http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/01/15
David Hancocks is an architect who received his B.Sc. and M.Arch. degrees from the University of Bath. He was director of Woodland Park Zoo (1976-1984), the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum (1989-1997) and Werribee Open Range Zoo (1998-2003) and is a member of RIBA (the Royal Institute of British Architects).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brief history of the Woodland Park(Seattle) Zoo:
Jan van Oosten, an animal dealer and aviculturist who had been a founding member of the Seattle Zoological Society, was named director.
The Bartholick master plan (named for its principal designer, architect George Bartholick) called for large, naturalistic exhibits, but it contained a feature that became the focus of considerable controversy and eventually caused the plan's rejection. Bartholick would have placed a lid over Aurora, healing the cut that had sliced the park in two back in 1932. The zoo would also have expanded down into Lower Woodland Park, something that many park users strongly opposed. Opponents mobilized and organized, and when Bartholick's plan was put to a public vote in late 1974, it was soundly defeated. Director Van Oosten resigned just before the election. James W. Foster, the zoo's veterinarian, took over as acting director.
Mayor Wes Uhlman formed a citizens' task force -- a zoo commission -- to help formulate a new plan for the zoo. British architect David Hancocks, who had a background in zoo architecture and had worked with Bartholick on the rejected plan, was named design coordinator. A Seattle-based landscape architecture firm, Jones & Jones, was hired to do the design work.
In 1976, the City Council approved the Hancocks/Jones & Jones plan, which also featured naturalistic designs. Exhibits were grouped in "bioclimatic zones" to demonstrate the similarities of and differences between animals living in similar sorts of habitats all over the world.
The plan itself served as a sort of outline for the zoo's future development. The ideas, principles and philosophy that were delineated along with the plan's drawings were closely adhered to during the quarter-century of design and construction that followed.
That same year, David Hancocks became zoo director. He brought with him his revolutionary ideas on zoo design and zoo management. Once implemented, those ideas would not only stand the test of time, but would bring WPZ to the forefront of world zoos.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
"I have always considered David Hancocks to be one of the most most brilliant exhibit designers of zoological habitats in the past 25 years. His monumental gorilla exhibit at the Seattle Zoo set the standard for all zoo's today. Now that we have hopefully "established his credentials", as Col. Herriot would say, let's look at what he thinks of the Honolulu Zoo's "new" elephant exhibit. It appears that somebody really, really dropped the ball in Hawaii. Most all will agree when someone in my profession does something wrong, it reflects on everybody. We have to also address how Honolulu's effort makes the zoo world look in their efforts at captive elephant husbandry.
Letter to the Editor Aug 14, 2010 Honolulu Star-Advertizer:
Elephants need room to roam
As a former director of Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo, and of the Werribee Open Range Zoo and the Melbourne Zoo in Australia, I have increasing concern about the lack of commitment to elephant welfare among many zoos.
Honolulu Zoo must surely be aware that building an exhibit space of less than one acre is not sufficient for three elephants
If they could speak, elephants would say they just want the company of many of their close relatives, very big complex areas with abundant vegetation, lots of space and deep water for swimming.Mostly, this new exhibit will merely show how ignorant the zoo is about elephants' complex social, behavioral and psychological needs. That is something to grieve about, not celebrate.
Melbourne
Posts
13 comments:
Readers should know where David Hancocks stands today. It is true that he used to be the director of some great zoos, and while there he helped open a few great exhibits. But something has gone wrong with Hancocks association with the Zoo world. 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. He was there on behalf of zoo-hating organizations, PETA and IDA. These groups whole goal is the closure of all zoos, and Hancocks was working with them. 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.
While I agree the Honolulu Zoo's old elephant exhibit was terrible, I personally am very excited about the plans for the new habitat. With all due respect to Mr. Hancocks, he is just wrong about this exhibit.
Allen Nyhuis, Coauthor: America's Best Zoos
Allen,
All due respect, "a few great exhibits!!!" Come on. What do you suppose has gone wrong with Hancocks way of thinking? I was aware of him going to Los Angeles and it and many other reports of late got me thinking about a number of things and looking at things from a different perspective. Do you suppose he may be more aware of certain things, then other folks might be, given his years/experience in the field of captive animal husbandry? You read into this statement what you will. Knowing of the controversy, I attempted to "qualify" Mr. Hancocks for our readers. Why does someone with this much knowledge and experience, all of a sudden seem to have a different agenda? It seems to be elephants at the forefront of most controversies. Why? It has to be more then "the flavor of the day animal." No animal has been targeted for as long as elephants have. We had our gorilla days, our white tiger days, our killer whale days, etc. etc. They have for all intents and purposes come and gone. Why is the elephant and the housing of said animal able to change the philosophical and learned thoughts of a David Hancocks and many others?
