Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

[JVM]

Not only have I in fact read every post in this thread, I said not a word about phase outs.

That comment about lurkers was not aimed at you and was not intended as such. While you did self-identify as a lurker, you posted the take, so in my mind you were a contributor. I was referring to other users who may happen to read the thread in the future. I think it is useful to remember not every user reads every post of every thread as a general rule of thumb on any message board, and it's never aimed at a specific user or board.

As to you not mentioning phase-outs, well, that comment was explicitly not referring to you and I think that was honestly pretty clear:

The AZA is not really popular around here at all, given it is widely associated with the phasing out of species and the increased bows to the activists you mention

This was me, talking to you, trying to agree with you and citing something I had seen other zoochatters bring up in other threads and in this thread before, in fact, the same one you have read through.

I obviously misunderstood you. You have a specific issue only with the accreditation process but no broader issues with the organization... and absolutely nobody has outright contradicted you, by the way. I tried to agree with you, and TinoPup and Great Argus, both much better-read members than me, have disagreed with me about things outside the accreditation process anyway.

I will now step out of the thread and unsusbscribe to avoid further error.

 

[La Cucaracha]

How is that a "hot take"?

Because criticizing the AZA lead to assumptions and defensiveness over things I hadn't mentioned.
Here's some other ones:
1. Vaquitas should be put in captivity while they're still extant.
2. There was nothing wrong with zoos breeding white tigers. Generic and inbred orange tigers exist too. Yes, I'm pointing fingers at the AZA.
3. The holier than thou attitude zoos and zookeepers have towards hobby reptile keepers is unwarranted. Even exotic animal vets don't always know more than hobby keepers and breeders do.

 

[La Cucaracha]

That comment about lurkers was not aimed at you and was not intended as such.

Well I sincerely and publicly apologize; the context was confusing.

 

[Chlidonias]

Because criticizing the AZA lead to assumptions and defensiveness over things I hadn't mentioned.

How does this answer what I asked?


First you said: "AZA accrediration is overrated. It's not cheap or free either; some facilities just can't afford it."

Next you entirely dropped the opinion part from the beginning and just said: "I said accreditation costs money that not every facility is large enough to afford to apply for. Clearly this is a hot take indeed."

It was this second statement to which I asked the question "why is this a hot take?" - what you said there is just a statement, which is either true or false. If it is true then it isn't a hot take, it is just a statement of fact. If it is false, then it also isn't a hot take, it is just an incorrect statement. By definition (as I understand it - not being an American), a hot take is a personal opinion on a matter which is contrary to the norm, not simply a statement which is either true or false.

Your answer - "Because criticizing the AZA lead to assumptions and defensiveness over things I hadn't mentioned" - has literally nothing to do with the cost of accreditation which is what you said the hot take was.

 

[Ursus]

In general, the pandering to animal rights activists has to stop. "Animal rights" and "animal welfare" are not interchangeable terms. How long before you can't keep carnivores in zoos because livestock has to be raised and slaughtered?

Sounds a bit dramatic

 

[Batto]

Even exotic animal vets don't always know more than hobby keepers and breeders do.

Neither do keepers and breeders automatically always know more about (exotic) veterinary medicine than specialised vets. Nor do they have the same legal competences and rights. Cooperation, not pissing contests, should be the goal.

 

[Batto]

Sounds a bit dramatic

There's already a tiny number of people who demand zoos to feed tofu etc. to their lions, snakes etc. It's usually the same kind of people who try to forcefeed a vegan diet to their domestic cats - and are always utterly surprised when the cats get sick.

 

[Ursus]

There's already a tiny number of people who demand zoos to feed tofu etc. to their lions, snakes etc. It's usually the same kind of people who try to forcefeed a vegan diet to their domestic cats - and are always utterly surprised when the cats get sick.

I've seen this before once or twice yeah, but I doubt it will effect zoos that much, at least that's what I would think. Given it also doesn't effect people that much, other then annoyances to one another.
So my take is that it feels a bit dramatic to raise the question of ''how long'' it takes before zoos have to feed their animals on plant-based diets

 

[La Cucaracha]

If it is true then it isn't a hot take, it is just a statement of fact.

