Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

PossumRoach said:
Here's my hot take. I don't get the hype on subspecies or lookalike species nor how it is a blasphemy to hybridize indistinguishable ones.
Click to expand...

We've been through this before, and so this will be all I say on the matter.

Species and subspecies are separate for a reason. Because they have evolved, for hundreds of thousands of years, to develop different characteristics to adapt to the habitats they find themselves in. An African leopard would not survive for long in the Russian winter, and vice versa for example.

If you breed animals of a different species or even subspecies together you are, by definition, completely undoing the evolutionary process that has been undertaken by those species or subspecies. So yes, it is important that we respect this evolutionary process.
 
Neil chace said:
I do agree an active group of meerkats (or mongoose, although no zoo near me keeps mongoose) can be a very fascinating animal to watch. The zoo I volunteer at has a group of 11 (I think, might be 10 now) meerkats, and when they are active it can be a really cool Exhibit for everyone- volunteers, frequent visitors, firstime visitors, etc. When the meerkats are all snuggled up napping in their box, most people don't give them a second glance. Something that I've never gotten is why people complain about meerkats as being too common in zoos. There are plenty of zoos without meerkats, and their exhibits tend to be so small they don't really take a sizeable amount of room from other animals. I will most certainly complain about Ring-tailed lemurs and to a lesser extent North american river otters being too common in zoos, but I'm not one to complain about the meerkats.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree (though I love otters, and they're one of the species that's usually active). People will generally ignore any sleeping animal, outside of the majors like big cats and apes. I've seen mongoose species quite a few times and they've never been too active, mostly huddled together or resting, vs meerkats are usually doing some sort of thing. I think zoos should keep both, rather than either/or.
 
HOT TAKE: The progression in exhibit design and quality over the last 5-10 years pales in comparison to the progress made in zoo food. A few years ago the best you could do in most uk zoos was a rollover hot dog and some chips that tasted like they’d been left out in the sun for a couple days. Now it feels like BIAZA went through some kind of Gordon Ramsay boot camp, because now there are freaking wrap bars and high-end Italian restaurants. Houston’s Pantanal and Africa Rocks are great and all, but honestly that has to come second to an expensive low-quality corner shop becoming Babydoll’s Woodfire Pizza Restaurant.
 
Westcoastperson said:
SeaWorld does not belong in the AZA.
I have seen with both of my eyes the care that happens behind the scenes at SeaWorld San Diego and I can say for sure that they have some of the most dedicated people on the planet and some of the best care in the world. But the actions that their higher-ups (CEOs, presidents, etc) do not represent what an AZA aquarium should be.
They are for-profit meaning they make money off of the shows and animals. Instead of building better exhibits for their animals and dedicating themselves to animal care after BlackFish, they built more rides to bring back attendance. They have shown that they care more about money than conservation for years now by opening rides instead of renovating terrible exhibits.
They build terrible exhibits. Their Commersons Dolphin pool was so small it killed an animal and forced the company to move them to a larger exhibit in Florida. Those who have been to any SeaWorld park understand that they have small exhibits with a general lack of natural substrate and many of their exhibits severely lack in education.
They have set many industry standards because of their great care but that also means that some of the terrible things they do like build terrible exhibits and constantly use shows also become part of the industry standard. I can't think of one aquarium that only exhibits dolphins and doesn't also have shows. The AZA needs to set their own standards and aquariums need to stop following SeaWorld and build better exhibits and stop constantly using shows.
Also, one small note, no for-profit zoos or aquariums should be allowed in the AZA.
Click to expand...
I think this is a pretty popular opinion! :p
 
PossumRoach said:
What about bird only parks?
Click to expand...
I like birds, and while I have never had the opportunity to go to a bird-only park I would go to one at the first chance I get. I simply aren't very interested in most fish so generally am not a fan of aquariums that don't include other animals. It doesn't have to be Penguins or pinnipeds- I'd be interested in an Aquarium if they have an amphibian display or even a jellyfish/invertebrate display.
 
Neil chace said:
I like birds, and while I have never had the opportunity to go to a bird-only park I would go to one at the first chance I get. I simply aren't very interested in most fish so generally am not a fan of aquariums that don't include other animals. It doesn't have to be Penguins or pinnipeds- I'd be interested in an Aquarium if they have an amphibian display or even a jellyfish/invertebrate display.
Click to expand...
The best aquariums are the ones with lots of diverse species within each tank. (Excluding aggressive, predatory, or dangerous species of course.)
 
birdsandbats said:
This sounds quite contradictory to me.
Click to expand...
It is slightly contradictory until you look at where you both of these come from. Exhibit design comes of the SeaWorld headquarters, they decide how big or small an exhibit is. SeaWorld's great care comes from the staff who actually work with the animals. The story of JJ the Grey Whale makes this clear. It wasn't the headquarters that was helping them learn how to care for baleen whales. They didn't particularly care, it was the aquarists who learned how to feed JJ and enrich her. So when the care is put in the hands of SeaWorld's higher-ups they tend to take the easy route to earn more money, the aquarists take the animal's care very seriously and constantly innovate.
 
Neil chace said:
I like birds, and while I have never had the opportunity to go to a bird-only park I would go to one at the first chance I get. I simply aren't very interested in most fish so generally am not a fan of aquariums that don't include other animals. It doesn't have to be Penguins or pinnipeds- I'd be interested in an Aquarium if they have an amphibian display or even a jellyfish/invertebrate display.
Click to expand...
Ok, I hear you and I slightly understand I just find it hard to believe the only thing you would like to see in the Ocean Voyager exhibit at Georgia Aquarium is the Sea Turtle.
 
Westcoastperson said:
Ok, I hear you and I slightly understand I just find it hard to believe the only thing you would like to see in the Ocean Voyager exhibit at Georgia Aquarium is the Sea Turtle.
Click to expand...
I did say I'm not very interested in MOST fish... whale sharks and manta rays are some of the exceptions to this, as are most stingrays and sharks. I would not go to an aquarium solely to see sharks, but I am interested in them when I visit an aquarium. One of my favorite aquariums I've been to is the National Aquarium in Baltimore. I mainly went to see the various birds and amphibians on display, as well as the dolphins. However, I still enjoyed seeing the blacktip reef sharks, even if they weren't the reason I went to the aquarium. I'd love to reach Atlanta some day, and would definitely love to see manta rays and whale sharks when there, however I would not go solely to see these species.
 
Neil chace said:
whale sharks and manta rays are some of the exceptions to this, as are most stingrays and sharks
Click to expand...
Basically The Big and popular animals, then. :p

Here's a hot take of my own, Zoos who only house large and popular animals, (Lions, tigers, Bears, oh my,) I wouldn't bother visiting. A combination I think is key at least for me, (just my bias).
 
CheeseChameleon2007 said:
Basically The Big and popular animals, then. :p

Here's a hot take of my own, Zoos who only house large and popular animals, (Lions, tigers, Bears, oh my,) I wouldn't bother visiting. A combination I think is key at least for me, (just my bias).
Click to expand...
For aquariums, I do like the big and popular animals, but also amphibians, jellyfish, and birds. For zoos, I do like seeing the ABC animals (especially bears) but prefer some of the rarer animals, particularly birds and ungulates.
 
Neil chace said:
For aquariums, I do like the big and popular animals, but also amphibians, jellyfish, and birds. For zoos, I do like seeing the ABC animals (especially bears) but prefer some of the rarer animals, particularly birds and ungulates.
Click to expand...
Thats great, its not all just Lions, Pandas, and Red pandas out there kids. What about panda loaches? :p:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top