Zoo "Confessions"

I've mentioned in other threads that I'm used to thinking of eastern black rhinoceros as the most common rhinoceros species as almost every US zoo I've visited is either a recent or current holder for these (Lincoln Park, Brookfield, Milwaukee, Denver, Saint Louis, Racine) -- meanwhile I've only seen Indian rhinoceros once and I've not actually seen White rhinoceros to date, even though those are fairly numerous species as well and the latter definitely outnumbers holders for black rhinoceros.by a noticeable margin!

In regards to the elephants at hand, I've been to three zoos that hold Asian elephants (Saint Louis, Denver, National) and three that hold or recently held African elephants (Milwaukee, Brookfield, Lincoln Park) and two complete non-holders (Racine, Henson Robinson) so far... during my upcoming trips, I'm expecting to see African at least once more and Asian at least once or twice more though, so it's staying relatively even.
 
JVM said:
I've mentioned in other threads that I'm used to thinking of eastern black rhinoceros as the most common rhinoceros species as almost every US zoo I've visited is either a recent or current holder for these (Lincoln Park, Brookfield, Milwaukee, Denver, Saint Louis, Racine) -- meanwhile I've only seen Indian rhinoceros once and I've not actually seen White rhinoceros to date, even though those are fairly numerous species as well and the latter definitely outnumbers holders for black rhinoceros.by a noticeable margin!

In regards to the elephants at hand, I've been to three zoos that hold Asian elephants (Saint Louis, Denver, National) and three that hold or recently held African elephants (Milwaukee, Brookfield, Lincoln Park) and two complete non-holders (Racine, Henson Robinson) so far... during my upcoming trips, I'm expecting to see African at least once more and Asian at least once or twice more though, so it's staying relatively even.
Click to expand...
I'm in a similar boat to you with how often I see rhinos- although almost exclusively due to a singular zoo. Rhinos as a whole are rare in Northeastern zoos, and most of the zoos with white rhinos are ones I don't frequent. However, Buffalo Zoo has both Eastern black and greater one-horned rhinos, so those two species I see quite frequently. That said, Southern whites are the rhinos I've seen at the most total zoos, however all six of the zoos I've seen that species at are ones I've visited only once since I started keeping track (Southwick's, DAK, Philadelphia, Bronx, Toronto, Detroit). To compare, I've seen greater one-horned rhinos at four zoos (Buffalo, Bronx, Toledo, Toronto) and Eastern black rhinos at only two (Buffalo and Cleveland). Even looking only at traditional zoos, most of the zoos I've been to have no rhinos (Capron Park, Stone, Franklin Park, Roger Williams, Rosamond Gifford, Buttonwood Park, Elmwood Park, the Wild Animal Park, Utica, Bergen County, Turtle Back, Staten Island, Central Park, Prospect Park, Queens). Granted, many of these are smaller zoos that I'd never expect to see rhinos at, but compared to other regions the zoos are smaller in the Northeast :D. It is notable that in New England, neither of the two larger AZA zoos (Franklin Park or Roger Williams) have rhinos though.
 
Rhinos seem to be another animal where one species is favored across a region while the others are rare. So far, DAK is the only zoo I have been to that holds Black Rhinos (I am not sure if Bronx had Black Rhinos back in the late 90s when I visited) and they were visible for all of 10 seconds from the safari ride. Indian Rhinos seem to be somewhere in between (I have been to 3 zoos with Indians).

White Rhinos, on the other hand, are fairly common in the Southeast and East Coast (it helps that they are frequently brought in by zoos that phase out their Elephants). I recall seeing in another thread (it may have been @Neil chace's Popular Zoo Mammals exhibit thread) that Black Rhinos become more common as you move out west?
 
Astrotom3000 said:
White Rhinos, on the other hand, are fairly common in the Southeast and East Coast (it helps that they are frequently brought in by zoos that phase out their Elephants). I recall seeing in another thread (it may have been @Neil chace's Popular Zoo Mammals exhibit thread) that Black Rhinos become more common as you move out west?
Click to expand...
Black rhinos are actually most common in the Midwest. Both Chicago zoos, Milwaukee and Racine in Wisconsin, Cincinnati and Cleveland in Ohio, Saint Louis and Kansas City, Blank Park in Iowa, and Great Plains in South Dakota all house the species.
 
