Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Carlos del Vaca]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR2008080201169.html

Wombat?  Seriously, WTF?  I like elephants as much as the next guy, but sending away the hippo?  And the giraffes, from what I've heard?   

BOO TO THAT

[CortJstr]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR2008080201169.html

Wombat?  Seriously, WTF?  I like elephants as much as the next guy, but sending away the hippo?  And the giraffes, from what I've heard?  

BOO TO THAT

I blame the pandas. They are in some way responsible for every negative aspect of the zoo.

[wombat]

Oh, don't get me started.

I am sure it is true that elephants need more space than the zoo was previously providing. But there are two ways you could solve that problem: Either build a huge expensive new exhibit, or decide that in a zoo that's in the middle of a major city, you just don't have room to keep elephants.

What drives me crazy is that with the millions that are going to this exhibit, we could have set up breeding programs for many of the frog species that are going extinct. We could be saving entire species instead of a just giving a few individual elephants a nice place to live. (If you don't know about the frog extinction issue read this.) 

The party line at zoos is that they are important because they are in the forefront of conservation. This is sometimes true. But I don't see how keeping a few elephants in the middle of Washington DC contributes to that. The stock answer is that people need to be educated to care about animals, and that is true to some extent. But it's not like people don't know about elephants. I suspect that the real issue here is simply that the public expectation is that if they go to a major zoo, they will see elephants. And the zoo doesn't have the confidence to violate that expectation.

This seems like a bad use of limited funds, to me. But no one asked me.

The giraffes have been gone for quite a while, by the way. I don't know if they are planning to get any back when the exhibit is done.

[jaydub]

I'm at a zoo!  Where are my charismatic African megafauna!

[pmcd9]

They give the elephants priority because people love elephants.  Frogs have limited appeal.

[wombat]

Paul is right. And maybe that love of elephants means that people will be inspired to give more money. And maybe donations inspired by charismatic megafauna will trickle down to the animals with more limited appeal.

But, I have never seen any evidence of that. Like as far as I can tell, pandas at a zoo are like a winning football team at a university - gets you plenty of attention but does not seem to end up, say, raising the salary of linguistics professors or frog keepers.

[wombat]

Maybe for other sports, but not for anything else.  But they try to convince you that it's going to be good for unlovable common little ugly things at the university too. Which is a lie.

[wombat]

Actually, I always thought that professors ought to figure out how to get sponsorships and wear the names of companies on our clothes. Think of the captive audience staring at the Coke or Nike logo on my back as I'm writing on the chalkboard.  Wouldn't the advertising have gotten more attention on me doing something boring, than on a sports figure doing something interestingly distracting?

There's now a trend at zoos to have exhibits names after donors/sponsors. We haven't starting painting the Coke logo on the sides of the elephants yet though.

[pmcd9]

We haven't starting painting the Coke logo on the sides of the elephants yet though.

The key word being yet. 

[CortJstr]

Actually, I always thought that professors ought to figure out how to get sponsorships and wear the names of companies on our clothes. Think of the captive audience staring at the Coke or Nike logo on my back as I'm writing on the chalkboard.  Wouldn't the advertising have gotten more attention on me doing something boring, than on a sports figure doing something interestingly distracting?

There's now a trend at zoos to have exhibits names after donors/sponsors. We haven't starting painting the Coke logo on the sides of the elephants yet though.

That could work long-term. It's amazing how quickly people acclimate to that kind of advertising. I heard David Bern on the radio complaining about going to a Redskins game and seeing all kinds of adds all over FedEx Field. He was going on and on about how you can't look anywhere in FedEx Field without seeing an add for a cola or beer. And the areas around the scoreboards of FedEx Field are surrounded by ads too, so there's nowhere at all you can look and not see ads.

He was being very careful not to say any product names because he didn't want to encourage or help the advertising. But he said "FedEx Field" at least 2 dozen times without even realizing it. Because once it's there for a year or two it just seems natural. I still call it The Jack, mainly just to be a dick.

[pmcd9]

Or like the stadiums in Houston now have never had any name other than their sponsor.

I do like the nickname for Minute Maid Park, The Juice Box.

[AugustWest]

Oh, and what any football team does for a University is provide overflow funding for other sports that are not self supporting. I took a six figure ass kicking at Auburn and the check from that funded Title IX opportunities for women in 3 other sports that year, for example.

You went to Auburn?

[Carlos del Vaca]

He was being very careful not to say any product names because he didn't want to encourage or help the advertising. But he said "FedEx Field" at least 2 dozen times without even realizing it. Because once it's there for a year or two it just seems natural. I still call it The Jack, mainly just to be a dick.

Actually, he kind of has to call it "Fedex Field," because of the most glaring example of Dan Snyder's douchbaggery (which Cort is probably well aware of, but I shall relate for the non-Washingtonians in the crowd).

The Cooke family demanded that the deal selling the team to Snyder include a clause specifying that the stadium was "Jack Kent Cooke Stadium," and it would never be renamed.  Snyder reluctantly agreed.  After the deal was complete, Snyder announced that the field had been named "FedEx Field," and the whole monstrosity was "FedEx Field at Jack Kent Cooke Stadium," and any media outlet referring to it as other than "FedEx Field" would have their credentials revoked.

Thus, the curse of Jack Kent Cooke.  The Redskins shall not win a Super Bowl until they refer to the stadium according to JKC's wishes.

[CortJstr]

any media outlet referring to it as other than "FedEx Field" would have their credentials revoked.

Thus, the curse of Jack Kent Cooke.  The Redskins shall not win a Super Bowl until they refer to the stadium according to JKC's wishes.

I had heard that, but I doubt the all-talk station is really concerned with losing press credentials at Redskins stadium, since they don't even have any sports shows that I'm aware of. I think it was just habit on the host's part. But maybe the station is just paranoid because that Tony Kornhouser or whatever guy does seem to talk about sports an awful lot.

Also, I'm pretty sure that JKC didn't name the stadium after himself. I think it was his son after he died, so it would be the Cooke family's wishes.

[pmcd9]

Tony Kornholer?