People will pay fistfuls of cash to see a baby anything. When a female Asian elephant was born at the Woodland Park Zoo in 2000, the zoo's "name the baby elephant" contest generated nearly 16,000 entries. Zoo employees privately proposed naming her Cash Cow—female elephants are called cows—but she was officially named Hansa, meaning "supreme happiness" in Thai. (Asian elephants are native to the hot jungles of Southeast Asia and India.) After Hansa's birth, attendance at the Woodland Park Zoo doubled. Then, at age 6, Hansa was found dead in the elephant barn by zookeepers. Her death was caused by elephant herpes, a disease that kills nearly 90 percent of infected young Asian elephants in captivity and was likely passed on through her mother, Chai, a wild Asian elephant gifted to the zoo in 1980.
The zoo has tried to artificially inseminate Chai at least 57 times since acquiring her, according to a lawsuit that will have its first hearing on May 27. (The lawsuit is the source of the allegation about employees calling the baby Cash Cow.) All those attempts to get Chai knocked up have resulted in only one live birth (Hansa) and many miscarriages. "These miscarriages have caused Chai to suffer both physical and psychological pain," the suit alleges.
Stranger Personals
Elephants—intelligent, self-aware, and capable of empathy—mourn their dead, from stillborns to old matriarchs. In captivity and the wild, they've been observed rocking and keening over stillborns. "That's not an anthropomorphic exaggeration," says Dr. Gay Bradshaw, the author of Elephants on the Edge, which explores elephant psychology and behavior in captivity and the wild. "Elephants have a capacity psychologically and emotionally that's comparable to ours." When Hansa died, her mother and the other elephants were given time alone to smell and touch her body to pay their last respects. (Presumably, there's a 90 percent chance that will happen again if Chai gives birth again—the zoo's most recent attempt to impregnate her was in March.)
Chai lives with two other female elephants—Bamboo and Watoto—in the Woodland Park Zoo's one-acre elephant enclosure, whimsically named the Thai Village. You get there by following the Trail of Vines past the swimming grotto and through the Elephant Forest. But the exhibit isn't as idyllic as its Candy Land–ish name portends: The enclosure consists of grubby fields, a concrete pool, and the Elephant Barn, where Chai, Bamboo, and Watoto hide out when temperatures dip below 40 degrees.
"Is he dancing?" a child in front of the Elephant Barn's large Plexiglas windows asked her mother the other day. In the barn's shower room, Bamboo rocked gently in place, her head pointed at the wall. Picture books don't prepare children for real-life elephants—their sparse hair, canyon-deep wrinkles, or magnificent bigness. The elephants tower over the children like breathing buildings.
"He is dancing!" Mom replied.
The zoo argues that the elephant exhibit is important because elephants are endangered and their presence helps educate the public and spur conservation efforts. But the education element in the Thai Village is pretty sparse—nothing you couldn't learn from a children's book—and it's printed on plaques no one reads. "There have been empirical studies of how long people stay at exhibits, and if they read the signs, that show people don't learn much from the exhibits," says Matthew Liebman, the Animal Legal Defense Fund lawyer handling the lawsuit. A 2010 study in the peer-reviewed journal Society & Animals with Dr. Lori Marino as its lead author concurs—finding that "there is no compelling evidence to date that zoos and aquariums promote attitude changes, education, or interest in conservation in their visitors, despite claims to the contrary."
Even the mom and her kid looking at Bamboo haven't learned a thing about her—like, for instance, Bamboo is not a he. And for what it's worth, Bamboo is not dancing. The movement Bamboo is making is "an exhibition of profound distress or trauma," explains Dr. Bradshaw. Captive elephants exhibit a host of specific behaviors, Dr. Bradshaw continues, including lethargy, aggression, and "behaviors consistent with people who are held captive and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. We see the same in elephants."
