A little problem I have with the "migratory animal" anti-captivity argument

[Goji]

A lot of animal rights organizations use arguments along the lines of "well, the animal can do this crazy feat in the wild but not in captivity, so it shouldn't be in captivity". Heres why I have a problem with this.

One, there are already many animals in captivity that do crazy feats and migrations and do just as good, if not better, in captivity then in the wild. Some examples-

Loggerhead sea turtles, whale sharks, bottlenose dolphins, scalloped hammerhead sharks-and if we're talking animals just kept for rehabilitation, grey whales and leatherback sea turtles.

Second, these animals don't do these crazy things for sh*ts and giggles. They usually do it in a life-or-death situation. There's permanent populations for every "migratory" animal. Humpback whales in the Arabian Gulf, sperm whales in Dominica, white sharks in Mozambique and South Africa, sea turtles in Hawaii-if animals have an alternative, they won't migrate.

And finally, really only humans do taxing physical feats for fun. So, it really is just another example of anthropomorphization.

 

[joe99]

A lot of animal rights organizations use arguments along the lines of "well, the animal can do this crazy feat in the wild but not in captivity, so it shouldn't be in captivity". Heres why I have a problem with this.

One, there are already many animals in captivity that do crazy feats and migrations and do just as good, if not better, in captivity then in the wild. Some examples-

Loggerhead sea turtles, whale sharks, bottlenose dolphins, scalloped hammerhead sharks-and if we're talking animals just kept for rehabilitation, grey whales and leatherback sea turtles.

Second, these animals don't do these crazy things for sh*ts and giggles. They usually do it in a life-or-death situation. There's permanent populations for every "migratory" animal. Humpback whales in the Arabian Gulf, sperm whales in Dominica, white sharks in Mozambique and South Africa, sea turtles in Hawaii-if animals have an alternative, they won't migrate.

And finally, really only humans do taxing physical feats for fun. So, it really is just another example of anthropomorphization.

Zoo near me has a pair of rescued Bar tailed godwits, pinioned but still do well and still go though their breeding colours

While i agree with you, the is somewhat a caveat to it, since a lot of these animals still need some sort of area to roam and release that energy to move otherwise you get stereotypies, most popular in polar bears and elephants, animals that wander and migrate large distances.

There have also ben attempts to rear young leatherbacks in captivity for release and been somewhat successful

 

[Great Argus]

we're talking animals just kept for rehabilitation, grey whales and leatherback sea turtles.

Gray whales have not been kept for any major length of time, nor have adults been kept. I wouldn't argue they do well. Leatherbacks have long been problematic to keep, they have to be harnessed to avoid them crashing into walls once they start growing past hatchling stage. They seem unable to grasp the concept of confined spaces, like most other pelagic species.

There's permanent populations for every "migratory" animal.

I can think of numerous species that lack a resident population, including Arctic Tern, Snow Goose, Red-breasted Goose, Sabine's Gull, several shorebirds, and more.

if animals have an alternative, they won't migrate.

Not necessarily - many bird species will still head south even if food is available at feeders or other sources. Plenty have taken advantage of human-based food sources to stay further north; eg Canada Goose for one. But many migratory species don't stay put simply because their resource needs are met.

 

[aardvark250]

-
Loggerhead sea turtles, whale sharks, bottlenose dolphins, scalloped hammerhead sharks-and if we're talking animals just kept for rehabilitation, grey whales and leatherback sea turtles.

I'm not sure if any of these do better in captivity than in wild. Just because all these have been kept doesnt mean they do well. If you are making such point i'd argue migratory birds would've been a better choice.

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

A lot of animal rights organizations use arguments along the lines of "well, the animal can do this crazy feat in the wild but not in captivity, so it shouldn't be in captivity". Heres why I have a problem with this.

One, there are already many animals in captivity that do crazy feats and migrations and do just as good, if not better, in captivity then in the wild. Some examples-

Loggerhead sea turtles, whale sharks, bottlenose dolphins, scalloped hammerhead sharks-and if we're talking animals just kept for rehabilitation, grey whales and leatherback sea turtles.

Second, these animals don't do these crazy things for sh*ts and giggles. They usually do it in a life-or-death situation. There's permanent populations for every "migratory" animal. Humpback whales in the Arabian Gulf, sperm whales in Dominica, white sharks in Mozambique and South Africa, sea turtles in Hawaii-if animals have an alternative, they won't migrate.

