I’m not a native Philadelphian, so from time to time some local things have me a bit befuddled. I realize I’m going to ruffle some feathers with this, but what is the deal with the Zoo? This place seems to be the object of great local pride, but has anyone else noticed it’s not that nice a place for animals to live?
Before we continue, I am not a PETA vegan animal rights activist. I love animals dearly, but I admit to possessing a fur coat and I once dumped a vegetarian for being too boring to go out to dinner with. That being said, the dogs get top billing in our house, and I’d rather have a pet pig than eat bacon. I’m not a supporter of circuses or animals in cages, but I’ve been to some terrific zoos. The kind with lots of land for the habitats and that promote wildlife preservation. There are zoos that require monorails to get around because the large animals need that much space.
Then there’s the Philadelphia Zoo. It’s a physically pretty place with lovely pathways; it’s an attractive oasis on Girard Avenue; and they have that cool balloon. But then you see the actual animals. Remember the early days of the invasion of Afghanistan when the news showed footage of the Kabul Zoo with the skinny one-eyed lion? Yeah, that’s what comes to mind.
The first time I went a few years ago, I saw the most pathetic assortment of creatures, I swear. They looked like seconds. There was the giraffe with the huge goiter on his neck. There was also a bear sloth that exhibited neurotic obsessive-compulsive behavior, wearing a rut in the ground pacing wildly in front of his house. There were the poor dried-out elephants with no room to roam. And the country of Canada should be told that they are holding a magnificent Canadian lynx hostage in a cage. Seriously, not one of these large species has room to get some exercise. It’s tragic. I left so depressed, I couldn’t figure out why people take their kids there.
I went to Zoobilee once. It was my second (and last) visit to the zoo. My husband dropped me at the gate while he parked the car and while I waited I was approached by one of the animal rights protesters. Normally I am leery of zealots, but in this case I actually agreed with their cause. I briefly considered ditching my husband and handing out pamphlets with them. I didn’t, of course. But from my perspective, there wasn’t enough tequila at the margarita fountain to make those animals look happy. I was tempted to offer the Hippo a drink.
Since that first visit, the giraffe died, the elephants moved out and I’ve met some lovely Zoo employees that rave about how the place is fabulous and the animals are well-treated. It’s not that I think they’re lying, but … nothing over 30 pounds belongs in that zoo. There is virtually limitless amount of space outside the city in surrounding counties. Couldn’t they relocate the Philadelphia Zoo to the periphery and make it a world-class zoo? Surely some of the bigwigs on the board could throw some splashy fundraisers and buy some land in the burbs and make a big PR humanitarian effort to create a fabulous zoo. I’d give to that cause.
And before everyone starts throwing dung at me, I’m not suggesting the current zoo go to waste. They could still have the smaller animals, the aviaries, petting areas, the great educational exhibits, and fun kids stuff. They could keep the balloon and it could still be the nation’s oldest zoo. It just doesn’t have to be the only zoo. It could be the smaller urban sibling to the bigger attraction. That would be worth the price of admission. And wouldn’t we all flap our flippers with pride watching giraffes gallop and the lynx leaping?
August 18th, 2010 at 10:51 am
August 18th, 2010 at 10:59 am
August 18th, 2010 at 11:30 am
August 18th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
August 18th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
they should reconsider the size of the space for animals and relocation could do it
August 18th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
August 18th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
August 18th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
August 18th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
August 18th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Many of the Philadelphia Zoo animals are very old, and have lived beyond their life expectancy. Those are no doubt the ones you saw and unfairly based some of your negative opinions on. The fact is, those older animals look really good for their ages, and the fact that they have lived to those ages shows they are receiving excellent care.
I visit the Zoo at least once a week, and I know virtually every aspect of your description of the animals and the current conditions in the Philadelphia Zoo is inaccurate. You say you are not affiliated with PETA or any of the anti-zoo zealots, yet you use the same emotionally-charged phrases they use, and you make the same kinds of false statements.
