Mother Talkers

I'm not going to the zoo, zoo, zoo

by NJmom

Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 02:20:31 PM PDT

I'm sure you've all heard about the tiger at the San Francisco Zoo that recently escaped and killed a teenager.  According to the director of the zoo today, the wall height around the 300-lb tigers enclosure was only 12.5 feet, well below the recommended 16.4 feet.  This tiger had a history of, well, acting like a tiger and there are reports that she had injured a worker's arm during feeding.

Clearly, someone is at fault here, and it's a human.  No matter what, the tiger should not have been able to escape, for both the safety of the visitors and for the safety of the tiger.  Who has now paid the price too.

I'm not a big fan of zoos.

  • ::

Back when we were in college, we went to the Philly Zoo, only to find a memorial set up where the Primates Building used to stand. In 1995, a fire on the morning of December 24th had killed 23 animals including six lowland gorillas, three orangutans and others.  The animals died in their sleep from carbon-monoxide poisoning, thankfully none were burned to death.

I cried and cried. And then left.  Said, I'll never be back.

I tried to go to a zoo again, about a year or so ago with my kids.  Back to Philly, only to be met by activists trying to rehome elephants to sanctuaries.  The Philly elephant exhibit is notorious in the animal rights world for being too small for the animals and made entirely of concrete.  Activists have been toiling for years to have the exhibit shut down.  So far one elephant, who had been spending practically all of her time in a concrete barn, has been moved to a sanctuary. The fight continues to have the rest rehomed.

I'm done with zoos.

What are your feelings on zoos?

Tags: animals (all tags)

Permalink | 36 comments

  • very mixed (0 / 0)

    I enjoy taking Jess to the zoo, but I find them so sad in terms of their cages and such. I'm with you there.

    by Rachel on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:04:10 PM PDT

    • like (0 / 0)

      When we went with our kids last year, (the youngest was just a baby), the oldest didn't seem to like it all that much.  

      I was so relieved.  No need to go back.

      by NJmom on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:31:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I'm hoping the same (0 / 0)

        when we took Jess to the zoo for the first time in Thailand, she kept imploring the panda bear "Open de gate, teddy! Open de gate!" When we told her the bear couldn't, she said, "No faaaaaaaiiir." I'm hoping that she's responding to a gut sense of injustice... ;-)

        by Rachel on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:05:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • wall size seems unclear (0 / 0)

    This CNN story says the exhibit included an 18 foot fence, and a 20 foot moat:

    a structure that has been in place since 1940 and passed inspection most recently three years ago by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

    The zoo will weigh whether the moat and wall should be made bigger, said Mollinedo.

    I think there are good zoos and bad zoos. The good ones create spacious, comfortable surroundings for their animals and encourage education, conservation and environmentalism.

    The bad ones keep animals in tiny, barren enclosures and are all about making a buck.

    We used to have a membership to the Sacramento Zoo, but truth be told I found it depressing. I won't go out of my way to visit a zoo any time soon.

    by Erika on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:17:21 PM PDT

    • director has changed his story (0 / 0)

      I now see that today he said the wall is actually 12.5 feet high, but the moat is 33 feet wide?

      by Erika on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:20:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • We have a zoo that (0 / 0)

      I think there are good zoos and bad zoos. The good ones create spacious, comfortable surroundings for their animals and encourage education, conservation and environmentalism.

      We have a very nice zoo in town that fits the bill as far as that definition is concerned.  We have a family membership in their booster organization.  They were one of the first places in town to go green.  I've felt uncomfortable going to other zoos in larger cities though.  It's weird when you have something nice in your own backyard and don't even realize it.

      by music teacher on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:53:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • re: the zoo (0 / 0)

    I'm ambivalent about zoos... some of my earliest, mostly good childhood memories are of going to the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston with my dad. Once a llama ate all of the buttons off my coat b/c I was too scared to move. Dad was in the bathroom. Hence the ambivalence!

    I like to take my kids to the Oakland zoo-lots of educational exhibits and talks about how to humanely care for animals in the zoo AND how to preserve their natural habitats. OZ has one of the best elephant enclosures in the country. Still, these are captive animals, some of whom have been rescued. Is is better for animals to be captive or dead?

    The San Francisco Zoo has always seemed pretty dumpy, grimy and old by comparison, tho i havent been there in years. I didn't realize it was unsafe for both visitors and animals as well. Guess we won't be going there!

    by poppygirl on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:32:39 PM PDT

    • me too (0 / 0)

      I have good memories of the zoo too from my childhood (Bronx Zoo).  That's a great story that a llama ate the buttons!