Perhaps the truth is more nuanced than either the zoo world or animal rights groups have lead you to believe. At least in some animal groups, species that roam over larger distances in the wild are more prone to develop behavioural abnormalities when space-restricted compared to species with smaller home ranges. Additionally, "obligatory migrants" such as reed warblers are known to develop "migratory restlessness" when kept in an aviary, even if all their needs are met. Whether they loose this restlessness after a few generations in captivity I do not know, and likely differs between species.

That is not to say that animals cannot change their behavioural patterns, which has been observed in wild and captive animals alike. Some groups of storks or cranes in western Europe have stopped migrating as winters become shorter and milder, and there's more food available. It can also work the other way around: feral populations of snow goose and black swan, the ancestors of which may have lived in captivity for generations, develop migratory patterns when living free-flying in Europe.

Migration is a factor to keep in mind when talking about the welfare of zoo animals, but it is not as black-and-white as either "they don't want to migrate when their needs are met" or "not being able to migrate is torture for these animals".

And finally, really only humans do taxing physical feats for fun. So, it really is just another example of anthropomorphization.

I invite you to watch a band of ravens tumble through the sky together on a late summer afternoon. Or a litter of foxes, jumping and running around on a field in the early evening. Play is an extremely common feature of animal behaviour, and often involves 'taxing physical feats'. To state that the internal motivations of ravens or foxes are fundamentally different from ours is only an assumption.

 

[Lafone]

A lot of animal rights organizations use arguments along the lines of "well, the animal can do this crazy feat in the wild but not in captivity, so it shouldn't be in captivity". Heres why I have a problem with this.

One, there are already many animals in captivity that do crazy feats and migrations and do just as good, if not better, in captivity then in the wild. Some examples

Loggerhead sea turtles, whale sharks, bottlenose dolphins, scalloped hammerhead sharks-and if we're talking animals just kept for rehabilitation, grey whales and leatherback sea turtles.

What is the documented evidence that any of these species do better in captivity than in the wild?

This could read like a list of things you would like to see in captivity / want to see and therefore want to justify that against the obvious criticism that comes with having, say, whale sharks in little tanks.

I am in favour of (good) zoos but I don’t think they need to be seen as competing with keeping animals in the wild. At its best it is a complementary activity in my opinion.

Lots of anti zoo arguments are unfounded nonsense of course.

However some of your post reads like animals should do nothing but be held on human whim. They don’t ‘play’, they don’t need to have ranges or larger spaces, their migratory instincts are crazy or unjustified.

It strikes me that animals and their individual needs get a bit lost in the middle of arguments at the pointy ends of the pro and anti zoo spectrum.

There are some animals it is hard to keep in captivity and I am not sure what’s wrong with honestly facing into that if only to ensure they are kept in the best conditions designed around their specific needs.

 

[15399]

I invite you to watch a band of ravens tumble through the sky together on a late summer afternoon. Or a litter of foxes, jumping and running around on a field in the early evening. Play is an extremely common feature of animal behaviour, and often involves 'taxing physical feats'. To state that the internal motivations of ravens or foxes are fundamentally different from ours is only an assumption.

I will say, from an animal behavior perspective, that "play" behaviors oftentimes do have a fitness benefit. For younger individuals, play can be an important step to developing motor skills that are necessary as adults to hunt, survive, etc. Even as adults, a lot of 'taxing physical feats' serve as display behaviors or otherwise are part of social facilitation. There is an adaptive function to most of these "play" type behaviors and 'taxing physical feats', even if it doesn't seem obvious at first.

Perhaps the truth is more nuanced than either the zoo world or animal rights groups have lead you to believe. At least in some animal groups, species that roam over larger distances in the wild are more prone to develop behavioural abnormalities when space-restricted compared to species with smaller home ranges. Additionally, "obligatory migrants" such as reed warblers are known to develop "migratory restlessness" when kept in an aviary, even if all their needs are met. Whether they loose this restlessness after a few generations in captivity I do not know, and likely differs between species.

Indeed, the biggest issue with this argument is the overgeneralization. Certainly, there are migratory animals that thrive in zoos, with wildebeest being one that comes to mind. However, there are also migratory animals that don't thrive in zoos, and as zoo people we should acknowledge that some species simply aren't well-suited for zoos, for a variety of reasons. Some species, such as pelagic sharks, don't do well in captivity specifically because of, at least in part, their need to migrate and/or move large distances.

