Bond Measure 26-96: Oregon Zoo

Zoo's are cruel and inhuman.

Stop wasting taxpayer money's

on a waste of our resources.

House people not elephants!!!

The word zoo is nothing but an euphuism for the word jail. The elephants have done nothing to us, why must we lock them up?

Thank you for adult thinking on this measure.

Inhuman? I'll tell you what is inhuman is using the phrase, "Mumbai shanty town." This ignorant persepective, used as a joke, is pretty offensive by your staff and shows a distinct lack of cultural understanding. Should be ashamed of yourselves.

WWeek,

I agree with you 100%. We have a problem, though, if the measure doesn't pass and the zoo decides to keep the elephants. There's no indication they'll get rid of the elephant exhibit. So if we want to protect the elephants, having them stay in terrible conditions is not the answer, either.

If this measure read, "Give us this money or we get rid of the elephants," I'd vote no in a heartbeat. But it's harder for me to do so when I know they're going to be stuck at the zoo.

Okay, first of all, learn how to spell INHUMANE.

Second of all, I volunteer at the Oregon zoo and we treat our animals just like we would if they were our own pets. We love them, feed them on a regular basis, etc. We would do anything for our animals.

I recently visited the Oregon Zoo -- for the first time in more than a decade. Literally, I found the experience transformative. I am perhaps not as much of a "one with nature" sort of person as I ought to be, and my girlfriend and I originally decided to go almost on a lark, not expecting much. However, what I discovered was a whole natural world which is absolutely profound, and of which we city-dwellers need to be constantly reminded of. On a straight humanitarian level, in the modern world the zoo is absolutely vital for the preservation of endangered animals, and animals that have become tamed but cannot be taken care of elsewhere. But more than that -- having a top flight zoo here in Portland adds yet one more avenue for truly remarkable discovery, and reminds us why cherishing our natural environment is so imperative.

"The word zoo is nothing but an euphuism for the word jail."

Yes, and in its natural habitat, elephants (and the other animals you'll see in the zoo) are endangered by poaching, habitat encroachment, pollution, and simple human stupidity. Zoos aren't prisons as much as they are a way to preserve the very species which are being eradicated.

So the other cities are soft on protective custody for endangered animals? Gilded cages appear to be for public entertainment at the expense of the animals and taxpayers. I'm voting against the zoo bond.

Okay so I am in agreement with closing elephant exhibits in zoos, but even if the Oregon Zoo did close theirs, what would happen to the elephants? You can't just throw them into the wild because they were probably bred in captivity. And what happens when the zoo doesn't get the money it needs to fix the exhibits or make them larger for the animals? They're going to raise the price of admission and it won't attract as many visitors. But, I wish they would offer a more comprehensive plan/budget of how exactly, down to the tee, they would spend the money. I am undecided on this measure.

The elephants should be let loose in the forest surrounding Mt. Hood. Imagine the majesty of riding the ski lifts, and and looking down on a herd of wild elephants grazing.

IM WITH Juli

your all a bunch of idiots!

saying zoos are inhumane your a joke!

I also volunteer at the zoo and you wouldn't even understand how much work we put into making the animals feel as comfortable as possible! The Oregon Zoo is pretty old and we really need this update! Zoos are made to help people understand the animals that are currently endangered and its meant for the kids they learn by seeing what do you want to do send a bunch of kids to Africa to learn about these animals where then they are putting there own lives in danger!? ZOOS ARE MADE FOR EDUCATION AND DON'T HARM THE ANIMALS all we need is for this Bond measure to pass to make our animals more comfortable you should be proud of our zoo! we are respected by other zoos! we were the first zoo to have an elephant born in captivity in over 45 years! (that's when Packy was born) So you probably think that sending these animals back into the wild is the thing to do? BORN IN CAPTIVITY they dont know what the wild is like! and the people (trainers,Keepers) that work with these animals LOVE THEM more then anyone and want to keep them safe! so if you think Zoos are inhumane you were deprived the knowledge of knowing what the full purpose of Zoos is.

Elephants and other animal population species are unnaturally dimished in the wild due to really stupid, egocentric and greedy human decisions and if we didn't have zoos, sanctuaries and other conservationist efforts, many of these species would have long since died out. Zoos protect a very small number of those same animcals and help educate our sadly uneducated public about the necessity for conservation of both animals and environment. As humans have already made it impossible for many species to continue to thrive naturally and have made it a necessity for zoos, sanctuaries and such to exist. It is our responsibility, then, to make the resources we DO have for conserving these speciesa the best that we can even if that means spending a whopping $20 per year (sorry for those of you who would have to give up 4 Starbucks Coffees per year, THAT would be tragic!). Please Oregonians, find that selfless side of you: have more heart, have more pride.

"Second of all, I volunteer at the Oregon zoo and we treat our animals just like we would if they were our own pets."

They are not YOUR animals. It is time we treat them as living creatures equal to humans - not pets. Non-human animals have their own interests and lives. If the animals were treated with respect, they would not be incarcerated in concrete 'habitats' and exploited for profit - they would be left alone to live their lives according to their needs.

