Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, July 19, 2011
Animals The Woodland Park Zoo
Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM
You've read about the Woodland Park Zoo's elephant problem. You know about zoos in general. You've been to our local, lackluster, but totally-better-than-the-horrible-zoos-of-yesteryear zoo. And while you were there, you probably watched grand creatures of the African Savannah standing in the frigid Seattle rain.
But should anything change at the Woodland Park Zoo? What do the Slog readers—who bind all creatures great and small to their order of natural law, by popular vote—have to say? Click and discuss.
1
Everyone choosing the "for the kids" option needs to keep their wharrrgharbl to themselves about zoo conditions from here on out.
2
Get rid of all the crow exhibits. Seriously, I see crows every day, they don't need to have more on view in the zoo.
3
the wolves look like they're being driven insane. pacing and pacing and pacing. smart animals out.
4
Having been to the Oregon Zoo in Portland, they had an exhibit with smaller versions of Parakeet birds (I forget the name). For 1$ you got to buy a small cup of apple juice, and the birds would just perch on your finger dunking their heads in the cup, gorging themselves on the sweet nectar. This makes for great photo ops with kids or spouses.
Woodland Park Zoo needs something like that.
Woodland Park Zoo needs something like that.
5
@5 Um, they DO have such a thing. It opened several years ago. Willawong Station (in the Australia/Asia section, where the tree kangaroo used to be) there is a building with free flying parakeets and cockatiels and other such birdies. It's $1 to buy a seed stick to feed to the birds.
Honestly, I am NOT a fan of the "pay to feed the animals" stations. (WPZ added giraffe feeding a few years ago, too). And the carousel. And now the stupid robot dinosaurs. WPZ had been such a pioneer in REMOVING all the rides, and trying to improve things, and drawing a clear line: stating they were about education and conservation, NOT an amusement park. And it seems that that is changing, instead searching for dollars. *sigh*
But I am still, mostly, a fan of Woodland Park Zoo...mostly.
Honestly, I am NOT a fan of the "pay to feed the animals" stations. (WPZ added giraffe feeding a few years ago, too). And the carousel. And now the stupid robot dinosaurs. WPZ had been such a pioneer in REMOVING all the rides, and trying to improve things, and drawing a clear line: stating they were about education and conservation, NOT an amusement park. And it seems that that is changing, instead searching for dollars. *sigh*
But I am still, mostly, a fan of Woodland Park Zoo...mostly.
7
@5 " there is a building with free flying parakeets and cockatiels and other such birdies. It's $1 to buy a seed stick to feed to the birds."
Hey cool, its been several years since I last visited the zoo. Seed stick? Do the birds perch on your hand eating the seed stick? Are they as friendly as the ones I saw in the Oregon Zoo?
Hey cool, its been several years since I last visited the zoo. Seed stick? Do the birds perch on your hand eating the seed stick? Are they as friendly as the ones I saw in the Oregon Zoo?
8
I'm not saying the zoo is perfect, probably far from it. Haven't been in years; so I imagine it would benefit from several upgrades and habitat expansions/improvements. But all the WPZ haters (or indifferenters) should give credit where credit is due. WPZ led the revolution in zoo habitats. In the past, all the zoos were just indoor cages with concrete floors. When WPZ reinvented their primate section to actually include outdoor areas and water features and real life plants and the sky (the friggin' sky!) and more room to move around--this was unheard of. It launched a revolution in zoo design. It started here. I think that's pretty cool.
9
I love how everyone is so concerned about zoo animals after coming back from a lunch of eating animals and looking forward to a dinner of eating animals later.
10
Freeing the elephants would be great, but they just have to treat the elephants with basic respect.
Woodland Park Zoo is the longest-running member in the "Hall of Shame" from In Defense of Animals. The other 2009 "Hall of Shame" inductee, the LA zoo, was removed from the for making improvements. Woodland Park Zoo has made no substantial improvements.
http://www.helpelephants.com/worst_zoos_…
http://www.helpelephants.com/woodland_zo…
Woodland Park Zoo is the longest-running member in the "Hall of Shame" from In Defense of Animals. The other 2009 "Hall of Shame" inductee, the LA zoo, was removed from the for making improvements. Woodland Park Zoo has made no substantial improvements.
http://www.helpelephants.com/worst_zoos_…
http://www.helpelephants.com/woodland_zo…
11
None of those options say "Release/export all the large nonnative animals that are poorly adapted to the local climate and replace them with Northwest-appropriate exhibits."
