in defence of animals), has relseased it's 2007 worst USA ZOOS for elephants. Heres the link ; In Defense of Animals ~ News Release It includes zoos such as woodland park zoo for recless breeding (in there opinion) to the great Animal Kingdom for ruining the matriarcal herd structures through movments. Its an interetsing read.
I had a read... Very biased opinions but good if it causes zoo's to adopt better practices and build better enclosures...
Great article, and one that rings true in so many ways. I'm as big a fan of zoos as most people on this site, but the yearly top ten list is something that I've followed since its inception four years ago. Even renowned good zoos like Chester and San Diego cram elephants into tiny enclosures. Edmonton's Valley Zoo has one elephant that is kept inside a dungeon 24 hours a day in poor weather. As I type this in the midst of winter, I know that the elephant Lucy hasn't seen sunlight for probably close to two months. There have been animal rights groups crusading to get her transferred to a sunny sanctuary in either California or Tennessee...but no luck so far. I'm somewhat surprised that a raging activist hasn't put her out of her misery, as there is no excuse for such treatment. With a total of 17 zoos now having closed their elephant exhibits just in North America, that statistic alone illustrates how difficult it is both financially and morally to maintain the world's largest land mammal in adequate conditions. Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo won a best exhibit award for its elephant forest in 1989, but now is viewed as one of the worst offenders. Oregon Zoo has had close to 30 calves born since 1962, but I've mentioned on this forum before how terrible those 2 acres are for 6 pachyderms. And zoos that chain elephants inside tiny prison cells for 12 hours every day for decades and decades should be forced to give up their prized possessions. It's quite saddening to read about such atrocious conditions at prominent zoos, and this showcases the plight of elephants in North America. And that list doesn't even include some shocking enclosures outside of the U.S. that make that top ten list look positively divine.
I used to read it, but it only gives you bad mood. They usually contribute nothing positive. Annoying distraction, but they do nothing real to make a real difference in animal lives. They also present worst examples as typical or best for all zoos. Where is "top 10 best zoos for elephants" anyway? Better go to WWF or Conservation International instead, they do something positive. BTW - seriously, which 10 zoos are best for elephants in North America?
As they say Jurek, anyone can criticize but it takes something special to build... A lot of the people that write these type of lists seem to criticize a lot and not much else... Some may be justifiable though... I don't like the fact Six Flags has Elephants and 9 have died in the last 12 years... That is negligence... 10 top ten zoo elephant enclosure in USA..? Any zoo with no concrete, large numbers of elephants and reasonable space... Not sure what fits that description...
@Jurek 7: if someone critiques something then they are usually pushing for reform, or at the very least some subtle improvments. By publishing the worst elephant exhibits, IDA continues to challenge zoos to come up with novel ways to showcase the world's largest land mammal. I do agree that a top ten list of the best exhibits could also be released. The sad reality is that it is inherently difficult to come up with ten half-decent elephant exhibits in North America, as the northern half of the continent lock their elephants in concrete stalls for up to 14 hours every day. There are a handful of zoos in Canada that didn't make that list (Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto) that have elephants in shocking conditions. Do you suggest that everyone should simply ignore the conditions, or publish reports and get some changes underway? I've never been to the North Carolina Zoo, but in May they are opening up a 7 acre exhibit just for African elephants. Adjacent to that will be a 37 acre African Plains exhibit for a mixture of species. There will be 10 elephants and 10 rhinos when all is said and done. That is one of the very few zoo exhibits for large mammals that actually sounds promising. It's time for a change, and 17 zoos have come to that realization and closed down their elephant exhibits. The Bronx Zoo is next on that list, as once their elephants die then they won't have anymore.
Yes, its exactly the problem. Anti-zoo organizations don't make improvement. It's zoos themselves which recognized need of improving elephant conditions. Zoos organized and financed research what is wrong; zoos gather money and build exhibits. Zoos also support dozens of programs for wild and domestic elephants in Africa and Asia. With budgets going in millions, IDA and similar anti-zoo organizations could directly finance very many improvements for zoo or wild elephants. Zoos do it. IDA doesn't.