Furthermore, you indicated you had already been influenced by the anti-elephants-in-zoos people handing out pamphlets outside the Zoo entrance even before you entered the Zoo on your last visit.
You say you have only visited the Zoo twice, the most recent visit has to have been at least a year ago, yet you are describing current conditions as if you have examined them frequently and recently.
Nothing you have written here convinces me that you would support any zoo of any size. From what you have written here, and the tone in which you have written it, it sounds like your goal is more to close down the Philadelphia Zoo than it is to support the creating of a new zoo in the area.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
August 18th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
August 18th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Curiously, you have this idea that the ‘bigwigs’ on the Philadelphia Zoo’s Board of Directors should simply hold a fundraiser to get a bigger zoo. But in a previous blog, you were bitching about being invited to *too* many fundraisers, what with you being all upscale Main Line-y and all. Why would you go to this one? With fall approaching, you need a chance to put on your sloth bear fur coat, have a gay friend tell you that you look divine, and go to an event where you can hold forth on OCD in sloth bears, so you can feel both upscale *and* smart? It’s the “and smart” part that might be a challenge.
August 18th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
August 18th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
August 19th, 2010 at 12:23 am
Don’t get me wrong: if anyone with any credentials cares to offer any research on why the AZA standards for zoo animals (of all sizes) are inadequate, I will be more than happy to read what they have to say, and I imagine the AZA would also be interested in reading that. I just don’t care to get my information on this from someone who admits to having no qualifications to speak to the issue, and whose only “solution” is a Marie Antoinette-inspired declaration of “Let them have a splashy fundraiser!”
Let’s see: if we get 500 people to come to the splashy fundraiser, and charge $1,000 a plate, that’s $500,000, and why, that should buy a townhouse for the lynx and the giraffes to roam around in.
I assume Ms. Rowell grew up in a state where math was not on the public school curriculum.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:14 am
August 19th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
And I doubt Ms. Rowell would be one of the people paying for the $1,000-a-plate dinners. I base that on her comment in an earlier blog where she described being unhappy about having to pick ticks off of her dog because of deer in her neighborhood. Her vet has surely suggested Frontline or a similar product, and she apparently would rather have her dogs to succumb to Lyme Disease instead of plunking down a few dollars for a good tick-repellant. Or maybe she’s too cheap to go to a vet to establish a wellness-program for her dogs. Who knows? In all events, I’m not taking advice from her on animal-care.
August 19th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
August 19th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
August 19th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
August 19th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
August 19th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
The trouble with zoos is as old as zoos themselves. What’s good for the box office isn’t always good for the animals. In the age of Animal Planet and heightened awareness over animal welfare, it’s time to ask: What are zoos good for any more?
Now, zoos are designed to show animals in something “resembling their natural habitat”, but only for display, not as much for lifestyle. They developed agendas to promote conservation and protect endangered species. They set up international programs to breed captive lions, tigers and elephants, so they wouldn’t have to take replacements from the wild. They also got incredibly expensive to run.
We created these monsters, and so where do we find the operating money?
All zoos rely on public subsidies, and all face increasing competition for the public’s dollars. They are caught between warring philosophies and factions. On one side are business types, many zookeepers and city councillors, who believe elephants, tigers and lynx are essential to attract crowds and revenue.
Zoos often claim that they are “arks” which can preserve species whose habitat has been destroyed, or which were wiped out in the wild for other reasons (such as hunting). They suggest that they can maintain the species in captivity until the cause of the creature’s extirpation is remedied, and then successfully re-introduce the animals to the wild, resulting in a healthy, self-sustaining population. While many zoos claim to be concerned for the general well-being of the animals who live within their confines, zoos remain little more than prisons for those who have committed no crime except that of being of the wrong species. Zoos tell us and our children that it is acceptable to keep animals in captivity, leading lives of boredom in settings that bear almost no resemblance to their natural homes. But modern zoos tell us that all this is important for the preservation of species. Zoos often defend their existence against challenges from the Animal Rights movement on these grounds.
