Cetaceans in captivity and the future of zoos

[TeaLovingDave]

{Note from mods - this thread split from here: Snowleopard's 2019 Road Trip: Netherlands, Belgium, France & Germany}

I then made my way towards the famous, almost legendary, Rio Negro House. There are 16 exhibits in the first room and 3 big tanks plus free-ranging species in the second room and the whole thing is the best part of the zoo. I watched ‘Baby’ the Boto (Amazon River Dolphin) for a long time, sitting on a bench and becoming sort of transfixed with the movements of the animal. The Boto is larger up close than I was expecting, with a lot of scars and scratches all over his body. The contortions in the water, the opening and closing of the mouth, the swimming upside down and in all directions…it was all truly fascinating and worth the trip to Duisburg Zoo right then and there.

The million dollar question, then - given your open distaste voiced both here and in the past for captive cetaceans - is what you made of the exhibit quality in the Rio Negro

 

[snowleopard]

Yes, @TeaLovingDave I am not a fan of cetaceans in captivity. I just read two books this year all about Orcas, reviewing one of them on ZooChat, and even setting aside the whole traumatic capture process of the 1960s and 1970s, the Orca tanks at the SeaWorld parks are simply not large enough and I've always thought that. Reading about how loads of Orcas have eye issues due to the chlorinated pools, or have terrible skin conditions due to the fact that they get sunburnt because they are always near the surface and cannot achieve the depths that they would in the ocean, etc., is tough. I'm happy to know that SeaWorld is eventually not going to have Orcas any longer and whales in captivity don't do it for me. Visiting the Vancouver Aquarium for decades and seeing the same Belugas circling around and around in a tiny tank and their entire lives are just going around and around in a small area...it was pitiful. As for the Rio Negro tank at Duisburg, 'Baby' has an area that cannot be altered and yet the space is not huge for a large aquatic species like a dolphin. I thought that the pool was better than I pictured it would be, which was a nice surprise, but at the end of the day there will never be a dolphin in that tank again and it's also too small for manatees.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

As for the Rio Negro tank at Duisburg, 'Baby' has an area that cannot be altered and yet the space is not huge for a large aquatic species like a dolphin. I thought that the pool was better than I pictured it would be, which was a nice surprise, but at the end of the day there will never be a dolphin in that tank again and it's also too small for manatees.

Funny thing is, it's now believed his longevity is precisely because he doesn't have a huge, deep pool turns out that river dolphins - at least in his species - are incapable of unihemispheric sleep and therefore cannot sleep on the move as oceanic cetaceans can, and need areas shallow enough to beach themselves whilst they sleep. Therefore, one of the major reasons that scores of river dolphins imported into Western collections had brief lifespans is that they tended towards either drowning or dying of exhaustion due to the tank style enclosures they were placed in. Both the old river dolphin exhibit at Duisburg (which now forms the indoor housing for Giant Otter, and it is mind-boggling that it once held five Boto) and the new exhibit avoided this issue.

 

[KevinB]

Yes, @TeaLovingDave I am not a fan of cetaceans in captivity. I just read two books this year all about Orcas, reviewing one of them on ZooChat, and even setting aside the whole traumatic capture process of the 1960s and 1970s, the Orca tanks at the SeaWorld parks are simply not large enough and I've always thought that. Reading about how loads of Orcas have eye issues due to the chlorinated pools, or have terrible skin conditions due to the fact that they get sunburnt because they are always near the surface and cannot achieve the depths that they would in the ocean, etc., is tough. I'm happy to know that SeaWorld is eventually not going to have Orcas any longer and whales in captivity don't do it for me. Visiting the Vancouver Aquarium for decades and seeing the same Belugas circling around and around in a tiny tank and their entire lives are just going around and around in a small area...it was pitiful. As for the Rio Negro tank at Duisburg, 'Baby' has an area that cannot be altered and yet the space is not huge for a large aquatic species like a dolphin. I thought that the pool was better than I pictured it would be, which was a nice surprise, but at the end of the day there will never be a dolphin in that tank again and it's also too small for manatees.

Without wishing to peel open very much further the very stinky can of worms that is cetacean captivity, I too share Snowleopard's uneasiness about the matter. I have read and heard the arguments of the advocates and defenders of cetacean captivity several times, but so far I am failing to be convinced.

At the very least I think that killer whales/orcas and belugas definitely do not belong in captivity and that the breeding of these species should be halted and the holding phased out, as well as that zoo organizations should impose rules of that nature on their members. With regards to bottlenose dolphins and other smaller cetaceans, it think it might still be possible to keep them in captivity and ensure their welfare, but even if it is the classical show dolphinarium, like the ones in existence at Boudewijn Seapark in Bruges, the Duisburg Zoo or Dolfinarium Harderwijk, is something that should become history and be replaced by something pretty different, something more along the lines of the lagune at Harderwijk probably.