 

[Tapirus Lar]

Most of the times the animals that undertake long migrations do it because they're compelled to.
Long migrations are hazardous journeys that demand utmost physical endurance and resilience from animals, with many dying or becoming injured in the process. It is because they do not have suitable resources/climactic conditions/mates/habitat in a particular place periodically during a certain period of time that they're left with no choice than to migrate. An they return back to the same place, and don't settle down and form a new permanent population at the place they've migrated to , due to a replications of the same conditions that were the cause of their migration at their destination. So seasonal migratory habits are formed. All animals do not migrate. For the ones that don't, it is because they have sufficient resources, mates and habitat year-round so they have no need to migrate. Animals don't do it as a feat or publicity stunt, as @Goji said. No animal will undertake such a taxing and hazardous journey, if there are other better choices. Migration is often the last resort.
Most of the times the animal dies during the migration.
If we take the example of the annual great wildebeest migration in the Serengeti ecosystem, oftentimes calves born on the journey fall prey to predators, get trampled under the hooves of their own kind, or get separated from their mothers. Many wildebeest drown or fall prey to crocodiles during river crossings. Many die due to exhaustion. So there is no need for a migration which has so many drawbacks, including an equally hazardous return journey a few months after the initial migration.
If they had sufficient resources, they wouldn't migrate. This is the exact case in zoos. Animals in good zoos have enough space, plenty of food and water, protection from predators, and availability of mates[most of the times]. So there is no need for them to leave this haven, unless of course the enclosure and zoo are abhorrent. So while I'm not advocating for zoos o use this as a reason to give small exhibits to migratory animals [they require lots of space], I hope people understand the core points of my argument. Of course there are migratory species like whales, albatrosses etc. which shouldn't be kept in captivity, but for the ones that can, this is a plausible explanation.

 

[OkapiJohn]

This type of post has been quite common in the Forum lately. Listen, just because an animal lives and breeds it is not synonymous with thriving in captivity. That is what people in the 60s and 70s used to measure animal welfare. As some vets say: There are plenty of awful things you can do to an animal before it dies so life per se is not a measure of welfare. Fortunately, science has walked a long way since those backward times and what defines if an animal is well or not is way more complex. The list of species that actually thrive in zoos is quite small. Most species have issues with being captive. Stop saying "Most species do well in zoos". That is simply not true according to the true definition of the word thriving and the scientific definition of Animal welfare. Please go do some research about what animal welfare actually means. This type of post reflects the same level of ignorance towards animal biology as that of those people entitled "anti-zoo".

 

[tigris115]

So how come wildebeest do fine in zoos whereas other migratory ungulates like pronghorn and saiga are rly finicky?

 

[FBBird]

This type of post has been quite common in the Forum lately. Listen, just because an animal lives and breeds it is not synonymous with thriving in captivity. That is what people in the 60s and 70s used to measure animal welfare. As some vets say: There are plenty of awful things you can do to an animal before it dies so life per se is not a measure of welfare. Fortunately, science has walked a long way since those backward times and what defines if an animal is well or not is way more complex. The list of species that actually thrive in zoos is quite small. Most species have issues with being captive. Stop saying "Most species do well in zoos". That is simply not true according to the true definition of the word thriving and the scientific definition of Animal welfare. Please go do some research about what animal welfare actually means. This type of post reflects the same level of ignorance towards animal biology as that of those people entitled "anti-zoo".

Lots of sweeping generalisations here imho

 

[Chlidonias]

This type of post has been quite common in the Forum lately. Listen, just because an animal lives and breeds it is not synonymous with thriving in captivity. That is what people in the 60s and 70s used to measure animal welfare. As some vets say: There are plenty of awful things you can do to an animal before it dies so life per se is not a measure of welfare. Fortunately, science has walked a long way since those backward times and what defines if an animal is well or not is way more complex. The list of species that actually thrive in zoos is quite small. Most species have issues with being captive. Stop saying "Most species do well in zoos". That is simply not true according to the true definition of the word thriving and the scientific definition of Animal welfare. Please go do some research about what animal welfare actually means. This type of post reflects the same level of ignorance towards animal biology as that of those people entitled "anti-zoo".

What is "the true definition of the word thriving and the scientific definition of Animal welfare"?

 

[15399]

So how come wildebeest do fine in zoos whereas other migratory ungulates like pronghorn and saiga are rly finicky?