Well I guess if we all agree that the AZA isn't perfect and bars smaller zoos from entry, then it isn't a hot take. But I stand by disagreeing with AZA's stance against breeding white tigers. They are still wild animals, originally found in the wild.

Sounds a bit dramatic

Colorado's Initiative 16 and Oregon's IP-13 were real attempts at this. Zoos in the western hemisphere can barely do carcass feedings in front of visitors as is.

Cooperation, not pissing contests, should be the goal.

This. I don't understand the divide between zoos and private keepers.

 

[Ursus]

Colorado's Initiative 16 and Oregon's IP-13 were real attempts at this. Zoos in the western hemisphere can barely do carcass feedings in front of visitors as is.

You say ''western hemisphere'' yet I find torn apart rabbits in the Netherlands and not that long ago we had the giraffe incident at Copenhagen. I cannot say for the entirety of Europe, but I think European zoos aren't too shy to feed whole rabbits, poultry and such, unless you don't count this as carcass feeding. Is this truly a ''western hemisphere'' thing, or maybe more localised within the US.

 

[La Cucaracha]

You say ''western hemisphere'' yet I find torn apart rabbits in the Netherlands and not that long ago we had the giraffe incident at Copenhagen.

Ah yes, Marius. I think zoos should feed surplus hoofstock to carnivores. It's their natural diet I'm not sure if Europeans are more comfortable with that than Americans; that would be an interesting poll.
I was reluctant to generalize zoos because, well, the live feedings of poultry and livestock in China. Am I a hypocrite if I'm not upset over live feeding fish? Legitimate question.

 

[Great Argus]

1. Vaquitas should be put in captivity while they're still extant.

A lot of problems with this one. To keep things a little simpler, the main problems are:

1. A rapidly dwindling population of Vaquitas that is difficult to find and monitor in the first place.
2. Capturing Vaquita has generally gone extremely poorly - if I am remembering correctly all attempts to keep Vaquitas in ocean pens have ended in the rapid death of at least one animal every time. The population cannot withstand that.
3. We know nothing of keeping the species in captivity, and rather little of their biology in general. Some can be guessed at by observing captive habits of Harbor Porpoises, but there seems to be further complexities regarding Vaquitas.
4. Even if the species could successfully be captured and kept just in sea pens, they would still be at risk due to the troubled nature of their native Ocean area. Other than keeping them in sea pens, the only other place with the capability to hold them properly would be SeaWorld - whom I'm sure does not want the AR backlash should things go sour, especially the high potential to do so.

Vaquitas in captivity just is not viable at this point, unfortunately. If it was going to be successful, it probably needed to happen long before any losses proved disastrous to an already tiny population and highly threatened species.

2. There was nothing wrong with zoos breeding white tigers. Generic and inbred orange tigers exist too. Yes, I'm pointing fingers at the AZA.

Nothing wrong with breeding highly inbred cats prone to health problems and genetic defects? I'm going to beg to differ. Many of the health problems with white tigers are due to their genes and are not found in normally colored littermates, even inbred ones. Not to mention lack of conservation value.

But I stand by disagreeing with AZA's stance against breeding white tigers. They are still wild animals, originally found in the wild.

They are found in the wild, true - but extremely rarely. There are far more white tigers in captivity than have ever been recorded in the wild. The variant is only common because of continued inbreeding, which has led to more white tigers and more issues with their health.

I support the AZA on the white tiger opinion as the cats serve very little conservation value, are genetically poor, and often suffer various heath problems. The populations of pure Siberian, Sumatran, and Malayan are a far better use of the AZA'S space and management.

Well I guess if we all agree that the AZA isn't perfect and bars smaller zoos from entry, then it isn't a hot take.

The AZA isn't perfect, but neither will any organization. However the comment about barring small zoos isn't true. I raise you Sequoia Park, Aquarium of the Bay, CuriOdyessey, Bailey-Matthews National Shell Museum, Scovill, Oglebay, Boston Museum of Science, Trevor, Brookgreen Gardens, Baylor University Bear Habitat, and the International Crane Foundation to name a handful. Not to mention Duke Lemur Center and Lubee Bat Conservancy as certified related facilities. There's even butterfly houses that are AZA accredited. The status is attainable for many small facilities if they really wanted it.