That said, I think cetacean captivity is probably something that doesn't have very much of a future is many parts of the world for cultural, legal and economical reasons.

On another note and with regards to Duisburg, I am a bit surprised that you found the Rio Negro bassin too small for manatees. To me it would honestly seem to be a pretty decent size pool for a pair or trio of manatees. Also, is the manatee bassin in the Mangrove hall at Burgers' Zoo, which I believe you are yet to visit, really that immensely larger than the bassin in the Rio Negro?

 

[TeaLovingDave]

On another note and with regards to Duisburg, I am a bit surprised that you found the Rio Negro bassin too small for manatees. To me it would honestly seem to be a pretty decent size pool for a pair or trio of manatees. Also, is the manatee bassin in the Mangrove hall at Burgers' Zoo, which I believe you are yet to visit, really that immensely larger than the bassin in the Rio Negro?

I'd be inclined to say it most certainly is.

 

[HOMIN96]

I am not a fan of cetaceans in captivity. I just read two books this year all about Orcas, reviewing one of them on ZooChat

On cetaceans in captivity this is an interesting thing, made by Loro Parque, posted in its own thread by @KevinB, but I felt like it should be visible here as well, given the conversation. It proclaimes that it "debunks myths about cetaceans keeping," however, I'm not really convinced by some of their arguments (and they use some of those way too often)

 

[KevinB]

I posted the article HOMIN96 linked as an interesting resource with regards to not just cetaceans but animals in human care in general , not because I agree with everything said in the document or entirely with cetaceans in human care.

 

[HOMIN96]

with regards to not just cetaceans but animals in human care in general

The thing is, cetaceans are very specific taxon, and some of the problematics discussed in the document, can be really applied elsewhere. I. e. they are and will still be imports of wild-caught animals in the foreseeable future (not the critically endangered ones, obviously, but anything NT and below for sure) which pretty much goes against Loro Parque's arguments about sustainable populations and no imports from wilderness since year xxxx...

 

[lintworm]

I'd be inclined to say it most certainly is.

The manatee basin in Burgers is about twice as large in terms of volume.

 

[Bib Fortuna]

@KevinB. That said, I think cetacean captivity is probably something that doesn't have very much of a future is many parts of the world for cultural, legal and economical reasons.

I agree with you. But don't worry, cetaceans caged in zoos and dolphinariums are an obsolete model in Europe and America,as you said, and most of them will be gone in the next 25 years. Of course not in Russia and China ....The question remains, how long other intelligent animals such as primates, bears, seals and elephants , still locked up in zoos, have to spend their lives in captivity-but I think, also zoos do not have a bright future anymore.I give them 50, perhaps 60 more years. But maybe even not that long....It all depends on how the world political events develop - if the third world war comes earlier than expected of me, it is vinegar with zoos.I'm sorry, but in that sense I'm not an optimist. So, enjoy it as long as you can to visit as many zoos as you can to admirie imprisoned animals in captivity.

 

[KevinB]

I agree with you. But don't worry, cetaceans caged in zoos and dolphinariums are an obsolete model in Europe and America,as you said, and most of them will be gone in the next 25 years. Of course not in Russia and China ....The question remains, how long other intelligent animals such as primates, bears, seals and elephants , still locked up in zoos, have to spend their lives in captivity-but I think, also zoos do not have a bright future anymore.I give them 50, perhaps 60 more years. But maybe even not that long....It all depends on how the world political events develop - if the third world war comes earlier than expected of me, it is vinegar with zoos.I'm sorry, but in that sense I'm not an optimist. So, enjoy it as long as you can to visit as many zoos as you can to admirie imprisoned animals in captivity.

I am also pretty pessimistic about the future of zoos, but maybe for different reasons than the world politics mentioned above. I am very worried about the onslaught of animal rights activism and protests that target zoos and seem to be swaying a substantial proportion of public opinion. Today cetaceans in human care is a primary target, but other animals like elephants, great apes, big cats and polar bears in human care are also increasingly coming under fire from the activist crowd, and they make it very clear what their goal is: no more zoos - and they have part of the public on their hand and they are certainly trying to gain traction with politicians and lawmakers as well. I fear that the future existence of zoos is gradually being chipped away at by the influence of the animal rights movement in various aspects of society and politics, right now at a time in which I believe, due to the global environmental crisis, zoos have a more important potential role to play than ever before.