While Bamboo rocked in the shower room, Watoto and Chai were stretching their trunks into lofted barrels of alfalfa inside the barn's main room, pulling out tufts of food and tucking it into their mouths. Occasionally, Watoto stopped eating to pace the room. Watoto and Chai weigh more than 8,000 pounds and are between 12 and 15 feet long. The space in the barn they share is smaller than a tennis court. Watoto can't easily turn around with Chai in the room. She must back up instead—an elephant in reverse. Even though elephants are incredibly social creatures, Bamboo and Watoto don't get along and must be separated at all times, so there's very little socializing.
Experts with the World Wildlife Fund estimate that elephants in captivity should have a minimum of 247 acres to roam. Elephants are accustomed to walking up to 20 miles a day in the wild, and daily walks keep their feet healthy. The lawsuit charges that Chai, Bamboo, and Watoto sharing a single acre has caused preventable foot and joint problems. "Bamboo and Watoto both suffer from osteoarthritis, a degenerative and painful joint disease," the suit states. "Bamboo and Chai suffer from... pockets of fluid and pus that often develop above the nails of the foot or underneath the foot and are very painful." Elephant osteoarthritis and foot abscesses are caused by standing on hard surfaces, lack of movement, excessive moisture, and excess weight, the suit contends.
Moreover, Highway 99 runs right past Woodland Park Zoo's elephant enclosure. Elephants use their feet to communicate, and local animal rights activists say the constant traffic vibrations contribute to their abusive environment. "We have no idea how those vibrations affect them," says Alyne Fortgang, codirector of Friends of Woodland Park Zoo Elephants, one of three local groups that has unsuccessfully lobbied since 2005 to get the zoo's elephants retired to a 2,700-acre elephant sanctuary in Tennessee, one of two such sanctuaries in the nation. (Fortgang is not a party to the current lawsuit.) "But common sense tells us it can't be a perk of the environment."
Lawsuits filed by activists against zoos are nothing new, but last year Mary Sebek and Nancy Farnam took the unusual step of filing suit not against the zoo but against the City of Seattle—only the second lawsuit in the country taken out against a city for supporting "illegal zoo practices." (The other lawsuit is in Los Angeles and also concerns elephant welfare; it's currently in litigation.)
In spite of protests from activists for years, the zoo flatly refuses to send its elephants to the Tennessee sanctuary. The zoo did send a fourth elephant it owns, Sri, to the Saint Louis Zoo in 2002, but not because it could provide a better home for her. The zoo sent her there to make baby elephants as part of an inter-zoo breeding program. At one point in Saint Louis, Sri became pregnant, but her full-term fetus died in utero. Surgery to remove the fetus would be incredibly complicated, expensive, and risky—it's simply not done. Instead, most elephants succumb to infection caused by the decaying fetus inside them and die. Surprisingly, Sri has not died. According to the lawsuit, "Sri has been carrying the deceased, slowly mummifying fetus in her birth canal for more than four years."
The aim of Sebek and Farnam's suit is to halt the $6.5 million flow of taxpayer funds that the zoo gets annually. "The city owes the public not to waste public dollars or misuse public space," says Liebman, the Animal Legal Defense Fund lawyer. "We're arguing that the city is funding the private zoo society to indulge in illegal practices. It's not in the public's best interest." The lawsuit claims the zoo violates state and local animal cruelty laws by "knowingly and recklessly inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on its elephants." The suit cites abusive breeding practices, exposure to beatings, extended periods of confinement, subjecting the elephants to the "severe and chronic foot and joint injuries" mentioned earlier, as well as "unexplained physical trauma and bleeding, and sustained psychological harm."
I tried to get the Woodland Park Zoo's side of the story, but when I asked how much revenue the elephants bring in, a zoo representative declined to comment, citing the lawsuit (the zoo is a codefendant). When I inquired if I could ask more general questions about the zoo, another declined and sent me a press release, which states:
Woodland Park Zoo vigorously disputes the plaintiffs' characterization of our elephant care program. Our elephants are healthy and thriving—they have healthy appetites, they play, they socialize, they vocalize, and they interact with their herd mates and keepers. We are committed to the lifelong and day-to-day care of our elephants... As an institution accredited by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA), which sets the highest standards of animal care for all species, our zoo meets or exceeds all of AZA's Standards for Elephant Management and Care.
