you both seem to be ignoring one thing. if city zoos don't have elephants will people no longer go to the zoo? of course they wont! there are plenty of examples of zoos that don't have elephants or giraffes that opearte just fine. why? becuse most people don't have a choice. if their city zoo has no elephants, then thats that. they can't see elephants. they still go to the zoo - just to see the gorillas or whatever.... taronga has no major competition - if it didn't have elephants sydneysiders wouldn't chuck their kids on a plane and fly to melbourne for the day, they would still take them to the zoo thats a half hour drive away in mosman. they may however be more likely to visit an open range zoo next time they are near one. like you say zooboy, WPZ is so far from sydney you have to wonder what the board was thinking when the aquired the property. it was never going to operate as a open-range zoo for sydney, which was the thing thats killing the place. but in any event, if dubbo had all tarongas elephants sydney people probably still wouldn't visit dubbo, i agree. but they WOULD still visit taronga, and that is my point.
City Zoos with/out elephants why? becuse most people don't have a choice. if their city zoo has no elephants, then thats that. they can't see elephants. they still go to the zoo - just to see the gorillas or whatever.... quote from Patrick OK . There are 4 zoos in NZ . Auckland Zoo is a city council run zoo , the city being just over 1 million population , and the entry point for 90% of foreign visitors Auckland has 2 female elephants , which are housed in a reasonable enclosure as far as city zoos go ( and are often outside their enclosure ) Hamilton is also a city council run zoo , however the city is barely over 100,000 population . It cant really afford to keep elephants , and has never done so . Wellington is the oldest zoo in the country , and it used to have elephants It used to be big on concrete cells , bars and pits ...... They phased out elephants over 20 years ago , as they decided (wisely ) that the zoo couldnt possibly adequately house elephants on what is almost a cliff side That leaves Orana Park , which is basically a Zoo Trust ( not funded by city council ) Although it is probably the most suitable of NZ zoos to house elephants , they cite cost as the main reason they refrain . So 3 of the 4 zoos have no elephants . Those 3 zoos still attract people who want to see wildlife . If there are elephants , its a bonus . If not , there are plenty of other "exotic" wildlife to see , regardless whether you are a NZer or a visitor from elsewhere . Most people that I have talked to in NZ consider the zoos ability to display animals in attractive surroundings to be a major factor in whether or not they visit the zoo -- not the availability of an elephant
Like I said: "Don't think though that I'm an elephant advocate". I haven't said that a zoo without elephants is doomed to go down the hill; no, sir, not at all. What I said-and You can reread that above if You want-that one should not assume that zoos can get rid of all their "crowd pleasers", especially in the from of large exotic wildlife, without having any problem by doing so at all-especially with a lot of "competition" closeby. You complain, pat, that I chose some boring animals. Well, I took You word by word-"you can make virtually any animal exciting to watch if you use your imagination on how to display it". And these are just the tip of the iceberg of "boring animals"-remember John Haldane's famous line that God " has an inordinate fondness for beetles"? ... In my humble opinion, a zoo without at least some megafauna and exotics, may it even be within a city like NY in the case of Central Park Zoo, will have a very hard time to get its visitors and must come up with some real creativity-and with a lot of finger-crossing so that there's not enough competition around. Large "outlet" zoos sure sound like a good idea and have become reality like in the case of Poznan-but there's always the subject of money...Frankfurt f.e. has planned for years to get enough money to build a large zoo beside of the inner city zoo to house larger animals or larger groups. At the moment, they're fighting to get the inner city zoo running... A little bit different - the situation in Berlin: the two zoos the city now has came into existence due to the Wall; nowadays the inner city zoo, thanks to its touristic location and "Knut", is doing fine-the large Tierpark, which partly works as an "outsourcing" facility for the Berlin zoo, has problems to get its visitors, so that the Berlin city council is thinking about closing it. Long story short: it's not that easy for a zoo to do a balancing act with two institutions if not enough money is available (which is qmore than often the case at the zoo buisness). And getting rid of the popular animals is then not always the wiset thing to do...