I personally don't see zoos lasting another 50 to 60 years in the current climate in some places with more government intervention and regulation like Europe or some states of the USA like California. Maybe 15 to 20 years, 30 years tops, to be honest is all that I am afraid is left now. And it is not just zoos, other things like animal agriculture, meat and dairy consumption, even the keeping of certain and in the end most pets are gradually being taken away by the attacks of the radical side of the animal rights and environmental movement - factions that authorities are pretty much everywhere failing to deal with harshly enough.

In any case, if you want to visit and enjoy zoos, personally I would say do it in the coming years.

As a last remark: I don't think we should be using terms like 'imprisoned' or 'locked up', which are terms the animal rights activists use to target zoos.

 

[sooty mangabey]

I think I’m quite a bit longer in the tooth than @KevinB, and thus I can afford to be somewhat more sanguine on this one.

I would suggest that the public acceptance of and support for zoos is stronger now than at any time I can remember - not least because zoos are, from a welfare perspective, so much better now than was the case 30 years ago: it would have been hard to defend, in the UK, Polar Bears in a concrete pit (at Bristol or Dudley), Dolphins in a small indoor swimming pool (in Brighton) or Elephants in small dusty yards (pretty much everywhere, but, for example, London or Colchester) - and yet all of these were present into the 1980s, or beyond.

Zoos receive more visitors now, despite there being so many other competing attractions. Memberships are up. Public support has never been clearer.

I really do not share the pessimism expressed above!

 

[Brum]

Zoos receive more visitors now, despite there being so many other competing attractions. Memberships are up. Public support has never been clearer.

I agree, we're constantly hearing how (good) zoos keep breaking attendance records (Chester anyone?) and most zoos I've been to recently have had a large number of guests. I think it's definitely safe to say zoos are here for the foreseeable future at least.

 

[Brum]

Dolphins in a small indoor swimming pool (in Brighton)

Funny you should mention the dolphins, we were talking about that enclosure on Saturday and it really was appalling. Funnily enough a swimming pool is exactly what I called it, it really looked like something you'd see at the local baths.

Zoos receive more visitors now, despite there being so many other competing attractions. Memberships are up. Public support has never been clearer.

I agree, we're constantly hearing how (good) zoos keep breaking attendance records (Chester anyone?) and most zoos I've been to recently have had a large number of guests. I think it's definitely safe to say zoos are here for the foreseeable future at least.

 

[Tim May]

Dolphins in a small indoor swimming pool (in Brighton) ......

...Funnily enough a swimming pool is exactly what I called it, it really looked like something you'd see at the local baths.

The first dolphins I ever saw were literally in a swimming pool; they were at the Margate Dolphinarium which was in one of the hotels on the seafront and the dolphins were housed in what was previously a swimming pool for the hotel's residents.

 

[Ned]

On the subject of zoo popularity, I started working in a zoo in 1985 at a time when Zoocheck was starting up and bears were the poster boys of the anti-zoo brigade. I felt quite pessimistic about the future of zoos and eventually left to pursue a different career. Almost 35 years later I see young college leavers just starting their careers as zookeepers and sometimes reflect how I could have spent my whole career in zoos.
It seems to me that the popularity of zoos ebbs and flows with economic booms and recessions. When there is money to invest and zoos are constantly opening new attractions people seem more positive about them, but when the money isn't there zoos stagnate and people fall out of love with them but contrary to the opinions of some, I think zoos will always be here in some form. If anything it is wilderness that will be gone in 60 years and all large terrestrial animals will be confined and managed a form of captivity. That said, I feel the discussion as to whether zoos are still here in 60 years is all academic, I don't believe life on earth has more than thirty years left.

 

[ANyhuis]

I am also pretty pessimistic about the future of zoos, but maybe for different reasons than the world politics mentioned above. I am very worried about the onslaught of animal rights activism and protests that target zoos and seem to be swaying a substantial proportion of public opinion. Today cetaceans in human care is a primary target, but other animals like elephants, great apes, big cats and polar bears in human care are also increasingly coming under fire from the activist crowd, and they make it very clear what their goal is: no more zoos - and they have part of the public on their hand and they are certainly trying to gain traction with politicians and lawmakers as well. I fear that the future existence of zoos is gradually being chipped away at by the influence of the animal rights movement in various aspects of society and politics, right now at a time in which I believe, due to the global environmental crisis, zoos have a more important potential role to play than ever before.

I personally don't see zoos lasting another 50 to 60 years in the current climate in some places with more government intervention and regulation like Europe or some states of the USA like California. Maybe 15 to 20 years, 30 years tops, to be honest is all that I am afraid is left now. And it is not just zoos, other things like animal agriculture, meat and dairy consumption, even the keeping of certain and in the end most pets are gradually being taken away by the attacks of the radical side of the animal rights and environmental movement - factions that authorities are pretty much everywhere failing to deal with harshly enough.