      I'd be avoiding the SF Zoo too if I was in the area.  Quite scary.

      by NJmom on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:54:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • SF Zoo (0 / 0)

      I was there in May chaperoning a school field trip. I think they've done a lot of recent renovating. I will dig up some of the pictures; they have some nice exhibits now, but I can agree that it is really too small to be a "complete" zoo with every possible animal. I think they have chosen to have fewer animals in larger spaces. They were still doing a lot of remodeling while we were there.

      I would say that the tiger area was pretty small.

      by shenanigans on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:47:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • some pictures from May 2007 (0 / 0)

        I happened to get some really nice tiger pictures. Obviously I don't know if any of these are THE tiger.

        The enclosure was nice, but not very big. Tigers are much bigger than most of us realize... since we don't usually see them up close.

        Funny, I wasn't all that upset about the kid, but I was pretty upset that they killed the tiger.

        In this exhibit, they had several giraffes, two zebras, some ostriches, and assorted other birds all sharing a lawn with a pond. Again, could be bigger, but at least there's grass (the zebras were happily munching it).

        But, the gorillas did make me sad. They did not seem very happy.

        by shenanigans on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:19:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    • I dislike (0 / 0)

      The San Francisco Zoo.  The only time I went, I was horrified to see polar bears laying around in the sun on a cement slab.

      by Erin on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:58:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • woodland park zoo (0 / 0)

    we have an excellent zoo here in seattle. the exhibits are for the most part very spacious and resemble the animals' natural habitat. some animals do get a better deal than others, but in general the zoo is very conservation-oriented and focused on education. it's in our neighborhood and we go a lot. the kids have really enjoyed it.

    i totally agree about zoos where the animals are kept in cages or small enclosures. it's really depressing. this zoo we have doesn't give me that feeling.

    by Stacey on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:36:53 PM PDT

    • Agree (0 / 0)

      I agree, the quality of the enclosures matter.

      As I wrote about, the Philly Zoo is the worst.  It's so small and stuck in the middle of North Philly.  It's really old (1874!) and doesn't have room to grow because it's surrounded by rowhouses.  All the exhibits look horribly cruel and hard, no grass, little water.  

      by NJmom on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 03:53:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • woodland park zoo (0 / 0)

      is one of my favorites. I recall walking over a rise in a path and having a clear view to the grizzlies - no fence ! And I went, uhhh!!!

      Their habitat has a stream and is ingeniously designed with the fence down in a deep ditch, so neither the animals nor the visitors have to look at it if they don't want to.

      I also remember watching the lemurs play for a long time before my compatriots dragged me out of the zoo at closing time.

      by shenanigans on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:50:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • LOVE (0 / 0)

      the Woodland Park Zoo.  The only exhibit that depresses me there is, sadly, the tiger exhibit.

      by Erin on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:57:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • After reading the news stories today (0 / 0)

    in the local papers, it sounded as if the young men had been possibly taunting the tiger and even climbed into an area clearly not meant for people to be.  There is speculation that the tiger could have gotten up by using the leg, foot, and torso of one of them.  

    How sad for so many reasons.

    I read an essay recently in The Sun Magazine regarding zoos.  The Sun is a magazine devoted to independent writing with no advertising whatsoever save their own for subscriptions.  The essay was brilliant about the author's view on zoos.  It was extremely thought provoking.

    http://www.thesunmagazine.org/...

    If you have time, it's worth the read.  Hope the link works.  The magazine is worth subscribing to as well.

    karen

    by karen m on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 04:52:54 PM PDT

    • I definitely remember (0 / 0)

      (since I was in charge of 3 six-year-olds on that trip to SF Zoo) that the enclosures were not idiot-proof - that is, a human could easily be reckless and get somewhere unfortunate. I was soooo tired at the end of that day.

      by shenanigans on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 05:53:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • Great article (0 / 0)

      Thanks for that awesome article.  Wow.  This was my favorite part, challenging the "education" mission of many zoos:

      WHAT DO WE really learn from zoos? We learn that we are here, and animals are there. We learn that they have no existence independent of us. We learn that our world is limitless, and their worlds are limited, constrained ...

      We learn that "habitat" is not unspoiled forests and plains and deserts and rivers and mountains and seas, but concrete cages with concrete rocks and the trunks of dead trees ...

      We learn that you can remove a creature from her habitat and still have a creature. We see a sea lion in a concrete pool and believe that we’re still seeing a sea lion. But we are not ...

      A sea lion is her habitat. She is the school of fish she chases. She is the water. She is the cold wind blowing over the ocean. She is the waves that strike the rocks on which she sleeps, and she is the rocks. She is the constant calling back and forth between members of her family, this talking to each other that never seems to stop ...

