Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
In regards to the conversation on children in zoos, I certainly have some thoughts:
- The conduct of zoo visitors, children and adults, is a topic that has come up numerous times on this site, and it's a topic that frankly I'm not sure there is much which hasn't been said. Are there issues with zoo visitors, both children and adults, breaking zoo rules? Absolutely. Are there cases zoo visits of mine have been negatively impacted by unruly children or guests? Sure, but these are a noticeable minority of zoo guests, and do not reflect the vast majority of children or adults who visit zoos.
- Genuine discussion could be had on what zoos are doing to ensure guests behave and are respectful to other visitors, staff, and the animals. Like with anything else, some zoos do better than others with this. Analyzing what works and what doesn't, both in terms of signage and staff presence, is important, and within zoo associations (and broader circles as well) these conversations are happening.
- If you were to talk with as many people as you could who work with wildlife (either in zoos or the wild), and asked them all why they do what they do, I guarantee you that the vast majority would point to profound experience(s) in childhood. While some of them may happen in the wild, for instance catching frogs in a local pond or searching for bugs in their backyard, for many these experiences occurred in zoos. Without these profound experiences, many who entered the wildlife profession would've almost certainly ended up pursuing other interests. Besides the loss of a visitor base, banning children from zoos would easily be a death sentence to them, and the broader wildlife field, simply due to a lack of dedicated professionals wishing to enter the field.
- While a different issue than "banning children", I think a legitimate argument can be made about zoos needing to do more to attract adult visitors. Adult-only nights (or days) can be one successful way this happens, although zoos could also try other avenues, for instance offering adult education programs, choosing different advertising/community outreach opportunities, appeals to nostalgia, etc. I even half-seriously thought up an idea once for a "reverse children's zoo" of sorts- a section within a zoo, complete with animal exhibits, educational displays, etc., that is adult-exclusive.
Last edited:
And I'd go a step further and note that it wouldn't be a hot take to suggest that someone who seems to *only* be on Zoochat in order to post excessively absurd "hot takes" both within this thread and in dedicated threads of their own creation, with the apparent hope of causing argument and strife, is probably not adding any actual value to the community
I think the real problem in my experience is almost every adult-oriented zoo event I see is usually linked to alcohol, and that isn't something I'm always comfortable with - perhaps I'm meant to imagine an elegant, cultural wine tasting but I always end up imagining rowdy drunk. I'd really like to see more 'adult education'-type of activities - such as an event where guests can talk directly to zookeepers or something, or an 'open house'. The use of alcohol feels like a lazy shortcut, more so when done repeatedly as separate events.
IcthyoRider
Member
That's something that I would like to second with out parroting what you said. My last visit to the Shedd Aquarium was great, but when I want to take something home I couldn't find anything that scratched my interest on the history of the aquarium or books on research and field guides. I guess that's what the library is for, but it would be awesome to see educational reading material for adults.
Unfortunately books for adults just don't sell, especially now that everyone has the internet in their pockets. The profit margin on books tends to be low, as well, so when shops have to decide between giving that space to a book that might make them a few dollars over a long period vs candy, toys, etc that will sell fairly quickly with a higher profit per item, it's an obvious choice.
IcthyoRider
Member
True, but at least something in the adult realm would suffice. I guess this is my hot take, but I just don't like seeing standard shirts and overpriced hoodies for adult options. I would like something for us. Or more substantial reading material for kids or at least a small book section, but again as I said libraries exist for a reason.
Last edited:
Brookfield had a small, adult-oriented book store for decades, but it was acknowledged to be ran almost entirely by Mary Rabb and was often used to order rare books as favors. The fact this was so openly known and that it folded shortly after the Rabbs left has me imagine it was not a financially successful investment.
To my memory, Lincoln Park Zoo's gift shop held a lot more children's books when I was a kid - but also Brookfield held much more stuffed animals, which still ostensibly sell well, though I think some facilities may have narrowed out some of the less popular and more unique plush.
I think it might be good to just pick out a small number of core books. I love a good zoo history book and I think it would be wise for more facilities to keep such a book in stock long term, and those can be aimed at adults. I think we could see one or two broader but it's hard to say what. To be frank, I don't read a lot of adult-aimed books about wildlife - for similar reasons as TinoPup suggested, I'd usually read zoochat or check up-to-date online sources, and when I do back to books it's often those I bought when younger that may be out of date but hold a secondary personal value.