There are several problems with this argument, however. First, the number of animals required to maintain a viable gene pool can be quite high, and is never known for certain. If the captive gene pool is too small, then inbreeding can result in increased susceptibility to disease, birth defects, and mutations; the species can be so weakened that it would never be viable in the wild.
Some species, like marine mammals, many bird species and so on, are extremely difficult to breed in captivity. Pandas, which have been the sustained focus of captive breeding efforts for several decades in zoos around the world, are notoriously difficult to breed in captivity. With such species, the zoos, by taking animals from the wild to supply their breeding programs, constitute a net drain on wild populations.
The whole concept of habitat restoration is mired in serious difficulties. Animals threatened by poaching (elephants, rhinos, pandas, bears and more) will never be safe in the wild as long as firearms, material needs, and a willingness to consume animal parts coincide. Species threatened by chemical contamination (such as bird species vulnerable to pesticides and lead shot) will not be candidates for release until we stop using the offending substances, and enough time has passed for the toxins to be processed out of the environment. Since heavy metals and some pesticides are both persistent and bio-accumulative, this could mean decades or centuries before it is safe to re-introduce the animals.
Even if these problems can be overcome, there are still difficulties with the process of re-introduction. Problems such as human imprinting, the need to teach animals to fly, hunt, build dens, and raise their young are serious obstacles, and must be solved individually for each species. There is a small limit to the number of species the global network of zoos can preserve under even the most optimistic assumptions. Profound constraints are imposed by the lack of space in zoos, their limited financial resources, and the requirement that viable gene pools of each species be preserved. Few zoos, for instance, ever keep more than two individuals of large mammal species. The need to preserve scores or hundreds of a particular species would be beyond the resources of even the largest zoos, and even the whole world zoo community would be hard-pressed to preserve even a few dozen species in this manner.
August 19th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
August 19th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
We’re now getting into areas far beyond where Ms. Rowell was trying to take us, as she was just making specious comments about having bigger zoos with monorails out in the ‘burbs. I have opinions about keeping species going, even when the numbers are small and the native habitat endangered, but I would rather hear where you would have us go from here, and perhaps you would share your views in more detail with me some day. Lunch is on me. I just want to know how we (collective ‘we,’ human beings) are meant to practice appropriate stewardship for the wonderful species with whom we co-habitate, some of whom are from, as you mention, at-risk environments. All of whom make the world the wonderful place that it is.
I’m serious about wanting to hear more of what you have to say, I just don’t care to put my phone number here. So I don’t know how we’ll do that.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
The video I’m thinking of is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drax82I7Dbw
Okay, admittedly, Batu is not in a setting like her natural home would be, in this video where she’s inside. These days she goes outside with her mom Tua. I can’t tell you whether her outside environment comes close to where orangutans of her species would normally live. Putting that aside: does she look bored? Honestly, I probably look more bored all day (while at work) than Batu looks. So that’s just the one little part of this that makes me laugh: if it was all about “Save the Zoo animals, they look bored!” well, then, there would be a “Save the Wendy” movement where I work, with people organizing fundraisers to get me out of my cubicle.
Again, that’s just a frivolous aside.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
August 19th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
You are right because the fact is that zoos have lost their focus. They’ve lost their belief in their own intrinsic value, and it shows in everything they say and do – from trying to draw in visitors with attractions that have nothing at all to do with animals, to constantly hyping their conservation efforts in the hope of getting funding and gaining acceptance as a worthy institution. In effect, zoos are telling the world, we have no value if we are “just zoos”. We have to offer visitors more. And we have to justify our existence by showing that we do something more than showcase all the spectacular variety of wildlife on earth in an environment that is safe and healthy for animals and visitors.