"Accreditation doesn't mean they have the elephants' best interests in mind," Liebman counters. "The AZA is essentially a trade organization—its job is to promote zoos. Elephants are marquee attractions—they make money. So the AZA has fought almost every attempt to move elephants out of zoos. Even in Detroit, where elephants have no place being, they've fought transferring them."
The Detroit Zoo is the only zoo in the nation to voluntarily retire all of its elephants to a sanctuary. The Bronx Zoo has stated that it will shut down its two-acre elephant exhibit once the elephants living there now die off. Even the Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma acknowledges that elephants need more room to roam than it can provide and is exploring "transitioning away" from keeping elephants (again, once its current elephants die off).
"We'd like to have more space—our yard is about an acre—but our footprint doesn't allow much for expansion," says John Houck, deputy director of the Point Defiance Zoo. There are also only about 150 Asian elephants nationally, and captive breeding programs just aren't working, he says. "We need to see about nine calves born a year, nationwide, and we're averaging about two. It's really a numbers game. When we lose these two current elephants, what will we do?"
Still, the Woodland Park Zoo has no plans to retire its elephants or expand its space. It continues to try to breed more babies on its one-acre plot.
On April 25, the City Attorney's Office and the zoo filed a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion will be considered by King County Superior Court judge Mike Heavey on May 27. "Plaintiff's belief that zoos should not house or breed elephants is a political, policy debate not justifiable in this Court," the motion states. Zoo officials boast that over one million people visit the Woodland Park Zoo annually. "If people are to care about elephants, they need to learn about elephants. Accredited zoos provide a powerful venue that inspires conservation learning, interest, and action."
"If you want to learn about elephant behavior, go read a book," says Dr. Bradshaw. "Learning isn't an excuse for cruelty. If you want a healthy elephant, you don't put them in a zoo." ![]()
This article has been updated since its original publication.
I'm certain most zoo employees got into this business because they truly love animals. I hope they don't let business concerns make them lose sight of what's truly important. They could set up a high-tech, interactive elephant exhibit in that space, maybe including a webcam to the elephants that they've sent to live somewhere they can be happy. If they made that their goal, I bet they could raise some money to see it happen, perhaps even from the activists that they're fighting now.
Three elephants on one acre is simply unacceptable. Anyone who knows the slightest thing about animals knows that.
3
6
If people want to see elephants go see Born to be Wild http://www.imax.com/borntobewild/ or look up conservation groups such as Elephant Voices http://www.elephantvoices.org/ to learn about elephants & see them in their habitats. This is way more accurate than any behavior exhibited at a zoo & will garner appreciation of the actual animal!
Elephants ARE born to be wild - not kept enclosed, isolated from larger family groups & certainly not artificially inseminated.
Thanks Stranger!
11
13
My so-called liberal, green, eco-conscious, humanity-fostering city, Seattle, is far behind Detroit when it comes to walking its talk. It doesn't take genius to realize large animals require large spaces. Money and egos again cause suffering to other helpless beings. Shame on Woodland Park Zoo - they have a chance to do the right thing, and they refuse to do it.
All the zoo is nurturing is their own pockets until they have to shuffle another elephant to another zoo or explain another elephant death to the public.
Send the elephants to the sanctuary - let us watch them via TV monitors or online.
Wouldn't it be something to see them run?
I don't care if every zookeeper in the park gave every elephant a big smooch on the nose and a belly rub. Caring well for elephants in captivity is oxymoronic.
25
The sanctuary sounds like an ideal solution, and though I would miss my three elephant friends, I would feel immeasurably better knowing their quality of life has greatly improved. I'd imagine the Seattle community here would be happy to band together and sponsor their transition and tenure. That in itself is even more comforting to my mind than sitting near them with rough fence between us.
beautiful creatures.
