Oregon Zoo » Oregon Zoo

11-12-2007

I dare to state that the American & European zoos do not "aggressively" defend their "right" (if there is something like that at all) to keep exotic species because they enjoy tormenting animals and love keeping them indoors all the time. The reason for this is rather the factor that keeps zoos running-the paying audience. It's Your Average Joe who wants to see elephants, lions, zebras, giraffes, gorillas, hippos, crocs etc. All these species are nicely labelled in American "zoo-slang" as the "Charismatic Megafauna"-a term well fitting one might say. Additionally, smaller animals like monkeys, parrots, flamingos, kangaroos, iguanas are also popular-because they're vividly colourful, show interesting behaviour-and simply because they're EXOTIC-so to say unfamiliar for that particular local audience. The definition of being exotic is most often determined by the location where the subject is displayed and by the individual jugdement; for a European, an Australian Bearded Dragon is as much an exotic as a Roe Deer for an Australian-or Simmental Cattle for Indians...
Let's face it: in comparison to other continents, Africa still has most of the spectacular and popular larger vertebrates a zoo "should" have to please its visitors. And "Africa" in general is still considered an "exotic wild place" by the people of the 1.World.
When it comes to popular vertebrates, Asia, in comparison, does have quite a nice bunch of species to contribute to the popular "Megafauna" at the zoo-but they usually play second fiddle to Africa. This is even more true when it comes to the Americas and especially in the case of Europe. Keeping in mind that the most popular attractions in a zoo are large "wild" mammals, colourful birds, dangerous reptiles or funny monkeys (speaking from the average visitor's point of view), one can see that there isn't actually much of that among Europe's wildlife to qualify for that category. And that certain European species like said Roe Deer, Capercaillie or Ptarmigan aren't the easiest animals to be kept in a zoo doesn't help either.

There already exist quite a few European wild animal parks and zoos (Lohberg, Innsbruck etc.) mainly displaying European wild animals -but the zoos with the large numbers of visitors and the international fame are usually the ones in the big cities with the exotic animals. Therefore one can observe: in general, the zoo udience wants to see exotic animals, especially the "crowd-pleasers"-and is disappointed if these are not kept in the zoo they visit. Best example: Frankfurt Zoo wisely decided to quit keeping elephants due to not having enough space and ressources. Nowadays still visitors at Frankfurt zoo complain about not being able to watch elephants...
In another zoo forum (Animal knows what I'm talkin about), I speculated whether the display of animals in zoos would differ today if the giant Pleistocene Megafauna would not have died/ been wiped out, leaving only fragments in the form of the African, the Asian and the few Euroepan/American larger vetrebrates behind.
Maybe Europeans and Americans as well as Australians (who would f.e. keep Diprotodons instead of rhinos, maybe ) would not feel any need to see African larger mammals in their local zoo-as they would then have similar or even more spectacular animals "in their neighbourhood", growing up and being familiar to these. The "exotic" factor might jump in now and then (f.e. in thec ase of the Great Apes or the Giraffe), but most likely "Africa" as a theme wouldn't be so dominant in zoos (if zoos actually existed) as it's today. Maybe Calgary would keep mastodons or megatheriums instead of elephants, and in Berlin "Knut" would be the name for a bottle-fed Cave Bear.
And tourists would travel to Kansas instead of Kenia to go on a big game safari...
However, this is just dreamful speculation. The reality is different: European & American big zoos need exotic animals-just like all the other zoos worldwide. And I think that considering the "ambassodor role" for their habitat and the educational and of the course the amusement value, exotic animals DO have a place in non-tropical zoos-and can most often be kept adequately.
In another topic I mentioned the term acclimatisation in connection with the ability of especially mammals to cope with different temperatures. This doesn't mean that You should keep a Bongo or a pygmy hippo outside all year long; it is rather based on observations considering the climate in the original habitats of certain species(!) and their behaviour in zoos in Europe or the USA. Zoos like Hamburg or Paris already kept this in mind in the late 19th and early 20th century: certain species like spotted hyenas, Bat-Eared foxes or addax antelopes actually seem not mind cold weather (as long as they have warm spot to get to once it's too cold) and grow quite thick fur in response to the cold. The key, however, to keeping these animals healthy while having them outside is resonsible management and the local humidity; it's most often the humid, not the dry cold which can lead to weather-related health problems.
One should also not assume that the location closer to the equator means that the weather there has to be always hot:
Desert as well as African savannah nights can be quite chilly; African animals like the African leopard, the Black Rhino and the African Hunting Dog have been observed in mountainous areas with snowfall in their natural habitat, and Striped Hyenas or Caracals f.e. have populations in areas wth much rougher climates than in say UK or Denmark. Not to mention African mountain animals like Geladas...

