PDA

View Full Version : Valley zoo...Needs help asap!!!



chupa
19-06-2008, 03:06 PM
Managed my first trip in a few years to the zoo.

I could not help but feel sorry for the animals and staff.
Talk about a trip back to 1976.The enclosures are still very third world looking and not habitat friendly atall for any of the animals.

I hate to say it, but Calgary has and continues to do a much and I mean much better job with there zoo than we do.

Has city council even though of doing anything for this place?

Sorry for ranting but come on!

RichardS
19-06-2008, 03:10 PM
It is time to fix it or forget it when it comes to a zoo in Edmonton. Decide one way or another already.

JayBee
19-06-2008, 03:19 PM
These are the people to align yourselves with. They have a realistic vision, they've made a lot of progress with fairly meagre resources, and I'm sure they'd be open to anything you'd have in mind.

http://www.buildingthevalleyzoo.com/

Sonic Death Monkey
19-06-2008, 03:50 PM
Is there room for expansion? If not then maybe they should consider moving it. Say, beside Elk Island Park.

moahunter
19-06-2008, 04:14 PM
Sorry for ranting but come on!
I posted on this in another thread. I don't think we should even be trying to compete with Calgary zoo - we have other attractions which exceed theirs, like Fort Edmonton Park.

I would like to see our zoo re-designed to be down-scaled / made more nature / family friendly. We don't really need elephants and such, in today's day and age, they are not part of what make's Alberta special. I'd like to see something more akin, to this zoo in New Zealand, not a copy of below, but something more natural looking to the environment here. The river Valley location should facilitate this really well, somewhere where we can see beavers, coyotes, and other local animals, close up, in amore natural state.

http://www.willowbank.co.nz/assets/image/willowbank.jpg

http://www.willowbank.co.nz/

JayBee
19-06-2008, 07:04 PM
Is there room for expansion? If not then maybe they should consider moving it. Say, beside Elk Island Park.


The tragedy of that is that we had one out there, and it was great, and it was killed by lack of funding either in Late Getty or Early Klein.


The Polar Park was originally named the Alberta Game Farm, and was run and operated by an ex-boxer named Al Oeming. It consisted almost entirely of ungulates, carnivores, and birds. There were no typical pavilions or large buildings, and instead there were large, fenced paddocks for the animals. These exhibits were often very plain and basic, but enormous in size. Most of the hoofed mammals had spacious areas to roam, and there were a number of large herds at the park.

Source (http://www.zoobeat.com/22/edmonton-s-polar-park-11902/)

It worked before, and now that we seem to have a regional plan, it seems like this could work extremely well now. Put our region's zoo resources with our region's natural resources (and abundant land.) Very interesting idea.

etownboarder
19-06-2008, 10:57 PM
I think the zoo needs a major one time cash boost in order to turn it into a decent attraction.... tear down some of the old pavilions, build new ones, clean up the landscaping and voila. Sure it'll cost some money, but I can't imagine that it would be insanely expensive.

richardW
19-06-2008, 11:37 PM
hmmm since this city gives to various charities like it is gong out of style, it shouldnt be too hard to raise some money for the zoo.

chupa
20-06-2008, 10:00 AM
There is also alot of wasted space IMHO, several areas are wide open and thats not a bad thing.But there are areas that could have additional displays set up.

The concrete displays are fine in some cases but could use more foliage etc, and how about some stuff that stimulates the animals and makes them feel a little more like they are in there own habitat.

Doing stuff like that would also encourage other zoo's to work more closely with our zoo on breeding programs etc...

Yes I think the city should step up, after all it is there attraction and now with the city getting alot of extra cash that it has never had before would be the time.As well citizen's of Edmonton I am sure would be willing to to help out.

etownboarder
20-06-2008, 10:11 AM
I completely agree... and in this case, I can't imagine it taking 100s of millions of dollars to create a decent facility. All the grounds need are some cleaning up, maybe a few new pavillions, some new landscaping, some natural habitat for the animals, and voila... you have a great attraction that even the citizens of Edmonton won't have seen before (at least not in it's new and improved state).

Sonic Death Monkey
20-06-2008, 10:36 AM
Is there room for expansion? If not then maybe they should consider moving it. Say, beside Elk Island Park.


The tragedy of that is that we had one out there, and it was great, and it was killed by lack of funding either in Late Getty or Early Klein.


The Polar Park was originally named the Alberta Game Farm, and was run and operated by an ex-boxer named Al Oeming. It consisted almost entirely of ungulates, carnivores, and birds. There were no typical pavilions or large buildings, and instead there were large, fenced paddocks for the animals. These exhibits were often very plain and basic, but enormous in size. Most of the hoofed mammals had spacious areas to roam, and there were a number of large herds at the park.

Source (http://www.zoobeat.com/22/edmonton-s-polar-park-11902/)

It worked before, and now that we seem to have a regional plan, it seems like this could work extremely well now. Put our region's zoo resources with our region's natural resources (and abundant land.) Very interesting idea.

I completely forgot about Polar Park. That is a concept that should be revisited.

moahunter
20-06-2008, 11:25 AM
What do people think of my thought, of removing the non-Albertan animals? For example, I have always thought it is almost cruel to have elephants in a zoo, rather than roaming around on the plains or jungle in Africa or India. With TV, IMAX, and such, I don't think kids need that today. I think there is enough amazing wildflife in Alberta, that can be showcased. The "exotic creature in a cage" thing, I think, is a concept of the past. Let's leave that to Calgary zoo, and create something natural, beautiful, and family sized for our "reserve".

etownboarder
20-06-2008, 11:28 AM
It makes sense Moa... but I would miss seeing those animals. Maybe it's just because I have been lucky enough to live in the country in the past, and saw deer, bears, moose, etc on a regular basis.

moahunter
20-06-2008, 11:32 AM
Maybe it's just because I have been lucky enough to live in the country in the past, and saw deer, bears, moose, etc on a regular basis.
I wasn't so lucky, but I agree that I do enjoy seeing the elephants. But I can't help feel a bit guilty when I see them, and then you think to yourself, what if all the money and energy spent on this, was spent on a really neat and natural moose or bear exhibit? I just don't think we gain anything going toe to toe with Calgary on the traditional cage concept, I'd rather we did something different, and perhaps a bit more "morally' right.

etownboarder
20-06-2008, 11:37 AM
But then people would feel sorry for the bears, and the deer, and the moose... if you're going to have a zoo, you're going to have to understand that these animals (whatever they are) are in captivity. The best way around that is programming that focuses on environmental education.

moahunter
20-06-2008, 11:40 AM
But then people would feel sorry for the bears, and the deer, and the moose... .
At least they fit the climate / city - and, it doesn't have to be bears, but I do think it needs to be more "open" or "natural" at one extreme (perhaps a train running through a natural area), and more intimate, and touchy feely (bigger emphasis on farm animals, things kids can feed, etc.), at the other. I just think the exotic stuff is what is pigeon holing this as a "zoo", which leads to a hopeless comparison with Calgary zoo, when I would rather we go another, more modern / environmental way, but just IMO.