Neil chace said:
Black rhinos are actually most common in the Midwest. Both Chicago zoos, Milwaukee and Racine in Wisconsin, Cincinnati and Cleveland in Ohio, Saint Louis and Kansas City, Blank Park in Iowa, and Great Plains in South Dakota all house the species.
Click to expand...
Milwaukee has no black rhinos at the moment, though they plan to bring them back in two or three years. Sedgwick County Zoo in Kansas also keeps black rhinoceros in the Midwest.
 
Kansas is viewed firmly as midwest and Colorado firmly west in my experience, though the Dakotas seem pretty ambiguous in my experience and Nebraska sometimes as well. Perhaps a good way to summarize may be that black rhinos seem more common in the interior states and less common in coastal states?
 
Astrotom3000 said:
I spend all day at facilities that most zoochatters say take 2-4 hours. Very rarely is this not the case (Greenville, Gatorland, etc.).
Click to expand...
I’m with you here. Whenever I go to Southwick’s or the New England Aquarium, I spend at least 4 hours. And while nobody would ever call the Bronx Zoo or the San Diego Zoo 2-4 hour zoos, I was at both of those for over eight hours and still missed Himalayan Highlands, all of the historic buildings in Zoo Center, and the Mouse House at the Bronx Zoo and the bear grottos at the San Diego Zoo. It wasn’t the end of the world, and I’d rather have more time to appreciate specific exhibits than rush around trying to see every last nook and cranny, but if I was the one making the travel plans, I’d dedicate an extra half day or even two full days to both of those zoos.
 
Last edited:
My “confession” is that I’m not as rabidly pro-zoo as I was just a few months ago, and while I still have some reservations about GFAS and their facilities, I’m not opposed to them anymore. I’ve just gotten frustrated lately with some trends in the zoo industry that I think are pretty concerning, such as going all-in on premium “animal encounters” with sensitive animals such as cheetahs, not to mention Zoo Miami’s kiwi disaster. I’m worried displaying cheetahs and other wild animals on leashes besides dogs makes the general public think of them as pets and “dewilds” them, not to mention the potential stress on the animals themselves. Another thing that’s concerned me lately is zoos’ hypocrisy selling plastic junk and factory-farm meat to visitors while supposedly promoting conservation. I’ll always support the most exceptional zoos and aquariums and follow news related to the industry, but I have definitely become more aware of issues with zoos/aquariums recently as my philosophy towards animals has shifted more towards the “nonhuman persons” side of things.
 
I ironically agree everything you said about animal interactions for the opposite reasons.

In addition to the plastics and cheap meats, I argue that American zoos are doomed to cause ecological harm due to not being able to do anything about the car centric culture of the United States which results in zoos building large parking lots, which are sometimes more than half the size of the zoo itself. I understand that this is mostly due to the parking requirements pushed by the cities and states rather than the zoos themselves, but as long as the car culture is not challenged the goal to save the biosphere won’t be as fast as people would like it to be.
 
I've only ever visited one major zoo in my entire life, and therefore have never seen many of the very popular animals (eg. mandrill, koala, cassowary, etc.). I guess that's how it goes when you've only got one zoo in generally close vicinity and no means of getting elsewhere.
 
Van Beal said:
I've only ever visited one major zoo in my entire life, and therefore have never seen many of the very popular animals (eg. mandrill, koala, cassowary, etc.). I guess that's how it goes when you've only got one zoo in generally close vicinity and no means of getting elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call of those species you listed common though, at least from a North American perspective.
 
I have been to Roger Williams Park Zoo many times, but each and every time, it’s been during the Jack-O Lantern Spectacular. Because of this I have never used the wetlands trail, and therefore never seen the muntjac exhibit there.
 
I have mixed feelings about transferring animals around from one zoo to another under the guise of the Species Survival Program (SSP). This is something I never really thought about until the last few years when I became a zoo member and started visiting frequently. Now when I read the animal transaction reports and see how the animals are sent from one place to another, I'm concerned about the stress this must cause them. Many of these animals are part of family groups and are taken away from their kin and familiar surroundings to go somewhere else with different zookeepers (whom the animals probably also have formed an attachment to) and potentially uncomfortable climate (too hot or cold). Sometimes this is done for rather dubious reasons like providing another zoo with an exhibit specimen. I feel like there should be some oversight that would balance the rights of animals with the needs of facilities. In the case where there is truly a need to diversify the gene pool for endangered or threatened species, that is one thing, but to take an animal away from its family just to provide some other zoo with an exhibit raises ethical concerns for me.
 