      I also liked the conclusion, to focus on whatever animals and life that are around us, no matter how small and "boring."

      Even around here, we have plenty of animals.  Maybe I'll try to point out to my kids the squirrels and rabbits and deer and birds and occasional groundhog we get around here.  And skip the zoo.  Seeing your mom cry isn't fun anyway  : )

      by NJmom on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 05:23:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • I'm so glad you read it. (0 / 0)

        I re-read it too -- the author's writing reads like poetry.  I loved the way he put his thoughts and words together.  I printed out a copy for my kids to read too.  I love that the magazine has an online presence -- it is generally full of  provocative writing.  I've bookmarked it even though I get the magazine too.

        It would be a good site to have on the blogroll here.

        karen

        by karen m on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 08:54:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    • projection? (0 / 0)

      I really like Derrick Jenson's writing, and find it provocative, but I am also aware of how much he is projecting thoughts and feelings on to the animals in the zoo. Just because he spend a lot of time in the wilderness and enjoys this sense of intimacy does not necessarily mean he can speak for the interior lives of animals.  It is still an act of imagination when he reads the eyes of zoo animals. My perspective is very much influenced by the book that I am currently reading: "The Life of Pi," (which is a GRRRREEEEAT book). The protagonist in the book is the son of a zookeeper, and spends many pages defending zoos and the lives of zoo animals in a pretty persuasive way. Indeed, it's fiction, but his arguments are compelling.

      When Jenson talks about nature not being scary, I would challenge that. It depends of which tract of wilderness he's talking about, what species you happen to be, how many predators you have, what time of year, and how the weather has affected your access to sustenance and water... I find camping in grizzly country scary. People who live in areas of the world with more predators would probably challenge his assumptions.

      Jenson is also projecting cruelty into the thoughts and feelings of zoo attendees--that they are jeering at the animals and their laughter is derisive. I could probably go to the same zoo and hear the same human sounds and interpret them as delight or curiosity. He has a fairly dim view of humanity, which I may share on a bad day.

      by Amy on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:09:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • You make good points. (0 / 0)

        But Jenson's writing resonated with me on an intuitive level that feels real to me.  It doesn't take much for me to imagine that it is true that caged animals "feel" trapped and their caging leads to "depression" and a sense of "hopelessness" and hence their behavioral changes.  

        It doesn't seem far-fetched that all living organisms do best in their natural habitat -- to live and die in their own time -- even if that means a shorter life in the wild than one in captivity.

        I agree with you that nature can be scary -- especially since our societies have created so many ways in which we do not have to deal with nature and therefore lack the skills and knowledge to do so.  I would submit that living in our commerical world can be equally scary, that we have traded certain risks and predators for different ones.

        I agree too that Jenson's views were pretty dim about humans' interactions with the natural world - I think in many ways he isn't far off; though I am not privy to actual statistics showing data to support one view or another.  I think it is also true that scores of humans cherish animals and try to ensure their survival in a smaller and smaller world.  

        It feels like an odd coincidence that I worked at Sea World in San Diego for 6 years about 30 years ago.  The majority of employees there were very dedicated and took their commitment seriously to the well-being of the animals held in the marine facility in San Diego....even so, those animals were still trapped and I think it not outrageous to imagine that they would have been better suited to live out their lives in the wild.  Although both viewpoints can be true.  Zoos and other facilities like Sea World have an opportunity to provide research and education and also support animals that have become incapable of living in the wild either by injury or illness...  it is also true that there are various downsides to such facilities especially those that are not equipped to provide a "natural" habitat for the animals they cage.  

        By the way, thanks for mentioning the Life of Pi...it's a book I've meant to read for a long time -- it was one of my son's favorites a few years back.  I look forward to reading it.

        karen

        by karen m on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:16:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • I think they can be done well, but aren't always (0 / 0)

    Zoos can be done well. Give the animals plenty of room, problems to solve and things to do, and I think that's humane. Put them in a concrete box with some bars and I think that's a problem.

    The reality is that zoos give us a chance to learn about some of these animals that otherwise would not get much attention. I think there's value in watching how they interact and in learning about their needs, which hopefully is then applied to habitat preservation.

    Now that we have Discovery Channel and Animal Planet in high-def, maybe we don't need them so much for education, but I think a lot of these animals would be extinct today if we had not had zoos in the 1960s.

    There are some nice habitats out there, and some animals seems to enjoy interacting with humans more than others. Definitely, smaller animals are easier to keep well.

