Cetaceans in captivity and the future of zoos

[HOMIN96]

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.

Who is using them exactly?

"zoos are a necessary evil"

To be fair, they are. In an ideal world, you wouldn't need zoos to act as an educational and conservational institution. And I feel like for some people this "I'm doing something for the conservation" feeling is part of their motivation to visit the zoo. Would you lure as much visitor annually even without this motivation? I don't think so.

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.

So you are saying that zoos should have their own secure shell and not come out of it when it comes to law-making? You feel like it would be better if the government would be pressured and made laws only based on opinion of people you disagree with, without offering your view? I'm glad that (at least in our country) zoo people are not that shortsighted and actually work closely with government on laws that are important for zoos.

 

[snowleopard]

To address the naysayers that think zoos are doomed to oblivion...are you serious???

Here is an old thread that will illustrate a key point that I'm going to make:

New Aquariums in the U.S.A. (1990 onwards)

Above is a thread that I began more than 4 years ago, where I listed an incredible, staggering total of 65 new aquariums that opened between 1990 and 2015 in the USA. Think about that total for a minute. In the span of 15 years, 65 brand-new aquariums opened up in a single nation, not including all of the new zoos that also cropped up during that time span. And some people think that the era of captive animals is going to eventually come to a close? Uh...nope.

Zoos are always making headlines in my neck of the woods, because Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle, Point Defiance Zoo in Tacoma, Vancouver Aquarium and Calgary Zoo ALL broke their all-time attendance records in the past few years. All 4 of those major establishments are arguably more popular than they ever have been, and the nearby Seattle Aquarium is planning a new Ocean gallery building that will cost $130 million. Do you think that the aquarium will completely obliterate its all-time attendance record when that building opens in a few years? Uh...yep!

I could go on all day. Chester Zoo, the #1 zoo in the U.K., breaks its attendance records year-after-year. San Diego Zoo, the #1 zoo in the USA, hit 4 million visitors last year for the first time in its 113-year-old history. I could write a whole book about American zoos and how they are shattering attendance records as the population increases and zoos become viable sources of education, entertainment and a home for conservation.

Anyone thinking that zoos are fading is totally mistaken. The AZA link below states that in 2016 zoos and aquariums contributed more than $22.5 billion to the U.S. economy.

Zoo and Aquarium Statistics | AZA

More than 200 million people worldwide visit AZA zoos, and that's not including the other 9,000 zoos on the planet. Zoos are here to stay and aquariums are popping up like prairie dogs in all directions. Without a doubt zoo exhibits are getting better, older enclosures are being upgraded, the overall quality of zoos is improving at a fast rate, and attendance numbers are robust.

 

[HOMIN96]

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

This is actually something, I'm really sad about. I'm a type of guy that loves confrontation and discussing all the controversial topics around zoo problematic. One thing is to discuss it online, but face to face discussion is always the best. And I know that some of my classmates at the university are certainly "anti-zoo" but they never go into the confrontation with me when we discuss this topic in classes and I don't know why... I know they don't agree with my arguments, I can see it on their faces but they never say anything...also this usually results basically in a dialogue (sometimes trialogue, when of my zoo-working classmates join in) between me and the teacher when the rest of the class just sits awkwardly and watches so naturally, that doesn't really force me to try to make my arguments better

 

[KevinB]

I loath to be painted as being a naysayer who thinks zoos are doomed to go extinct, and I will admit that I may well have been a bit too negative when I expressed my admittedly pessimistic views earlier today. I am definitely willing to concede to the arguments voiced by others and I will look into these and the resources provided further in the nearby future.

That said, I am still worried about the future of zoos given that there is a small but nonetheless very active and vocal faction of radical animal rights activists who want zoos and a whole lot of other animal-related businesses, industries and practices to go extinct and who are definitely doing everything they can to achieve just that. I worry that they will be able to influence policy decisions in the future as they certainly do try to sway not only the general public but also politicians, government officials and those who make policy and laws. However idiotic the animal rights agenda may be, these activists certainly try to push it and force it on society and it is something that, in the absence of governments more tightly controlling these radical organizations and their anti-democratic agendas, we should not be ignoring.

