DCist: National Zoo Can Has a Baby Elephant?

taishan4ever

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:40:22 -0500

Oh yeah, that makes sense. Elephants roam, on average, 30 miles in their territory. The National Zoo ain't that big for EVERY acre in it's "hope to be, next to build, tram accessable, wanna be theme park". Elephants need a natural refuge, not a zoo. Barry is a media-hound suck-up and needs to remember the true heroes of all zoos. The animals who are trapped in unnatural settings.

this ignoramus

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:29:37 -0500

Artificially inseminating an animal in captivity strikes me as unnecessarily increasing the net suffering of the world. Hell, going to Asia and stealing some poor mother elephant's newborn would be less cruel.

3 toed Sloth

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:34:40 -0500

I had to leave the "elephant" house my first trip to the zoo because the poor things were just crammed in there. I agree with everyone else, you shouldn't house animals if you cannot provide enough space for them. I would however take a special trip to see a sloth, but I am not a big fan of the 2-toed sloths, not as cute as the 3-toed ones.

mumtaz

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:12:40 -0500

Although baby elephants are ADOREABLE, I agree with the previous posters. The elephant exhibit right now is depressing as hell.

Esmeralda

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:35:57 -0500

Does anyone else think that baby elephant is kind of creepy looking? Not nearly as cute as the baby elephants in cartoons.

wonderwazz

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:14:52 -0500

i don't think people are going to *want* to see turtles and sloths --at least not enough to make a special trip there...

DCster

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:44:30 -0500

That's one happy-looking elephant. But I agree with Lionel and dcist reader, this zoo doesn't have a good track record of providing the right habitat for elephants - with two deaths in the last eight years. If they expand their territory first and then get Shanthi pregnant, fine, but why not just move away from the elephants instead and go with something more appropriate for the limited confines - like turtles and sloths. People won't want to see unhappy elephants.

dcist_reader

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:53:31 -0500

If the National Zoo's Director, John Barry, has his way, there will be a major restructuring of the zoo to host an entire herd of Asian elephants. How is this possible in a relatively small urban zoo? Good question. Several species are being considered to be moved off of exhibit to make room for his dreamed of "Elephant Trail" (see the National Zoo's documentation on Future Plans on their site). No worries for the panda fans- those guys make too much money for the zoo to be threatened by this plan. However, a whole host of species including most primates (gorillas, orangutans, etc.) are being considered for removal to make room. It seems the African species are at most risk (giraffes, hippos, gorillas, etc.). The giraffes are already gone. Happy the Hippo will likely be removed. It's very sad to think our proudly diverse city will have a zoo lacking any such diversity (leaving it very heavily biased towards Asian species with Asia Trail and the possible herd of Asian elephants). What does John Barry have against African species? And really, even if they made the entire Rock Creek Park into an "Elephant Trail", it would still be but a fraction of the area that a herd of Asian elephants would wander in the wild during migration.

Lionel M Hutz

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:14:05 -0500

Terrible idea. I love the National Zoo but is in no way a proper facility for Elephants. Their large African mammal facility is one of the most depressing sites and look like it's from the 1800s. Elephants need way more room than a small urban zoo can provide.