That is why people write opinion articles like Kelly Russell has written here. And why anti-zoo activists are even able to get anyone at all to listen to what they say. They sense a weakness, a vulnerability, a lack of steadfastness and commitment to what a zoo is supposed to be. And they are attacking from all sides.
The AZA, zoo directors, zoo development staff, and zoo marketing people are the ones who need to be able to answer your question about what zoos are good for, unequivocally, without wavering, without flowing with trends, without sitting on fences.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
August 19th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
August 20th, 2010 at 8:27 am
For example, CHoc-0-block writes, “Now zoos are designed to show animals in something “resembling their natural habitat”, but only for display, not as much for lifestyle.”
What factual basis is there for thinking all wild animals MUST live exactly as they would in the wild? Why would zoos need to even attempt to recreate their natural habitat? Ninety-nine percent of humans live in an environment that is far from being what would have been their natural one – so why would we assume all animals would prefer what nature set up for them?
I could do this with each valid point CHoc-0-block makes. So what I am saying is that the people who run zoos need to go back to basics, simplify their objectives, and convince the world that it is important for humans to be able to observe the variety of wildlife on earth up close, in real life, in an environment that is safe and healthy for the animals and the humans. And that is ALL zoos should have to do to be considered an institution that is worthy of praise and funding.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:51 am
August 20th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
August 20th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
I generally disagree with the writer, I just think you are more annoying than her this week. Nice Job. Also, Kim is a fairly common name – unlike Wendy Steward, of Columbia, Maryland. Go ahead and make yourself sound even more obnoxious an unintelligent by basing your theories around a supposed identity. Apparently your hobby is hijacking blogs online for your (albeit poorly executed) agenda – so I stand corrected.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Zoos like the Philly Zoo – whose sole purpose is to display animals for entertainment (with a few murmurs about “education” and “conservation,” neither which are accomplished by the zoo according to the few empirical studies done on the issue) are 19th century institutions that have no purpose today. Some zoos, like the Detroit Zoo, are seeing the light and rescuing animals in need, like tigers kept in a junkyard in Texas. Other zoos like our zoo – “America’s Oldest Zoo” – can’t stop living in the past and still continue to breed animals for display, cramming many of them in 1940′s era enclosures.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
But at the same time, I believe zoo directors, especially ones like Vik Dewan, whose love of the zoos they direct is obvious to anyone who knows them, are good people who are trying to do good things for animals, for the environment, and for the visitors. So I think $300,000 a year is less than Vik Dewan deserves, especially when he has to put up with criticisms from anti-zoo people as well as from Zoo members like me who disagree with what he is doing for completely different reasons than the anti-zoo people do.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Great website article about the inflated salaries of nonprofits – - this is about Hoskins, the former zoo director, but it certainly still applies to Dewan:
This pathological coyness is likely due to the fact that so many of our local nonprofiteers are grossly overpaid. At $340,000 per year, Hoskins was one of the highest-paid zookeepers in America, even though the Philadelphia Zoo is a relatively small and undistinguished outfit that’s hardly a must-see among American zoos. The Charity Navigator website also gives the Philadelphia Zoo its lowest rating among peer institutions for what’s called “fund-raising efficiency” — basically, the Zoo spends too much money raising money. By comparison, the San Diego Zoo, a truly world-class operation with a four-star rating from Charity Navigator, has a budget more than five times the size of Philadelphia’s — and the boss there makes $262,000.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4801
August 20th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
August 20th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
The Philly Zoo gets millions in taxpayer funding, including capital grants, subsidized water and trash services, and rental of the property for $1.00 a year. Sickening.
August 20th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Learn the facts and apply criticial thinking. Don’t take what anyone says, the zoos or the activists, at face value. I am an activist and I know the facts are on my side and I welcome anyone to challenge me with facts.
August 20th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Furthermore, there was no Zoobilee or other major fundraising event this year.