Blueline
20-06-2008, 12:21 PM
Please remember that the majority of the origins of the animals were due to orphaning situations that prevent rehabilitation into the wild and that many of the animals quite enjoy our weather c/w all variables as well as excellent care by a dedicated staff (of experts)

Wait till zoo watch etc. gets hold of this story....
"all of the animals should run free"

etownboarder
20-06-2008, 12:24 PM
If that's the case, then I'm all for keeping the animals. We just need to have a good $50M (or whatever the amount) dedicated to turning it into a quality facility, instead of something that is falling apart.

moahunter
20-06-2008, 12:26 PM
If that's the case, then I'm all for keeping the animals. We just need to have a good $50M (or whatever the amount) dedicated to turning it into a quality facility, instead of something that is falling apart.
I think it is always the case, but I also think the animals would be just as well served in a reserve in India or Africa, or at a minumn, should be phased out as they age. I think there is enough beauty in Alberta wildlife, that we don't have to showcase the heritage of other countries. It is not so much this is the reason I am suggesting it though, more just that we should be IMO, trying not to copy Calgary, and other traditional zoos.

richardW
20-06-2008, 05:32 PM
so everyone is completely envious of Calgary's zoo and we shouldn't try and copy them? seems logical... heck the drive down to cow town isnt too long i guess. surely it couldn't be that hard to get some money raised for upgrading the zoo, and now seems as good a time as any.

IKAN104
21-06-2008, 08:52 AM
We should always try to copy success. Smart corporations always try to emulate successes from other companies. Why shouldn't cities do the same?

moahunter
21-06-2008, 08:58 AM
We should always try to copy success. Smart corporations always try to emulate successes from other companies. Why shouldn't cities do the same?
Exactly - and the most succesful companies, particularly small ones (which is what our zoo is, small), find a niche / attractive role, and if there is an example to emulate, they emulate it. We should be looking at small reserves / zoos around the world, and seeing how they have became very succesful / attractive (unless someone has a billion dollars or 2 to try to emulate the "traditional style" Calgray zoo model). I posted above a potential small zoo/reserve model, which has been very succesful with both international tourists and locals in the city it is. I think part of the reason it is so succesful, is that is is privatley owned (i.e. it has to inovate and be attractive to survive). You will notice there are also tie's in with the indigenous population (which is something that would work here too):

http://www.willowbank.co.nz/reserve.asp


The wildlife experience

Willowbank Wildlife Reserve, is a unique Christchurch attraction and a journey into New Zealand. It does not pretend nor wish to be a zoo. It accepts the responsibility and guardianship that goes with preserving and promoting wildlife conservation within New Zealand.

Before spending a lot of money blindly copying Calgary to make a bigger attraction, when we could instead be making a better attraction, I think our zoo should do a good fact finding mission - looking at a reserve/zoo's like this one. I only mention this one because I know how good it is, and how much better I think our zoo would be if it was like it (it is on a similar sized site). I am sure there are other good examples around the world as well.

North Guy66
21-06-2008, 09:53 PM
They should gut the Valley Zoo and use that space for a botonical gardens, native species, insects, horticulture sanctuary.

Think of the Muttart Conservatory but with seven times the area. Have native plants in a boreal setting with birds and insects flying about. They can still have some exotic species as long as it is compatible with the Alberta envionment, such as those red pandas or reptiles, etc.

Blueline
23-06-2008, 01:32 PM
Sorta like The Devonian Botanic Garden?

moahunter
23-06-2008, 02:01 PM
Sorta like The Devonian Botanic Garden?
But with lots and lots of animals, including a good sized area for families where the animals wander round coming up to paths to be fed, etc.

IKAN104
23-06-2008, 05:03 PM
Like a safari.

Blueline
24-06-2008, 07:56 AM
Like Al Omings Game Farm later known as Polar Park
Deja You!

CigarHippo
25-06-2008, 10:37 AM
Managed my first trip in a few years to the zoo.

I could not help but feel sorry for the animals and staff.
Talk about a trip back to 1976.The enclosures are still very third world looking and not habitat friendly atall for any of the animals.

I hate to say it, but Calgary has and continues to do a much and I mean much better job with there zoo than we do.

Has city council even though of doing anything for this place?

Sorry for ranting but come on!

there is no place for a zoo in the north pole. cities close to the north pole, like ours, should not have a zoo and expect it to survive and much less thrive.
come on, only 3 months a year of solid revenue?!! it's a miracle the valley zoo has even survived to this day.
i say shut it down and send the poor animals to more convenient (for them) locations, like anywhere below the 40th parallel. it's ridiculous to have a zoo in subzero environments, unless only polar bears and caribou are displayed.
sorry about the rant, and as much as we love Edmonton we're close to the norh pole and imo humans should not be living here. i personally am working on it and will soon put the money where my mouth is, hopefully.

Sonic Death Monkey
25-06-2008, 01:11 PM
Calgary is only 3 hours farther south from the North Pole, what's their excuse for having a zoo? When our own citizens complain about living in the Arctic Circle, it makes me want to leave just to escape the sheer ignorance.

Glenco
25-06-2008, 01:40 PM
[QUOTE=chupa;107462]sorry about the rant, and as much as we love Edmonton we're close to the norh pole and imo humans should not be living here. i personally am working on it and will soon put the money where my mouth is, hopefully.
Don't let the north pole hit you on the way out.

CigarHippo
25-06-2008, 03:09 PM
[QUOTE=chupa;107462]sorry about the rant, and as much as we love Edmonton we're close to the norh pole and imo humans should not be living here. i personally am working on it and will soon put the money where my mouth is, hopefully.
Don't let the north pole hit you on the way out.

LOL! that's ok... i'll watch, and if it does I'll think of it as a farewell .... Edmonton, Canada, have been really good to me. It's just too frickin cold and depressing.