    Finally, some zoos keep animals that cannot be in the wild for whatever reason.

    by shenanigans on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 06:00:17 PM PDT

  • I used to feel (0 / 0)

    very uncomfortable about zoos too.  But, we are blessed with a wonderful zoo in Columbus... the place that made Jungle Jack Hanna famous.  They've really done a great job of creating nice large habitats for the animals.  We spend a lot of time there, sometimes a visit a week.

    I really do think the keepers love the animals there.  My kids and I were in the penguin exhibit over the summer during feeding time.  The keeper was telling us about the different personalities of the penguins, how they are all different, etc.  Then, he picked one up and kissed him on the head and said "I love this little guy".  I know it may sound weird to hear about it, but seeing it... there was a genuine caring by this man for these animals and it came through loud and clear.  I've also seen the same sort of things from other keepers.  

    The zoo docents are wonderful too.  I've learned so much about the animals from them.  Seriously... I can't say enough about the Cols Zoo... love that place!!!

    American Son ~ Wes Clark

    by 1plain1peanut on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:05:57 PM PDT

  • Depends on the zoo, and the animal (0 / 0)

    Some zoos are certainly better than others--and some types of animals are better suited for zoo life than others.

    In the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, there are two zoos-- the Como Zoo (aka the free zoo) and the Minnesota Zoo (the big zoo). The Como Zoo has all the cool animals-- elephants, giraffes, zebras, polar bears, lions, tigers, oh my. It's very small and so the pens are not at all good for the animals. On the other hand, because it is so small, kids get to see animals close up, which I do think helps kids learn to care about these kinds of animals. And many of the animals came from circuses, so maybe they are better off in the zoo, who knows. And it's free.

    The big zoo is quite expensive and has no African animals. The animals are mostly of the northern Asian, plains-dwelling varieties, which is to say no one has heard of them and they aren't particularly interesting, but they are well-suited for the MN climate. The pens are huge and naturally landscaped, so the animals are much more comfortable and visitors are lucky to get a glimpse of a shadowy, deer-like creature hiding 100 yards away in the bushes.

    I think elephants, polar bears, lions, and tigers should be in natural conditions in wildlife sanctuaries when possible-- but it's not always possible. There are a lot of animals that do well in zoos, and zoos help kids learn about the natural world. So, it depends.

    by minnmom on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 05:33:33 AM PDT

    • Good point (0 / 0)

      The bigger the exhibits, the less likely you are to see the animals close up.  Which is what people want.  So there is a conflict there.

      There is a huge money-making motive too of course.  

      For example, the main reason, from what I understand, Philly hasn't relocated all of their elephants, is because many people go there to see the elephants.  

      Lose the elephants, lose a lot of cash.

      by NJmom on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 06:18:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • I don't think I've ever been to a "bad" zoo (0 / 0)

    If I had, I think my opinions would be different. I've been to the Bronx Zoo with my family several times. My kids are 10 and 8 now and are perfect ages for the explanations and, of course, "staying power." The trips when they were really little were wastes of time. (NJmom, go back to the Bronx, it really is nice.) We recently got a zoo membership and now get Wildlife Conservation magazine, which the kids love.

    Also went to the San Diego Zoo this past summer, another really nice one. (Not any better than the Bronx, IMO, just as good.)

    As for the argument that animals belong in the wild, of course I agree with that. But we all know the problems in wild habitats and the other shocking treatment of animals by humans. Through this tiger story (and tigers are by far my FAVE), I found out that there are more tigers in captivity than there are in the wild.

    There must be a way to improve or close the bad zoos.

    Mary

    by Aug6PDB on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 05:42:46 AM PDT

    • asdf (0 / 0)

      I'll have to try the Bronx Zoo again, maybe in a couple of years when they are older.  We live closer to the Bronx Zoo now actually anyway.  

      I agree on that bad zoos.  The Philadelphia Zoo should really be shut down.

      by NJmom on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 06:13:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • NC zoo (0 / 0)

    is the nicest zoo I've ever seen.  It's a natural habitat zoo.  I've only been once, and it was pre-kids, so I would probably have different opinions now, but every time we drive up 85, I think that we should find someway to stop for an extra day to go to the zoo.

    I really hated the coverage I saw of the SF zoo.  One morning show actually described it as a "rampage", and it struck me as odd and ridiculously sensationalist.  I mean, it's not like the tiger grabbed some semi-automatic weapon and went nuts.  It's a WILD ANIMAL people... what'd you think it was going to do; start offering free piggy back rides???

    by K C on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 06:07:06 AM PDT

Permalink | 36 comments