August 20th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
August 20th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
I realize Ms. Rowell does not wish for this issue to be discussed further on her unmonitored blog, and I feel that a humor blog whose overall tenor is “Mommy needs a gin and tonic after buying the groceries and before getting dressed up for the next fundraiser” is an inappropriate forum for an important subject that deserves serious dialogue. I would respectfully ask: if I promise not to post a single word, but only to read and reflect, could you suggest where I should learn the facts?
Thank you in advance.
August 20th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
What facts are you interested in learning about? There are a variety of sources to consult, including financial records, videotaped documentation, empirical data, and first-person reports, depending on what area you are most interested in.
August 20th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Turning things around a bit, suppose I was to post a blog with the title, “Is Kelly Rowell a cruel parent who should have her daughter removed from her care?” I think lots of people, most of all Ms. Rowell, would want to know, “What do you base that on?” And that’s what I’m asking, re the Zoo: “What is this based on?”
While I live in Maryland, I do have family ties to the Philadelphia area and have visited the Zoo a few times in the last year. I have not observed anything that got the hairs on my neck standing up in a “something’s wrong with this picture” way. On the contrary, I truly got an impression of keepers devoted to their charges.
My positive vibes about the place, of course, would be nothing in the face of documented cruelty. I would not enjoy watching video documentation, but if it exists, I can steel myself and watch it.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
August 20th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
I *respectfully* wish to know why the word-pictures you are painting should be more credible to me than Ms Rowell’s gin-soaked imaginings about the lions at the Philadelphia Zoo being just like Marjan, the lion attacked with a grenade by the Taliban in Kabul.
Knowing nothing about the undocumented cement barn you describe leaves me with nothing to respond to. Shade trees in the rhino enclosure will be easier for me to evaluate on my next visit to the Zoo. I admit that the last time I saw the rhino, I wasn’t specifically counting shade trees. I only recall seeing the rhino run, in a special moment where my sister happened to ask the docent, “So, can they run fast?” and by pure coincidence, the rhino took off at a gallop and answered the question. It is a special memory, and I was too entranced at that moment to do a tree count.
Needless to say, since my recollection is seeing the rhino running around, I didn’t see the bobbing and weaving you describe. That does not negate your experience, if that is in fact what you’ve recently observed at the Philadelphia Zoo. I just hope this isn’t another case of someone producing imagery from the Kabul Zoo and asking us to project it onto the Philadelphia Zoo.
August 20th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
August 21st, 2010 at 12:03 am
Video of the rhino bobbing and weaving. By chance, did you capture the rhino running? I’ve visited the zoo at least 100 times in the last few years and never seen the Xavira do anything more than a slow crawl. It’s hard to even imagine how she could get the momentum to “gallop” considering her age and the small space. Of course, I’ve been known to jog around my shower stall when the water is too hot or too cold, so I guess it’s possible…
August 21st, 2010 at 12:10 am
I volunteered for a project in the 1990′s to create another way to track them than radio-collaring (which is very invasive and sometimes kills the animals); the project was fascinating and wonderful in evey way, so the black rhino has a special place in my heart as well.
August 21st, 2010 at 10:48 am
Therein lies some of my frustration when trying to get to ground truth on the current state of the Philadelphia Zoo. You show a 2005 video, Ms Rowell describes what visits a few years ago, and I want to know how these relate to 2010. If the current Zoo management has made improvements in its habitats, is it fair to keep saying “Well, a few years ago, I saw thus and so…” ?
But whether the recollections are new or old, most of us only see the public side of the zoo, the habitats. You redirected by suggesting the off-viewing-hours living conditions are your concern – a valid concern for animals who spend more time off-exhibit than on-exhibit, though not the concern Ms Rowell raised. You seem privy to details the rest of the public do not have (maybe you know people who work at or worked at the Zoo) putting the rest of us at a disadvantage in being able to concede to or rebut your points. Wouldn’t it be cool if a team of real journalists could get an ‘off-exhibit’ tour to document Philadelphia Zoo 2010 – what’s right, what’s not, giving us the behind-the-scenes view you have been privy to? The journalists would probably need to consult with credentialed animal experts to determine what is typical or atypical behavior for any given species, and there might be a margin of error due to subjectivity (one person sees an animal looking “relaxed,” another sees the same animal and calls it “despondent”) but this would be a start to raising the level of discourse on this subject.