Edmontonfan
25-06-2008, 03:18 PM
^ and he says this one a glorious day like today:(

etownboarder
25-06-2008, 03:20 PM
I think we can all admit that the Valley Zoo needs some serious work ASAP... No need to make childish comments like "I'm gonna move cause Calgary has a better zoo than we do." Like give me a break people.

CigarHippo
25-06-2008, 04:18 PM
^ and he says this one a glorious day like today:(

it's the middle of the summer and it's 19 degrees out. sure it's sorta nice, but glorious?! tomorrow a meager 15 deg. is this summer? of course it is... in the vicinity of the north pole.
last i checked summer was about temps above 25 degrees, sunny, no wind.
We've only had two (2) days of + 25 degrees so far this year.
the cold weather lasts here 8 months, we spend 2/3rds of our lifetimes in cold temperatures, that's no life, not for humans anyways.
the memories of the winter are too strong to forget... the arctic temperatures, the unending snow, the ice rink roads, the blizzards in mid april.... and so on. and the main thing: cold temperatures are only 10 weeks away. (by cold i mean anywhere below +10)
i LOVE Edmonton.... but it's too frickin cold.

IKAN104
25-06-2008, 04:44 PM
I can't complain about Edmonton's summers. The temperature's just right for me. If you do like the heat waves we're supposed to have one next week. Personally I'll be staying indoors when it's +30.

The winter does suck. But be careful if you think the grass is greener somewhere else. Cities are like girls. Even the pretty ones have problems.

CigarHippo
25-06-2008, 05:55 PM
I can't complain about Edmonton's summers. The temperature's just right for me. If you do like the heat waves we're supposed to have one next week. Personally I'll be staying indoors when it's +30.

The winter does suck. But be careful if you think the grass is greener somewhere else. Cities are like girls. Even the pretty ones have problems.

to each his own i guess. i liked the girls analogy, btw. true enough.
but i like hot weather and HATE the cold, even if it's above zero cold. I just got back from Vegas and had +35 everyday. I almost cried of joy to be able to bask in those temperatures. I hate gambling, i don't drink or party lots and don't care for the shows much. I go to Vegas for the heat, the dry heat, i love it. I LOVE Edmonton but don't belong here. If Edmonton was moved down a dozen degrees down the latitude it'd be the best place on earth, an unmatched living paradise.
I need to move somewhere close to the equator.
cheers
Hippo

Edmontonfan
25-06-2008, 07:24 PM
So where are you going, not your ideal location, but where you are actually going to live?

Edmontonfan
25-06-2008, 07:26 PM
Sorry this has totally gone off topic - seems to always happen whenever anyone says anything negative about the city:(

North Guy66
25-06-2008, 10:13 PM
I love my girl even though she is cold 5 months of the year. There are hotter girls out there, but they usually have the creepy-crawlies. During the 5 months when my girl is cold, all of the bugs are destroyed. Those hot girls always have some kind of virus 24/7/365.

CigarHippo
26-06-2008, 08:59 AM
So where are you going, not your ideal location, but where you are actually going to live?

couple of strong candidates, one in Mexico , one in Nevada. Sometime after next summer, hopefully. I'm hoping for only one more winter and will bid adieu. will keep coming back in the summers. as i said, with the warm climate Edmonton is hands down the most beautiful city in the world, and i've travelled all the continents and dozens of countries.
Sorry for taking this beyond necessary

To get back on topic, the city of Edmonton should either increase funding exponentially for the valley zoo so that it becomes a world class zoo or they should just shut it down and ship the animals to greener pastures.

cheers
Hippo

etownboarder
26-06-2008, 09:01 AM
To get back on topic, the city of Edmonton should either increase funding exponentially for the valley zoo so that it becomes a world class zoo or they should just shut it down and ship the animals to greener pastures.

I agree with you here. The zoo needs to see some major upgrades to all of it's facilities. It doesn't need to be a LARGE zoo, just a quality zoo.

Thomas Hinderks
27-06-2008, 08:41 PM
etownboarder

I think you are right that we are far better off all the way around to have a small quality Zoo with excellent education programming than a mediocre large Zoo with none.

Jaybee

Thanks for the link to the Zoo stuff, guess its time to adopt an animal again.

Tom

Edmcowboy11
29-06-2008, 10:28 AM
As much as it would be nice to have a giant world class zoo, how about having a small world class zoo.

First step is to identify some of the exhibits that are very poorly designed and see how they can be replaced. The one exhibit that I feel is extremely poor is the nocturnal animals/reptiles. The enclosures might be ok for the animals but the hallway for the zoo patrons to see these animals is tiny and can only support a very small amount of people. That facility has to be replaced completely.

IKAN104
29-06-2008, 11:28 AM
Yes facilities like that were designed for a very limited number of visitors. Typical of anything that was built in Edmonton in the sixties.

Does anybody know if the zoo is self-sufficient or if it relies on city subsidies? My guess is it's heavily subsidized.

VZDS
25-09-2008, 01:24 PM
I work for the Valley Zoo Development Society (VZDS), a non-profit group that raises funds and promotes awareness to ensure the continued development of the Valley Zoo.
The City of Edmonton has approved a Master Plan to revitalize the Valley Zoo. The Master Plan can be viewed online at http://www.valleyzoo.ca/pages/Zoo_GeneralInfo/Plan.aspx
The VZDS is committed to raising a portion of the funds to support the Master Plan. There are many things you can do to support the Zoo, such as attending fundraising events, adopting an animal, or shopping at the Valley Zoo Gift Shop.
Visit our website at www.buildingthevalleyzoo.com (http://www.buildingthevalleyzoo.com) or our Facebook group ‘Friends of the Valley Zoo Development Society’ for more info.

etownboarder
29-10-2008, 01:35 PM
Valley Zoo tiger dies from infection
Last Updated: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 | 1:30 PM MT Comments0Recommend0
CBC News

Boris, a Siberian tiger at Edmonton's Valley Zoo, died on Monday, officials announced Wednesday.

The tiger died from a lower respiratory tract infection.

"We did everything possible to try to help him get better," zoo veterinarian Dr. Milton Ness said in a news release. "We had been treating Boris for several weeks, drawing on the North American veterinarian expertise available in dealing with tigers. This is a very sad time for all of us."

Full Story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/10/29/edm-boris-dies.html

luvhockey
29-10-2008, 04:15 PM
This thing called a zoo is in worse shape then most third World jails. The animals are in small areas and most are alone with no mate. Picture you being put into a cage with no interaction with your own kind [human].
This dump has been around long enough. Lets ship the animals to a better place and shut it down.
The tiger probobly died of lonelyness instead of some BS respitory story. What was the tigers will to live? Absolutly nothing.