Let's spend the money on fighting what's endangering them in the first place...then housing and protecting them becomes irrelevant. That and if these large animanls did become extinct in the wild, we can't just release captive animals and expect them to flourish now can we?...Therefore what are we learning about them in the zoo if we fail to put that knowledge into practice? I'm still undecided.

It's sad what's become of Elephants in the wild and it's unfortunate that the Oregon Zoo has three in captivity. The simple fact is that these elephants ARE living in less-than-ideal conditions and if it costs the average homeowner a handful of dollars a year to make them more comfortable how could you NOT want to support that.

Just as a heads up, I did some research about the 6 zoos referenced in this article and why their elephant exhibits are closing and what's happening to the elephants.

Philly, 4 elephants and 3 are in a breeding facility near Pittsburgh that doesn't look promising.

Bronx, 3 elephants that they simply won't replace when they die off.

Dallas, 1 elephant that is being sent to a reserve in Mexico - even PETA is going to protest this move.

Chicago, massive animal deaths 2 elephants died in under two years and the third died on the way to Utah.

San Francisco, 2 elephants died in two months, so the other two were sent to PAWS.

Detroit, only had two elephants and they were so old they wouldn't be used for breeding any more. I believe that they didn't make any relocation decisions until after hearing that. They are now at PAWS.

"This ignorant persepective....is pretty offensive by your staff and shows a distinct lack of cultural understanding."

WELCOME TO PORTLAND

one day portland will be known for it's lack of culture and overt racism under the guise of progressive liberalism.

I was a little annoyed by WW’s reasoning for voting no on Bond Measure 26-96 for the Oregon Zoo.

I am skeptical of this so-called “momentous step” some zoos have taken for the simple reason that the San Francisco Zoo’s elephant exhibit was crap. Visitors could feel distinctly uncomfortable at the sight of several elephants standing around doing nothing in a display area roughly the size of the Oregon Zoo’s rhino paddock. The last memory I have of it was looking at an utterly bored cow shamble around with her foot jammed in a tire, then coming back an hour later and seeing she was still “wearing” it, as well as the same dull expression.

From a business standpoint, it makes sense for over-expanded operations to cut back and focus on core competencies – i.e., whatever other animal those zoos specialize in. This is just gravy on top of the fact that elephants are probably one of the most expensive animals to keep. I suppose it is just Oregon’s luck that their zoo is so good at taking care of these huge, long-lived, incredibly interesting creatures. It seems like you think that zoos getting rid of their elephants is more humane (and it might well be if their facilities are underequipped). Well, where are they going? And who is going to pay for that?

Moreover, why on earth should a nationally recognized elephant program react to their elephants in the same way as a program that is only average, or even sub-par? The answer is they shouldn’t. Zoos now serve as a reservoir of genetic material as wild stock become increasingly rarer and rarer. If they are to perform that function, they need the funding to do it.

This isn’t just about elephants, either. The Oregon Zoo does a lot for native species conservation. For example, their condor program is caring for and breeding almost thirty of these rare birds. 26-96 would contribute towards programs that raise awareness and support Oregon species.

Besides, 18 bucks a year is less than the cost of one entrée at some of the restaurants you guys reviewed and approved of recently. I know where I’m putting my money and it isn’t for one measly plate of food.

The Zoo charges an entry fee, half the staff volunteers. The question is, why do you need my money?

Why tax my property to pay for your expansion?

If you want the money of property owners, then let the property owners be the only ones to vote on this bond. If you don't own a property then you should not be allowed to vote for this.

BTW, no on 26-96.

Let's please take care of the animals...wherever they may reside. GO HERE:http://www.oregonzoo.org/Rose_Tu/updates.htm

18 buck or so a year a year to help the zoo - come on, folks. VOTE YES.

If this passes then I will not go to the zoo again.

Since I am paying for it with my property taxes. Funny thing is that if I show up with my property tax statement and I show them that I paid $28, because of the cost of my property, they wont let me in. I have to buy a ticket.

Some things got to give. Tax me and instead of getting the money for 2 entrance tickets, food and souvenirs when I visit the zoo, you will get half that through my awesome property taxes.

Jorhammer, Go to Canada and just be done with it already. Chill out. It's all good. Change is on the way...

Samantha, you're the idiot! Your post is completely illegible. Nobody's denying that people working at zoos love animals. Of course you do! The real question is whether keeping and breeding wild animals in captivity is acceptable?

Ugh. After reading these comments... I'm voting yes. I have a $95 membership to the zoo, what's another $20? And I'll give to the Nature Conservancy too while I'm at it to help the elephants that are left in the wild.

Why move to Canada? Then I cant help with all this change that is coming. Obama needs more people that make over 250k a year to fund his programs for people that make less than 35k a year. I dont want to be "selfish" and I love to give my hard earned money away to slackers, bums and any other person that for some reason think they deserve it.

