Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary/Nay Aug Zoo UPDATE

[mbs7]

Originally Posted by EnyaGirl

I don't really care if anyone agrees with what I saw..lol. I know what I saw, tyvm What reason would I have to lie about what I saw? There were piles of fresh fruits and vegetables given to the animals while I was there. I remember thinking "wow, they eat better than I do!" I just didn't experience emaciated or neglected animals there, sorry to disappoint ya.

EnyaGirl--I can't speak directly to what you saw at the GWC at feeding time because I wasn't standing there with you on that particular day, but I certainly don't think you're lying about it. I just think that what appears to be okay at first glance can start to look a lot worse if you dig a little deeper.

As I said, I don't know exactly what the animals were given on the day you visited. But I do know that on one occasion when I was at the GWC at feeding time, many of the animals did indeed appear to be receiving a lot of fruit and vegetables. I believe that the GWC gets donations of produce from one or more local stores. This produce is probably not super fresh, because I think (not sure about this) that the items being donated are things that did not sell or got bruised and are no longer in good enough shape to leave on the shelves. Still, I'm sure there is a lot of valuable nutrition even in the less-than-perfect produce the animals receive, and I salute those who donated it to the animals rather than just tossing it. That being said, the day I was at the GWC at feeding time I noticed that a very large volume of each portion of fresh produce being given to the animals consisted of iceberg lettuce, and while the iceberg lettuce may help the animals feel full, it has very little nutritional value. I also noticed mounds and mounds of lettuce (I think it was iceberg but I'm not positive) in shots of the GWC kitchen in a Times-Trib video.

And here's another thing to consider. Rather than creating "emaciated" animals, in some cases, the diet at the GWC is more likely to create obese animals. I know for a fact that in the past the GWC has been reprimanded by a USDA inspector for providing fattening treats to obese animals. The folks at the GWC seem to enjoy giving the animals sugar-filled treats. On the GWC's own web site there used to be a page stating that the binturong was given candy. That page disappeared a while ago; I don't know if it was taken down because of complaints about the candy or if it disappeared for other reasons--the GWC was reworking its site at the time. It also seems, from a series of posts left here earlier about the escape of Mario the macaque, that there are times when the GWC staff uses inappropriate treats to try to control their animals. Many animals are wary of strange food, so if the animals had never seen these inappropriate treats before, then it wouldn't make much sense to try to use the treats to tempt the animals. And we're not talking about some especially flavorful yet healthy items--we're talking about things like candy, soda, and marshmallow fluff. Giving such treats would be bad under any circumstances; giving them to animals that have very little room for exercise is an especially bad idea. (Btw, the sugary treats can also cause dental problems for the animals.)

Also, I'd like to point out that even a diet that appears appropriate to a human may not, in fact, be appropriate for the animals receiving it. Different species have unique requirements. Providing a healthy diet for as wide a range of species as are present at the GWC would be a challenge even for those with appropriate training and adequate funding, and I have seen no indication that the staff at the GWC has either the training or the funding required.

ScranBarre mentioned some emaciated animals. I'm not sure which ones he's referring to. As the center keeps reminding us, they do have some older animals and it is not uncommon for an older animal to have trouble maintaining its weight even if it is given a high calorie diet. Also, we're so used to seeing pets that are at least slightly overweight that an animal that is actually at its optimum weight may appear too lean to us. And, it's entirely possible that some of the animals at the GWC (particularly those that are not interested in sugary treats) are **not** receiving enough calories. The big cats, for example, require large quantities of meat, and that can get very expensive.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it's impossible to judge the full quality of an animal's diet just by looking at the animal's weight or at the food it received on one particular day.

[mbs7]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

From a suburbanite's perspective it was actually a large variety of factors that drew me into the park. The reinvigoration of the Genesis Wildlife Center was one of the low "selling points" that attracted me to the park. I was much more impressed by the Davis Trail down to the Nay Aug Gorge waterfall when it first opened to much fanfare. I am a huge fan of Ricketts Glen State Park, but why drive 40 minutes and then hike a few miles to be relaxed by the sounds of falling water when I can just shoot 10-15 minutes up I-81 and get the same satisfaction? A lot of people unfamiliar with the park (or even Scranton in general) have been drawn there due to the impressive number of annual festivals, charity walks, and other special events hosted there. As more and more people were drawn to the park for these events they became aware of the park's benefits (and of course its many challenges), which is why there is now so much more civic involvement in restoring the park to its former grandeur.

You're probably the only person I've met thus far who thinks the park is worse off now than before 2000. Is it a money pit? Most certainly. However, not ALL of that money was "wasted," Dan. Tell that to the low-income children who enjoy Free Swim Days at the park with the awesome water slide. Tell that to the handicapped children who are able to enjoy the new swing set that was built with money raised by city teenagers. Tell that to the many bird-watchers, photographers, and hikers alike who now enjoy the park. Yes, Dan, I agree that the city has many of its priorities confused, but the park really IS a nice place if you'd look at it OVERALL instead of just staring at the ruts in the Davis Trail or the emaciated-looking animals at the wildlife center. Once again you're just fixating on the negatives. You may have no use for this park since you live across town, but stop antagonizing those of us who DO like visiting the park. For what it's worth I always donate generously when I visit the wildlife center, and I also give a nice donation when driving through the park for its annual Christmas lights display. I'm not just someone who takes and takes without giving anything back.

I hate to get under your skin, Dan, but your incessant portrayal of Nay Aug Park as being the "money pit from hell" is just totally unfair. Would you rather it still be sitting there rotting away?

I don't want to get too far off-topic here, but I just wanted to note that I agree that there have been many real improvements at Nay Aug. In fact, if those improvements had not been made, the conditions at the GWC would be marginally less shocking than they are. As it is, it seems as if most of the park has made it into the 21st century, but then there's this disturbing time warp bubble around the old zoo building. I don't know: maybe Scranton should advertise itself as the only city in the world where you can experience a real, live time warp bubble. Unfortunately, upon entering the time warp bubble, I certainly didn't feel any younger. If the city could tinker with the time warp bubble to make those who enter it feel younger, then Scranton would be all set. I mean, like **really** all set, you know, forever. And ever. Really. (Sorry for the sarcasm, but, as usual, I couldn't resist. And it was directed at the GWC, **not** at ScranBarre!)