Whats your take on the dump?

etownboarder
29-10-2008, 04:17 PM
ummm, I take it that the animal was sick and getting old. The article says that the tigers usually only live to be 15yo anyway, and I think it was getting up there in age. The zoo is a fantastic resource and needs some extra cash for some updates as described in the other thread on the valley zoo.

etownboarder
29-10-2008, 04:18 PM
Other thread on this topic: http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=7559&highlight=valley

IKAN104
29-10-2008, 04:53 PM
That's sad about the tiger. It's also a big loss for the zoo financially. The tiger is a major attraction.

Blueline
29-10-2008, 05:00 PM
regardless on one's position on zoos etc. this saddened me

luvhockey
29-10-2008, 05:41 PM
^ whats realy sad is the tiger died alone. All for the pleasure of some gawkers pleasure.

The_Cat
29-10-2008, 07:03 PM
I think zoos give some animals a chance to thrive in a safe environment. However, I think it's getting more costly to maintain zoos. I think if Al Oeming, Aunt Helen and the Valley Zoo got together about 20 years ago (along with a significant amount of funding), Edmonton could have had a spectacular zoo. One thing I'll say for sure, the Valley Zoo shouldn't move back to Borden Park.

raz0469
29-10-2008, 09:23 PM
I think zoo's are a remnant of a time passed. Keeping animals in enclosures that do not even come close to representing their natural habitat for the sake of letting people come gawk at them is in my opinion incredibly inhumane and counter productive.

I'm all for wildlife preserves and that kind of thing, but I think keeping large mammals in blatantly artificial habitats has got to stop.

luvhockey
30-10-2008, 07:06 AM
^ Dont know why "med" combined these two threads. One is for saving the zoo and the one I started was for closing the zoo.

Glenco
30-10-2008, 09:55 AM
^ whats realy sad is the tiger died alone. All for the pleasure of some gawkers pleasure.

I think you have to realise that tigers are solitary animals. Having said that I think the valley zoo needs a major rethink. They do not seem to be equipped to handle large animals properly

luvhockey
30-10-2008, 10:02 AM
ummm, I take it that the animal was sick and getting old. The article says that the tigers usually only live to be 15yo anyway, and I think it was getting up there in age.

OLD? The tiger was only 9 years old and considering tigers live to their late teens or early 20's then the tiger was in his prime.
Now they are planning on bringing another tiger to die a slow death. All for gate admission.

etownboarder
30-10-2008, 10:10 AM
ummm, I take it that the animal was sick and getting old. The article says that the tigers usually only live to be 15yo anyway, and I think it was getting up there in age.

OLD? The tiger was only 9 years old and considering tigers live to their late teens or early 20's then the tiger was in his prime.
Now they are planning on bringing another tiger to die a slow death. All for gate admission.

Actually these tigers live to be about 15 years... as stated in the article, and many other websites online. So he was getting up there in age. Maybe he wasn't ancient and at the end of his life, but illness can take a toll at any age, especially older animals.

IKAN104
30-10-2008, 10:16 AM
ummm, I take it that the animal was sick and getting old. The article says that the tigers usually only live to be 15yo anyway, and I think it was getting up there in age.

OLD? The tiger was only 9 years old and considering tigers live to their late teens or early 20's then the tiger was in his prime.
Now they are planning on bringing another tiger to die a slow death. All for gate admission.

You make it sound like greedy people are getting rich off these animals. I believe the main purpose of the zoo is educational.

luvhockey
30-10-2008, 10:38 AM
I believe the main purpose of the zoo is educational.


Educational??????? what in the world can be educational about seeing wild animals in small areas and cages that barely allow the animals to walk around? There is no educational benefit to keeping these animals locked up for our viewing pleasure. My gf's daycare went to the zoo a couple of months ago [ages 4-5] and most of the kids were sad because the animals look sad to them. The tiger just laid there, elephant stands in one spot most of the time because there is no room.
So plese explain why a zoo is educational?
With the internet we can be educated whithout locking up these majestyc creatures.

IKAN104
30-10-2008, 10:59 AM
If you care to visit their website you'll see that there is a large educational component to the zoo.

http://www.valleyzoo.ca/pages/Zoo_Programs/SchoolPrograms.aspx
http://www.valleyzoo.ca/pages/Zoo_Programs/Petro.aspx

So what do you think the zoo is for? Gate admission? Explain what you mean by that?

luvhockey
30-10-2008, 11:06 AM
^ all the things mentioned could be done at a petting zoo or on the internet. Not 1 educational item on the list that can be due to a live visit to a zoo. And the one comment the zoo has is to see the animals in their natural habitat. lol what a laugh. The animals dont even have space to run around.
My point IKAN .......What is the zoo for? Why do we need them?

IKAN104
30-10-2008, 11:13 AM
I made the point that the zoo is educational but I agree that it is a weak argument to keep a zoo. When it comes right down to it I think the zoo is just another attraction. It exists as an entertainment option for residents.

RTA
30-10-2008, 11:28 AM
I think the zoo in its current state is definitely lacking what it needs to keep the animals safe, healthy, and comfortable. There is a big educational component, but it too is lacking. But I don't advocate shutting it down altogether.

In my eyes, the zoo needs to do the following things if it intends to survive and relieve some of the scrutiny on it:
1. Immediate expansion, including properly sized and outfitted habitats for all animals
2. Far more focus on regional (North American) wildlife, better suited for our particular climate
3. Rewrite its educational platform focusing primarily on human effects on animal habitats and environments, and exactly what people as individuals can do to lessen or ameliorate their impact on those habitats (see the Toronto Zoo for an excellent example of this kind of platform).

moahunter
30-10-2008, 12:21 PM
As I mentioned above - there are very good models around the world on how this should be done, but we need to get away from the "big exotic animal is better" theme. Most kids are city kids now - they don't need that. What they would go for though, is something small, family friendly, and natural, like the example I posted above. We should make a better, more relevant, and tigheter focused attraction, not a bigger one.

IKAN104
30-10-2008, 12:28 PM
I disagree. Small animals are boring. People want to see big, exciting, exotic animals like polar bears, giraffes, cheetahs, elephants and lions. I also think the zoo should be bigger because that would mean there is more to see and do. Small attractions (muttart comes to mind) are so ... small.

moahunter
30-10-2008, 12:31 PM
I disagree. Small animals are boring.
We can all see the big ones at Calgary zoo. But small animals you can touch, and see in their native environment, an environment filled with trees and nature, not concrete cages, is far from boring. But don't take my word for it, go check out the example I posted above, which is privatley operated and profitable. Did our "big animal" zoo ever turn a buck?