33
And yet the argument for keeping them here in these conditions is to, as Cienna paraphrases, "help educate the public and spur conservation efforts."
So basically, they're saying "we're mistreating these animals, so you can see how badly these animals are being mistreated"? Is that the logic here?
Bullshit. Humanity fail.
34
And we all also know that elephants get shot and killed in the wild all the time right?
An acre is tiny, but a lawsuit demanding they be retired at expense, while citing the expense of abusing them as a reason is a little hypocritical.
37
First, that's completely hypocritical to not agree with yet fork over your cash to a zoo.
Second, I love how human beings think they know everything about everything. "The elephants looked sad" "An expert said" it's all bullshit.
Experts are, at best, making educated guesses regarding wild animal behavior. Sure they're educated, but they're hypothesis after studying the animal. Typically, these hypothesis will also have some human element to them which just astounds me with stupidity.
39
I take issue, a little bit, with the assertion that zoos are incapable of promoting conservation and public education. I like zoos.
That being said, last time I was at WPZ I got the distinct sense that those particular elephants were in a bad place. They are big, complex creatures and I don't think the average zoo (which WPZ is), is an appropriate place to house them. Seriously, the Ringling Bros. elephants seem better off.
40
42
I learned a lot - for instance, I knew elephants walked, but twenty miles per day? This fact alone makes the educational argument that the zoo advances silly, silly, silly.
We should focus on conserving and restoring natural places - not wasting money on unsafe urban enclosures.
There is no evidence that zoos have any beneficial impact on visitor attitudes, compassion or knowledge. And zoo elephant breeding programs make no contribution to conservation: they are nothing but attempts to keep elephants in zoos.
They only clapped when a commenter praised the zoo.
Yet I am still a Seattle taxpayer that contributes to their 6.5 million received by the city. So are you.
Retiring Bamboo, Chai, and Watoto to TN's Elephant Sanctuary (at no cost to the Seattle taxpayer) *is* the right thing.
To do the right thing, watch: http://bit.ly/WPZElephantsSpacelessinSea…
Then go to Woodland Park zoo Contact Us website and respectfully request the retirement of our elephants. Now.
Thank you,
Veronica Cannady
50
simply, zoos are animal jails - not only the elephants are miserable, but the wolves look like they're about to have a nervous breakdown. the only thing that makes them look decent by comparison are research vivariums. which are ALL AROUND YOU.
Sadly, no evidence has emerged to support my hopes. Indeed, in situations such as the elephants at WPZ, who have always had to endure miserable conditions, and whose quality of life has even declined significantly in recent decades, the Zoo is merely generating negative outcomes. The only right and good thing to do is to send the elephants to a Sanctuary.
54
The City Council and the Mayor's office should immediately demand that the zoo re-locate these elephants to a sanctuary. We don't have enough room. No other zoo has enough room.
I'd be happy to elect out of office anyone who doesn't take decisive and responsbile action on re-locating these elephants now!
I'd still support the zoo, and even more so, without the elephants there...at least I would know that MY ZOO MEMBERSHIP isn't funding animal abuse!!!
My conclusion is, after the protests and all the evidence given, the only reason I can think of that WPZ would NOT send these poor elephants to the sanctuary is that they are just pissed off and don't want to be told what to do. Pure and simple spite.
58
Nearly all of the above commenters have never commented on a Slog piece and joined the site in the past day.
This is par for the course for this elephant-rights group. It kinda sucks, too -- I'm sure they have a worthwhile cause, but their idea of marketing/"getting the word out" is ridiculous. Check out a few of the more popular blogs for examples.
Thanks for turning this comments thread into lame propaganda, folks. Really, the elephants deserve better advocates than you.
Certainly, the zookeepers deserve better, too, but that's a different story.