Well I don't think the reasons saiga and pronghorn have done poorly in captivity is because they are migratory, for starters, but instead due to their specific altitude/climate requirements. Pronghorns do well in some US zoos, too.

Most of the times the animals that undertake long migrations do it because they're compelled to.
Long migrations are hazardous journeys that demand utmost physical endurance and resilience from animals, with many dying or becoming injured in the process. It is because they do not have suitable resources/climactic conditions/mates/habitat in a particular place periodically during a certain period of time that they're left with no choice than to migrate. An they return back to the same place, and don't settle down and form a new permanent population at the place they've migrated to , due to a replications of the same conditions that were the cause of their migration at their destination. So seasonal migratory habits are formed. All animals do not migrate. For the ones that don't, it is because they have sufficient resources, mates and habitat year-round so they have no need to migrate. Animals don't do it as a feat or publicity stunt, as @Goji said. No animal will undertake such a taxing and hazardous journey, if there are other better choices. Migration is often the last resort.
Most of the times the animal dies during the migration.
If we take the example of the annual great wildebeest migration in the Serengeti ecosystem, oftentimes calves born on the journey fall prey to predators, get trampled under the hooves of their own kind, or get separated from their mothers. Many wildebeest drown or fall prey to crocodiles during river crossings. Many die due to exhaustion. So there is no need for a migration which has so many drawbacks, including an equally hazardous return journey a few months after the initial migration.
If they had sufficient resources, they wouldn't migrate. This is the exact case in zoos. Animals in good zoos have enough space, plenty of food and water, protection from predators, and availability of mates[most of the times]. So there is no need for them to leave this haven, unless of course the enclosure and zoo are abhorrent. So while I'm not advocating for zoos o use this as a reason to give small exhibits to migratory animals [they require lots of space], I hope people understand the core points of my argument. Of course there are migratory species like whales, albatrosses etc. which shouldn't be kept in captivity, but for the ones that can, this is a plausible explanation.

In many cases, animals have an innate instinct to migrate- as shown in monarch butterflies, who complete multi-generational migrations where the individuals who finish a migration are the descendants of those who started it. Even amongst a world of climate change, where migration may or may not have the same fitness benefits as it once had, animals will still continue to migrate due to the genetic instincts behind it. Yes, migration is not easy, and yes, lots of animals die along migratory journeys (songbirds are a good example of this), but I think you are over-emphasizing how much animals are making a conscious choice to migrate versus following what they are genetically or socially hardwired to do.

 

[15399]

Listen, just because an animal lives and breeds it is not synonymous with thriving in captivity.

100% agree with this sentence. "Thriving" is not the same as simply surviving.

As some vets say: There are plenty of awful things you can do to an animal before it dies so life per se is not a measure of welfare.

Correct- especially in some of the more common pet reptile species, where self-proclaimed "experts" have been promoting sub-par care standards for decades.

The list of species that actually thrive in zoos is quite small.

I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. There is a difference between species that can thrive in captivity, and species which have thrived in captivity. 100 years ago, we didn't know how to keep lowland gorillas alive in captivity, and nowadays I can confidently say that the lowland gorilla thrives in many zoos around the world. I wouldn't completely brush off the ability of any species to thrive in zoos, even if we haven't reached the point where we know how to make them thrive in zoos. Even if we stay away from hypotheticals about the future, the simple fact that we haven't even tried to keep many species in zoos (especially amongst invertebrates) means we don't even have enough data to show whether all species thrive in zoos or not.

Most species have issues with being captive. Stop saying "Most species do well in zoos".

Similar to above: I agree that saying "most species do well in zoos" may not reflect reality. We simply don't know whether all species of invertebrates, fish, rodents, etc., actually do well in zoos or not. That said, I also question what you mean by "most species have issues with being captive". All species have issues being captive under the wrong conditions, however I don't think those issues necessarily mean brushing off housing them in captivity at all. For example, many species don't thrive in zoos with vastly different climates than their native range. It'd be near-impossible to make elephants thrive in Greenland, and similarly to make musk ox thrive in Florida. That doesn't mean, however, that neither species is capable of thriving in zoos when housed under the correct set of conditions that allow them to thrive.

That is simply not true according to the true definition of the word thriving and the scientific definition of Animal welfare.