I don't feel confident about the future of zoos in the United States broadly and it often feels we are coming closer and closer to watching major facilities close. This is not a result of any rational analysis before anyone asks for evidence, but it is an extremely frequent feeling.
 
Lori Patton said:
I have mixed feelings about transferring animals around from one zoo to another under the guise of the Species Survival Program (SSP). This is something I never really thought about until the last few years when I became a zoo member and started visiting frequently. Now when I read the animal transaction reports and see how the animals are sent from one place to another, I'm concerned about the stress this must cause them. Many of these animals are part of family groups and are taken away from their kin and familiar surroundings to go somewhere else with different zookeepers (whom the animals probably also have formed an attachment to) and potentially uncomfortable climate (too hot or cold). Sometimes this is done for rather dubious reasons like providing another zoo with an exhibit specimen. I feel like there should be some oversight that would balance the rights of animals with the needs of facilities. In the case where there is truly a need to diversify the gene pool for endangered or threatened species, that is one thing, but to take an animal away from its family just to provide some other zoo with an exhibit raises ethical concerns for me.
Click to expand...
While I'm not saying that SSPs always make the best transfer recommendations, or that there's never been a transfer that probably wasn't in an animals' best interest, I think a lot of the criticisms you are stating here are overblown, as the vast majority of transfers which occur are in the best interest of individual animals:
  • Within the family groups of most species, one or both sexes almost always disperses upon reaching maturity. So while it may seem like animals are being "taken away from their kin", that's a fairly anthropomorphic view of it, when in most cases even in the wild those animals would be living their natal group. Animals often "tell us" when it's time to leave their natal group, either with an increase in certain agonistic behaviors or a decrease of typical social interactions with their group. It's up to zoos to listen to the animals in these instances, and transfer them to what will be a more suitable social grouping.
  • While transfers are not stress-free, much of the stress of transfers is simply short-term stress in moving and getting used to a new environment. Transferring an animal does not typically result in long-term distress.
  • As for your point about different zookeepers, typically zoos try to make sure animals don't form too strong of an attachment to their zookeepers. This is because keepers don't always stick around for forever too! It can be problematic for an animal to become overly used to a single caretaker, especially if it reaches the point of only doing certain behaviors (e.g., shifting, voluntary medical procedures, behavioral training) for that one keeper. No zookeeper sticks around forever, so these sorts of bonds can be problematic. While I expect there are some bonds between (at least certain species of) animals and their caretakers, these bonds aren't anything that the animals are unable to form again with no caretakers following a transfer.
  • To answer your question about climate, most zoos do most of their transfers during a particular "window" in which the climate is most comfortable for the animals that are moving. For something like San Diego, there might be a very wide window for transfers, however for a zoo in a more variable climate, whether that be Buffalo Zoo and the cold or Zoo Miami and the heat, most transfers will occur during a more narrow window that are less stressful, and better for the animals being transferred.
  • Most transfers are not happening "just" to provide a zoo with an exhibit animal. While yes, that is one consideration, as zoos need animals to exhibit, typically transfers that occur are going to benefit both zoos involved. Oftentimes, the zoo who the animal is transferring from also requested a new placement for that animal for a variety of reasons- whether that be space, social behavior, or no longer being able to best accommodate that individual.
  • What "rights of animals" are being violated by transfers? Zoos take many steps to ensure transfers which occur are going to be most successful for the individual animals involved. Animals who are particularly elderly or in poor health will oftentimes not be transferred since the stress involved could be detrimental. When possible, zoos will try to transfer animals a shorter distance instead of a longer one. Zoos aren't going to transfer animals in conditions that could be potentially dangerous. Unless there is a really good reason, zoos aren't going to break up compatible social groupings of their animals. Oftentimes, when looking at things from the animal's perspective, and not through an anthropomorphic lens, it would appear that there aren't any "rights" being violated by transferring them.
 