I am sorry for what we have done to you. Last time I visited you I cried for your suffering. I hope the Zoo Keepers will do the right thing and send you to TN where you can have a better life.
http://www.flyingchanges.com/htmls/2004/…
74
I've been a volunteer photographer at the Woodland Park Zoo for about 6 years now. I have actually been in the room while Chai was artificially inseminated and was privileged to witness first hand the passionate and caring Zoo Keepers treating her with dignity, respect and compassion. I witnessed it then and have witnessed the same care during many other encounters with the devoted team of zookeepers. They had a tangible bond with each of the elephants that could never be described in a newspaper article. To imply the elephants or any other animal at the Zoo for that matter are treated with anything less than absolute love and first rate care is nothing short of an ignorant lie.
"Cash Cows?" Can you for even one second imagine how much money is required to maintain that zoo? I certainly can't but I'm willing to bet it's more than any one animal or species will bring in.
I have been to East Africa and seen first hand enormous herds of Wild Elephants (www.MHWildlife.com) walking the vast savanna. Without question, it is a magnificent, breathtaking site that everyone on Planet Earth should take in. It truly changed my life. Unfortunately, not everyone can make that trip. Luckily there are incredible Zoos in America like Woodland Park where families can go and see them close up and personal. "If you want to learn about elephant behavior, go read a book." That is really the slant the Stranger wants to take? How can reading a book replace the sounds and sites (and yep, even smells) of witnessing these awe inspiring animals first hand?
I hope that you guys retract your comments about the zoos comments. You did not ask her about revenue generated by elephants so she did not decline to comment. You did not ask any general questions about the zoo or the zoo's elephants. You lied. You did ask about the lawsuit and I've been led to believe the answer seemed to satisfy her. It appears to me you had no intent to actually do any reporting. Just wanted to push your personal agenda. Boo.
P.S. The guy on the cover with the Hump girl...the unicorn tattoo is stupid :) He should have it removed.
Again, I love the Stranger...hated this article. I get that sensationalistic journalism creates a buzz. I wish that all journalism was straight forward and filled with facts. Unfortunately, as a culture we like to have fluff spoon fed to us. To outright lie and not present at least some sort of facts from the side you are bashing is in my opinion irresponsible. I want my money back.
Have you done any internet research on this place in Tennesee -- they've had a bunch of elephants die, and a handler die, and the leader is gone(suspicious circumstances)... doesn't look like nirvana... so what's this really all about.
Not your best investigative reporting.. we expect better from the Stranger.
What we are seeing in zoos across the country is a response to privatization- i.e. no more tax dollars. Revenue has to be generated through ticket sales which =entertainment. For those of you who object to the changes you see at Woodland Park Zoo please think about that the next time you vote. We caused these changes by voting and making the city cut the zoo from funding. And please,please remember that all of these creatures are being pushed to the brink of extinction in the wild from the constant pressure of Humans. That is the real crime.
Even with the best care and intention, zookeepers can't do right by elephants when all they have to give is an acre.
It is time for Seattle to SUPPORT OUR ZOO IN HELPING THE ELEPHANTS TO RE-LOCATE!
The definition of comment bombing. Again, not that I neccesarily disagree with the message, but this sort of "astro-turfing" tactic discredits whatever position any person who uses it is trying to advocate for...
Far from deserving condemnation the keepers at WPZ deserve our highest praise.
91
The decision has already been made, however, not to send them to a sanctuary, since sanctuaries are unregulated and so we can't guarantee that they'll be appropriately cared for once there.
The California Sanctuary (Performing Animal Welfare Society) has a better reputation than Tennessee, if one was going to go this route.
92
They told me. In all the years I've known them and the woman that was "interviewed" I have never known them to lie or even stretch the truth. They are always above board on everything because they are so minutely scrutinized on everything they do.
That and the Psychic readings you referred to certainly did help. Trust me Canadian Nurse...don't believe everything you read in the papers.
As for the woman who is worried about tax payers paying for their release...hell YES its okay..we have made these elephants suffer for our seattle entertainment and education.
