Fairly Common Animals That Don't Thrive in Captivity

C

Crotalus

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
A while back I posted a thread that asked why some species of birds seemingly easy to keep are not often kept. Today I want to make an antithesis thread that discusses commonly kept animals (or at least seen at, say, every other zoo or aquarium) that you think don't do well in captivity.

This thread is to discuss specific species or just groups of animals somewhat commonly kept that just, in your opinion, don't do well in a captive environment. If you have seen examples that stand out where your species actually does well, please describe it!

For me, it's salmonids. I have never seen a salmonid in captivity (a fully-grown salmonid, fry seem fine) that looks decent. They all seem very pale, are often very slow-moving in comparison to wild animals, and just...they don't look right to me. I'm also not sure if they live that long.
 
Crotalus said:
For me, it's salmonids. I have never seen a salmonid in captivity (a fully-grown salmonid, fry seem fine) that looks decent. They all seem very pale, are often very slow-moving in comparison to wild animals, and just...they don't look right to me. I'm also not sure if they live that long.
Click to expand...

What are you defining as salmonid? Only the salmon or trout and chars as well?
Personally I would say they do very well in captivity, I have seen many excellent specimens of a variety of salmonids in captivity, including Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, Brook Trout, Chinook Salmon, Atlantic Salmon, and Arctic Char.
 
Really? Well that's good to hear; in the collections I've visited they never seem to do very well. And I was talking mainly about salmon and trout; never seen char on exhibit. Trout and salmon at my local zoos and aquariums (and even Cabela's, hah) never seem to do as well as I would think, given they seem to be rather easy to care for given the right amount of space.
 
drill said:
Albatross
Click to expand...

tumblr_la8oecHgqF1qzrzrro1_400.jpg
 
TeaLovingDave said:
I wouldn't exactly call them commonly-kept :p
Click to expand...

Or even fairly common, to reference the thread title. Though too, albatross don't seem to be adverse to captive life necessarily, Monterey Bay Aquarium's older Laysan has been with them many years now. I would say albatross are more of a "quite possible but not often feasible." A fully flighted bird isn't well-suited to captivity, but an rehabbed flight-restricted bird seems to do just fine.
 
Great Argus said:
A fully flighted bird isn't well-suited to captivity, but an rehabbed flight-restricted bird seems to do just fine.
Click to expand...

Though the animal is living and getting well fed, I do wonder whether the animals is actually fine as it cannot perform any natural behaviour which a Wild albatross could. It is more of a living museum piece...
 
lowland anoa said:
Oh, the amazing Tea-Loving Dave has failed to read a thread’s title :p
Click to expand...

Don't you mean "the amazing Tea-Loving Dave has actually read the opening post of the thread which explicitly says the thread is to discuss commonly-kept species, not specifically those species common in the wild" :P

Crotalus said:
This thread is to discuss specific species or just groups of animals somewhat commonly kept that just, in your opinion, don't do well in a captive environment. If you have seen examples that stand out where your species actually does well, please describe it!
Click to expand...

It's apparent you didn't read that post, certainly ;)
 
We would hope that there are no commonly-kept species that don't thrive in captivity.
But of course there are always questions about the precise definition of terms, many species live long, healthy lives in captivity but never breed successfully - sometimes for reasons that are obvious (such as European and American eels), sometimes for unknown reasons (such as cheetahs for hundreds of years). Some species can apparently only be bred reliably in captivity by artificial means, such as by stripping eggs and sperm (some of the salmonids) and/or by hormone treatment (like the recent spawning of Garra barremiae at Chester). Which of these examples can be said to be thriving?
The example of the salmonids is interesting (and I'm sure that @Great Argus does really know that this is a precise term). A quick check on ZooTierListe will show that in Europe only brook trout and rainbow trout can possibly be called commonly-kept. It seems that they are the most tolerant species - the others are more demanding in terms of total space, stocking density, low temperatures, high oxygen demands, water flow rates etc: in addition some species, such as grayling, have a reputation for being very delicate, succumbing to very minor injuries such as the loss of a few scales.
If I had to nominate a classic example of a commonly-kept species which did not thrive, I would have to go back 50 years or so to the time when many establishments kept bottle-nosed dolphins. These included reputable zoos, like Whipsnade and Antwerp, safari parks and many smaller 'attractions'. There was even a story of a strip-club which installed a pool and trained a dolphin to remove the bikinis of young ladies who entered its pool. No way to treat a lady and certainly no way to treat a dolphin. I hope the story is apocryphal.
 
Moorish Idols and Ribbon Eels are often caught and sold in the aquarium trade but almost all perish in captivity. Very few private’s individuals have had success with these species, and even some aquariums struggle.
 
Albatrosses spend quite a lot of time on the ground when nesting, and walk well. A non-releasable 'non-flier' has to adjust to being in that mode permanently.
 
On the topic of albatrosses, aren't the two Laysan Albatrosses at Monterey (which I saw on my recent trip there, truly magnificent and breath-taking birds) the only ones that permanently reside in captivity?
 
Nine-banded armadillos apparently do poorly in captivity despite how numerous and widespread they are in their natural habitat.
 
evilmonkey239 said:
Nine-banded armadillos apparently do poorly in captivity despite how numerous and widespread they are in their natural habitat.
Click to expand...
I know Cosley Zoo has one as an animal ambassador, but i usually see Three Banded and Screaming Hairy Armadillo, but on Brookfield Zoos website it says they have one as an animal ambassador
 
From what I've observed I would say some of the common neotropical mustelids are difficult to keep in the sense of ensuring mental wellbeing in captivity.

This is particularly the case with the tayra and grison (although they breed fine in captivity) which are very prone to developing stereotypical behaviour.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top