Back to 4 Oct 2009: it was Adopt-Day, and Trudy and I encountered Vik Dewan and chatted. Trudy asked him about the protesters outside. I recall Vik saying something like, “They keep saying we’ve got elephants in the basement, and I keep saying, I have no elephants in the basement!”
Did Vik omit to say, “I inherited a situation where that was the case, but it is no more” ? Are we seeing anachronistic protests against something long gone? I don’t have the answer.
Anyway, I’d like to know more about the 2010 ‘as-is’ state of the Zoo, based on professional fell-access assessments, and the ‘to-be’ state planned for coming years. Videos and anecdotes from five years ago provide an institutional-memory perspective on what the Zoo has evolved from, but they all need time-stamps on them, as you provided with your rhino video (thank you), and as I provided with my rhino story.
August 21st, 2010 at 11:06 am
I have recorded videos of Xavira relaxing in her pool, though. Anyone can see them and other videos of her by going to my YouTube channel and typing “Asian rhino” in the channel’s search box. (By the way, Xavira is an Asian rhino, not a black rhino. The Zoo also has a white rhino, but currently no black rhino.)
My channel URL is: http://www.YouTube.com/ZooVisitorMM The link to the video showing Xavira in the pool is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkxny54RDWA and my favorite video shows Bette scratching Xavira’s ears … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL-txPVMsYs
August 21st, 2010 at 11:18 am
August 21st, 2010 at 11:25 am
In most cases, the animals are only in those areas when the Zoo is closed for the night. So those are essentially the animals’ bedrooms, which, even for humans, are smaller areas than we spend time in during the day.
In some cases, animals need to be quarantined or taken off exhibit for a while for medical examinations and treatments. In those cases they also spend time in the off-exhibit areas, very similarly to what happens when humans have to stay in a hospital room for a while sometimes.
Neither of these situations in zoos is an instance of animal cruelty in any way!
August 21st, 2010 at 11:40 am
The zoo closes at 5 pm and often brings some of the animals to their indoor cages sooner than that. since the zoo opens at 9 am (and not all the animals are allowed outside at that time, either), that is a minimum of 16 hours in the cages.
I’ll follow up with Vik Dewan to see why he is lying about what the protesters are saying. Thanks for forwarding that information – we suspected the zoo was telling lies about us, but we are a little surprised that it is so blatant.
August 21st, 2010 at 8:08 pm
I’ve been thinking today about memory. What is the difference between me saying, “Here is something I am absolutely positive happened” and “Here’s something I sort of remember, but I can’t promise I got all the details right” ?
Our 4 Oct 2009 zoo visit was not that far in the past, and I have good reason to try to recall all details of it, since it was the last time I saw my twin sister conscious – she died suddenly on 26 Oct 2009. Trust me, I’ve tried to recall as much as I can about that day, and to admit to what things I can’t call into clear resolution.
The rhino running, Trudy’s shock, me teasing her about asking “So how fast can a rhino run?” and then having the rhino demonstrate it: it’s a high-resolution memory – you can stick bamboo shoots under my fingernails and I’ll still tell you: this is what happened, just as I would say I recall with crystal-clear clarity how we watched Titi Monkeys braiding their tails together, and Giant River Otter juveniles playing.
It was outside the Giant River Otter enclosure that we encountered Vik, and I stand by my account of how I heard it as ‘to the best of my recollection.’ The otters and kids were being noisy, but I gave you what I thought was being said, without presenting it as a word-for-word quote.