Oh Jorhammer, you think we want your money but we'd cheerfully (literally) take the vacuum of your absence over having to put up with the ugly that is your existance. If making enough money to put yourself into a different tax bracket does this to people's personalities then it's much preferable to preserve the middle and lower classes. Please, go be with your kind elsewhere (and that wouldn't be Canada but perhaps Paraguay). We don't need skinflints living it up in our livability compromising it by spreading their personal misery of which they have way too much (too bad that's not a currency).

Go! Be free of our dictates on your salary.

Cassie-- you think Portland is devoid of culture and rife with "overt racism"? Have you ever been anywhere else? You can't call it 'Portland' if you live in the suburbs. Try Cleveland! Dallas! Boise! Phoenix! Coos Bay! Don't be acting like Portland's the worst thing that ever happened to America, just because you never leave the house. I suppose you believe everything you hear on Fox News.

The number one improvement that needs to be made at the Oregon Zoo is to get rid of the Primate House. It's an absolute dungeon.

The Zoo should be closed. Perhaps a larger wildlife park type thing could be created out of town, somewhere with some acreage.

1. Inhuman and Inhumane mean the same thing

2. FACT: The zoo is NOT going to close. It makes too much money and is completely intertwined in the city infrastructure with its attachment to the MAX. Therefore it doesn't matter what I think as an individual.

3. With that being said and the fact that this is much more than just money for the elephants, why wouldn't you want to give money so that all of these creatures, whether you think they are trapped or not, can live in more comfortable conditions?????

I voted yes.

Regarding Jorhammer's comment that only property owners should be allowed to vote on this measure: Renters should be able to vote on this measure. A portion of rent goes toward the property taxes on their buildings.

Washington Week, I find your assessment of this measure not only to EXTREMELY biased but also to be fraught with ignorance and plain and simple closed mindedness. This measure will cost each of us what? $17 per year! Big fucking deal, and I get minimum wage at office depot. The strides that the oregon zoo has made in the preservation of species is phenomenal. You sure as hell can't compare an elephant to a mansion. And for those of you who hate zoos, get over it. If you feel that it is such an injustice then move to africa and defend elephants from poachers, habitat encroachment, and the proposed hunting season that some african countries are considering adopting. You'll realize your mistake as soon as major iconic species begin to go extinct in the wild do to human activity and global warming and the only place left that they exist is in zoos. Don't think that your vote against this measure will shut down zoos. It won't and you'll just be hindering the process of improving animals like elephants' living conditions, which is a great deal better than starving in africa or dieing of thirst (a phenomenon attributed to horrible droughts that have recently become worse in africa).

oh and I am NEVER again going to read washington week as this article and it's complete debauchery of journalistic excellence.

I hate to think of the adverse effect on Washington Week.

Hey enjoy my $17, I will keep the rest of what I used to spend at the zoo and take my wife out somewhere else. Enjoy your elephants.

Wow, Mlife, your command of the english language is... what's the word... palinesque!

As nibo stated above, the "momentous step" that the Washington Week referred to is clearly a complete catastrophe. The zoos that are closing their elephant exhibits aren't releasing the animals into the wild. Oh no, on the contrary. They're either sending them to other zoos, or just letting them die off and not replenishing them. The major purpose for zoos is not to make a profit off of people's curiosity or love. It is to try and educate ignorant people of the dangers that these monoliths and the other animals face in the wild. Zoos try to inspire city folk to resolve to change their practices and begin to give a shit about the choices they make that will impact species world wide. Raising awareness is critical, without people are much less likely to care about animals that they can't see in person and those who think about giving, won't due to the fact that their beneficiaries aren't tangible. If you want to talk about failed preservation policies, don't look at the zoo. Instead move your attention to the endangered species act. How does letting a species approach the brink of doom before you do something about it sound? Look it up, it's much less expensive to come up with preventative practices instead of having to fork out for rehabilitation. And once they rescue the species and they seem to be doing well, guess what, they take them OFF the list and let them fend for themselves. Observe the grizzly bear and its struggle to survive. People are now seeing so many of them that they are saying "hey how 'bout a hunting season?" They don't think about the fact that humans are continually destroying their limited existing habitat and building developments in their living range. Why is it that people wonder why grizzly bears are wondering through their towns when they have placed their houses in the midst of the bear's territory. But the truth of it is that roughly 33 species go extinct every day. That's scary. Do something about it.

Jorhammer, no doubt you believe your $17+ is the make or break center of the universe (as you've tried to convince us) but really, it will be okay. Go, enjoy yourself somewhere else. Preferably somewhere in another state even. Mississippi has a lot of hospitality. You'd be welcomed and fully appreciated there.

Sorry we're not cowering at your threats more. Rest assured the absence of your sparkling presence and amazing generosity will be missed till the end of days. The zoo just won't be the same without you.

Though it does give me a good reason to consider a zoo membership again now that I don't have to worry about having my day darkened by you sucking the sun out of it there. :)