I have no problem with IDA lobbying against outdated and cramped elephant enclosures - let`s be honest, things change a lot faster in zoos with public pressure! There are so many zoos in the USA (and other part of the world...) fiercly defending outdated husbandry and bad enclosures. Regaridng this list, my problem is that it seems most zoos who "made" it to this list did so because of politics. Woodland, Portland, El Paso, St. Louis and Maryland defiantely not have 5 of the worst enclosures for elephants in the USA!! Buffalo and maybe Six Flags Vallejo, but many of the others not. There are far worse zoos for elephants then Woodland, El Paso, Portland, St. Louis and Maryland, for example Greenville, San Diego Zoo (not animal park), Central Florida Zoo/Sanford, New Bedford... most of the zoos which made it to IDA`s list got a lot of negative media attention in the last one or two years for different reasons, and instead of selecting those zoos with the worst elephant exhibits IDA selected those who have already been in the media a lot.
10 best US Elephant Exhibits (not in any order) 1. Miami Metrozoo 2. Disney's Animal Kingdom 3. North Carolina Zoo 4. Nashville Zoo 5. Saint Louis Zoo 6. San Diego Wild Animal Park 7. Columbus Zoo 8. Oakland Zoo 9. Kansas City Zoo 10. Future Los Angeles Zoo elephant exhibit This was a hard list to make because there aren't that many great elephant exhibits and some of these i wouldnt consider great.
Doesn't Miami have both species of Elephant..? Are you refering to both..? San Diego WAP is on, or has been on that list before and I have heard the new LA Zoo Elephant exhibit is already being rubbished by some off the plans..?
I do count both of Miami's elephant exhibits - they are awesome in comparison to other zoos and they were built in the 1980s. San Diego WAP has been on the list before probably because of the Swazi elephants they imported and some recent deaths. And the Los Angeles Zoo will be based on the rotation design concept and include lots of varied terrain and enrichment. I believe groups that want the exhibit closed are made because a lawsuit some filed a few years back resulted in the zoo enlarging their plans for the exhibit rather than closing the exhibit down. I post the zoo's plans for the exhibit in the photo gallery.
@okapikpr: I enjoyed reading your list of the ten best elephant exhibits in North America, but it is intriguing that some of those have been blasted for poor husbandry, limited size, or a poor track record of infant deaths. The L.A. Zoo's new exhibit for elephants is long overdue, but hopefully it will be superior to many others around the continent. There is already a thread on the massive North Carolina Zoo exhibit, and by all accounts it will be wonderful for such enormous mammals. The incredible thing to realize is that almost 80 zoos in North America have elephants in their collection...and yet as you point out hardcore zoo fans such as ourselves can barely come up with 10 half decent exhibits. I truly hope that is not the case in another decade or so.
what a ridiculous statement jerek!! that has to go down as one of the dumbest things i have heard on the forum. yeah, because its the people lobbying against a practice that have the responsibility and obligation to pay for a resolution. and its also as if you justify being cruel to one animal if it raises funds for its wild counterparts. oh and before you comment on that, get back to me with a list of exactly how much those top ten zoos have spent on wild elephant conservation.
Cheers Patrick! Jurek7 claims that "anti-zoo organizations don't make improvements" which naturally is unbelievable. Any type of outcry against any particular zoological organization can often result in changes being made. If someone criticizes a particular exhibit long enough then eventually that exhibit will be altered and changes will be made to future plans. Here are three recent examples: 1- The Seattle Zoo was going to split its 1.5 acre Asian elephant exhibit in order to accommodate Indian rhinos, as the elephants don't necessarily utilize the south end of the enclosure. This notion ran in the local newspapers, and since most zoo fans are on the bandwagon to improve elephant exhibits then the idea to make the enclosure smaller for the world's largest mammal was shut down. Now if indian rhinos ever arrive at the Seattle Zoo they will have their own enclosure rather than sharing and cutting down the space of the elephants. 2- The Calgary Zoo has plans for a massive, $133 million Arctic/Antarctic exhibit in the next few years, and are still waiting on final funding. With the spiralling construction costs they claimed to have dropped the idea to contain beluga whales in a new section of the exhibit...but in truth there was a massive campaign by ZooCheck Canada that spread over 500 signs for front-lawns in the Calgary area. These signs shamed the zoo into wanting to import polar bears and beluga whales, and both major Calgary/Alberta papers ran negative stories concerning the zoo. Sure enough, the beluga whale tank was dropped due "to the enormous cost"...but I damn well know that the anti-whale campaign played a hand in the decision. 3- Maggie the elephant at the horrid Alaska Zoo. Ask for changes and improvements and they will happen, and so thankfully there are some organizations that can still make a difference.