It probably is not all doom and gloom, but that doesn't mean that zoos or zoo fans (and in fact anyone who works in or likes animal-related industries) should be complacent and allow themselves to not keep a close eye on the opposition.

I need to and will think more about and look more into this issues and the views given, but for now I do concede that I might have been a little overly pessimistic with the views expressed, even though I do stand behind my position that we need to be concerned and watchful about the influence of the animal rights movement.

 

[Haasje]

Concerning the future of zoos, I'm totally not worried. As long as human build settlements and civilisations, exotic wildlife captivity in one form or another has been part of its (social) fabric. This will surely also continue in the future. Although its form might indeed change in the coming decades. Surely the general zoos as of today will be extinct, as is the are almost all the form of the exhibition from 50 years ago, but new forms of the exhibition will have taken its place. Either in existing zoos or on brand new sights. The first forms might already be here. In Tropical houses as the Bush in Arnhem and Masoala in Zurich, over world-class experiences for visitors with outstanding animal well-fair. Those kinds of exhibition forms won't get outdated and are here to stay in the foreseeable future.

 

[Batto]

a small but nonetheless very active and vocal faction of radical animal rights activists who want zoos and a whole lot of other animal-related businesses, industries and practices to go extinct and who are definitely doing everything they can to achieve just that.

There are loads of vocal activists for whatever cause; radical anti-zoo activists are only a minor voice among a cacophony of many. I wouldn't deny that anti-zoo lobbyists can be an exhausting pain in the neck, but they are not the united axis of evil as envisioned by some. PETA, as the most infamous example, has lost quite a lot of sympathy (and thus, money) in recent years due to their various asininities. I think it makes more sense to educate the general public than try to argue with fanatics.

 

[DavidBrown]

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.

Most accredited zoos in North America are government entities, and many zoo animals (all?) are regulated by laws, so it is not really possible to separate zoos from government.

 

[ANyhuis]

Most accredited zoos in North America are government entities, and many zoo animals (all?) are regulated by laws, so it is not really possible to separate zoos from government.

All right, then I'll restate:
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 politicians make rulings against cetaceans, or any other animals, being kept in zoos. That's a decision for zoo officials to make, not politicians.

 

[CGSwans]

All right, then I'll restate:
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 politicians make rulings against cetaceans, or any other animals, being kept in zoos. That's a decision for zoo officials to make, not politicians.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that zoos exist outside the bounds of democracy and the regulatory state.

I suspect you and I agree, broadly, on cetaceans but the bolded bit above is a very silly statement.

 

[ANyhuis]

I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that zoos exist outside the bounds of democracy and the regulatory state.

I suspect you and I agree, broadly, on cetaceans but the bolded bit above is a very silly statement.

What's silly is stupid politicians (such as those in California and Canada) making decisions on what species zoos should be "allowed" to display. Should they also be able to decide which artwork is displayed at the local art museum? This is all classic "Big Brother" government running the show. The the people decide such things, based on if they actually come to see the animals or artwork.

 

[CGSwans]

What's silly is stupid politicians (such as those in California and Canada) making decisions on what species zoos should be "allowed" to display. Should they also be able to decide which artwork is displayed at the local art museum? This is all classic "Big Brother" government running the show. The the people decide such things, based on if they actually come to see the animals or artwork.

Setting aside the right-wing talking point, the art comparison is nonsense. Artwork isn’t alive: it has no behaviours to express, cannot feel pain and, unless you really want to stretch the meaning of a conservator’s work, has no health needs to be met.

The more relevant, more honest comparison to make is with domestic animal welfare policy. Is it too Orwellian for the government to say you cannot torture your dog?

 

[Batto]

Artwork isn’t alive

Milo Moiré and other performance artists might disagree with you there...