*sigh* who ever suggested zoos can't have exotics? i certainly didn't say it. i said that a zoo can do fine without elephants and other very large animals (and mentioned rhino, hippo and giraffe as examples). you have taken from that i also mean all charismatic animals despite that i have at many times mentioned gorillas, pandas and many other popular animals that the public will be content with a substitutes. yet you keep going back to this idea someones suggesting zoos should all be full of native sea cucumbers. i've made my position very clear, and i think your avoiding my point and taking what you want from it for the sake of a debate, so i'm afraid i'm not going to entertain such a merry-go-round conversation any longer. and for the record, i have never seen a sea cucumber under a microscope, i bet its actually really interesting.
Many large urban zoos have stopped holding elephants in the United States. The Alaska, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Francisco and at least 5 other zoos no longer exhibit the world's largest land mammal. Attendance hasn't significantly changed one way or the other, showcasing the fact that a zoo without elephants won't necessarily suffer any undue losses. The Bronx Zoo and at least 2 other North American zoos have announced that when their current elephants die then they also will not exhibit any more elephants, and again attendance isn't going to be affected one little bit. Sure folks will ask where the elephants are, but they will still tour the zoo every year. Partly out of cost, and mainly out of compassion, and overall it is a fabulous idea for any urban zoo to NOT have elephants. They are much better off in a sister zoo, or open range collection...and if an urban zoo cannot provide amazing enclosures for its elephants then they should abandon the notion of keeping them in captivity.
Sorry, pat, You're mistaken; I have understood and read what You said. So don't be too overhasty to throw in the sponge... My question however is: where exactly do You draw the line between "large" and "very large"? Weight, height? Wouldn't You describe a gorilla as quite a large mammal? I understand and support the point about inner city zoos cutting back on large vertebrates; but I generally disagree on the idea that a zoo-and I'm talking about a normal zoo and not a little roadside animal show (terrible thing, that is)-can do WITHOUT any large or extra-large mammals; and that You can take away many of the popular species without any public response. BTW: I generalized my opinion -not mainly aiming at You personally-that an average zoo without any exotics at all would have a hard time. Have I made my position now very clear to You? And about the cucumber: sure, it's an interesting creature for the animal enthusiast-but for the average visitor? And who's going to pay for the microscope at the zoo, their maintainance & upgrades? Zoos have tried that before; usually after a while You end up with a dozen broken microcopes and an "Out of Order"-sign... "Sure folks will ask where the elephants are, but they will still tour the zoo every year." Will they if also hippos, giraffes, rhinos and maybe also zebras, larger antelopes, large crocodilians and larger primates are gone, too? Hmm-depends on the location of the zoo and the creativity of the zoo management/staff... And now it's up to me to *sigh*, @snowleopard: like I said again and again, I do not support the idea that every zoo should keep elephants-but I have doubts that having no "very large" animals (not just elephants!) at a zoo will have no effect on the visitors' numbers-especially if other zoos are nearby.
Sun Wukong: you seem to be battling against Patrick and I in this discussion of large animals within urban zoos. I actually agree with most of what you are saying, and acknowledge that if a particular zoo in an urban setting did not have any megafauna mammals then perhaps it would suffer. The question is naturally hypothetical, and my response was that there are a growing number of zoos that are discarding the notion of exhibiting elephants...and those particular zoos aren't facing declining attendance. But you brought up a good point with the idea of discarding ALL large mammals, and I'd have to agree that if another zoo was close by that showcased large mammals then that zoo would see an increase in attendance. Speaking of attendance, it is interesting that the London Zoo used to pull in around 3 million visitors per year in the 1960's, close to 2 million per year in the 1970's, and now it's almost 2008, the population of England has grown enormously since the 1960's...and yet last year the London Zoo pulled in only 900,000 visitors. The gorilla kingdom enclosure is obviously a high-profile attempt to gain traction in the tourist industry, and it's a shame that when the zoo had a massive influx of customers it was at a time when 90% of the exhibits were horrible little boxes. Now there are improvements, expansions and renewed interest, but will it ever achieve the high attendance figures from bygone years?