"real zoo experts such as Jungle Jack Hanna!!!" Your kidding me, right Allen? Unless "self serving" is a qualification. In that case, I agree. He is right up there with Marlin Perkins and Steve Irwin.
Wade
Dear Wade Burck:
A friend forwarded your blog to me, and I would like to thank you for your very generous and warmly welcome comments about my involvement with Woodland Park Zoo. Thank you also for defending me against calumny.
As you may know, I have long been critical of zoos, for reasons very similar to those of Peter Stroud and others who have worked in zoos, becoming disenchanted because most zoos too readily accept mediocrity.
Healthy and progressive zoos would be their own strongest critics, but sadly most zoos are notoriously unwilling to objectively examine their basic purpose. The result is that spin doctors and marketing people are gaining ever more power in zoo decision making. This will be to everyone's detriment.
Indeed, I am increasingly concerned that zoos are in danger of becoming irrelevant. They are strongly resistant to fundamental change, especially in public education and animal welfare, yet we all know what happens to organisms, be they biological or constructed, that don't evolve to meet changing environments.
So many zoo managers spend vast amounts of money to make merely superficial improvements. The results are not only insufficient, but also a hindrance and a disservice to what zoos could become. Zoos have such vast potential, but stubbornly refuse to reach for it.
To claim that I and other zoo critics are anti-zoo is nothing but name-calling. My conviction is that modern society needs zoos, just not the inadequate and poorly designed types that prevail.
To start, we need zoos that put animal needs as their primary consideration. Everything else flows from that.
David Hancocks
David Hancocks,
Welcome. It is an honor to have an esteemed gentleman such as your self join us. This humble blog has become a sounding board for esteemed folks in the field of animal training, both circus, zoological, and domestic, as well as esteemed folks from the zoological husbandry field, around the world, as well as dozens and dozens of just plain folk, whom share a common passion for animals and their well being.
I am very familiar with the position of "calumny", having spent most of my life there. I have admired you work in zoological exhibit design from a distance as a spectator for many years. I had hoped to have you sign my copy of "Animals and Architecture" when Ringling Bros. showed Seattle in 1984, but alas you left Woodland Park in 1983.
David Hancocks continued:
I took great offense at David Stroud suggesting that the elephants are being walked "circus style" at the National Zoo. Elephants have been in the service of man since before 326BC when Alexander squared off against Porus and his one hundred elephants, cavalry and infantry on the banks of the Hydaspes. They have been used as you are aware for everything from war, to logging, to beasts of burden, to entertainment. Yet to point out something he didn't agree with Mr. Stoud chose the stereotype word "circus", to "illustrate" what he feels is great harm done to elephants. After a while you start to know what the wounded old wildebeest feels like, when all the predator's focus on him. Similar in a sense to that "calumny" deal you allude to.
While I do not doubt your knowledge, and can only guess at your motive's and assume they are in line with mine in regards to animal welfare and captive animal husbandry, I as suspect of your associations and endorsements of organizations such as IDA and the Elephant sanctuary. Your insightful comment to the Washington Post, "If they could speak, elephants would say they just want the company of many of their close relatives, very big complex areas with abundant vegetation, lots of space and deep water for swimming" is very worthwhile, much like the Elephant Sanctuary. But, is the breeding of these magnificent creatures not a foremost justification for keeping them in a captive environment. You and I both know that in that "happy" company of their close relatives, there are going to be some "troublemakers". In your philosophical view of what an elephant wants if it could speak, what do you propose it done with the "anti socials?" Would the "less then one acre" that the Honolulu zoo proposes(crazy if they think it is suitable for 3) not be sufficient for an isolated individual whom may prove genetically viable in the near future?
David Hancocks continued:
IDA has no other agenda then to outlaw the keeping of animals in captivity, good or bad, it makes no difference to them. The want it shut down, no later then yesterday, and that is nut's on a thousand points.
Their web site is full of so much misinformation there isn't even a reasonable place to start, in pointing it out. If they were legitimately interested in captive animal welfare and not the demise of they would surely show a fair and balanced side to their statements.
