Very deep stuff there but not sure it's relevant to the quoted post discussing the provenance of captive white-tailed deer
.Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
Very deep stuff there but not sure it's relevant to the quoted post discussing the provenance of captive white-tailed deer
.
I had a stroke trying to read this.
Very deep stuff there but not sure it's relevant to the quoted post discussing the provenance of captive white-tailed deer
Two words: Oh deer.
It feels like an AI wrote that comment.
Uh. The ones in AZA zoos are pretty much all rescues that otherwise would probably be euthanized.
There are plenty of other sanctuaries outside the AZA or some of the more reputable non-AZA Zoos could take them. North American Black Bears are common outside of the AZA anyways, so it wouldn't be that far of a reach to start sending rescues to the more reputable places. I'm okay with a handful of AZA Zoos keeping grizzlies if they want, but I don't like the fact the Least Concern North American Black Bear is taking up space from two endangered species in need of more holders, sloth and andean bears.
From my understanding, it’s not that grizzlies and black bears are taking up space that other more endangered bears could be using. It’s just that none of the other bear species are doing too well in terms of breeding in the US so most zoos turn to grizzlies and black bears to replace these other bear species that aren’t as plentiful.
I believe for Grizzlies non-AZA have to meet some extra criteria before USFWS will place a Grizzly at a facility. Most likely largely due to the destructive capability of a large bear, they don't want them escaping.
This is the main part of why the native bears are so prevalent. Especially with Sun Bear nearly gone and Polar struggling, there would be a lot of empty spaces for bears if we eliminated the American Black and the Grizzly from the AZA. There's just not nearly enough Sloth and Andeans to go around at present.
I think that phasing out grizzly bears is a bad idea, because I see a lot of value in representing North American species in North American zoos. I think it is important for zoos to foster an appreciation for the species which are native to their parts of the world, so that people are more in touch with what nature is like where they are from.
I also feel like North American species are undeservedly snubbed, in general. It is well documented that average zoogoers prefer charismatic megafauna over less well-known species who may have higher conservation value. I feel like many zoo-goers have a similar focus on favoring African and Asian ABC animals (elephants, tigers, giraffes) over North American wildlife (grizzly bears, bison, bald eagles). I would never suggest phasing African and Asian species out of North American zoos, but I don't think we should phase out Grizzly Bears either. In my opinion, Grizzly Bear phase outs would just make North American sections of zoos feel even more boring to the average zoogoer than they already are, and make them favor African and Asian sections even more heavily.
I also feel like North American species are undeservedly snubbed, in general. It is well documented that average zoogoers prefer charismatic megafauna over less well-known species who may have higher conservation value. I feel like many zoo-goers have a similar focus on favoring African and Asian ABC animals (elephants, tigers, giraffes) over North American wildlife (grizzly bears, bison, bald eagles). I would never suggest phasing African and Asian species out of North American zoos, but I don't think we should phase out Grizzly Bears either. In my opinion, Grizzly Bear phase outs would just make North American sections of zoos feel even more boring to the average zoogoer than they already are, and make them favor African and Asian sections even more heavily.
In addition to what's already been said, there really aren't places for them to go, though. The few real sanctuaries that exist are overwhelmed with all of the roadsides that have been closing, and all of the cats coming in from places like Wynnewood. The roadsides that are really interested in the species are also breeding them, because cubs = $$$. Roadsides also rarely have the resources to care for health problems and behavior issues that sometimes come with rescued bears. Black bears aren't taking space from sloth and andean bears, which wouldn't fit in native-themed areas.
Local wildlife education.
For zoochatters who live in the general area of southeast Michigan and northwest Ohio: the Toledo Zoo’s animal collection is definitely superior to the Detroit Zoo’s, but the Detroit Zoo’s outdoor animal habitats are generally higher quality.
Tyrannosaurus-PicoPico
Well-Known Member
I have a hot take believe it or not. It's definitely going to be a bit of a hot take coming from me, but here I go.
Believe it or not, the Indianapolis Zoo's International Orangutan Center is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. I've only been there once, so take this with a grain of salt. Although I do wish there could of been natrualistic features to it and I can see why so many people dislike it, functionally I do think it's a pretty decent exhibit. Orangutans in the wild have problems with falling out of trees due to their size, and the large structures for them can let them climb around without having to worry too much about falling. Although then again I did sort of have a bit of a " magical " moment with one of the female Orangutans, so that might be one of the reasons I actually kind of like the exhibit. Although if any of you do have your reasons for not liking the exhibit besides the fact that it's not that natrualistic, please let me know.
Believe it or not, the Indianapolis Zoo's International Orangutan Center is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. I've only been there once, so take this with a grain of salt. Although I do wish there could of been natrualistic features to it and I can see why so many people dislike it, functionally I do think it's a pretty decent exhibit. Orangutans in the wild have problems with falling out of trees due to their size, and the large structures for them can let them climb around without having to worry too much about falling. Although then again I did sort of have a bit of a " magical " moment with one of the female Orangutans, so that might be one of the reasons I actually kind of like the exhibit. Although if any of you do have your reasons for not liking the exhibit besides the fact that it's not that natrualistic, please let me know.
I go back and forth on the non-natural habitats. On the one hand, if they serve the needs of the individual animal (or zoo localized group) in a manner that is healthy and enriching, then why not? The animal is probably happy and likely never lived in a "natural" environment as it is. Further, our "natural" habitats are generally false natural anyways, utilizing fake plants, rocks, vines, etc.
On the other hand a constant statement we make is that these captive animals are ambassadors for the wild, both the animals in the wild and the biomes at large. Being ambassadors for the larger biome is important as there are a myriad smaller animals that are protected when we protect a larger environment.
Minimally we should create a home that is enriching and serves the space well, and exhibits such as the Indianapolis one go above the minimal and make a very nice space for the Orangutans. However, designing and building a habitat that represents the biome as well as serves the enrichment of the animal that lives in it is the ideal. This enables a more wholistic approach to the zoo - it enables us to teach people about the place these animals live, to show them why we should protect it. We could teach using graphics and other tools, but to actually show people what it looks like in the wild goes a lot longer way.
Taking the animal and putting it in a nice environment that is not representative of the habitat is potentially noble, it can help us to keep and potentially breed that animal - and that is a good hedge against extinction. But I feel we can do better with a more immersive and wholistic approach to conservation.
I don't think this is a hot take.
This is the popular opinion.
Perhaps…I don't think this is a hot take.
Here's a solid but likely unsurprising one: The people who really like zoos and going to them into adulthood are probably the least valuable patrons to the zoos themselves. We are critical, we've been to enough institutions to know what we like and don't like, and most of us will happily voice opinions.
The current zoo PR climate is antithetical to most but perhaps not all varieties of us nerds. They don't care about being unique or being a true destination-worthy attraction. They care about raking in cash from parents with bored kids and placating the AR activists to prevent themselves from becoming socially unacceptable on a massive scale.
The current zoo PR climate is antithetical to most but perhaps not all varieties of us nerds. They don't care about being unique or being a true destination-worthy attraction. They care about raking in cash from parents with bored kids and placating the AR activists to prevent themselves from becoming socially unacceptable on a massive scale.
I'm not sure this is a hot take - we all know this, we just choose to ignore it sometimes.
This isn't a hot take at all. There's just not that many of us, so overall we don't contribute much financially. In order to operate decent facilities, and participate in conservation, places need to bring in money.