I do agree that it's a waste of money, energy and too much discomfort for the individual animal to keep species such as polar bears in Singapure or Australia ( I think btw that overheating is actually much more of a problem in many animals, even in temperate zoos in the summer-see Musk ox!) or large herds of elephants or huge crocodilians in temperate or highly cold climates, locked in most of the year. I do not, however, support the idea to force temperate zoos to keep only animals from temperate climates (I know You didn't say this, pat; I just wanted to state that in general); if said Bongo or Pygmy hippo can be kept comfortably and with not too much trouble in an European or American zoo (and is niot locked in all year long), that's fine with me. In the case of a conservation program with the actual goal to reintroduce the species or in teh case of the Canadian (or the single one kept in Alaska) elephants, I dare to differ and support the idea of keeping the animals at weather conditions closer to their natural habitat's.
And if zoos like Miami Metrozoo decide in consideration of their local climate just to keep tropical animals(and zoos like Korkeasarri prefer animals from colder climates), I do welcome the idea-just like I criticise LA getting Golden Snub-nosed monkeys or San Diego for having to keep Tundra animals in Sunny California.

One should not forget that the money of the visitors keep the zoo going. That doesn't mean that You have to keep elephants in a concrete "cupboard" or that every zoo should not take the local conditions into account when choosing animals.
However, the obvious appeal and preference of "exotic" in comparison to "native" species by most visitors (outside of Australia, maybe...) should not be forgotten.
As a fan of Asian animals from temperate or colder habitats, I could instantly name a bunch I'd love to see in zoos (unless they are, as it's quite often the case, already displayed). But this favoritism should not make me ignore that this is not shared by most of the visitors; their priorities in this case might be different from mine. Zoo fans might marvel at the sight of Shensi takins; for many visitors, these are just odd creatures that look like a large cross of a "goat-cow" and a Golden Retriever...and not half as interesting as the giraffes they, after looking for 5s at the takin, are more willing to see.
If I were a zoo director in a zoo in a colder climate, I would choose animals that are both well suited (and will cost me less money on heating to the local weather AND have a general appeal to the public: Chilean or James' Flamingo instead of African/Cuban Flamingo, Bennett's wallaby instead of Roo, Amur tiger instead of Sumatran, Japanese Snow Monkey instead of Douc langur etc.; but a certain percentage of exotic tropical animals (kept in greenhouses etc.) is neverless unavoidable if trying to please most visitors.

12-12-2007

Lengthy and informative reply Sun Wukong. It appears that the majority of individuals on this website support the notion that tropical zoos should specialize in tropical animals, and that northern zoos should focus on tundra/mountain animals. Alas, each zoo usually has a wide range of mammals from across the globe, regardless of the climate that they are forced to survive in. I do agree with some of your points on how specific animals are hardy in poor weather conditions, and your example on how pgymy hippos can thrive in adverse conditions is valid. A temperate-based zoo is the answer, with the climate being fairly moderate and thus manageable for all concerned.

However, as you also mentioned, there is no excuse for the Calgary Zoo to lock 4 elephants inside for months at a time, or for the Singapore Zoo to have a lonely polar bear spending 80% of its life panting in the steaming heat. Such exhibits are ridiculous, and yet zoo visitors love to see bears and elephants. The vast majority of zoo patrons spend about 1 minute in front of an enclosure, too busy on their annoying cell phones, or patiently explaining to their children that they are looking at monkeys when in reality they are ignoring red-ruffed lemurs.