Neil chace said:
While I'm not saying that SSPs always make the best transfer recommendations, or that there's never been a transfer that probably wasn't in an animals' best interest, I think a lot of the criticisms you are stating here are overblown, as the vast majority of transfers which occur are in the best interest of individual animals:
  • Within the family groups of most species, one or both sexes almost always disperses upon reaching maturity. So while it may seem like animals are being "taken away from their kin", that's a fairly anthropomorphic view of it, when in most cases even in the wild those animals would be living their natal group. Animals often "tell us" when it's time to leave their natal group, either with an increase in certain agonistic behaviors or a decrease of typical social interactions with their group. It's up to zoos to listen to the animals in these instances, and transfer them to what will be a more suitable social grouping.
  • While transfers are not stress-free, much of the stress of transfers is simply short-term stress in moving and getting used to a new environment. Transferring an animal does not typically result in long-term distress.
  • As for your point about different zookeepers, typically zoos try to make sure animals don't form too strong of an attachment to their zookeepers. This is because keepers don't always stick around for forever too! It can be problematic for an animal to become overly used to a single caretaker, especially if it reaches the point of only doing certain behaviors (e.g., shifting, voluntary medical procedures, behavioral training) for that one keeper. No zookeeper sticks around forever, so these sorts of bonds can be problematic. While I expect there are some bonds between (at least certain species of) animals and their caretakers, these bonds aren't anything that the animals are unable to form again with no caretakers following a transfer.
  • To answer your question about climate, most zoos do most of their transfers during a particular "window" in which the climate is most comfortable for the animals that are moving. For something like San Diego, there might be a very wide window for transfers, however for a zoo in a more variable climate, whether that be Buffalo Zoo and the cold or Zoo Miami and the heat, most transfers will occur during a more narrow window that are less stressful, and better for the animals being transferred.
  • Most transfers are not happening "just" to provide a zoo with an exhibit animal. While yes, that is one consideration, as zoos need animals to exhibit, typically transfers that occur are going to benefit both zoos involved. Oftentimes, the zoo who the animal is transferring from also requested a new placement for that animal for a variety of reasons- whether that be space, social behavior, or no longer being able to best accommodate that individual.
  • What "rights of animals" are being violated by transfers? Zoos take many steps to ensure transfers which occur are going to be most successful for the individual animals involved. Animals who are particularly elderly or in poor health will oftentimes not be transferred since the stress involved could be detrimental. When possible, zoos will try to transfer animals a shorter distance instead of a longer one. Zoos aren't going to transfer animals in conditions that could be potentially dangerous. Unless there is a really good reason, zoos aren't going to break up compatible social groupings of their animals. Oftentimes, when looking at things from the animal's perspective, and not through an anthropomorphic lens, it would appear that there aren't any "rights" being violated by transferring them.
Click to expand...
@Neil chace , your response is very well thought out and you are obviously quite knowledgeable about the inner workings of zoos. This thread is called "Confessions" and my post reflects my own dilemma with the ethics of what I have personally become aware of with animal transfers at my local zoo. If the thread had been one about animal transfers in general, I likely would have written a different comment with more of a thesis and supporting statements as you have done.

To elaborate on my original post, I will cite two recent examples of transfers that concerned me. The Los Angeles Zoo housed two hippopotami until 2021 -- Mara and her daughter, Rosie (18 and 7-years-old at the time of transfer, respectively). Mara was transferred to the Honolulu Zoo and Rosie to Disney's Animal Kingdom in Florida. I know that female hippos usually stay in family groups in the wild. In my opinion, it would be very stressful for the hippos to be flown from California to Hawaii and Florida. It must have also been traumatic for Mara and Rosie to suddenly be without each other.

The L.A. Zoo's hippo exhibit was transformed to one for the greater one-horned rhinoceros last year and a four-year-old rhino, Marshall, was transferred from Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in September. He was scheduled to arrive sooner, but would not get on the transfer truck (obviously due to stress) and his transport was delayed. Marshall has been at the zoo for less than six months and has already lost his horn. It is my understanding that it got so worn down that it had to be removed. I'm not a rhino expert, but it isn't hard to surmise that Marshall was under stress in his new environment and over-rubbed his horn on too hard of a surface.

Now I personally love the zoo (visiting is one of my favorite pastimes) and am happy that the zoo has a rhino (would like to see hippos again, too). However, there is no denying that transfers are stressful for animals and may or may not be in their best interests depending on the circumstances.
 
Lori Patton said:
The L.A. Zoo's hippo exhibit was transformed to one for the greater one-horned rhinoceros last year and a four-year-old rhino, Marshall, was transferred from Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in September. He was scheduled to arrive sooner, but would not get on the transfer truck (obviously due to stress) and his transport was delayed.
Click to expand...
Have you ever tried to crate train an animal? It is a very unnatural thing for most animals to do. It is dismissive to say that it is “obviously due to stress” when in reality it is most likely that the keepers at Omaha did not start training the behavior soon enough. Many animals take months or even over a year of constant training in order to crate regularly. Any number of factors could affect the animal’s willingness to do so, but why would stress be one? It’s not like the rhino knew he was to be moved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top