In any case, if you want to visit and enjoy zoos, personally I would say do it in the coming years.

As a last remark: I don't think we should be using terms like 'imprisoned' or 'locked up', which are terms the animal rights activists use to target zoos.

Wow, I love this guy! Every single thing you wrote, Kevin, is spot on! And for my friend Sooty's optimism on this subject, I HOPE you are right, but Kevin is right that these are definitely things to worry about. We also need to know how to counter the propaganda being put out by the anti-zoo folks. Ask people if they're glad that American bison (buffaloes) are not extinct, and then tell them they should thank the zoos that they can still see buffaloes. When people suggest to me that zoos are "animal prisons", I respond by saying, "No, zoos are animal resorts". When they say the animals are constrained in zoos, without freedom to leave when they want, tell them that so are our young children. Also, as Kevin ended, let's agree to not use any more anti-zoo language, such as "imprisoned", "locked up", "inmates", or "zoos are a necessary evil". Finally, if you don't approve of certain animals (cetaceans) being in zoos, fine. We can have that debate within the zoo community, and if zoos as a whole agree, then maybe they should be phased out of zoos. BUT we should NOT cooperate with the anti-zoo folks in helping government make rulings against cetaceans, or any other animals, being kept in zoos. That's a decision for zoos to make, not government.

 

[Andrew Swales]

I think I’m quite a bit longer in the tooth than @KevinB, and thus I can afford to be somewhat more sanguine on this one.

I would suggest that the public acceptance of and support for zoos is stronger now than at any time I can remember - not least because zoos are, from a welfare perspective, so much better now than was the case 30 years ago: it would have been hard to defend, in the UK, Polar Bears in a concrete pit (at Bristol or Dudley), Dolphins in a small indoor swimming pool (in Brighton) or Elephants in small dusty yards (pretty much everywhere, but, for example, London or Colchester) - and yet all of these were present into the 1980s, or beyond.

Zoos receive more visitors now, despite there being so many other competing attractions. Memberships are up. Public support has never been clearer.

I really do not share the pessimism expressed above!

My feeling is that of the two opinions voiced here I agree with sooty. In my lifetime support has been cyclical. In the 60s and 70s support for Zoos was equally as high as it is now. Many new collections opened. This was largely due to increased wealth and car ownership trickling down post war. Remember too that Sunday Trading laws meant no shops or retail outlets were open on a Sunday. By todays standards conditions were dreadful in many cases. At least the Polar Bears were in pits at Bristol and Dudley; two decades before they had been kept in concreted in circus rings with a human bath for a pool at Wellingborough, and not much better at Thorney.

Anti-zoo sentiment was led by BornFree and the BBC in the 1980s, and since then zoos have been doing well. Sooty is right; support has never been higher especially considering all the choices the modern world gives. The media's coverage is patchy, but look at the relentless promotion given by the BBC now to their selected choices, and the huge hike in visitation and revenue zoos like Chester and Longleat have enjoyed as a result. Not even Philp Wayre, George Cansdale and Desmond Morris achieved that, last time around.

The anti-zoo movement is there in the background now; but their extremism alienates the general visitor. As a small player they have even found us, largely due to media stories this summer; resulting in a couple of visits by a motley band of anti-zoo activists bolstered by hunt-saboteurs and militant vegans. The visiting public, who have brought their children out into the country for a visit, are very intolerant of attempts to disrupt their enjoyment.

Indeed, public support has never been clearer.

 

[Batto]

Just out of curiosity: how many anti-zoo people do you, dear pessimists, think actually exist? And I'm not talking about the blockheads who just parrot whatever they think is currently "woke" and then follow the next trend; I'm talking about the real fanatics - the aforementioned extremists. Got your number? Now compare that to the number of people working in and visiting zoos. Or generally keeping livestock, both commercially and privately. The fanatics like PETA, BornFree etc. might be vocal and pretend that they represent the majority of the population. Guess what: they don't; nobody likes them (except for some idiot politicians who think they can score them votes - which they don't). And even PETA celebs suddenly forget their precious previous principles once they have kids and want to spend a nice day with them at the zoo. Best example: pop musician Pink's trip to Tierpark Hagenbeck this July. And thanks to my kids, I'm certain that the world won't end in 30 years.

 

[Andrew Swales]

Just out of curiosity: how many anti-zoo people do you, dear pessimists, think actually exist?

In our (very limited) experience, and after many weeks of publicity, twelve - and some of those could only make it for half a day. These were spread between three separate groups, and there would have been many less, perhaps none if it had been wet, apparently...

The following Saturday we had 52 (maybe 54) IZES members...