I mean, come on! They're not quite native here, but they're close enough: We could get a friggin' wolverine! How cool would that be? Who needs to look at some traumatized elephants swaying around when we could see moose and sqvirrel?
I have nothing against keeping endangered animals in zoos. They serve as important conservation and education institutions. Keep it climate-appropriate, though, and go for fewer, higher-quality, higher-diversity exhibits over trying to cram in as many animals as possible.
I mean, come on! They're not quite native here, but they're close enough: We could get a friggin' wolverine! How cool would that be? Who needs to look at some traumatized elephants swaying around when we could see moose and sqvirrel?
I have nothing against keeping endangered animals in zoos. They serve as important conservation and education institutions. Keep it climate-appropriate, though, and go for fewer, higher-quality, higher-diversity exhibits over trying to cram in as many animals as possible.
12
Keeping elephants here obviously isn't doing anything for elephant conservation, since they have been so unsuccessful bringing a pregnancy to term. As far as education goes, I am absolutely not convinced anybody learns anything at zoos, especially kids, except maybe that animals can be kept in whatever way is convenient for us, for our entertainment, despite how abusive and disrespectful it is.
13
@11, one thing I've noticed when I visit zoos in exotic places is that I have absolutely zero interest in lions, elephants, giraffes and so on: I want to see the native animals. In Australia there are SO MANY amazing creatures to see, and in such dire need of conservation as well. I like your local animals idea.
But Bring back the night exhibit and get rid of the heffalumps and I'll rejoin. Not before. Oh, and get rid of the robot dinosaurs and "zoomazium" other non-animal exhibits are awful. Oh, yeah, and make the food pavilion a nice place for lunch and a glass of wine like in civilized parts of the world. Then.
One more thing: the hippos should wear fezzes.
But Bring back the night exhibit and get rid of the heffalumps and I'll rejoin. Not before. Oh, and get rid of the robot dinosaurs and "zoomazium" other non-animal exhibits are awful. Oh, yeah, and make the food pavilion a nice place for lunch and a glass of wine like in civilized parts of the world. Then.
One more thing: the hippos should wear fezzes.
14
Get rid of the African Village exhibit. Human cultures do not belong in a zoo; it's racist and degrading.
16
@12, I understand your sentiment, I really do, and I consider myself a strong supporter of animal rights; but having known quite a few people in the AZA and zoo/aquarium business, I must respectfully disagree.
I'm not sure if you've been to a zoo lately, but they're generally not stacks of squalid cages any more - especially not when the funding is available to keep animals well - and they do a lot more than just confine animals, in terms of outreach education, animal rescue and conservation, and even important zoological and ecological research. A family member of mine has worked at the Dallas Zoo and Aquarium for years, and he's always done primarily research and outreach education, with animal husbandry being an obvious priority, but far from the only job to be done.
The Woodland Park Zoo needs some serious changes, but I think you're unnecessarily pessimistic about modern zoos in general.
I'm not sure if you've been to a zoo lately, but they're generally not stacks of squalid cages any more - especially not when the funding is available to keep animals well - and they do a lot more than just confine animals, in terms of outreach education, animal rescue and conservation, and even important zoological and ecological research. A family member of mine has worked at the Dallas Zoo and Aquarium for years, and he's always done primarily research and outreach education, with animal husbandry being an obvious priority, but far from the only job to be done.
The Woodland Park Zoo needs some serious changes, but I think you're unnecessarily pessimistic about modern zoos in general.
17
While I think it should be left open and have donated thousands of dollars to it, I know Brendan Kiley needs food.
18
@14 but then where will we learn about Pure Humans, since only Africans have not interbred with Neanderthals?
19
I kind of like the idea of a zoo of the Pacific Northwest, with only animals from our local region (defined generously to include Alaska to northern California, and inland to the Rockies.) The best exhibit for my money is already the grizzly bears, and you could build on that part of the zoo. Keep the wolves but give them more space to move around in. Add moose to the elk already there.
I'll miss a lot of the tropical and sub-tropical animals though, from the great apes to the big cats to the lions. I won't miss the elephants simply because the exhibit is sad and the animals aren't happy.
I don't mind the cultural human stuff that puts the animals in context with the human environment, but I think it can be done in a less patronizing and stuck in time style.