There is no one "scientific definition of animal welfare,". I've taken college-level animal welfare classes, and not even veterinarians and welfare experts all define or measure welfare in the same way. Some measure welfare based on the "Five Freedoms" model, others prefer the "Five Domains" model, both of which have their pros and cons. Some may put a particular emphasis on an animal's mental well-being, others will prioritize their physical well-being. Even if we look at welfare at the applied level, there are legitimate debates to be had about what constitutes "good" versus "bad" welfare for a particular individual or species within a specific context.

 

[OkapiJohn]

100% agree with this sentence. "Thriving" is not the same as simply surviving.


Correct- especially in some of the more common pet reptile species, where self-proclaimed "experts" have been promoting sub-par care standards for decades.


I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment. There is a difference between species that can thrive in captivity, and species which have thrived in captivity. 100 years ago, we didn't know how to keep lowland gorillas alive in captivity, and nowadays I can confidently say that the lowland gorilla thrives in many zoos around the world. I wouldn't completely brush off the ability of any species to thrive in zoos, even if we haven't reached the point where we know how to make them thrive in zoos. Even if we stay away from hypotheticals about the future, the simple fact that we haven't even tried to keep many species in zoos (especially amongst invertebrates) means we don't even have enough data to show whether all species thrive in zoos or not.


Similar to above: I agree that saying "most species do well in zoos" may not reflect reality. We simply don't know whether all species of invertebrates, fish, rodents, etc., actually do well in zoos or not. That said, I also question what you mean by "most species have issues with being captive". All species have issues being captive under the wrong conditions, however I don't think those issues necessarily mean brushing off housing them in captivity at all. For example, many species don't thrive in zoos with vastly different climates than their native range. It'd be near-impossible to make elephants thrive in Greenland, and similarly to make musk ox thrive in Florida. That doesn't mean, however, that neither species is capable of thriving in zoos when housed under the correct set of conditions that allow them to thrive.


There is no one "scientific definition of animal welfare,". I've taken college-level animal welfare classes, and not even veterinarians and welfare experts all define or measure welfare in the same way. Some measure welfare based on the "Five Freedoms" model, others prefer the "Five Domains" model, both of which have their pros and cons. Some may put a particular emphasis on an animal's mental well-being, others will prioritize their physical well-being. Even if we look at welfare at the applied level, there are legitimate debates to be had about what constitutes "good" versus "bad" welfare for a particular individual or species within a specific context.

Indeed there is not a single definition of Animal welfare. But that just highlights how complex it is.

About the Gorillas and other great apes. I am not a specialist but:
https://zslpublications.onlinelibra...M8ZRZ04Wvg51fH29uGkzudO151Pl1G-0J6GbMJ-N_WcNF
"Research indicates that regurgitation and reingestion (R/R) is a relatively common behaviour in zoo-housed great apes, with most studies to date carried out on Western lowland gorillas Gorilla gorilla gorilla and Chimpanzees Pan troglodytes. R/R is an abnormal behaviour because great apes are not anatomically adapted to regurgitate their food as part of their normal feeding processes, and because this behaviour has not been observed in members of the species living freely in the wild, in conditions that would allow a full behavioural range."
It states in the abstract of this review from 2018.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...ww2a3eyEVOb022QRZ92kfhnxbqKD3TtwPCh-Fmo6o2ip6

"Responses indicated that 60% of the AZA gorilla population engages in R/R to some degree and 24% of the population are observed exhibiting coprophagy on a weekly basis. With this preliminary information on coprophagy, and the realization that the Zoo community has been unsuccessful at eliminating R/R over the past 30 years, the next steps should be aimed at empirically assessing the potential drivers of these behaviors. Continuing efforts to further understand and eliminate R/R and coprophagy in zoo-housed primates is important not only because these behaviors are unsightly to visitors, but more importantly, R/R and coprophagy may signal deficiencies in current practices surrounding animal care." It states in the abstract of a publication of a survey from 2021.

I would not consider this either as thriving or doing well. These behavioural disorders are just signs that they are being deprived of something in their environment. No one would say that a person who engages in regurgitation or coprophagy (those cases exist) is doing well. So why would gorillas be doing well while displaying such disorders?
Ok Gorillas are not doing bad in zoos and there was a gigantic evolution in gorilla husbandry in the last century, but saying that they do well in zoos is a dangerous statement. It just raises the perception that we do not have anything else to improve in the lives of these animals, they are perfectly fit to live in a zoo, their millions of years of evolution made them fit to live in a captive environment which, no matter how top quality it is, is not their natural environment.
In my opinion, for a species to do well in captivity, they should not display any behavioural/health disorder that would not be found in their wild counterparts. I am not a specialist in every taxa (not even gorillas) so I am not aware of any case as such. Even our pets often suffer from disorders that are not seen in wild animals.