I seriously doubt the figures will ever rise to their heyday again. There are more animal rights groups and to an extent, activists, who want zoos to be abolished completely. Many casual zoo-goers pay attention to these groups and are put off from going. For example, the CAPS site states regularly: "boycott all zoos. your money keeps them in buisness". To the casual zoo goer who has seen these groups' literature, they will stop going to zoos in order to appear caring and sympathetic to the animals. Now, I acknowledge that this is true in some occasions, but CAPS seems to make no exceptions. To be quite honest, it is a political correctness issue: no-one wants to be seen supporting the "imprisonment" of animals, therefore, visitor numbers will drop.
No, snowleopard, I'm not battling against anyone; I just wanted to defend my point. Enough of that; to the other subject brought up: I don't think that organisations like CAPS will succeed in their goal of denouncing zoos until the last one closes. Modern zoos have become a solid part in Western society and even culture; and as the numbers of people visiting zoos after all railing against zoos is still much higher than all of these organisations combined, I doubt that their constant criticism will end in zoos becoming "politically incorret". In fact, I wonder whether current PC itself is going to be replaced sooner or later by a new social "fashion"... It depends a lot on the public portrayal of the zoos-take Germany and Austria as an example. At the moment, almost every at least medium-sized zoo has a TV camera team following the zoo staff around the zoo. The footage is daily shown on national television-and is usually quite popular (even as now the hype is cooling down). A positive side-effect of these TV-show is not just the increased media attention & advertisement the zoo gets (and that some zoo shops already sell postcards displaying the zookeepers & some of the zookeepers have become local "stars"... is that according to recent polls, the positive image of zoos in the German and Austrain public has increased considerably-and that even in already zoo-crazy Berlin, too . When it comes to organisations like CAPS, I keep on wondering what concrete alternative instead of zoos they have in mind; so far, no one could give me a reasonable answer.
I believe that open range zoos might represent the future for animal collections, as then animal rights groups can't be too vocal about the size and quality of the enclosures...and for the most part animals breed much better in larger, more naturalistic settings. The San Diego Wild Animal Park's breeding record for different species of elephants, rhinos, antelope, etc is arguably amongst the best in the world. Large space equals realistic groupings of animals, and this increases the possibility of breeding. The elephant sanctuaries like PAWS in California and the haven in Tennessee have hundreds upon hundreds of acres at their disposal for African and Asian elephants. There are other sanctuaries that cater specifically to big cats, or bears, or a select group of animal species. Perhaps these are viable alternatives to urban zoos? But the reality is that the big city zoos aren't going to go away anytime soon, and we can all just hope that there is a continual improvement in exhibit design and the husbandry of the animal collection.
@snowleopard: I'd suggest You reading "Animal Underworld" about animal sanctuaries-and about the elephant "havens": I remember a colleague half-jokingly asking how many deer and other native wild animals lost their habitat due to those animals... Large spaces does not always equals realistic animal grouping-see Hancocks' & Hediger's notes on that.
David Hancocks book "A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and their Uncertain Future" is also a terrific read, and he isn't afraid to pull punches in regards to the so-called great zoos of the world.
are you kidding me?!!! i think i've made the distinction pretty clear....but since you missed it the first, second and seventh time, i've taken the liberty of re-posting every comment i have so far made regarding where i draw that distinction. if you read carefully enough you may even find i have already answered your question of how i class gorillas once (or twice).......
Thanks for the quotations, pat-but when do You think a "size" line is crossed? And I'm not talking about the size of the individual animal -especially not in the case of complex animals like Great Apes. It's not most often just the single animal; in the case of the gorillas, You usually end up with several animals to form a group-unlike a rhino where most species can do pretty well if kept alone. And summa summarum an adequate exhibit for a family group of gorillas won't be smaller in size than that for a single rhino; most often, it's even larger. That's how my question concerning animal sizes is meant; even a trio of three giraffe males could be housed properly in a small zoo. The only reason why I would welcome a zoo not to house giraffes is because the zoo vet has then one (in terms of providing medical care) "terrible" creature less to take care of... This leads to another interesting question: if You think of the social life of animals like elephants, but also less heatly debated animals like bongos, bears or Orang-Utans f.e.- wouldn't it be too wrong if a small zoo just kept a single (male)of said species? That would help with the problem of where to put all those surplus animals somewhere adequately; the part of the visitors who thinks that a zoo without an elephant is no zoo will see its elephant, and if the bull is not too well represented considering the breeding line, chances are good that he won't spend his life just on his own all the time (which could also be the case in the wild, btw), but move to another zoo to impregnate a cow or two. @all: Your opinion about that option?