McCauley resident
30-10-2008, 01:00 PM
I think the zoo in its current state is definitely lacking what it needs to keep the animals safe, healthy, and comfortable. There is a big educational component, but it too is lacking. But I don't advocate shutting it down altogether.

In my eyes, the zoo needs to do the following things if it intends to survive and relieve some of the scrutiny on it:

1. Immediate expansion, including properly sized and outfitted habitats for all animals

Exactly...........

One thing to note is that there are approximately 500 Siberian tigers "running free" in the whole world - mankind is going to wipe them off the planet very shortly.

The second is that Boris (our Siberian tiger) was born in captivity - the odds of survival in the wild were negligible...

To make the best of a bad situation, a larger habitat is needed for certain species in the zoo...

danimalrex
30-10-2008, 01:48 PM
As VZDS noted back when this was an active thread, the zoo does have a long term master plan in place that would bring about a lot of good changes with improved habitats and increased space for the animals residing in the zoo. The problem, as always, is having the money to put that plan into action. Their projection of needing $60- $80 Mil. in 2005 has certainly inflated since then, and I don't see that there is going to be a lot of cash forthcoming in the near future from any level of government. Perhaps some sort of corporate sponsorships would be a good way to go here to help get things rolling.

A well designed and laid out zoo can create income year round. The zoo in Calgary is open all year, and anytime the weather is halfways reasonable in the winter, it certainly isn't desolate. From my own experiences when living in Calgary, going to the zoo in the colder months is quite a bit more interesting than going in the summer as the animals tend to be more active, and the staff are more readily available to spend some time with you talking and answering questions one on one (and if you are really lucky, you may be invited to experience things that regular zoo patrons never do).


I disagree. Small animals are boring.

You've obviously never sat and watched the Otters for any length of time. They thrive on the attention and can put on quite a show.

North Guy66
05-06-2009, 12:36 PM
Valley Zoo in dire need of a renaissance

Todd Babiak
The Edmonton Journal
June 4, 2009

...."The Valley Zoo is an ad hoc collection of animals and exhibits that lacks any unifying focus or direction," Laidlaw said, near the entrance, as he passed from the storybook section to the petting area. "It's a mishmash of ideas, concepts and themes. It's thrown together."

Everyone who grew up between the 1950s and the 1980s will feel a happy-sad sting of nostalgia, walking into the zoo. Tuesday was hot and sunny, the trees of the river valley full and fragrant, one of those glorious school-is-out late afternoons on the prairies. Our instinct is to preserve the status quo, to keep things as they were when we were children: summery and simple.

No one can deny, however, that the Valley Zoo has become an abundantly sad place, despite the best efforts of its staff: it's underfunded and lacking in joy, imagination and empathy. Many of the newer exhibits are plunked in randomly among the old. Other exhibits are closed, or worn out. Animals from tropical rainforests lie on dry ground behind chain link fences, robbed of fresh vegetation.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Travel/Valley+dire+need+renaissance/1661442/story.html

edmonton daily photo
05-06-2009, 12:38 PM
Our poor sad Zoo...

Someone (Gov't Funding) help it please!

North Guy66
05-06-2009, 12:44 PM
^ Timely article because I visited the zoo this past Tuesday. First time I've been there in over 20 years. It was sad and depressing. The animals either had inadequate space or were lonely from having no other playmate.

Send the mammals to other zoos and bulldoze this relic. Use the site to host Expo 2017.

p.s.....Check out my pictures in the Images thread:
http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=196362#post196362

edmonton daily photo
05-06-2009, 12:58 PM
Don't get rid of our zoo!!!

Make it better

danimalrex
05-06-2009, 01:52 PM
^ Exactly. With the kinds of money being thrown around on projects these days, the Valley Zoo's requirements to complete their plans are a drop in the bucket.

To some extent, I kind of wish the CoE would let it go so that it could stand on its own as a non-profit, but I worry that it's in such bad shape from years of underfunding and neglect that it would never recover.

Ins
05-06-2009, 02:24 PM
Tough to justify having two high quality zoo's withing 3 hours of each other and the Calgary one is very good.

Valley zoo is good for young children but to me that's about it

The_Cat
05-06-2009, 02:35 PM
I think that the zoo needs massive investment, if it's to be saved. Even then, that site may not be large enough for the species that are there.

etownboarder
05-06-2009, 03:01 PM
There's plenty of space... unfortunately, the zoo will need millions of dollars to rebuild the majority of their infrastructure. It doesn't have to be a HUGE zoo to be of value to Edmontonians... just a quality zoo.

edmonton daily photo
05-06-2009, 03:21 PM
Tough to justify having two high quality zoo's withing 3 hours of each other and the Calgary one is very good.

Valley zoo is good for young children but to me that's about it

So your saying that half of Alberta's urban population shuld have to drive 3 hours to visit a zoo of decent qualtiy. To add to that a Metro population expected to hit 1.7 million people in 30 years can't support it's own zoo.

WHat has to happen is outlying regions need to help chip in for the zoo, not just Edmonton.

jdk13
05-06-2009, 07:10 PM
The zoo has major plans for expansion. See their master plan at

http://www.valleyzoo.ca/Content_Files/Files/ValleyZoo_Files/Masterplanlowres.pdf

page 32 shows the expansion plans.

The first step in the expansion (Sea Lion exhibit) is underway

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/EDCMay12Agenda.pdf

Ins
05-06-2009, 08:45 PM
Tough to justify having two high quality zoo's withing 3 hours of each other and the Calgary one is very good.

Valley zoo is good for young children but to me that's about it

So your saying that half of Alberta's urban population shuld have to drive 3 hours to visit a zoo of decent qualtiy. To add to that a Metro population expected to hit 1.7 million people in 30 years can't support it's own zoo.

WHat has to happen is outlying regions need to help chip in for the zoo, not just Edmonton.

That is what I'm saying. Look around the country. That is the way it is. Over a million people live in SOuthern Ontario and don't have a zoo. Ditto for Eastern Ontario. I'm saying two large zoo's in a province of 3 million people is alot. It will never be able to compete with the Calgary zoo, so perhaps it can take on a different more specialized theme.