 

[15399]

About the Gorillas and other great apes. I am not a specialist but:
https://zslpublications.onlinelibra...M8ZRZ04Wvg51fH29uGkzudO151Pl1G-0J6GbMJ-N_WcNF
"Research indicates that regurgitation and reingestion (R/R) is a relatively common behaviour in zoo-housed great apes, with most studies to date carried out on Western lowland gorillas Gorilla gorilla gorilla and Chimpanzees Pan troglodytes. R/R is an abnormal behaviour because great apes are not anatomically adapted to regurgitate their food as part of their normal feeding processes, and because this behaviour has not been observed in members of the species living freely in the wild, in conditions that would allow a full behavioural range."
It states in the abstract of this review from 2018.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...ww2a3eyEVOb022QRZ92kfhnxbqKD3TtwPCh-Fmo6o2ip6

"Responses indicated that 60% of the AZA gorilla population engages in R/R to some degree and 24% of the population are observed exhibiting coprophagy on a weekly basis. With this preliminary information on coprophagy, and the realization that the Zoo community has been unsuccessful at eliminating R/R over the past 30 years, the next steps should be aimed at empirically assessing the potential drivers of these behaviors. Continuing efforts to further understand and eliminate R/R and coprophagy in zoo-housed primates is important not only because these behaviors are unsightly to visitors, but more importantly, R/R and coprophagy may signal deficiencies in current practices surrounding animal care." It states in the abstract of a publication of a survey from 2021.

This is something I definitely know quite a bit about... I've observed R/R behaviors when observing the gorillas my research team works with, and on one occasion observed coprophagy. The biggest challenge with these behaviors is that in the wild gorillas typically are foraging for large portions of the day. Given that zoos often feed calorically-dense chow mixes, it becomes very difficult to ensure both a natural foraging regimen and a healthy diet. Most zoos now feed gorillas more frequently throughout the day, which does help a lot, but some zoos now also take it further and have instituted "chow-free diets", first developed at North Carolina Zoo, which allow gorillas to spend much more of their days foraging and spending less time being inactive or with abnormal behaviors. Here's a short overview of this diet: Zoo Research: A Diet with A-peel! | North Carolina Zoo.

The unfortunate aspect of the chow-free diet is that it doesn't work in all climates, given that fresh browse is an essential component of the chow-free diet, however it has been beneficial from both physical health and activity budget perspectives in zoos which have attempted it.

"Responses indicated that 60% of the AZA gorilla population engages in R/R to some degree and 24% of the population are observed exhibiting coprophagy on a weekly basis. With this preliminary information on coprophagy, and the realization that the Zoo community has been unsuccessful at eliminating R/R over the past 30 years, the next steps should be aimed at empirically assessing the potential drivers of these behaviors. Continuing efforts to further understand and eliminate R/R and coprophagy in zoo-housed primates is important not only because these behaviors are unsightly to visitors, but more importantly, R/R and coprophagy may signal deficiencies in current practices surrounding animal care." It states in the abstract of a publication of a survey from 2021.

I would not consider this either as thriving or doing well. These behavioural disorders are just signs that they are being deprived of something in their environment. No one would say that a person who engages in regurgitation or coprophagy (those cases exist) is doing well. So why would gorillas be doing well while displaying such disorders?

Well coprophagy is not a "behavioral disorder" tied to captivity, as it has been documented in wild gorillas on a number of occasions too (e.g., https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aje.13003), and is even more common in wild chimpanzees. Coprophagy is thought to have nutritional benefits as it allows the animals to get maximum nutritional intake from their food.

R/R is a different story, however. That said, even if "60% of the AZA gorilla population engages in R/R to some degree", doesn't mean that all of them have a behavioral disorder. I've observed R/R in all five gorillas I've observed at Buffalo Zoo, and yet only one of the five displays the behavior on a frequent basis. While yes, it is concerning when it occurs frequently, just as other stereotypies like pacing, excessive grooming, etc., would be, given that there is only one possible known physiological impact (I'll get to this later) of R/R, I don't think it is overly concerning to see a single occurrence of R/R.