I don't know where they got their information about circus's and the use of bull hooks, ankus, or what every word you use to make it pc, but it has been used as a tool for handling elephants for as long as they have been handled. Nothing different then spurs which have been used for as long in the training of horses. If used wrong, either the ankus or spurs, by all means shut that person down. If a lawyer dishonors the bar, shut him down, not the whole legal profession. They are all not "sharks", just individuals and select companies.
I love this "one sided" quote in an attempt anthropomorphism, which we all know is wrong: "They are among the most socially bonded animals on the planet, and display a complex array of emotions, including expressions of grief and compassion." What does this paragraph from "The Medici Giraffe" say about an elephants "expressions of grief and compassion" The villagers mounted their most disciplined and spirited elephants and hurried toward the(capture) corral. The wild elephants remained enclosed under the scorching sun and grew increasingly frightened, as well as tormented by hunger and thirst. The tame elephants and their wild counterparts briefly engaged in a battle, but the trapped ones, already worn-out by anxiety and deprivation, soon gave way. At that point the riders dismounted, tied ropes around the hind feet of the wild elephants, and ordered the tame ones to strike the captives repeatedly until the beasts fell to the ground in distress. Sensing that they had been conquered, they allowed themselves to be led out of the enclosure on the heels of the tame elephants."
When addressing "grief and compassion" that an elephant supposedly has, we have to then assume that some of the newly captive elephants were once their "close relatives" all coming from the same area. Why do the "work" elephants not stop and say "no, I must help my brothers?" A Judas goat will aid in the capture death of his brethren, yet I have never had anyone try to convince me he has feelings of "grief and compassion." With your vast knowledge, Mr. Hancocks you must know that the easiest way to catch a herd animal is to capture a member of it's species first. That is elementary, from horse's to dolphins. Can IDE point out the "grief and compassion" in the brutal capturing of your brethren, or will they chose to make it anthropomorphic, by equating it to Jew's helping the Nazi's capture other Jew's during the evil war?
Respectfully,
Wade
This has been a few months, but I just noticed Wade's and Hancocks' responses to my Comment.
Wade, thanks for your comments. For the most part, I totally agree with you! While it's obvious that you are in awe of Hancocks, you did give him a very factual critique of his viewpoints. Most of all, if this guy wants to claim he is not "anti-zoo", then why is he hanging around with and being used by the Zoo world's worst enemies -- PETA and IDA? Thanks for calling him on that!
Let me respond to your notes directed at me:
(1) Yes, I believe my characterization of Hancocks as being a part of "a few great exhibits" is accurate. If anything, it was overly generous. Certainly the great exhibits he was a part of some great new revolutionary exhibits in Seattle and Tucson, but he was not (I don't think) the real genious behind these exhibits. I give more credit to the geniuses at the Jones & Jones design firm. They have continued designing great zoo exhibits, including some of the very best at Disney's Animal Kingdom.
(2) It's funny how you fall all over yourself to tell Hancocks how "esteemed" he is, and yet you laugh at my suggestion of Jack Hanna as a zoo expert. There's more to zoo expertise than animal husbandry. A very, very important factor is running the Zoo -- keeping it financially viable. On this factor, Hanna far exceeds Hancocks. Jack has turned his Columbus Zoo into one of the leading zoos in the USA, with its annual attendance at more than 2.5 million, last I checked. That's amazing for a city the size of Columbus! When Hancocks was director in Seattle, attendance went down most years he was there. Could this be the reason he left? Was he forced out? (I don't know) Like it or not, zoos are businesses. If you're a lousy businessman, you can't call yourself an expert.
(3) You asked, about Hancocks, "Why does someone with this much knowledge and experience, all of a sudden seem to have a different agenda?" I can only guess, but could the factor of being rejected in both Seattle and Tucson be a factor? He is now rejected by most of the Zoo World (at least in the USA), so wouldn't that push him towards an antagonistic attitude towards US zoos? Don't know if you knew this, but Hancocks frequently writes in to the Seattle papers, bashing his former zoo and their current leaders.
Just my thoughts.
Allen Nyhuis, Coauthor: America's Best Zoos
I think that you are on the right track Allen.
Similarly, Peter Stroud became rabidly anti-zoo only after his own actions rendered him unemployable by reputable zoos.
Allen,
I wondered where you were at. I didn't want to assume you had chicken out, as you don't seem kind.
I hung just as much paper for Jones & Jones as I did for David Hancocks. They are a business, one of the best, and David is an individual. I would assume they would continue generating revenue for the continuation of their business. What's with Disney? Are you on the mouse's payroll?