So here’s where you have me a bit frustrated at the moment: the rhino running is my strongest, clearest memory of the day. Titi monkeys after that, Giant River Otters after that, Vik and Trudy’s conversation after that. I think I got the Vik and Trudy conversation essentially correct, but why is it you’ve decided I got that conversation right, but I’ve misremembered the rhino running?
I didn’t video-tape the rhino encounter or the Vik encounter, and would not at the time have had a reason to think I should. But I’m presenting them now as a package deal: no one can tell me they’re sure my memory of the Vik conversation was right, while my memory of the rhino running was wrong, when I’m saying the latter memory is the one I’d swear to on a stack of holy books.
August 21st, 2010 at 8:51 pm
And I also think we might be referring to different rhinos. The Asian rhino, Xavira, is located next to the former elephant enclosure (now the enclosure of the livestock breed of Poutiou Donkey). Most of my zoo visits were to that area so I saw her a lot. I know there is also a white rhino at the zoo whose enclosure isn’t as small as Xavira’s but I have only been to that part of the zoo a couple of dozen times (vs hundreds of times to the “Pachyderm House” area), I find it too depressing to spend much time in the place.
August 21st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Regarding rhinos running – when I was a volunteer for the project to save the black rhino, I had a rhino run past me within twenty feet – we had been watching him nap, and suddently he was spooked by something no human could decipher – and I can tell you they can run VERY fast. It’s heart-breaking to think of it now because that was in Harare National Park in Zimbabwe, where just about 300 rhino had survived poaching in the 1990′s and now most of those survivors are probably dead thanks to Mugabe.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:06 am
Trudy cared deeply about all creatures. Animal suffering caused her misery that was painful to behold. (I’m recalling her reaction to the Virunga Gorilla Murders of 2007 or 2008.)
There were so many creatures at the Philadelphia Zoo that she loved, and the last project she announced enthusiasm for was to buy and learn to use a digital camera on her visits to the Zoo. She also loved taking friends to the Zoo. Because she wanted those visits to be about sharing her pleasure about the wonderful creatures at the Zoo, she wasn’t thrilled about having to first run the gamut of the protesters outside. For all I know, you were one of the people she looked at once and said, “Oh, damn, I have to get my guests past that damned person.” Which I may do this week when I bring an out-of-state visitor to the Zoo.
Getting back to Ms Rowell’s original blog: I don’t believe she did anyone any favors suggesting there were animals at the Zoo who she thought looked like “seconds,” whatever that was supposed to mean. Not cute enough? Not young enough? The animal equivalent of “shmattas” she wouldn’t be seen wearing? God help her dogs, as they progress through life.
I haven’t seen a single creature at the Zoo who struck me as an inferior animal. If there are creatures at the Zoo who could benefit from more of something they’re not getting, who could be enjoying life more than they presently are, if anyone has feasible, constructive ideas about how to provide that, and if there’s anything that I can do to support that, I’d love to hear about it. I’ll keep an eye out for any developments in this area, but not on Ms Rowell’s blog, because that would entail having to wade through her crap about not being able to get tonic water at her Acme for her much-needed G&T’s, needing more gay friends to shop with, etc. – concerns I do not share.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:48 am
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I also have no doubt that your sister loved going to the zoo to look at the animals held captive there – the majority of zoogoers think of themselves as ‘animal lovers.” what many fail to consider is what the life is truly like for the animal confined there, and that is why i and others are out there. It’s a sad, miserable existence (our opinion) that leads to premature death (fact) for some. if you think that a primate is happy with greenery painted on the walls vs. actual trees to climb in (which is what you have said, in so many words – and how most of the primates are displayed in the primate exhibits, and i could give many other similar examples), then we’re just too far off in our perceptions of what animals deserve to really have an intelligent discussion.
But if people are tired of this discussion, they don’t have to read it. I suspect you’re tired of defending what I think is an indefensible position and would like this discussion to end, more so than concerned about “putting it to rest” out of concern for ms. Rowell and the readers.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:27 pm
But for what it’s worth, in my delusional memory where I think I remember Vik talking to my sister, he didn’t come across as being disrespectful of anyone.