IKAN104
05-06-2009, 08:59 PM
It never has and never will compete with the Calgary zoo. People will go to Edmonton's zoo because it's closer to home. Simple. Now if only if were a nice zoo, even more people would go. Regardless of what Calgary has.

Ins
05-06-2009, 09:06 PM
It never has and never will compete with the Calgary zoo. People will go to Edmonton's zoo because it's closer to home. Simple. Now if only if were a nice zoo, even more people would go. Regardless of what Calgary has.

That's the point. What are nice zoo's? Typically large footprints to acommodate lots of animals. That's what a nice zoo is, a large variety of animals and habitats. This one doesn't have a large enough footprint. It will never be a destination and that's what a zoo has to be successful. SOmething people will want to go to in your city. Like Calgary and the Toronto Zoo. Otherwise it will never generate enough revenue to support itself without massive subsidies.

IKAN104
06-06-2009, 06:24 AM
I think it can be successful with the space that it has.

danimalrex
06-06-2009, 07:24 AM
Considering the age of the zoo, and the lack of money that has been put into it beyond basic maintenance over the last couple of decades, I don't consider the amount of money that they require to do a complete overhaul that onerous. I think that the plan that they have in place is adequate to give Edmonton a zoo that we can be proud of without going overboard.

Krokwalk
06-06-2009, 10:38 AM
The size of the zoo is a red herring. Calgary's zoo is about 80 acres while Edmonton's is about 45. Calgary can not expand unless it goes off-island while Edmonton has huge amounts of additional space surrounding it if required. I think our zoo should focus on species that live comfortably within Edmonton's climate range. Believe it or not this includes not only polar bears and cariboo but siberian tigers, cougar, black, brown and grizzly bears, muskox, lynx, bobcat, deer, moose, bison, elk, otter, beaver, many bird species etc. Most reptiles, snakes etc can be housed in smaller quarters (just not the ugly small pavilions they now use). Use dioramas or models with educational materials for exotic tropical animals but let most of the focus be on what we have to offer locally. Add a small aquarium featuring Canada' ocean's (Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic) as well as Alberta's lake and rivers in fresh water tanks and at the end of the day you can offer what both tourist's and locals want.

Krokwalk
06-06-2009, 10:47 AM
By the way, having worked for fish and wildlife in B.C. I am absolutely appalled by the ignorance that some people have when it comes to zoos. If it wasn't for zoos there are many species that would be extinct now. Zoos raise awareness of species and their habitats. They constitute a key cog in the preservation of wildlife and without them we would have a sad planet indeed. I guess ignorance is bliss because without them we wouldn't hear about animals and we wouldn't care if they died off.

Bray88
06-06-2009, 08:35 PM
By the way, having worked for fish and wildlife in B.C. I am absolutely appalled by the ignorance that some people have when it comes to zoos. If it wasn't for zoos there are many species that would be extinct now. Zoos raise awareness of species and their habitats. They constitute a key cog in the preservation of wildlife and without them we would have a sad planet indeed. I guess ignorance is bliss because without them we wouldn't hear about animals and we wouldn't care if they died off.

Bang on ! Agree 110%

danimalrex
07-06-2009, 11:06 AM
The size of the zoo is a red herring. Calgary's zoo is about 80 acres while Edmonton's is about 45. Calgary can not expand unless it goes off-island while Edmonton has huge amounts of additional space surrounding it if required. I think our zoo should focus on species that live comfortably within Edmonton's climate range. Believe it or not this includes not only polar bears and cariboo but siberian tigers, cougar, black, brown and grizzly bears, muskox, lynx, bobcat, deer, moose, bison, elk, otter, beaver, many bird species etc. Most reptiles, snakes etc can be housed in smaller quarters (just not the ugly small pavilions they now use). Use dioramas or models with educational materials for exotic tropical animals but let most of the focus be on what we have to offer locally. Add a small aquarium featuring Canada' ocean's (Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic) as well as Alberta's lake and rivers in fresh water tanks and at the end of the day you can offer what both tourist's and locals want.

^With this post, and the one following, you've pretty much summed up the zoo's long term plans as outlined in their master plan. The problem isn't their goals, it's that fact that the zoo remains woefully underfunded to accomplish these goals within a realistic time frame.

People can complain about the shape that the zoo is currently in all they want, but that does nothing to help them accomplish what they are trying to do. Try mentioning the lack of funding to your councilor, and maybe the CoE will do something about it (the Valley Zoo is a CoE property, unlike the Calgary Zoo, which is owned and run by a non-profit organization).

moahunter
08-06-2009, 12:09 PM
I don't consider the amount of money that they require to do a complete overhaul that onerous. I think that the plan that they have in place is adequate to give Edmonton a zoo that we can be proud of without going overboard.
I think they could use the money they do get though, more wisely, which will allow them to transform into a smaller, more focused family/wildlife zoo, quicker. For example, if they put down (or gave away) the elephants and other large exotic animals (tiger, etc.) you would think that would save quite a bit of money (they must cost a lot to feed / maintain), that could then be used to spruce up other areas sooner.

Ins
08-06-2009, 12:47 PM
I was trying to find out what the operating budget was and how much in revenue the zoo generated. Couldn't find it anywhere. $70M is alot to spend to upgrade this facility (as per the master plan). Is there any hope in breaking even?

North Guy66
08-06-2009, 01:27 PM
By the way, having worked for fish and wildlife in B.C. I am absolutely appalled by the ignorance that some people have when it comes to zoos. If it wasn't for zoos there are many species that would be extinct now. Zoos raise awareness of species and their habitats. They constitute a key cog in the preservation of wildlife and without them we would have a sad planet indeed. I guess ignorance is bliss because without them we wouldn't hear about animals and we wouldn't care if they died off.

I don't see how housing one single camel, elephant, Siberian tiger in inadequate space helps protect the species.

danimalrex
08-06-2009, 01:42 PM
This document is the best that I could find, but it's numbers are admittedly out of date. http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/CityGov/01024_%20Investigation_Valley_Zoo.pdf


The Attractions include both the Valley Zoo and Fort Edmonton Park of which
the Valley Zoo accommodates approximately 190,000 visits annually. The Valley Zoo
has operating expenses of $2.2 million and revenues of $1.2 million in the year 2000.

