In an effort to gain a better understanding of the history of the Thompson Park Aviary, Councilwoman Roxanne Burns has asked the City Clerk to do further research on the facts relating to the decision to build the stucture.
Recent assertions have been made that officials did not know what they were building. Indeed a 1978 news article did use the phrase "(bird house)" after the word 'aviary'....Presumably because readers at the time (1978) may not know what an aviary is.
City Council did indeed know what an aviary was and debated it extensively in that era as an effort was made to spruce up the aging,city-operated zoo. Shortly after the Aviary was built, the City Council accepted donation of new lion cubs, in what is now seen as a dubious effort to hang on to a facility under increasing criticism for its treatment of animals.
At the time of the Aviary debate, Mayor Karl Burns said the structure is more than a bird house and would be something to be proud of. "I don't think we can continue to allow the park to deteriorate," the Mayor said....He added failure to follow through with the project would threaten state aid for the facility. (Some things never change.)
An overview of the our zoo done by officials of the Utica Zoo, praised the Aviary as "remarkable","incredibly sturdy" and "flexible in its applications."
"The exhibit has the most exciting potential." the report added.
A decade later, with the Zoo in disarray and facing closure, another report quoted the then Park Superintendent Robert Reid as saying the structure is "totally useless" . He also said it was difficult to find birds that fit its design.
While Mr. Reid had no formal training in running a zoo, he was charged with keeping the facility afloat during a sad period of transition.
Fast forward two decades and the Zoo, under private supervision, is a different facility with indigenous species and by most accounts much more appropriate in its mission and operation.
A debate has flared anew over the Aviary, with some saying it is indeed useless and others (City Council) of the opinion the interesting-to-look-at structure is a part of the Park and should be made viable.
Council toured the facility and has expressed a desire to have a dialogue with the Thompson Park Conservancy about the Aviary's future use and what is needed to achieve it.
There are no votes on Council in favor of razing the structure. As a city-owned asset a majority vote of the body would be needed to demolish it.
13 comments:
As someone who worked with the aviary for 6 years, this debate is silly at best. The structure is the product of a completely different generation of zoos and looks and functions like a old style cage. For anyone who knows anything about animal husbandry, exhibit design and public displays, the aviary weak in all three categories. Why in the world is city council even involved or care? Let the animal experts make these decisions and support them in trying to improve the zoo. There is nothing worse than politicians interfering in areas they know nothing about.
Just because they are elected by the people, these idiots think they are capable of running things.
I agree. Let the professionals run things.
They don't have the burden of listening to the people.
Jeff- I'm not too worried about the "bird house"...leave that to the animal professionals..however I believe I heard discussion this past week or slightly before about the city pd being dissatisfied with their present quarters and wanting out when the "lease" is up..is that correct ? THey don't like the location....should be closer to downtown...WELL HELLO. I believe that was stated amny many times back in 1992 when the "palace" on Waterman Drive was being built....and I can not to this day figure out how "we" (the city) ended up being a tennant to the county when we provided the land and infrastructure and the county built the building ? ? But any way, kinda funny how thast issue has come back around...but not so funny because any move is going to cost us $ $ $.
the warden.
Let the zoo do what it needs to do. What happened up there? It was a great place when we moved to Watertown in 2000. If they are trying to build it back to where it once was, let them.
How about getting another overview of the zoo done by officials of the Utica Zoo, they "praised the Aviary" previously and offer their (today)findings/suggestions to the city. Talking about it on a "Blog" serves no purpose in making a rational decision. And while at it let's have a few aviary professionals offer their input.
Actually I think discussing it on a blog is a good idea and you must too since you just did.
Thanks for reading and commenting !
John Foster (Zoo exec. director) knows what he's doing. Let him do his job.
The city council is acting like a bunch of idiot's. That thing is a piece of junk and an eye sore in the city of Watertown. Let the people that know what they are doing make the decision.
No I think it needs to stay, remember we had 2 professionals run the zoo into the ground, Rowdy Yates, and the Mall queen.
I was wondering if it would be feasible to use as another building or cage, can it be retrofit to use for something else, it is still a viable structure with a good foundation. I think discussing all of the options is better than jumping into a decision without input, thanks for letting us have a say.
I think zoos for entertainment are an abomination. Unless the birds can't survive in the wild. But collecting them for display is flat wrong. People want nature brought to them. Make the next exhibit a drive-thru with free Mtn Dew and the place will fill up every day.
I agree with this, to many times zoos are the problem.
Well it took a little time, but finally some sense is catching up to the "save the clock tower" bs and letters from little girl campaign. You have good people running your zoo. You should listen to them. You, Jeff, made this into a joke campaign the way it was first presented on this blog. It became a symbol of loving your town to keep something that made no sense. Jeff, this is largely your responsibility.
Post a Comment