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:08 am
This is just another example of your attempts to make everyone at the Zoo, particularly administration and management, look like evil people, which they are definitely not. All their actions regarding all the Zoo’s animals show they care about those animals, as well as animals in the wild, far more than any of your actions show regarding animals.
For you to even hint that Vik Dewan, or anyone else officially associated with the Zoo, is a liar is an outrage.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
August 25th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
August 26th, 2010 at 6:39 am
There are any number of interesting discussions to have on any of these points, and hopefully appropriate fora will present themselves as places for discourse on these and related issues.
August 26th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
August 26th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
I’ll take it as a homework assignment to picture that I was Vik Dewan, President of the Philadelphia Zoo, trying to get the best answer possible to the question “Where do we go from here?,” and knowing that everyone I spoke to would have a different answer to that question.
August 27th, 2010 at 7:42 am
I would really like to see and participate in an in-depth discussion of the differences between the two kinds of organizations that would result in a measurable comparison of their value in today’s world. I think one of the reasons that some people believe zoos should not exist at all is that the zoo directors haven’t clearly defined their own zoos’ missions, and definitely haven’t convinced enough other people that their direction is the right way to go.
So forums could help Vik Dewan (and all other zoo directors, too) establish and clearly define their own missions in a way that will gain maximum support.
August 28th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
One thing can help in any feelings of depression when viewing zoo animals: Forget the idea that many have that “animals are like people”. They simply are not — they are very different. While I of course advocate good treatment for zoo animals, remembering that animals and people are very, very different, you soon realize that animals have zero concept of ideas like “freedom” and “liberty”. Those are human concepts. For the most part, all animals care about is being well fed, safety, good health, and a chance to mate. Zoos meet these needs quite well.
It’s also very important to realize that without zoos, many animal species would already be extinct. The next time you see a buffalo (bison), thank America’s great zoos.
Allen Nyhuis, Coauthor: America’s Best Zoos
August 29th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
1) It is possible to see an animal at a zoo engaged in something that looks like, say, repetitive behavior. It’s also possible the animal would be exhibiting the same behavior in the wild. So if someone says they’ve seen an animal exhibiting something that looks like repetitive behavior at a zoo, I don’t want to invalidate that observation, I just want to know where it fits in in the broader context of that species behavior.
2) I’m getting the idea (and if it’s a goofy idea, I apologize for it), that people sometimes look at zoo animals, and it’s as if it’s a Rorschach test: whatever you’re feeling about your life, you’ll project onto the animals. If you’re feeling trapped in your life, you’ll look at animals and say you see them feeling trapped. If you’re feeling happy, you’ll see them playing and say they look happy.
Kelly feels trapped and needs to drink to get through the day, so she looks at zoo animals and thinks: “They’re like me, they feel trapped, they need a drink.”
It seems to say more about Kelly than the animals.
That said, if there’s room for improvement for any of the zoo’s inhabitants, and a way to achieve it, that’s something that’s worth discussing.
August 29th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
And wild animals do not display stereotypic behavior. The only person I know who claims they do is Kenneth Feld, owner of Ringling Bros. Circus, who said he saw elephants doing it when he went to Africa a few years back. Joyce Poole, who has studied elephants for decades, including the longest-running study of elephants in the world, over 30 years at Amboseli National Park in Kenya, says there is no documented case of any elephant displaying that behaviour in the wild.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
August 31st, 2010 at 8:43 am
I also agree with your opinion that probably all most animals care about is being well fed, being kept safe, in good health, and given a chance to mate. And you are right – zoos do a very good job of providing all that.
But modern zoos also provide much more for the animals. Enrichment items, and various frequent changes made in the exhibit areas, all provide physical and mental stimulation for the animals, while at the same time giving humans an opportunity to observe and learn facts about animal behavior.
August 31st, 2010 at 8:45 am
August 31st, 2010 at 8:51 am