Here's a compromise suggestion though - what about a zoo book fair? An event once or twice a year, depending on support, where you simply bring in a ton of books across diverse interests for kids and adults. Bring in serious-minded readers and academics and kids who are buying their first animal books for themselves, so forth. Less worry about crowding gift shops with unsold stock long-term. Just a thought.
To my memory, Lincoln Park Zoo's gift shop held a lot more children's books when I was a kid - but also Brookfield held much more stuffed animals, which still ostensibly sell well, though I think some facilities may have narrowed out some of the less popular and more unique plush.
I think it might be good to just pick out a small number of core books. I love a good zoo history book and I think it would be wise for more facilities to keep such a book in stock long term, and those can be aimed at adults. I think we could see one or two broader but it's hard to say what. To be frank, I don't read a lot of adult-aimed books about wildlife - for similar reasons as TinoPup suggested, I'd usually read zoochat or check up-to-date online sources, and when I do back to books it's often those I bought when younger that may be out of date but hold a secondary personal value.
Here's a compromise suggestion though - what about a zoo book fair? An event once or twice a year, depending on support, where you simply bring in a ton of books across diverse interests for kids and adults. Bring in serious-minded readers and academics and kids who are buying their first animal books for themselves, so forth. Less worry about crowding gift shops with unsold stock long-term. Just a thought.
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
What is now billed as the "Asia Trail Gift Shop" at the National Zoo used to be called the Bookstore, and, in addition to the required plush and t-shirts, used to sell an impressive array of adult books, some of them actual serious, scholarly works, as well as narrative non-fiction that made for lighter reading. I still have a copy of Colin Tudge's "Last Animals at the Zoo" that I bought on a trip there over 20 years ago.
I understand that such ventures aren't super profitable and have limited appeal these days (besides - so much book-shopping has been replaced by Amazon and e-readers), but I do miss the days when zoos were seen as having a more serious, academic side, which has been lost in many places in favor of an emphasis on inspiration/wonder (speaking of books, the late Terry Maple's "Professor in the Zoo" is a great manifesto on that topic).
I understand that such ventures aren't super profitable and have limited appeal these days (besides - so much book-shopping has been replaced by Amazon and e-readers), but I do miss the days when zoos were seen as having a more serious, academic side, which has been lost in many places in favor of an emphasis on inspiration/wonder (speaking of books, the late Terry Maple's "Professor in the Zoo" is a great manifesto on that topic).
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
I have thought of doing such a bookstand or even an online archive of out of print zoo history books, but I will admit that the potential success is questionable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for this, I had the vaguest memory of it but wasn't sure if it was real! It's still the best gift shop and more adult-oriented, but only occasionally has some choice books (usually focused on conservation/environment, rather than zoos). The Natural History museum still has a book store, I really need to get back over there. I've picked up several good animal ones there in the past.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
The giant tortoise and blue iguana having their enclosures borderline trespassed into wouldn't be bad walkthrough exhibit animals, ironically.
I'll talk about the innumerable times a parent has dropped a child into a dangerous animal exhibit (including at SDZ) a different time.
I'll talk about the innumerable times a parent has dropped a child into a dangerous animal exhibit (including at SDZ) a different time.
Last edited by a moderator:
I care not what subspecies a tiger is in captivity. I feel the conservation message can be delivered just as powerfully with generic tigers as it can be with a particular clade or subspecies of tiger. In situ work and habitat conservation is more important that maintaining a captive population of a particular clade in far flung places, IMO.
I'll take this a step further: Nine times out of ten, I don't care what subspecies ANY captive animals are, and "subspecies" isn't even something that has ever come up as an important unit in any of the biology, animal behavior, or conservation related classes I've taken. While yes, there are evolutionarily significant sub-populations of a species (often referred to as "units" or ESUs), the notion of a "subspecies" has no basis in biological reality and instead is a way people have categorized living things in ways that are easier to understand. The tigers don't care if you call them "Panthera tigris altaica", "Panthera tigris", or a "significant population of Panthera tigris".