Every organization is free to be whistleblower. However, at the same time, there are lots of local "Friends of the zoo" clubs, which when see bad exhibit, don't publish silly manifestos, but simply raise money and improve exhibits. Often, species which has no place is dropped from the list. That is, they exist in Europe, don't know about Australia. You see.. first symptoms of being poisoned by stupid anti-zoo manifestos. Calls people names and forgot how to use search engine. Zoos which support in-situ programs don't make fuss about it, so you need to search zoo website, or often go to specific in situ project and find zoos in the list of sponsors. Recently several American zoos made elephant-related website, where you prehaps can see some of info on in situ projects in one place:. International Elephant Foundation - Asian and African Elephant Conservation
Do elephants, as result, started to use this end of enclosure? I'm lost. So money and space went for elephants? Or there is not three successes concerning elephants, so you talk about Arctic animals and naturally know beforehand that this exhibit would be bad. Four or five years of campaign by several organizations resulted in help for one elephant, which zoo was half-considering to send away anyway. Grand waste of effort. I'm picky about it, because these organizations themselves frequently made argument that zoos don't spend money wisely. I wonder how much money was spend on this anti-zoo-elephant campaign? Just see a difference between people who swim and who make the water murky. Elephant conditions improve because elephants started aging and zoo made research how to breed them. Of these better exhibits, not a single one was build because of some major anti-zoo outcry, all were initiative of zoos themselves. It is my last post in the topic, I don't want to start crosses and you can use Google yourself.
@Jurek7: my three examples were about changing zoo exhibits, not necessarily affecting captive elephants. You claim that moving Maggie the pachyderm from a miniscule prison cell (I've seen photos and Alaska Zoo's elephant exhibit was horrendous) to a 2,000 acre sanctuary was a "grand waste of effort". Are you serious? Do you like to see solitary elephants trapped in tiny cages? You don't think that keeping an enormous elephant inside while it is minus thirty degrees for good chunks of the winter is wrong? An elephant in the frozen wasteland of Alaska? I read a report that stated that Maggie spent 75% of the winter indoors, where the amount of space was extremely tiny. So how can you state that a campaign to move her was a "grand waste of effort", which isn't even grammatically correct? More and more elephants have been shifted away from old-style menagerie cages into more expansive exhibits. Between 15-17 zoos in North America have stopped containing elephants in their collections, and in every case the animals have gone on to better living conditions. I realize that elephants in captivity is a contentious topic, but the welfare of the animals should be the # 1 priority.
Keeping the animals' welfare should be the #1 priority. So many times i've seen exhibits that look good but aren't as functual for the animals as they should be. In the elephants' case, the AZA created their standards for elephant management and exhibit design. The document is an awesome start to pull elephant management as a hole out of their current situations. But the AZA keeps coming up with ways of laxing the rules for many zoos, because many zoos wont immediately prioritize their elephant collection for improvements. These "standards" should be requirements in accreditation. The only exceptions should be made if improvements are in some phase of construction, design, or fundraising - these exceptions need to have consistent followups. If AZA zoos are going to be great, they need to show more publicly-available proof. And conservation funds to elephants should be involved. With the Okapi SSP, institutions are required to make a large donation to the Epulu Okapi Project before receiving animals and then are required to donate every year as long as they hold okapi - regardless of breeding/nonbreeding or number of animals. Often times many of these zoos donate more than is required each year. This requires zoos to put their budgets where their PR departments are.
Wasn't the situation with the African Elephant a big part of Anchorage Zoo losing their AZA accreditation..? (As an aside, now that has been rectified, are they reapplying..?) I agree with you about conversation funds being a requirement with such a flagship species... Pwoah, nothing stirs the emotions on this board quite like elephants...
