From the Washington Post

All Opinions Are Local - A place where elephants can thrive

Click link to view all comments

Note the comment from Allen Nyhuis on the subject of the National Zoo/LA Zoo elephants on this blog from the Washington Post:
"Thankfully, the LA City Council ignored Stroud and listened to Jack Hanna and other zoo experts, approving the LA Zoo's new exhibit.

So I'm just saying that while I can't compete with Mr. Stroud's expertise on this subject, he comes from a background of trying to hurt American zoos, trying to prevent them from exhibiting elephants."

One this blog he had this to say:

He is now considered an opponent to modern zoos. In fact, a bit over a year ago he was flown into LA to testify against the Los Angeles Zoo building their terrific new multi-acre elephant exhibit, Pachyderm Forest."

"On the other hand, real zoo experts such as "Jungle" Jack Hanna and Yours Truly testified on behalf of the LA Zoo. Thankfully, with the real facts on our side, the Los Angeles City Council sided with our side and Pachyderm Forest is about to open this fall."

____________________________________________________________________

Hmm, I guess I never expected this! OK, when I listed myself (along with Jack Hanna) as an "expert" on zoos, I didn't mean to say I know more about zoos than Jack or David Hancocks. Certainly these guys who much more about the inner workings and exhibit design of zoos. My real "expertise" on zoos is that I've been to over 225 zoos worldwide, and carefully reviewed most of them, often many times. So I can do some serious comparing and contrasting of zoos and their exhibits.

My main point about David Hancocks is that he is now an anti-zoo person, working with organizations (such as PETA and IDA) whose main goal is to shut down zoos. This doesn't make Hancocks unqualified, just wrong.

Allen Nyhuis

My response to Allen's comment:

"OK, when I listed myself (along with Jack Hanna) as an "expert" on zoos, I didn't mean to say I know more about zoos than Jack or David Hancocks."

Ok you have explained what you didn't mean to say. Now explain what you did mean to say. Ir seemed that you felt a need to "expertize" your self for us, and not the folks at the Washington Post. Did you publish a book? Yes, but so have a great many "circus folk" so we weren't unduly impressed, and they are written from experience. I took offense to Mr. Strouds comment about the elephants being walked "circus," as that seems to be a popular way to make something seem real bad for an animal in the pubic eye, if you want to push your agenda. You state in both of your comments, on this blog and the other that Mr. Stroud and Mr. Handcocks are "opponents of zoo's, and "anti zoo". Are they really anti zoo or are they anti elephants in zoos improperly managed? Again I will ask you, "what do you suppose they have seen, witnessed, visualized, and experienced after many years of being "ass deep" in it, that would change the way they view the captive management of a certain animal? I am often unfairly accused of hating the circus or being "anti circus" as you have claimed Mr. Stroud and Mr. Hancock are "anti zoo." In my case, nothing could be further from the truth, but because like these two gentlemen I have been "ass deep" in it, I may have seen, witnessed, visualized, and experienced things that just arn't right, no matter how you care to look at it. Temple Grandin just received many Emmy awards for her life story, and she also received many awards from Peta and others for her work in the live stock meat industry. Is she "anti meat industry?" Nothing could be further from the truth. She was "anti how some things were done", and proved how it could be done better. Maybe Mr. Stroud and Mr. Hancocks are "anti zoo" but rather "anti elephants in zoos?" Do they like Temple Grandin, have a better way? Is it about the animal, or is it about the industry?
Wade Burck