"There's more to zoo expertise than animal husbandry!!!!!" You are kidding me, right Allen. Granted there is more, but nothing is more important then animal husbandry. Jack is a self server, as was Perkins, as was Embry, as was Irvin. Are you suggesting that Columbus's success is not due to "Hollywood" as was Chicago's later St. Louis's, as is San Diego's, as is Australia Zoo, formerly Queensland Reptile and Fauna Park? Do you really think that "Hollywood" and the "tv zoo guy" won't hyper inflate the greatness of their institution? Maybe that is why Disney and Columbus with their Las Vegas temple ruins is so impressive to you. I guarantee none of them had the sincerity of a William Hornaday or a Bill Conway, as well as other notable Directors(Joanie exempted.)
In regards to Hancocks, making anonymous comments against his former affiliations, if that is the case, it sucks as big time as anything can suck, for anybody not just him.
This is addressed to Steve as well as you, Allen. Maybe he saw something, or got tired of seeing something, that wasn't right. Maybe instead of a "disgruntled employee" which is just a handy term now used too much as a defense, he has become a Col Claus von Stauffenberg leading a Valkyrie plot. Some could suggest they were "disgruntled employees". I wouldn't, and maybe it just wasn't right anymore, for Hancocks as well as many who have their beliefs changed by what they have seen. Maybe "disgusted employee" is more appropriate then "disgruntled employee."
None the less, the more we can find out about folks like Mr. Hancocks as well as his running mate Peter, the easier it will be to expose real agendas.
Regards,
Wade
A "disgruntled" or "disgusted" employee usually tips the bucket on his employer - not the whole industry.
I know little about Hancocks but I have had first hand experience with the other bloke.
He has been promoted to his level of incompetence in this industry, been well and truly exposed for what he is, and is now no longer employable.
So he has taken his limited knowledge and flogged it to the other side for a few pieces of silver.
I doubt that he has any other agenda than to white-ant the zoo world.
Steve,
"Disgruntled" is a popular catch word, and "disgusted" hasn't as yet been recognized, but it is my sincere hope that it is soon, as it is more appropriate in many situations. Disgruntled is normally someone with a personal beef against an employer, unpaid time, no day's off, let go for an unknown reason, etc. etc. Rather then proving innocence of the charges, it is convenient to claim "disgruntled" employee, making it seem their fault, and not yours. Disgusted employee is much different, and a good example is the whistle blowers on the tobacco industry for putting addictive agents in their tobacco product, and then lying about it. The scientist's weren't "disgruntled" at an employer, for a personal slight, they became "disgusted" at the industry for the practices that were carried on. On numerous occasions I have been accused of being a "disgruntled" employee which is only a alibi to cover an employers behind, so I just laugh and carry on. I coined "disgusted" because that is a label that I would valid. The thing I can't understand about "flogging it to the other side" is they are as far out of the realm of reality as the side that claims all is righteous.
Wade
Mr Hancocks,
I honestly admire your past work as a zoo exhibit designer, and I honestly agree with some of the things you said. Zoos across the country either phased out their gorilla exhibits, or totally transformed them. Same with elephants, but in my opinion, some of these "new" exhibits fail to meet the elephant's needs. Granted, it vastly improves animal husbandry, but that "wow" moment when a visitor steps into the environment isn't that prevalent. It is there, yet doesn't stand as tall. I have not seen your magnum opus at Woodland Park in person, but the pictures and videos I see show just how much effort you, Mr. Jones and Mr. Coe put into your work. I'm all for zoos, but if they don't educate the public properly, and doesn't send the message. Zoos should be places where people are enchanted by animals, enchanted by the environment around them. Be it the African Savanna, the Arctic Circle, or the Jungles of French Guyana and the Amazon, zoos should make that effort. I'm sorry if I'm rambling, and I hope I didn't waste your time.
Greetings Raatul,
Here is a video of Mr. Handcocks speaking at a 2012 'Future of Zoos' conference in Buffalo, New York. I too highly respect him and his extensive knowledge and learn much from his early printed work's, but have noted a big change in his philosophy's and thinking. Change is good, indeed imperative in creating as good of a world as is possible for an animal. Mr. Handcocks seem's to have flip flopped in his belief's. In the video he moan's the fact that there are only hot dog's and such for a zoo visitor, and nothing provided for a vegan. I don't believe in anything special for any one person, faith or nationality and could care less about what you chose to eat, but that statement point's to a a total different agenda that Mr. Handcocks may be advocating today.
https://youtu.be/1BOaDKtXouA
Wade Burck
Post a Comment