Attendance is of course crucial to all zoos, and even though I've never been to Scotland I can basically guarantee that the Highland Wildlife Park doesn't receive nearly as many visitors as the Edinburgh Zoo. Folks want the mega-fauna, and they'd rather see animals in tiny urban zoos than sprawling open range wildlife parks. The London Zoo is only about 35 acres in size, and in the wild their 3 gorillas would spread through that territory over their lifespans. But at the zoo they share it with thousands and thousands of other animals. How many of those creatures actually enjoy the rainy, downcast London weather? This all sounds a little negative, but it's difficult not to feel sorry for animals who are locked up and forced to endure a particular climate that is obviously completely alien to them.

12-12-2007

After this "lenghty" post just a short one: yes, I think Calgary should better swap to keeping mastodons or mammoths-and Singapure should paint a Sun Bear white and give that "poor lonely" Polar Bear (who happens to belong to a species that isn't too social anyway) to a nice ice-cool zoo...

12-12-2007

The polar bear at Singapore Zoo is a victim of animal cruelty, and the enclosure is just awful. The Calgary Zoo would gladly take the bear as soon as they are finished with their $135 million arctic/antarctic construction. As the most northerly accredited zoo in North America (Alaska's isn't accredited) Calgary are well positioned to put more of a focus on cold-climate mammals.

With your reference to a mastodon, it is interesting that the Oregon Zoo have a full-sized skeleton of one in their elephant museum.

12-12-2007

@snowleopard: Well, with $135 million (once again: Are they nuts????) You sure could make a polar bear happy...though I can tell You a little secret You might know: there are plenty of polar bears in zoos worldwide that are kept at far worse conditions than the Singapure one-may it be in very hot or very cold zoos. So before getting that bear out, let's first help these poor fellows. The 135 mill could come in handy for that...
And about the mastodon: see? So it's just the next step...

12-12-2007

i'm a firm believer that if you take away animals liek elephants and giraffes zoo visitors get used to it and just learn to be content with teh other great animals on offer. adelaide zoo has survived for over a decade without elephants and i'm sure the people of adelaide visit their zoo as much as anyone else. so long as there isn't another elephant-holding zoo on the other side of town (which there isn't) the public really has not much choice do they? but i very much doutbt they will stop going to teh zoo altogether, maybe just appreciate the sunbears a little more.

in fact, the adelaide zoo seems so relaxed about its animal collection, that it is soon to be moving its chimps, hippo and giraffe all to monarto zoo. adelaidians will probably not notice since they will have giant pandas soon arriving to keep them occupied.

and even if the open range monarto zoo, with all its big megafauna made a dint in the adelaide zoo visitor numbers, who cares!!! both zoos are run by the same body...essentially they are the same zoo on two different sites.

12-12-2007

I have been enjoying this thread, even though it has veered off course from the original piece about the Oregon Zoo.

Since the Adelaide Zoo has been cropping up in this extended conversation...what else is planned for 2009? I know all about the multi-million dollar giant panda exhibit (only one in the southern hemisphere?) and that the front entrance is going to be expanded with possibly a gift shop, cafe, etc. If Adelaide is planning on pouring $20 million into their zoo, are there any more exhibits planned for 2009? Is the educational facility/wildlife centre still going up in late 2008?

Combined with Monarto's massive chimpanzee setup, South Australia will really be on the map in terms of zoos. And the fact that the larger mammals are flourishing at Monarto won't hurt the urban zoo at all, as in the long-term it will be much better in terms of spacious exhibits for the captives.

12-12-2007

monarto used to be miles behind werribee, who used to be miles behind western plains.
but all thats changing now. whilst dubbo undenaibaly has the far, far better animal collection monarto and werribee, with their close to city loactions are set to take bigger lead in the future.

it was becuse of this close location to the city (and its sister city counterpart) that i thought it was a shame melbourne isn't 100% devoted to following adelaides lead. melbournes elephants really should have been relocated to werribee, where they could have formed the centrepiece to a new asian grasslands zone. unfortunatley narrow-mindedness, the prestige element and logic did not prevail and melbournes elephants got a new exhibit that as much as an improvement as it is, in my opinion represents a mere shadow of what could have been done for around the same cost out at werribee.

nontheless, there is talk of long term building a second asian elephant exhibit out there, even if in teh short-term it will only serve as a holding facility for surplus bulls born to the melbourne program.

monarto has no elephants anymore, the sole animal moved out there in the 90's from adelaide died when she fell into a moat, but they are talking elephants long term. unfortunatley both ideas put forward so far (sumatran asian elephants and now africans) are not in any way helpful to the mainland asian elephant program now operating amongst perth, melbourne and taronga zoos.

