Is the zoo good enough for you?

Jack Hanna, a television personality and famous wildlife expert, recently sent a letter to the L.A. City Council supporting an L.A. Zoo expansion project that would complete an exhibit for an endangered elephant. The elephant, Billy, has aroused quite a stir on our pets blog Unleashed.

Commenter's opinions ranged from sending Billy to a wildlife sanctuary back in Africa, to completing the multi-million dollar zoo exhibit here in L.A. Some of the more entertaining thought-provoking comments on the blog entry explored the nature and role of a zoo in our society.

Kate Woodviolet says: I don't think Jack Hanna means ill, but keeping elephants in zoos is beneficial to zoos. Elephants are a big draw, and no doubt are genuinely beloved by their keepers, but that doesn't necessarily translate into what's best for the elephant.

Paul Gachot says: Zoos are extremely important aspects of our urban environment. Experiencing live animals triggers something in us that bypasses our 'civilized' selves and nourishes our deepest existential core. Developing children need to experience animals, smell their smells, analyze their ways of moving and interacting.

lbrook says: ALL the TRUE EXPERTS feel the same way about this exhibit - and about Asian elephants in ACCREDITED ZOOS - We have a moral obligation to save this extremely endangered species. And we have the obligation to treat them humanely.

As politicians and interest groups battle over Billy's fate, the elephant sits in an exhibit that is much smaller than the new one that's been put on hold because of the controversy. Should a zoo be a place for children to gawk at caged animals? A place for captive breeding programs to save endangered species? Should we just eliminate them all together? The Unleashed readers have a variety of opinions, and you can weigh in here.

-- Anthony Pesce

Photo: Wildlife expert Jack Hanna holds up roses from the Rain Bird float during the Rose Parade Jan. 1, 2008. Photo: Karen Tapia-Andersen

Comments

[Suzanne Jeanine]

Is the Zoo good enough for you? It will be when the Pachyderm Forest is completed.

[Dave in Los Angeles]

Zoos have come a long way over the past 100 years, allowing kids (and adults) a chance to see and experience animals they've only seen in movies or books. They also allow the majority of us to see animals we would never in our lifetimes experience (how many of us are actually going to travel to Africa or Asia “on safari”?). A desire for conservation and stewardship of planet earth increases tenfold when people see these magnificant "far away" creatures up-close.

[eric mills]

Zoos are an anachronism which should have been abolished long ago, in my opinion. We should be protecting their environment, and curtailing human overpopulation. Zoo breeding will never re-establish vanishing species--there're simply too many of them, and too few zoos. Evolution stops in a zoo situation. Read Peter Batten's 1976 (?) book, "Living Trophies"--it's an eye-opener for those who think zoos are wonderful.

I was a docent at the Oakland Zoo years ago when it was voted one of the "10 Worst Zoos" in the country by Parade Magazine. Well-deserved at the time--it should have been closed down. (Since then remarkably improved under the direction of Dr. Joel Parrott.) Most zoo patrons go to zoos for "entertainment," not education. And the animals often suffer accordingly. (The recent tiger tragedy at the S.F. Zoo, e.g.)

In 1904 the Bronx Zoo in New York had a Congolese pygmy named Ota Benga on display in a cage with an orangutan and a macaw. (He'd been willing brought to the U.S. to take part in the St. Louis World's Fair. Then war broke out at home, and he could not return, hence off to the zoo.) The NAACP threatened lawsuits. He was then released from the cage and had the run of the zoo. Benga spoke no English and no one there his language. He ended up as a ward of the state, then at age 35, in despair, shot himself to death, never having been able to return home. (See his self-titled biography.) What a movie this would make! Shades of "The Elephant Man." The pygmy character in Brad Pitt's new movie may have been inspired by Benga ("The Curious Life of Benjamin Button").

Simply put, we don't have the "right" to cage animals OR people to satisfy our own curiosity or for cheap entertainment. Not so long ago we put insane people on display in zoos for public amusement. And let's not forget the carnival's "freak shows," or the two-headed calf at the county fair. Or George Bush in the White House....

As the bumper strip says, "We're not the only species on the planet, we just act like it." I'll likely never see a great blue whale....but I'm happy to know they're out there still. Go on safari, read a book, see one of the many splendid documentaries on animals. But let's leave them alone for a change, hey?