Hot take: breeding hybrid animals isn't going to do much if the point of most zoos' existences is to create contingency populations of wild animals. Subspecific breeding should (ideally) take priority over breeding generics of a species, be it sloth bears, giraffes, etc. I'm unsure if clouded leopards in the US are in that same camp, same with African wild dogs. Apparently there are little (if not negligible genetic differences) between Indian and Sri Lankan elephants, so considering that and how many calves are on the ground now, the benefits absolutely outweigh the costs/alternatives on that front. And it is understandable that zoos do want to switch to Masai giraffes down the line, but given the small founder base, generics do fill that void very well. (Side note, after volunteering at Elmwood Park, I grew to love their giraffe trio, they truly are amazing.)
THAT SAID, if the alternative to creating contingency populations is having robust in-situ conservation programs while having hybrids as ambassadors, the positives overwhelmingly outweigh any potential negatives. Maybe I'm saying something that's already happening, maybe I'm just preaching to the choir, but I do think zoos should absolutely do both and figure out ways of rewilding in a sustainable and practical manner (ergo expanding ex-situ conservation efforts) while also maintaining robust in-situ conservation programs.
THAT SAID, if the alternative to creating contingency populations is having robust in-situ conservation programs while having hybrids as ambassadors, the positives overwhelmingly outweigh any potential negatives. Maybe I'm saying something that's already happening, maybe I'm just preaching to the choir, but I do think zoos should absolutely do both and figure out ways of rewilding in a sustainable and practical manner (ergo expanding ex-situ conservation efforts) while also maintaining robust in-situ conservation programs.
On the flip side, in cases where the functional differences between subspecies is minimal, the genetic diversity of having a robust founder base, and lower rates of inbreeding depression, can outweigh the benefits of maintaining a more narrow genetic base. In a case like sloth bears, sure the sloth bears from Sri Lanka are slightly smaller and haves slightly different faces than those from the mainland, but in the grand scheme of things these aren't significant enough differences for me to be concerned about the fact the captive population is technically "generic".
Granted, there are cases where, from a functional diversity perspective, it is more important to preserve subpopulations of a species separately. African leopards would die if relocated to Russia, and likewise Amur leopards would die if relocated to Africa. This is a case the subpopulations have evolved to be uniquely adapted to vastly different habitats, and the case for managing these subpopulations separately is a lot easier to justify in leopards than in most other species.
And that is one interpretation of what the "point of most zoo's existences" is. There are also many other arguments here, for instance I'd say it is much more important to maintain strong education and community engagement programs, investing in research efforts, and providing resources (both economic and otherwise) to conservation efforts. Conservation programs are great, but it's much easier for captive rearing programs to happen in places closer to an animal's native range (e.g., for US zoos, head start programs for native turtles, reintroduction programs with red wolves, burying beetles, and hellbenders, etc.). In particular, it's important to have frequent founders imported into any captive program with the intent of reintroduction, as it only takes one or two generations for the loss of subtle, yet behaviorally important traits- such as antipredator strategies, that would turn almost any reintroduction effort into a failure.
That's a fair point, and having seen zoos highlight their partnerships with in-situ conservation efforts for these animals (such as the Giraffe Conservation Foundation, the Turgwe Hippo Trust, the Tsavo Trust, Polar Bears International, etc.) the positives you mention shouldn't be sneezed at in the slightest. I do generally prefer to see more subspecies rather than generics, less as someone who goes to a zoo in general and more as someone who goes to a zoo to see a particular species. That said, I am in a minority of people when it comes to those interests, as to most people, a sloth bear's a sloth bear. A tiger's a tiger. A giraffe's a giraffe.
Oh yeah - I didn't mention those benefits as I was honing in on the point of rewilding/having contingency populations of subspecific animals rather than generics, but now that you mention it those benefits matter just as much as in/ex-situ conservation as they get people excited about nature, and most importantly, make nature accessible to people in urban areas.
I think one other difference is if we are looking at it from a realist or idealist perspective. From an idealist perspective, I suspect you are correct- and having subspecific zoo populations is great. However, from a realist perspective, it's impossible to have an unlimited founder base, and in many of these cases the genetic diversity of a non-subspecific population can become much more important than conserving what is considered to be a "subspecies".