 

[Batto]

Zoos in the western hemisphere can barely do carcass feedings in front of visitors as is.

If you think of "western hemisphere" only as "US of A", and maybe Canada, then yes. If you extend that to Europe (as you should), in particular Northern and Central European zoos, then no: public carcass feeding is less contested here.

This. I don't understand the divide between zoos and private keepers.

I do, especially in regard to reptiles and "exotic pets". On the one side, there are too many inadequate private husbandries and ignorant private keepers too full of themselves, giving the whole matter a bad reputation. It's both annoying and unvoluntarily sad whenever a private armchair expert (who keeps his harmless inbred or hybrid morphs of common pet reptiles in inadequate ramshackle conditions) feels the need to explain to a pro how to handle and keep a, say, Jameson’s mamba, a Forsten's tortoise or a Boelen's python. On the other, there's a certain kind of elitism and snobbishness cultivated among staff members in major zoos, which results in them shielding themselves off from so-called "outsiders". Similar to their past interaction with circuses, these zoo people might secretly appreciate working together with private "urchins" if it benefits them, but they will publicly distance themselves to maintain their clean image as the one and only true professionals.
If more private keepers and private zoos learned to stop squabbling with one another (and their vets), organize & educate themselves and optimize their husbandry up to a professional level that puts that of zoos to shame (which, depending on the species, isn't always all too difficult), such zoo people will have a harder time to entertain said "class conceit". Especially as there are already great private keepers whose accomplishments and expertise outshine those of major established zoological institutions.

 

[15399]

Hello, longtime lurker. Here's my hot takes:
1. Acquisitions from the wild are not a bad thing if done legally and sustainably. Wild animals come from the wild.
2. "Roadside zoo" is as definable as the word "sanctuary". The goalposts on these change quite often.
3. AZA accrediration is overrated. It's not cheap or free either; some facilities just can't afford it.
4. Zoos turning their backs on circuses was counterintuitive. Lots of zoos used elephant hooks prior to local bans on them, and some zoos lost their elephants because of that.

In general, the pandering to animal rights activists has to stop. "Animal rights" and "animal welfare" are not interchangeable terms. How long before you can't keep carnivores in zoos because livestock has to be raised and slaughtered?

Just to add my two cents here:
1. I think most would agree with this, provided it's done ethically and sustainably. Especially when it comes to non-releasable rehabilitation, which is rather common with native species in zoos (for the US, black bears and Grizzly bears, cougars, bobcats, Bald Eagles, turkey vultures, black vultures, and white-tailed deer are a few species that the majority of individuals in zoos are rescues). The issue with taking animals from the wild is when, as historically done, it's unsustainable and taken in too large of quantities. Unfortunately, this is still done with a lot of Aquarium fish- which is why I have a difficult time supporting most aquariums.

2. I agree with this one in theory. The term is thrown around too often, sometimes in reference to anything that's not AZA, which is misusing the term. However, I think there's definitely such a thing as a roadside zoo, and we as a community need to do a better job of not throwing the term around unless we are truly talking about roadside zoos, that are for-profit and have poor animal welfare.

3. It is true that some zoos cannot afford AZA accreditation, and that's sad. I wouldn't call AZA accreditation "overrated" however, as there is a huge need for an organization self-regulating animal welfare (since the USDA won't do it) as well as taking lead on animal management. Without the AZA, you wouldn't have the SSP programs, which as much as some of us criticize in execution, it's imperative to have cooperative population management programs to ensure we have a sustainable source of Zoo animals for generations to come. However, I do acknowledge AZA accreditation isn't everything, and there are good zoos deserving of praise that aren't AZA accredited, plus a few AZA Zoos that it boggles my mind manage to keep getting accredited. I do think there's plenty of areas the AZA deserves criticism, but overall I would call them a net positive, as there is both a clear need for such an organization and overall AZA Zoos have much higher standards of animal welfare, conservation, and education than unaccredited zoos (with some notable exceptions). When looking for zoos to visit, for instance, I feel the need to vet every non-AZA place to determine if I can ethically support them, however being accredited by the AZA means a lot in terms of the quality of the facility, so I don't need to vet those facilities as carefully.