Lastly, read THE BEST OF FRIENDS, by the late John Aspinall, founder of Howlett's Zoo in England, esp. the epilogue.

Cheers,
Eric Mills, coordinator
ACTION FOR ANIMALS
Oakland - afa@mcn.org

[Jaap den Haan]

In combination with 'On the Origin of Species' of Charles Darwin zoos only make plausible that they are good enough for people. Haven't you noticed?

[Jaap den Haan]

In combination with 'On the Origin of Species' of Charles Darwin zoos only make plausible that they are good enough for people. Haven't you noticed?

[Janet]

I have been a visitor to the LA Zoo since before I can remember. I never experienced it as such a happy place for the inhabitants.

The idea that kids cannot care about something unless they have "experienced" it does not hold water. Most everything I love in nature I have never seen or experienced personally. I will never make it to Africa or many other places yet I work for stewardship and conservation. That argument is so human centered.

I want Billy out of the Los Angeles Zoo now and into the PAWS sancturay. End elephants in the LA Zoo for once and for all.

[rob]

Wow, Erica Mills.
You spend that whole post trying to sound intelligent, then you cut your argument off at the knees with your Bush Bash comment.

And intimating a 1904 case with a Pygmy should be a basis for closing a Zoo is an awful long reach.

Do some research outside of the blinders you are wearing - there are very strong and top rated zoos with Elephant breeding programs that are wildly successful.

You choose instead to equate a president to a circus freak.
Nice job of showing off your lack of credibility.

[Doris Potter]

The old concept of the zoo where animals are captured in the wild and kept as attractions has evolved to some degree (animals are often bred and not captured, enclosures have expanded, cages have given way to more natural settings with moats and high fences) but to my mind, these facilities should exist for rescue and rehabilitation of wildlife. Only those animals which are un-releasable should be kept and only if they can enjoy a good quality of life. If the economic reality dictates that these animals be on display then if done carefully whereby the animals have privacy and comfort, I do not think this is inherently bad. That said, however, there are likely some species which should never be kept in captivity of this kind and current opinion places elephants in this category. We should err on the side of caution and close these exhibits so as to allow the currently captive elephants to live out their lives in sanctuaries with members of their own species. Even the impulse of wanting to preserve an endangered species is for OUR wants, not theirs. We need to examine our motives thoughtfully.
And as for the idea that children need to see and experience live animals; then go for a quiet walk in the woods and show them the squirrels, chipmunks and birds. Many urban areas even have raccoons, woodchucks and foxes! There is a wonderful world of wildlife out there for the viewing without needing to step inside a zoo.

[Erik Self]

A zoo should not be a permanent home for elephants.....an elephant sanctuary outside of l.a is the best option on hundreds of acres people can visit and go on elephant camera safaris maybe the elephants can be temporarily housed at the zoo on loan from the animal sanctuary for limited amounts of time.....other wild animals can be housed at the large animal sanctuary outside l.a too ..........

[Georges Dupras]

In most cases, zoos are designed for people and not the animals they are supposed to protect. There may be exceptions to this but they are few and far between. Even the newer exhibits, which depict the species natural environment, do not fool, nor do they meet the needs for the species they house. Abherent behaviour among zoo animals remains common confirming that confinement for the sake of human observation/enjoyment is not the way to go.

Elephants are among those that do not do well in captivity. If we are protecting a species for our own sake, rather than for the sake of the species, than our motives are suspect to say the least. As to the educational merit of zoos, these are minimal at best. Any professional educator will confirm that children will retain more from a film depicting wildlife in their natural surroundings, dealing with environmental changes and predation, far better that anything they may learn in a zoo. Naturalists and biologists themselves will admit that behavioural research conducted in zoos result in unatural returns.

We need to re-think the whole concept of environmental/wildlife protection and we must begin by recognizing our own motives.

[Brian Robinson]

Hi my name brian robinson and im doind a biogrphy on a wild life biologist. And i was brosing on the the wep and came on to your page and woundering if you can hep me out for this and information like family back ground birth place education wat made want to do this and your best discovery

brian robinson