 

[ANyhuis]

Setting aside the right-wing talking point, the art comparison is nonsense. Artwork isn’t alive: it has no behaviours to express, cannot feel pain and, unless you really want to stretch the meaning of a conservator’s work, has no health needs to be met.

The more relevant, more honest comparison to make is with domestic animal welfare policy. Is it too Orwellian for the government to say you cannot torture your dog?

What right-wing talking point? My point is not at all nonsense. Sure, animals can feel pain and have health needs, and who better to address those needs than zoo people, not stupid politicians! Why are you defending idiot politicians in Canada, California, and elsewhere who are imposing animal bans on zoos?

Consider this, what if suddenly Donald Trump decided he wants to "make zoos great again" and used executive orders to impose HIS ideas on zoos? Would you honestly be fine with that? What if a bunch of Hancocks disciples got politicians to outlaw carousels and trains in zoos? Or what if some equally idiotic politicians imposed a law that zoos cannot be legal without a train ride, a carousel, and a dolphin show?

 

[DavidBrown]

What right-wing talking point? My point is not at all nonsense. Sure, animals can feel pain and have health needs, and who better to address those needs than zoo people, not stupid politicians! Why are you defending idiot politicians in Canada, California, and elsewhere who are imposing animal bans on zoos?

Consider this, what if suddenly Donald Trump decided he wants to "make zoos great again" and used executive orders to impose HIS ideas on zoos? Would you honestly be fine with that? What if a bunch of Hancocks disciples got politicians to outlaw carousels and trains in zoos? Or what if some equally idiotic politicians imposed a law that zoos cannot be legal without a train ride, a carousel, and a dolphin show?

No "idiot politicians" in California are imposing animal bans in zoos as you falsely state. There was one state legislator who proposed stopping the breeding of orcas, but that was never made in to law, nor was it really taken seriously. Sea World made the decision to end orca exhibitions (eventually) in the face of public sentiment turning against keeping orcas in captivity and a resulting decline in attendance.

 

[ANyhuis]

No "idiot politicians" in California are imposing animal bans in zoos as you falsely state. There was one state legislator who proposed stopping the breeding of orcas, but that was never made in to law, nor was it really taken seriously. Sea World made the decision to end orca exhibitions (eventually) in the face of public sentiment turning against keeping orcas in captivity and a resulting decline in attendance.

It was the idiot politicians who started this, though. The only good news in this sad Sea World decision was that they wanted to tell Loro Parque to not breed their orcas (since they actually belong to Sea World), but Loro Parque essentially responded, "Sorry, but we HAVE TO breed the orcas -- it's required by the Spanish government!" Now those are politicians we all can love!

 

[Brum]

"Sorry, but we HAVE TO breed the orcas -- it's required by the Spanish government!" Now those are politicians we all can love!

Spanish politicians are great, look at Barcelona Zoo for example...

 

[DavidBrown]

It was the idiot politicians who started this, though.

That is not accurate. Ultimately it was a business decision by Sea World to not breed orcas. You are creating a false narrative about what is actually going on there.

 

[Cat-Man]

I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that zoos exist outside the bounds of democracy and the regulatory state.

I suspect you and I agree, broadly, on cetaceans but the bolded bit above is a very silly statement.

The idea of democratic accountability and technocracy is a political debate as old as time. Obviously zoo’s should not be outside the realm of political regulation but those decisions are best left to experts in that field (aka civil servants and the like) rather than politicians who have little experience in that sector.

 

[ANyhuis]

That is not accurate. Ultimately it was a business decision by Sea World to not breed orcas. You are creating a false narrative about what is actually going on there.

I personally know someone who has worked with Sea World (in publicity) for years, and he told me Sea World felt badgered and forced to make this horrible decision.

Does anyone actually think Sea World will do better when they have no more orcas? Orcas are the brand animal of Sea World, going back to the 1960s.

 

[ANyhuis]

Spanish politicians are great, look at Barcelona Zoo for example...

In this situation, I'll take the Spanish politicians over those from Canada and California.