I mean come on lady...tax payers should pay! If tax payers spoke up and stop supporting the Zoo maybe they would not keep the exhibit.
However, I also believe that the people we see in the news or on the Animal Hoarders TV show also love and care for the mess of animals they keep in their homes.
The WPZ as well as the LA Zoo are dead wrong about keeping elephants in these little enclosures.
I don't know what questions she DID ask. I'm told it was a brief interview and I was told what she DIDN'T ask which was what I posted above and what Cienna lied about. There is sensationalist reporting and there is blatant lying. Sadly, it appears this is the latter.
I know that the Zoo has reached out to ask her about this. I'm not sure if they have heard back at this point or not. I hope it gets worked out because it'll make me sad to hate the Stranger.
Up until now it was always a great way to...well, it was always a good excuse to look at soft porn in the last couple pages. Now I have to question when the ad says "real photo" if it is in fact a real photo or simply a drawing disguised as a photo.
http://www.elephants.com/accreditation.p…
105
Gigi was upset because she says I didn't ask her those questions--and I didn't. That doesn't mean the questions weren't asked. When I call someone, identify myself and why I'm calling, and they agree to speak with me, I can only assume they're in a qualified position to do so.
That said, when I talked to her today, I asked Gigi the same main question--namely, does the elephant exhibit drive attendance? Here's what she said: "No zoos can break down how much each species generates." But she added that, "When Hansa was born, sure, she increased attendance. That was a record year."
Meanwhile, the zoo has currently just debuted a new baby ocelot and baby penguin chicks. Gigi says that these additions have not zoo impacted attendance, although "we're getting a lot of buzz about them online."
106
109
I reject your assumption that this article has been comment bombed. My comment was one of the first, I've had a SLOG log-in for several years now and I am not part of any "organization".
LJH @45's got it right. And it makes me hopeful that I'm not the only one that gives a shit.
That's pretty fucking hilarious. As a "journalist" it would seem you should have thicker skin. Especially one who writes such inflammatory, biased articles clearly designed to insight rebellion and anger rather than to educate or inform.
You said in your rebuttal that Gigi sent you the press release. You also said that she wasn't the person you spoke with and asked your questions to. However, in your article you say that "When I inquired if I could ask more general questions about the zoo, another declined and sent me a press release"
The way I am interpreting your words is that you were transferred to Gigi and asked her if you could ask general questions about the zoo. Gigi then told you that you could not ask her general questions about the zoo. Instead she insisted you could only get a generic press release from her. Does that sound about right?
I've met Gigi a number of times. She is a professional and I can't help but think that if a member of the press (or you) wanted to ask general questions about the zoo that she would be willing to answer them to the best of her ability. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. Did you record these calls? If so, and Gigi refused to answer your questions I want to hear it. I will stand in Downtown Seattle wearing my underwear holding up a sign that says "Cienna Madrid is a top notch journalist! She was right, I was wrong and I'm sorry!"
If not then I stand by my earlier accusation....you are a liar.
Glad to see you mention the Detroit zoo. Their attendance actually went UP after Ron sent the elephants to PAWS sanctuary.
PS- This is not a comment bomb.
It's rather amusing.
119
Anyone who has actually been to Serengeti or Masai Mara could not come back and look at a zoo as anything but a prison for animals (I'd argue the Mara is essentially a people zoo where the whites can come to hoot and screech at the Masai). Even in their natural environment elephants are facing problems from poaching, sprawl and deforestation running up to and around the Mau Escarpment. Historically Kenyans and elephants have battled for land and resources, raids by elephants of neighboring houses and fields are still an issue, they'd probably love to just lock-up all the elephants. The oldest female of a herd is the leader, it usually has a detrimental effect on the rest if she's killed because of her wisdom and knowledge, but here are these three poor ladies, forced to be on top of each other in such a confined area.
Your blathering is definitely anecdotal, at best misguided, at worst blatant sock-puppetry.