4. I think there's a big difference between zoos and circuses you aren't acknowledging with this point. An accredited zoo's mission is education and conservation, while for circuses the purpose is entertainment, which while important, is not the primary purpose of zoos. Furthermore, zoos are inherently able to provide higher welfare than circuses since they have permanent facilities, and the animals don't have to travel around the country performing. Furthermore, circuses I'd argue set a bad example in the minds of the public when it comes to big cats in particular, through showing tamed cats people can directly interact with, which is not true to the realities of such animals. Part of me wonders the role circuses played in the number of big cats in private hands in the US, with people seeing these lion and tiger tamers and then wanting one as a pet, versus in a zoo where the animals are displayed behind glass in a naturalistic environment.

5. I guess my response to this one is a question: are zoos pandering to animal rights activists? I'd argue that the answer to that is no. Zoos should be working to improve animal welfare and improve their standards and practices, and I think some on here equate this with pandering to the animal rights crowd, when in fact this couldn't be further from the truth. Historically, zoos did not have what's best for their animals in mind, and to this day zoos are doing a lot to correct this, giving larger and more naturalistic (from a behavioral perspective, not an aesthetic one) exhibits and improving the well-being of their collection. If zoos are changing the way they care for elephants to better simulate how these animals live in the wild, that's just correcting a past wrong by zoos and housing animals in the way they should be housed. Overall, one of my biggest criticisms of this site in particular is people's attitudes towards those they disagree with, such as animal rights activists. Personally, I like to view all these individuals as having good intentions, even if in practice they may not have the same views and beliefs as us. Both animal rights activists and good zoos want the same thing in the end: for animals to live the best lives possible. While we may disagree on the means of reaching this, the worst thing to do is to ignore or harass the other side, as doing so will only radicalize the other side or develop an animosity towards your side. Instead, what needs to happen is actual, productive discussion about these issues and a willingness to have open conversations, as this is the only way to change people's perspective towards zoos. As for your point about vegan lions, that's just a strawman. There's a big difference between instituting protected contact for elephants (something that should've been the norm already) and doing something that directly harms the animals. To equate improving animal welfare with forcing animals to go vegan is absurd, and counter to the reality of the relationships between zoos and animal rights groups. Remember a lot of these individuals do want what's best for the animals, and may just not understand what the best thing for the animals are. In order to help gain mutual understanding, we as Zoo people need to forge a working relationship with animal rights, as in the end both sides want what's best for the animals, even if we disagree on what "best" actually looks like.

 

[La Cucaracha]

If you extend that to Europe (as you should), in particular Northern and Central European zoos, then no: public carcass feeding is less contested here.

This implies a squeamishness in western Europe/Britain, which I suspected.
Still, nobody in this hemisphere is publicly live feeding donkeys to tigers. So I'm not convinced zoo visitors are universally squeamish, so much as allowed to be.

Overall, one of my biggest criticisms of this site in particular is people's attitudes towards those they disagree with, such as animal rights activists.

You cannot convince anti captivity people the value of zoos. You cannot build a better zoo for people that hate zoos. Animal rights activists do not want elephants in zoos, period. I've tried talking to and debating these folks.
Animal rights is a slippery slope; whereas animal welfare is measurable and practical form of bettering treatment for animals.

 

[Batto]

This implies a squeamishness in western Europe/Britain (...)

I'd rather call it cultural differences - which is a tad less derogatory.

You might not be able to convince or convert fanatic animal rights activists, but you can decrease their "working surface" by working professionally. Which also has the benefit to win over the silent majority.

 

[Batto]

An accredited zoo's mission is education and conservation, while for circuses the purpose is entertainment, which while important, is not the primary purpose of zoos.

Let's be honest: while there are some zoos that excel at education and conservation, the main reason why the vast majority of visitors goes to any zoo is entertainment (or recreation, as Heini Hediger put it). And there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn't negatively impact the welfare, health and dignity of the zoo animals as well as the other main tasks of a modern zoo, as defined by Hediger in the 1940s.

 

[Ursus]

You cannot convince anti captivity people the value of zoos. You cannot build a better zoo for people that hate zoos. Animal rights activists do not want elephants in zoos, period. I've tried talking to and debating these folks.

Not with that attitude.

