Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

Chlidonias said:
I think there might be a bit of an American side to the general thought behind it being a "hot take", because of how many awful zoos there are in the USA (whereas a European could probably visit hundreds of zoos without any of them being like American roadside zoos). Even the posts themselves were specifying AZA and non-AZA zoos. I know that if I was visiting the USA I wouldn't be going to all that many zoos - even some of the AZA zoos look pretty depressing. A third-world zoo in a first-world country is not enticing.
Click to expand...

There are a few places in Europe too that are quite dubious, but still appear on some itineraries because of the rare species they keep. Tierpark Donnersberg in Germany is a zoo that fits very well within the roadside zoo category, which given to its location is fortunately rarely visited by zoochatters. But there are quite a few zoos that are preffered by European Zoochatters over similar-sized zoos with better animal husbandry solely because of their species list, such as Best Zoo (named after the town not the quality of the zoo).
 
  • Like
Reactions: JVM
Keeping cetaceans in captivity has been a historical net positive. So much of what we know about their intelligence has come from researching captive ones.

Certain species should continue to be kept as long as their exhibits meet the welfare standards. The problem is that few are willing to make such modifications, rather choosing to phase out their enclosures. I am also not opposed to even breeding cetaceans under certain circumstances, but aquariums should primarily be used for housing rescued wild individuals.
 
Komodo Dragon said:
Keeping cetaceans in captivity has been a historical net positive. So much of what we know about their intelligence has come from researching captive ones.

Certain species should continue to be kept as long as their exhibits meet the welfare standards. The problem is that few are willing to make such modifications, rather choosing to phase out their enclosures. I am also not opposed to even breeding cetaceans under certain circumstances, but aquariums should primarily be used for housing rescued wild individuals.
Click to expand...
100% agree that it is a historical net positive. We know so much more about cetaceans due to keeping them in captivity- and not strictly about intelligence either. Housing cetaceans in captivity has taught us about their physiology, biology, reproduction, nutrition, veterinary needs, and behavior as well. That said, I also think it is often important to differentiate between the historical benefits and the current day. Many of the foundational experiments in psychology which taught us most of what we know about the human mind would be considered unethical if attempted today. That doesn't mean we didn't gain valuable knowledge from them- but it is important to acknowledge that our ethical understanding of what is morally acceptable change with the times. Likewise, many of the early experiments in animal behavior were similarly very unethical by modern standards.

Overall, I can see both sides of the debate on cetaceans in zoos or aquariums today- at the very least I think we need to ensure that all individual whales and dolphins currently housed receive the best care and facilities possible for the remainders of their lives (which could be 50 plus years), and acknowledge the importance of some of the rehabilitation work done by SeaWorld and others surrounding marine mammals. That said, facilities that are able to house cetaceans well are few and far between, and the ones that do (e.g., Shedd Aquarium and Mystic Aquarium) need to go all-in on devoting resources to these high-profile animals. There's no shame in a facility deciding that they don't have the resources to house a particular species- especially when that species is of the likes of whales and elephants.
 
Related, keeping orcas in captivity is wrong not because their intelligence makes it evil (which I think is the main narrative among animal rights activists) but because their enormous size means that building a tank that would truly meet their needs would likely take up amounts of space and money no facility has. In addition, orcas overall aren’t even remotely endangered, and so said space and resources could probably put to better use keeping/breeding at-risk species that don’t have such enormous space requirements.
 
evilmonkey239 said:
Related, keeping orcas in captivity is wrong not because their intelligence makes it evil (which I think is the main narrative among animal rights activists) but because their enormous size means that building a tank that would truly meet their needs would likely take up amounts of space and money no facility has. In addition, orcas overall aren’t even remotely endangered, and so said space and resources could probably put to better use keeping/breeding at-risk species that don’t have such enormous space requirements.
Click to expand...
I'd just like to clarify, they're classified as Data Deficient by the IUCN so we really don't know how endangered they are, but it is true they're a very versatile species and amongst the smartest so it's safe to assume they'd be able to get over most problems barring no world-ending event or direct human hunt
 
Xavier GM said:
The Elephant Odyssey exhibit isn't that bad as people say it is.
Click to expand...
I agree, it has some somewhat inappropriate elements to it, but I think it mostly works.

The elephant exhibit isn't the most visually appealing, but it's a perfectly solid enclosure on its own for the animal its made for, and I think that goes for most of the exhibits in the complex. The only ones I actually take issue with are the lion and jaguar exhibits, more so the former.
 
NNM. said:
I agree, it has some somewhat inappropriate elements to it, but I think it mostly works.

The elephant exhibit isn't the most visually appealing, but it's a perfectly solid enclosure on its own for the animal its made for, and I think that goes for most of the exhibits in the complex. The only ones I actually take issue with are the lion and jaguar exhibits, more so the former.
Click to expand...
Just move the lions to Asian Passage and make that area a big new exhibit. Then make all the cat space in EO jaguar space.
 
remar said:
First of all. What should they do with the currently kept individuals?

Second, where should they get enough animals from?

And third, what are the benefits of amazonian manatees compared to the caribeans?
Click to expand...

I believe the Amazonian manatee population is not endangered at the moment, but it is vulnerable. Here are my reasons for this position:

  1. The Amazonian manatee is smaller than the West Indian manatee, making it potentially easier to manage. Additionally, it does not live in saltwater.
  2. I am particularly concerned about the Amazonian manatee because it is much harder to monitor. I fear that this species could experience a sudden population decline, similar to what happened to the Sumatran rhino, whose numbers were abruptly halved. This concern is less pronounced with the West Indian manatee because its habitat allows for easier monitoring via satellite imagery. I think U.S. zoos should focus on tracking the West Indian manatee, while European zoos should concentrate on the Amazonian species.
  3. I don't believe the population of West Indian manatees in Europe should be eliminated quickly. Instead, it should be gradually transferred to U.S. zoos. This is a long term take
 
gerome said:
Instead, it should be gradually transferred to U.S. zoos. This is a long term take
Click to expand...
There isn’t enough space in the US for manatees since almost all but one keep unreleasable rescues and they are not allowed to breed. Importing marine mammals, including captive bred species, into the country and across state lines is also a big hassle due to the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the endangered species act which is why zoos don’t want to deal with the logistics of manatees. So far your take hasn’t lost its heat yet.
 
tigris115 said:
Just move the lions to Asian Passage and make that area a big new exhibit. Then make all the cat space in EO jaguar space.
Click to expand...
I don't see the SDZ making that plan in the future. The next plan was to expand the polar bear habitat, but with the arrival of the giant pandas, the plans will have to wait.
 
I do beleive that it might be good idea really long term. But would say it is not the most realstic idea, But maybe in 20 to 40 years who knows.
 
birdsandbats said:
A hot take ideally means a realistic opinion and not an impossible fever dream. This is not a thread for bait, it's for meaningful discussions.
Click to expand...
Of which his point is neither bait nor theoretically impossible? In practice certainly but I found his reasoning to be fairly well thought out overall.

Besides a hot take literally just means an opinion not commonly held and against the grain. Which that certainly is. I can't help but feel like piling onto a newer member in a condescending manner is not particularly helpful.

gerome said:
I do beleive that it might be good idea really long term. But would say it is not the most realstic idea, But maybe in 20 to 40 years who knows.
Click to expand...
Manatees aren't massively widespread around Europe currently, and I don't see that changing in the next decade or more. If numbers were to increase I would imagine it would be within the current species, but it's not completely unreasonable to suggest otherwise - there were murmurings of Tierpark Berlin acquiring Amazonian manatees in the former masterplan, so who knows.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top