Thousands of acres of freedom and being able to choose companions (from 14 elephants!) will allow them to heal physically and psychologically from the traumas suffered at Woodland Park Zoo.
The article:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/cash_…
Bamboo, Chai, Watoto and Sri need your help. Thanks!"
DEFINITELY not 'comment bombing'.... right?
http://tinypic.com/r/2ik2u5g/7
128
The Zoo Board can be leaders in education and heroes of compassion by voting to release the elephants. It’s a win all the way around:
• The city gets out from under a law suit.
• The zoo saves about $400,000.00 which is based on the last time WPZ released figures in 1995. (The zoo knew how much it cost to run the Nocturnal House last year. It would be financially irresponsible to not know how much it costs to keep elephants)
• Bamboo, Chai, Watoto and Sri get the life we owe them.
Alyne Fortgang, Co-founder, Friends of Woodland Park Zoo Elephants
So what's the distinction between animals who need to be in sanctuaries and animals who need to be in your mouth...ability to display sadness?
I love that bashing vegans is hilarious to the Stranger and its readers, but when it comes to elephants, zOMG OH NOES!
Let me know how that extremism works out for you and your cause.
138
For starters, this article isn't on Slog, it's on The Stranger, which is a different thing.
Second, all of these supposed "comment bombers" went to the trouble of signing up for an account, which satisfies 100% of the requirement for posting here. It's the same process by which all of us got here. It's the same process by which YOU got here.
Did these people come here just to comment on the elephant story? WHO CARES? They're people just as much as you are. Maybe more, since they're not going around criticizing others not for their views but for the very fact that they have posted those views. That's baloney.
If you have a problem with the article, let's hear it. What's your argument? Cienna's made hers, and I think she's made it pretty well. I've been following this elephant story for several years now, and I started off 100% on the zoo's side, but I'm about 90% switched over by now. That's because the "move the elephants" side is making a pretty good case, while the "keep them here" side ISN'T. Instead you're just going on the personal attack.
As for the zoo's handling of the critters, I haven't heard ANYONE suggest that they don't care for them deeply and treat them as kindly and respectfully as possible. That's not the point. The point is whether a bunch of these huge, mobile animals can live well in such a tiny enclosure or not.
I'm old enough to remember when the zoo pavilion first opened. It was considered state of the art at the time; before that they were kept in basically a room, like all the other animals in the bad old zoos of the 50s and 60s -- remember Bobo, in his concrete cell? This was a big step forward. But time has shown that it's not enough.
If you disagree, that's great -- let's have it. But don't go telling people they shouldn't be commenting at all. Everyone's voice here is as good as anyone else's.
My suggestion is to take them out for walks up and down Aurora every day -- across the bridge, back up and around the lake and home. There's your 20 miles.
Absolutely no opinion on the piece or the issue on which the piece focuses; I certainly don't consider myself sufficiently well-informed about the issue to make a conclusion about what ought to be done re: these elephants.
What I don't understand is why you would come to the vocal defense of a person or people using this tactic. I read (daily) and participate (less frequently) on thestranger.com and slog because it seems like a good place to discuss the issues of a city I care deeply about with likeminded and intelligent people (for the most part). Commenting and discussing the ideas found in stories and posts is a vital part of that process to me because I feel like I have come to know want to hear the opinions of other people (including you, who I consider one of the most clear headed and generally awesome characters of slog) whose insight I have come to value.
Simply signing up an account, coming on here, posting on one issue per a script provided to you by an organization of some sort is to me an equivalent to the kind of tactics (seen more often in our culture these days) of groups who support one position attempting to shout down or drown out any opposing opinion by shear force and volume rather than through reasoning and debate ("townhall" meetings, that forum regarding what to do with the Fun Forest, etc.). And although I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the ideas and opinions conveyed by these groups, I recognize that these tactics are the enemy of the concept of an articulate, informed and civil public debate; a concept which I think is essential.
Maybe that is the way the world works now, but I continue to decry it, and I will bring attention to these tactics if and when I see them used. Yes, even on the internet.