 

[15399]

You cannot convince anti captivity people the value of zoos. You cannot build a better zoo for people that hate zoos. Animal rights activists do not want elephants in zoos, period. I've tried talking to and debating these folks.
Animal rights is a slippery slope; whereas animal welfare is measurable and practical form of bettering treatment for animals.

If every zoo person had that attitude, then you'd be absolutely correct. However, people's viewpoints are not set in stone, and everyone has room to grow and change their mind. The only way people will change their mind, however, is hearing opposing viewpoints in a non-judgmental manner. Furthermore, most people are not fully informed, instead basing opinions based on emotion or gut reactions. Being willing to talk and explain your opinion is a great way to, even if no one changes their mind, allows both sides a better understanding and better ability to work together. Many who have concern about zoos equate all zoos with the roadside variety- or the way all zoos were historically. Some may have never been to a zoo, or haven't since their childhood- and would likely change their opinion towards zoos if they are able to see the great work being done today, in the realms of education, conservation, rescue and rehabilitation, research, furthering animal welfare, and more. If you want to talk elephants specifically, while there is a small number completely opposed to elephants in captivity, a larger number are genuinely concerned for the well-being of the animals, and come from a place of good intentions. Part of this, I'd argue is on zoos for not having better messaging in regards to elephant management. Based on the connotations of the words, most people (if they don't know any better), assume that a sanctuary is better than a zoo by default- as much as you or I would disagree. Unless someone is willing to explain how both elephant sanctuaries in the US are full of tuberculosis and provide a more stressful environment for the elephants (changing social structures, losing the keepers they had relationships with, etc.), then these people would continue to believe that the sanctuaries are the better option. However, explain the realities of elephant sanctuaries vs. zoos in a non-judgmental manner that is easy to understand, and most would be willing to re-evaluate their perspective. It's also true that historically, zoos have not had good animal welfare, giving people good reason to oppose zoos, and many roadside zoos still have poor welfare to this day. For as long as roadside zoos are allowed to get away with so much, animal rights groups will continue to equate all zoos with the worst examples as such. Until these roadside zoos are willing to improve their own standards, frankly I'm a lot more sympathetic towards one who is opposed to zoos than someone who is okay with all zoos- and turns a blind eye to the roadside zoos with poor welfare.

 

[Lafone]

This implies a squeamishness in western Europe/Britain, which I suspected.
Still, nobody in this hemisphere is publicly live feeding donkeys to tigers. So I'm not convinced zoo visitors are universally squeamish, so much as allowed to be.



You cannot convince anti captivity people the value of zoos. You cannot build a better zoo for people that hate zoos. Animal rights activists do not want elephants in zoos, period. I've tried talking to and debating these folks.
Animal rights is a slippery slope; whereas animal welfare is measurable and practical form of bettering treatment for animals.

It’s hardly ‘squeamish’ to not want a zoo to create a spectacle by feeding a live donkey to a tiger. In a captive environment there is simply no need for it. How would any collection claim an animal welfare remit and do that.

Whole carcass / identifiable animal parts are however widely fed in the U.K. - in the last few weeks alone I’ve seen more than one whole deer, a deer head, deer parts and half a horse with the coat still on fed to a variety of animals in zoos I’ve visited. Rabbits, pigeon, surplus egg industry day old chicks and chicken parts are also very common. They are all dead first though. So not sure what squeamishness you’ve suspected tbh.

I get the ‘hot take’ thing is meant to be slightly ridiculous wind up material but you appear to be creating extremes just to illustrate straw men.

There’s no evidence people won’t change their minds when in a rational and sensible discussion. Indeed I think it’s a lot less likely any anti zoo person would change their mind in discussion with you if all you do is chuck around things like all animal right activists want to feed tofu to tigers and so no tigers will be kept in zoos any more. That’s just nonsense really isn’t it.

Neil summarises well above.

‘All’ zoos are not good by virtue of simply being zoos. Neither are ‘all’ zoos bad by virtue of simply being zoos. Both arguments at their extreme are as bad as each other.

If bad zoos or collections mistreat animals they do more harm to good zoos in the eyes of the public, particularly those who are on the fence about captive animals, than some one off suggestion about tofu.

As pro zoo people we should in my opinion want to see the very highest standards in all collections so the best zoos can continue to do excellent work and offer fantastic visitor experiences too.