12-12-2007

I doubt that. There are animals You can't make exciting-no matter how many educational tricks You shake out of the cuff. Or do You think You can make sea cucumbers, mites or flatworms into crowd pleasers? You're not the first one to suggest that, though: Dr. Conway told this very charming story about exhibit design and Bullfrogs in 1973:
http://www.zoolex.org/publication/co...a_bullfrog.pdf
Still, one can only wonder why nobody has built this kind of exhibit yet? Because after spending 5s in this building, pressing buttons, the people would demand to see "the real animals"-i.e. lions, hippos etc.
People do not just adapt when You take all "the fancy animals" away-they just won't go to Your zoo and You'll have to close the zoo with all the marvelous little-known creatures inside after a while. That doesn't mean that every zoo has to have elephants and the like-but do You really think that a zoo that formerly kept everything from A like Apes to Z like Zebra and now switched over to only keeping hutias, Madagascar teals or White-lipped Deer would be appretiated by the public? Even zoos like Jersey with their renowned conservation program have to keep at least a few "crowd pleasurers".
And if You happen to live in an area where many zoos are rather closeby (like the Ruhr Area in Germany), the possibilty that at least one zoo won't play the game of "Let's quit keeping elephants , giraffes and lions and the like" and will get the audience who can't just relate to small brown tortoises hidden in mud? Best example for that: Frankfurt <-> Kronberg...


Another thing is the expectation of the modern audience nursed by the media: after watching "Animal Planet" and "The Lion King" all day long, kids & dragged behind parents are eager to see the animals they just saw on TV in real life. But when did anyone make a documentary mainly about sea cucumbers? Or Cloudrunners? Or mountain chickens? The closest to that was a french documentary about ticks (and Microcosmos of course) -but that had to be "spiced up" with many more prominent "cameos".
Zoo visitors don't just adapt; they come into a zoo with certain expectations, and are disappointed and won't come back too soon if ever if these are not at least partly fulfilled. Don't think though that I'm an elephant advocate; a zoo without elephants, giraffes, apes etc. can be a very, very,very nice zoo for me-and is probably less stressful to work at. But one should not judge from the zoo "geek"'s, but also from the Average Joe's perspective-and these two can differ considerably from time to time.

12-12-2007

well sun wukong, you certinaly did pick some truly boring animals there didn't you? so in the event that you ACTUALLY thought i was suggesting zoos phase out all mammals in favour of earths lowest lifeforms, let me explain myself better.

no, i didn't expect that zoos would phase out smaller animals, in fact have a re-read of my last post and you'll see that i didn't really mention anything that even alluded to that idea. i would certainly expect zoos keep their meerkats, otters, binturongs red pandas and even tapirs and gorillas. these are all animals that are both very popular and yet are also ethically housed in smaller city zoos.

instead i was suggesting this however, in scenarios like san diego, adelaide and melbourne zoos, where the city zoo owns a close by larger open-range park, moving the larger animals there isn't as big a concern as most zoo directors would think. this is because since both zoos are one and the same a drop in attendance at one zoo is only going to result in a higher attendance at the other and since they are one and the same, so what?

i did however mention that this only works so long as there isn't another competeing zoo within closer range than the city zoo is to its sister open-range version.

obviously if there were two good zoos in one city and one had all the elephants and giraffes people may be inclined to chose that one, but we don't have this problem in australia.

so in light that i excluded the prospect of two closely sistuated competing zoos and i never really suggested we all keep sea cucumbers we are going to have agree to disagree on this one.

i think people would still happily visit a good zoo full of apes, tapirs pygmy hippos, okapis, kangaroos, monkeys, sea lions and all the other smaller mammals that make up the bulk of any zoos collection.

i also think people would accept that they could still see elephants, hippo rhino and giraffe if they drove an extra half hour, since it was better for the animals.

i think the clear definition between the two styles of zoo would also keep both popular with the public.

12-12-2007

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
12-12-2007

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

13-12-2007

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...

13-12-2007

*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.

13-12-2007

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.