I found the document below which outlines the cost recovery rates for several CoE owned attractions. Most of them are not recovering their costs (they make less money than they cost to run), with the zoo hovering at around 50% recovery (Fort Edmonton, which I would think is the better cash cow, is significantly lower at 38%).

http://www.gov.edmonton.ab.ca/city_government/documents/CityGov/2007-09RecreationFacilityServicesBusinessPlan.pdf

Considering that most of the work that they want to do is aimed at reducing their operating budget, but increasing visitor traffic, I don't see why that number couldn't improve significantly towards breaking even.

As far as the larger/exotic animals go, my understanding is that the majority of them are being held as part of species protection programs (Lucy being the obvious exception). I remain neutral on the Lucy point, but if there is a chance that our zoo can improve as a result of her (or any of the other large/exotic animals) moving on, I think it should be seriously considered, then reviewed once the zoo is in a position to take them on properly.

edmonton daily photo
08-06-2009, 06:03 PM
It never has and never will compete with the Calgary zoo. People will go to Edmonton's zoo because it's closer to home. Simple. Now if only if were a nice zoo, even more people would go. Regardless of what Calgary has.

That's the point. What are nice zoo's? Typically large footprints to acommodate lots of animals. That's what a nice zoo is, a large variety of animals and habitats. This one doesn't have a large enough footprint. It will never be a destination and that's what a zoo has to be successful. SOmething people will want to go to in your city. Like Calgary and the Toronto Zoo. Otherwise it will never generate enough revenue to support itself without massive subsidies.

Thats your definition of a nice zoo. I just wantsomething well kept, up to date, interactive and animal friendly.

There are many great smaller zoos out there. I don't want to have to go to WEM to see animals. Which also has a zoo licence.

edmonton daily photo
08-06-2009, 06:04 PM
By the way, having worked for fish and wildlife in B.C. I am absolutely appalled by the ignorance that some people have when it comes to zoos. If it wasn't for zoos there are many species that would be extinct now. Zoos raise awareness of species and their habitats. They constitute a key cog in the preservation of wildlife and without them we would have a sad planet indeed. I guess ignorance is bliss because without them we wouldn't hear about animals and we wouldn't care if they died off.

I don't see how housing one single camel, elephant, Siberian tiger in inadequate space helps protect the species.

Every child who sees that one endangered tiger or one Elephant (remeber we do actually have two, but the other one is on loan) goes away talking. Maybe that child Is the next Jane Goodall.

edmonton daily photo
08-06-2009, 06:10 PM
I remain neutral on the Lucy point, but if there is a chance that our zoo can improve as a result of her (or any of the other large/exotic animals) moving on, I think it should be seriously considered, then reviewed once the zoo is in a position to take them on properly.

Ok..it's all fine and dandy that we sugest moving them, but think of the stress we as human encounter when we move. Moving, introduction into another pen with new animals can be EXTREAMLY stressful, not only for the animal being moved but also the existing ones. Further to that new introductions don't always take, and then the animal has to be moved once again.

As long as Lucy or any other animal is well cared for and has basic needs met I would be against moving them.

Ins
08-06-2009, 07:56 PM
It never has and never will compete with the Calgary zoo. People will go to Edmonton's zoo because it's closer to home. Simple. Now if only if were a nice zoo, even more people would go. Regardless of what Calgary has.

That's the point. What are nice zoo's? Typically large footprints to acommodate lots of animals. That's what a nice zoo is, a large variety of animals and habitats. This one doesn't have a large enough footprint. It will never be a destination and that's what a zoo has to be successful. SOmething people will want to go to in your city. Like Calgary and the Toronto Zoo. Otherwise it will never generate enough revenue to support itself without massive subsidies.

Thats your definition of a nice zoo. I just wantsomething well kept, up to date, interactive and animal friendly.

There are many great smaller zoos out there. I don't want to have to go to WEM to see animals. Which also has a zoo licence.

But to lay out $70M as per the master plan for something that is generating $1.2M a year in revenue (as of '00) and paying out $2.2M in costs. Is it really worth it?

edmonton daily photo
08-06-2009, 09:01 PM
^ Dam rights it is! It's an investment in our youth and our city.

would you say the same about Fort Edm Park

how about victoria golf course. I wonder if it breaks even?

Ins
09-06-2009, 07:57 AM
^ Dam rights it is! It's an investment in our youth and our city.

would you say the same about Fort Edm Park

how about victoria golf course. I wonder if it breaks even?

Spending $70M over the next 20 years is $3.33M a year. If we assume it loses $1M a year (that number is from '00 but appears to be the most recent anyone can find) than the zoo costs the city $4.33M a year in loses for the next 20 years. It's a tough question whether its worth it or not (at least to me).

danimalrex
09-06-2009, 08:32 AM
^The question becomes "How much more money could the zoo make if it were brought up to snuff?" As I noted, part of their focus in their redevelopment is to reduce operating costs while increasing patrons. If they can successfully accomplish both of those goals, you may find that while they may not make money, they also may not lose any more than they currently are. To be fair, I was a little surprised that in 2000 they attracted 190,000 visits (I thought it would be lower).

In another thread (or perhaps this one - I can't remember) I questioned if the cities resistance to corporate sponsorship of city owned facilities might be hampering the zoo in some way. To be clear, I don't want to see "The *insert large corporation* Zoo in Edmonton", but I don't see why corporate sponsorships couldn't be put into place for particular areas within the zoo (for example, *insert smaller edmonton based corporation* sponsors the otter enclosure, and receives a plaque with their logo on it stating such on the information board for that enclosure for a set number of years, based on the amount of money given).

moahunter
09-06-2009, 08:48 AM
Every child who sees that one endangered tiger or one Elephant (remeber we do actually have two, but the other one is on loan) goes away talking. Maybe that child Is the next Jane Goodall.
Or maybe the next elephant or tiger hunter, having learned from looking at our zoo, that big animals, rather than roaming the plains in their natural habit, are instead just toys to put in a cage for our amusement.

Ins
09-06-2009, 08:51 AM
^The question becomes "How much more money could the zoo make if it were brought up to snuff?" As I noted, part of their focus in their redevelopment is to reduce operating costs while increasing patrons. If they can successfully accomplish both of those goals, you may find that while they may not make money, they also may not lose any more than they currently are. To be fair, I was a little surprised that in 2000 they attracted 190,000 visits (I thought it would be lower).

In another thread (or perhaps this one - I can't remember) I questioned if the cities resistance to corporate sponsorship of city owned facilities might be hampering the zoo in some way. To be clear, I don't want to see "The *insert large corporation* Zoo in Edmonton", but I don't see why corporate sponsorships couldn't be put into place for particular areas within the zoo (for example, *insert smaller edmonton based corporation* sponsors the otter enclosure, and receives a plauqe with their logo on it stating such on the information board for that enclosure for a set number of years, based on the amount of money given).