Yes-there have been talks about this in the Berlin City council this year. Berlin as a city is pretty much broke and is therefore always searching for ways to reduce costs-including its zoos. The huge cash flow due to Knut might now be useful for both zoos...
I do not believe that the Tierpark Berlin will be closed and I do not think that the majority of politicans are seriously considering this. I think that`s mainly a way to put pressure on both zoos to accept lower financial support from the city: accept this and next year even less or we will close the Tierpark... By the way, the Tierpark has around 20 elephants and lots of big cats and giraffes and rhinos and antilopes and camels and so on, but still the Zoo in the center of the city has more visitors (with "only" 7 elephants, only a small giraffe herd and much fewer big cats). But back to the topic: William stated that Packy`s bloodline would be over-represented in the US and therefore neither he nor his son Rama would be allowed to breed. That is not true if you study the studbook!! Portland bred 27 elephants and nearly all of them were related to Packy, but now most of them are dead and of those who are alive, only very few are in a breeding situation. If Packy, Rama and the bull in Springfield whose name I can`t remember won`t breed in the future, there is only one elephant from the Portland bloodline left in a breeding situation: pregnant Rose-Tu! There are no breeding females who are related to Packy anywhere in US zoos or circusses and no other bulls then the 3 (Packy, Rama and the one in Dickerson).
@Yassa: I personnaly doubt that the Tierpark Friedrichsfelde is going to be closed "tomorrow"-if so to speak; but according to the media coverage back then (also see Zoopresseschau on this subject), the financial situation in Berlin in consideration of the zoos isn't the best. And I hope for the sake of the two zoos that this was indeed merely a political blackmail tactic...Size alone is no mere reason not to be closed. The higher visitor numbers of the Berlin Zoo in comparison to the Tierpark are based on the first's position within the city-and this year due to Knut; interestingly, many native Berlin residents show an interesting zoo-visiting with people from former East Berlin parts of the city still preferring the Tierpark and vice versa...Anyway, back to the topic "Oregon Zoo".
Hello, New guy on the site. Really appreciate having a place to share info with other zoo lovers. In local news, the Oregon Zoo ( I was an intern there 2 years ago) is holding a fundraiser on March 16, 2008 for an extremely worthwhile cost. It seems money is running low to fund some of the enrichment features of the new Red Ape Reserve for orangutans/white-cheeked gibbons, so the Portland Branch of the American ZooKeepers Association is holding a fundraiser/auction. I think it's a very good cause, so I am going to attend and bring some friends. Check out the Zoo website for info on the new exhibit and the event - and please wish us well in our efforts. In other zoo news we have a new grey wolf exhibit, that was built by sectioning off a portion of the elk yard and is visible from an elevated viewing deck. The yard was very spacious, so don't worry about the elk being slighted. I think it's an interesting move, since now the wolves are closer to the Great Northwest exhibit that was developed over the last few years, and that the other animals from that exhibit area ( Alaska Tundra ) are being eliminated from the collection due to renovation of that area into the Predators of the Serengeti. Thank you, Eric
@Eric: There's not many of us here at ZooBeat that have visited the Oregon Zoo, but I've been twice simply as I live closer than most others (still 5 hours away). I'm extremely intrigued with the orangutan/gibbon enclosure expanding this summer, as well as the Predators of the Serengeti exhibit in 2009. As you can tell from my review of the zoo on the opening message of this thread I think that there is a lot of potential in Portland. The support is definitely there as last year was a record breaking total of something like 1.6 million...but they still lack any killer, brilliant exhibits. Many good enclosures but no great ones. Also, some of the exhibits are very poor: sun bear "pit" that looks about 80 years old, the chimpanzee indoor quarters, and having all of those elephants on only 2 barren acres.