And even though it doesn't fit with the theme, bring back the Day & Night Exhibit. That's the best thing ever.
I'll miss a lot of the tropical and sub-tropical animals though, from the great apes to the big cats to the lions. I won't miss the elephants simply because the exhibit is sad and the animals aren't happy.
I don't mind the cultural human stuff that puts the animals in context with the human environment, but I think it can be done in a less patronizing and stuck in time style.
And even though it doesn't fit with the theme, bring back the Day & Night Exhibit. That's the best thing ever.
20
They need an exhibit where I can pet cute animals, and more monkeys just in general. Always go with more monkeys.
21
I think you'd need to ask the animals if they think they have enough space to move around. Making assumptions about them is not much better than the Southern planters saying that slaves really didn't mind the fact that they weren't free.
@8, Woodland Park was not the first zoo to try to give animals more naturalistic exhibits; Balboa Zoo in San Diego was. But naturalistic isn't natural.
@8, Woodland Park was not the first zoo to try to give animals more naturalistic exhibits; Balboa Zoo in San Diego was. But naturalistic isn't natural.
22
@21, you're committing a sort of Nirvana fallacy. In a perfect world, we'd leave all animals unmolested and go see them in the wild. We don't live in that world; we've destroyed a lot of the wild and a lot of the animals, and people often can't go see the ones that are left.
We need to give animals the best we can give them. Be pragmatic. View zoos as a sort of inverse equivalent of needle exchange centers, if it helps. It's about harm reduction, at this point.
You're also ascribing a lot more sapience and discrimination to animals generally than I think most of them have. If you can create a sufficiently naturalistic environment that animals in it - let's assume we're talking about animals that don't display arguably sapient behaviors like apes and elephants - behave indistinguishably from healthy wild counterparts, I don't think you're doing anything wrong; I don't think there's good reason to believe that an elk or a black bear is quite cognizant enough to feel existential angst over a lack of self-determination. It's a pretty lofty goal to make enclosures that are functionally identical to the wild, I recognize, but it's one we can strive for and improve in the striving.
We need to give animals the best we can give them. Be pragmatic. View zoos as a sort of inverse equivalent of needle exchange centers, if it helps. It's about harm reduction, at this point.
You're also ascribing a lot more sapience and discrimination to animals generally than I think most of them have. If you can create a sufficiently naturalistic environment that animals in it - let's assume we're talking about animals that don't display arguably sapient behaviors like apes and elephants - behave indistinguishably from healthy wild counterparts, I don't think you're doing anything wrong; I don't think there's good reason to believe that an elk or a black bear is quite cognizant enough to feel existential angst over a lack of self-determination. It's a pretty lofty goal to make enclosures that are functionally identical to the wild, I recognize, but it's one we can strive for and improve in the striving.
24
@16 I've definitely felt much more supportive about zoos for the conservation and educational aspects until recently. Over the past few years, I've visited Woodland Park a few times, the National Zoo in DC a few times, one in New England whose name escapes me at the moment (I think it was in RI), and one is Pocatello, ID, last year. That's pretty frequent for someone with no kids. And one thing I noticed is that almost no one reads the displays, especially people with small children. I can't speak to the outreach aspect; maybe that is stronger than it seems, but I haven't heard of much of that (granted, not having kids probably has something to do with it). I have the most problem with these excuses being used to keep "higher" animals, such as elephants, wolves, dolphins, etc. They might not have "existential angst" at their lack of self-determination, but they certainly feel stress that manifests in physical and behavioral ways. It is suffering. And I think treating animals in this way degrades humanity, as well. I respect the goals of conservation and education, but I just don't think that zoos as they exist really accomplish what they are meant to. I think it can be much, much better, but probably not with the current zoo-as-family-outing, animals-as-displayed-entertainment model.
25
To every hypocrite who convinces themselves that the concern of zoo animals is more significant and more special than the subjective classification and treatment given to animals raised for your dinner plates:
think about it. (please!)
think about it. (please!)
26
@21, maybe WPZ was the first to do it with the primates then? I read a big article about it a few years ago. Fascinating narrative. One of the only reasons they got it done in the first place was that WPZ was in major turn over of its leadership at the time and there wasn't a strong top down heirarchy in place, so the landscape architects and primate consultants sort of got to do whatever they wanted.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (26) RSS