Those are good points. Corporate sponsorship is essential these days. I wonder why it's so hard to find real numbers a projections for the zoo?

edmonton daily photo
09-06-2009, 09:11 AM
Every child who sees that one endangered tiger or one Elephant (remeber we do actually have two, but the other one is on loan) goes away talking. Maybe that child Is the next Jane Goodall.
Or maybe the next elephant or tiger hunter, having learned from looking at our zoo, that big animals, rather than roaming the plains in their natural habit, are instead just toys to put in a cage for our amusement.

Mark rolls eyes and gives a disapproving look.

I want to point out that no one has pickerd apart the fact that fort edmonton looses more money than the zoo, what about muttart or victoria golf course? I am sure they loose money too, why not pick them apart?

It' comes down to percieved value and some of us are simply going to think it's worth it and others won't. In the end you can't argue the fact that the zoo adds to Edmonton culture, and I personally have no problem with every tax payer paying 5 bucks a year to make the zoo happen. If we want to talk about saving tax dollars I think there are other city departments out there that cost us much more (public works), are grossly inept and dont add anything culturaly to the city

Ins
09-06-2009, 09:44 AM
Every child who sees that one endangered tiger or one Elephant (remeber we do actually have two, but the other one is on loan) goes away talking. Maybe that child Is the next Jane Goodall.
Or maybe the next elephant or tiger hunter, having learned from looking at our zoo, that big animals, rather than roaming the plains in their natural habit, are instead just toys to put in a cage for our amusement.

Mark rolls eyes and gives a disapproving look.

I want to point out that no one has pickerd apart the fact that fort edmonton looses more money than the zoo, what about muttart or victoria golf course? I am sure they loose money too, why not pick them apart?

It' comes down to percieved value and some of us are simply going to think it's worth it and others won't. In the end you can't argue the fact that the zoo adds to Edmonton culture, and I personally have no problem with every tax payer paying 5 bucks a year to make the zoo happen. If we want to talk about saving tax dollars I think there are other city departments out there that cost us much more (public works), are grossly inept and dont add anything culturaly to the city

This is a thread about the zoo not those other institutions.

For the record, I like the zoo.

moahunter
09-06-2009, 09:47 AM
^^nobody is arguing the zoo should be closed. My position is that there are small modern wildlife centres that make money. That's what the zoo should transform into. That means sacrificing some of the old ideas. You know, the christian view that animals were put on earth to play with / use as we choose, or the colonial view that we have a right to take animals from other countires to "preserve" them, as we can do that better than the "dumb natives" can. Times have moved on, this zoo could be so much better, if it was scaled down, and better focused.

edmonton daily photo
09-06-2009, 09:56 AM
^^the christian view that animals were put on earth to play with / use as we choose, .

Ok.. I am perfectly fine with you having your values and everything, nor am i overly christian BUT this statement is way off base. I know enough about christianity that it is expected that you treat al of gods creatures with love and respect. I can assure you that the valley zoo keepers love their animals just as we love our own pets.

and yes this thread is about the zoo but we are also talking about money, and if we are going to complain about how tax dollars are spent then you can't have that argument in the narrow confines of the zoo expenditures.

moahunter
09-06-2009, 10:19 AM
^I'm not going to get into a biblical argument EDP - I'm just acknowledging the type of society we once had, and where it came from. If you travel to a Buddhist or Hindu country, you will find different attitudes (not necessarily better, or worse, just different). Zoo's are an anachronism of the past. To the extent we wish to preserve, we need to work with the natural habitats, and expand our efforts in providing funding and assistance to those places (as they request). Here in Edmonton, we have a natural habitat around us as well - IMO that's what should be focused on. That's seems to be acknowledged in the plan, but what is not adequately acknowledged, is that the big costly exotic animals just detract from those efforts.

edmonton daily photo
09-06-2009, 10:22 AM
you brought christianity into the conversation moahunter.. if you didn't want people to go there then you should not have taken the first step.

moahunter
09-06-2009, 10:29 AM
^I think religious beliefs and colonial attitudes are tied to how animals are treated in different countries. The nice thing is that people are moving beyond that now, and our zoo needs to move beyond it as well, if they want to remain relevant, and popular.

North Guy66
09-06-2009, 11:18 AM
Every child who sees that one endangered tiger or one Elephant (remeber we do actually have two, but the other one is on loan) goes away talking. Maybe that child Is the next Jane Goodall.

That statement is a bit of a reach (to put it mildly). So why don't the zoo put Jane Goodall in an enclosure so kids can be educated and inspired?


p.s.....One of the most famous biblical tale is the story of Noah's Ark. You know, he herded a pair of every species of animal onto the ark to protect them from the mass flood. Noah wouldn't just round up one elephant, one camel, and one zebra.

etownboarder
09-10-2009, 10:57 AM
City urged to spend surplus cash on zoo's sea mammal exhibit
BY GORDON KENT, EDMONTON JOURNALOCTOBER 8, 2009

The lion's share of savings on city construction costs should be used to build a new sea mammal exhibit and other facilities at the Valley Zoo, says a report released Thursday.

Officials want to spend$43 million freed up when the falling economy drove down the prices charged by city contractors to move ahead with a new winter home for sea lions and seals, as well as building a central walkway through the zoo, according to the report.

"The projects identified are critical to complete first as they will enhance the well-being of the animals and greatly enhance the visitor's experience."

These moves would allow Edmonton to move ahead with a master plan that will see the zoo redesigned with a strong focus on northern animals, recreation facility services manager Rob Smyth said.

About $7 million has already been approved to start work next year on a warm-weather enclosure for the aquatic animals, who will share their site on undeveloped land left of the current entrance with Arctic foxes, he said.

Full Story: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/travel/City+urged+spend+surplus+cash+mammal+exhibit/2084408/story.html

Replacement
11-10-2009, 08:27 PM
Its funny how many of us in our adult lives look at such topics analytically and through a cost/benefit analysis and considering whether zoo's are ethical, profitable, worthwhile, important, etc.

We seemingly do this all through adult eyes and through adult considerations.

Do we forget how much it meant to us as children to have a zoo and have this experience and the priceless joy and delight that we experienced and written on our faces?

Who doesn't still remember their childhood trips to a zoo?

Anybody?

I think we shouldn't forget who this is important too even if they can't vote or express their own views on this.