141
142
The zoo was already in discussions about what to do with the elephants. The choices were $16.5m facility improvements or moving them to another locations, and Barker offered to help pay for them to move.
145
146
147
149
I could care less about most animals, because I like to eat most animals. There ought to be a little more respect shown to these elephants though. We should care about something like this, shit. But do we? And what will happen to the Woodland Park Zoo? (The questions are both rhetorical: No and Nothing.)
150
For all who justify the existence of zoo for the need of "connecting" with animals: if you really connected by looking at them, you wouldn't stand what's done to them. On the contrary, we look at all this depressed and bored animals that barely move at all and we get used to think that they're just like zombies; walking and eating. If you want to connect to animals, get a pet and treat him well or look at a documentary, which is the only real way to see them in a wild state (aka, living, playing, traveling, reproducing, giving birth, hunting, dying,... ) for 99,999% of us.
I think the article is biased beyond comment, the half-baked facts are poorly presented and the tone is designed to appeal to activists who often do not choose to think for themselves. Badly done, Cienna. Next time try for the journalistic approach of interviewing authorities, presenting all POVs, citing sources, etc.
Just in case anyone thinks this is unsupported fabrication or "comment bombing," here is an excerpt from The Seattle Times, 7/23/2002:
"He said Hansa was reprimanded June 22 because she had pushed him with her head after he tried to stop her from eating dirt, one of her nasty habits. Her move knocked him off balance, and then she moved her rump toward him.
He said he smacked her with his ankus and that when she ran away, he smacked her twice more.
Then Hansa dashed into the viewing area and bellowed loudly, and her mother came running.
The incident lasted three minutes, but the repercussions are continuing. The zoo received hate mail, and Shrake worried about wearing his name tag in public."
This was probably an isolated incident and not nearly as significant as the ongoing stressful environment in which the elephants at WPZ are trying to survive today. Still, in honor of Hansa's memory, it should not be forgotten. She died at the zoo when she was only 5 years old.
Saying things like "Presumably, there's a 90 percent chance that will happen again" is just irresponsible. You have NO DATA to support that. You have referenced almost exclusively the people bringing the lawsuit. Very ethical.
Jesus, "Stranger", how can you allow such blatantly junk journalism to pollute your paper and website?
P.S. To the woman who thinks that Chai was pregnant and miscarried 57 times: you're retarded. They made 57 attempts (although, who really know if that's even true, based on the incredible misinformation in this article.) Do you become pregnant every time you have sex? No? Shut up. She had the ONE miscarriage, not 57. Learn to read.
I tried to post the link on AH FB page, but they deleted it.
We felt the elephants didn't look happy one bit. There was a fence (electric?) that was popping the whole time we walked the area around the elephants. How soothing for them.
I am glad this article was written.
Give these wonderful creatures a chance at having a good life.
They deserve it. To live with their sisters and play and enjoy life like it was meant to be. We have no right to think they are ours to entertain us. Some of those fees the zoos have made on showing them should be used to transport them to the Sanctuary.
If the zoos are opposed to this, I bet The Sanctuary might be willing to transport them. Do what's right for them. They've given their whole lives to live in Hell. Now, it's their time to enjoy the good life for the rest of their lives. Forget about reporting their situation to the USDA. The might take up the cross, but I doubt it. I haven't seen them do anything for 1 elephant sice I have loved them and I've e-mailed, faxed and called. The Taxpayers pay his salary, but just like everybody in Washington, he's forgotten what he's supposed to do for its citizens. Let me finish by saying that unless those of us do what we can for the elephants, it's not going to get done. Who, with a heart and compassion is going to let an elephant continue to carry around a dead fetus for 4 years and not remedy the situation no matter what the cost? What about some of that $6.5Mil?
Thanks for listening and thinking about all of this. It's way past time.
Posted by: Mars.Bees













RSS
Comments (164) RSS