The added complexity of R/R behavior, at least within the context of Buffalo Zoo's gorilla troop, is we observe R/R behavior more frequently after gorillas were fed a preferred food item- for example it occurs more if fed beets or carrots than if fed zucchini or green beans. Surely there is a benefit to allowing animals to eat their preferred food items (obviously in healthy quantities and not as their exclusive diet), so removing these items as a way of decreasing R/R is not likely to improve the gorilla's welfare.

As for the physiological impact, there was work done at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo which showed a correlation between the frequency of R/R behavior and higher insulin levels. I can't seem to find the paper on it right now, however it isn't yet known whether there is a causation here (or in what direction). Certainly a good avenue for future research, however, as this could provide the key to better understanding this abnormal behavior.

but saying that they do well in zoos is a dangerous statement. It just raises the perception that we do not have anything else to improve in the lives of these animals,

See, I don't agree that it raises that perception. I don't think it's dangerous or inaccurate to say that "such-and-such species does well in zoos", while acknowledging that there are still ways to improve their overall well-being. I don't think there is a single species where there isn't the possibility of future innovations improving their welfare (yes- including species like domestic dogs that we know substantial information on), but welfare doesn't need to be 100% perfect in order to be good.

In my opinion, for a species to do well in captivity, they should not display any behavioural/health disorder that would not be found in their wild counterparts. I am not a specialist in every taxa (not even gorillas) so I am not aware of any case as such. Even our pets often suffer from disorders that are not seen in wild animals.

Yet any species will display behavioral/health disorders when housed in the wrong circumstances. Even if say, gorillas at "Zoo X" display certain behavioral disorders which may be evidence of them not thriving, that doesn't mean the gorillas at "Zoo Y" don't thrive under human care. Animal welfare should typically be analyzed at the level of the individual animal, so making sweeping generalizations that "this species does well (or does poorly) in zoos" will seldom be 100% accurate.

It's also important to question why certain behavioral or health conditions exist in captive populations but not in their wild counterparts. If a wild serval suffers a severe leg injury, there is a high chance that it won't survive, and yet under human care that serval can get a leg amputation and then continue to live a potentially high-quality life. Are various heart diseases and cancers more common in zoo animals evidence of the animals not thriving, or are they evidence that animals which don't die prematurely from disease, predation, or starvation are more likely to develop age-related illnesses? Are behavioral abnormalities a side effect of living in zoos, or do they reflect the fact wild animals with a behavioral abnormality will likely die before reaching adulthood?

 

[Tapirus Lar]

This type of post has been quite common in the Forum lately. Listen, just because an animal lives and breeds it is not synonymous with thriving in captivity. That is what people in the 60s and 70s used to measure animal welfare. As some vets say: There are plenty of awful things you can do to an animal before it dies so life per se is not a measure of welfare. Fortunately, science has walked a long way since those backward times and what defines if an animal is well or not is way more complex. The list of species that actually thrive in zoos is quite small. Most species have issues with being captive. Stop saying "Most species do well in zoos". That is simply not true according to the true definition of the word thriving and the scientific definition of Animal welfare. Please go do some research about what animal welfare actually means. This type of post reflects the same level of ignorance towards animal biology as that of those people entitled "anti-zoo".

I acknowledge your statements, and understand your motive, but I did not or did not mean to say animals thrive in zoos. I understand my post might've come off as overly pro-zoo, and people might misinterpret my post, especially the usage of the word 'haven' might cause misunderstanding of my post.
My motive was simply- if some conditions commonly found in zoos such as protection from predators [unlikely to be replicated in nature, I know], abundant resources, and availability of mates and breeding spaces were found in some part of a migratory species habitat, it could , in course of time, start losing its instinct and habit to migrate, because there wouldn't be any need to.
I do not mean to be rude to you or behave arrogantly in any way, but if you feel so, i apologize for myself

 

[Tapirus Lar]

Well I don't think the reasons saiga and pronghorn have done poorly in captivity is because they are migratory, for starters, but instead due to their specific altitude/climate requirements. Pronghorns do well in some US zoos, too.


In many cases, animals have an innate instinct to migrate- as shown in monarch butterflies, who complete multi-generational migrations where the individuals who finish a migration are the descendants of those who started it. Even amongst a world of climate change, where migration may or may not have the same fitness benefits as it once had, animals will still continue to migrate due to the genetic instincts behind it. Yes, migration is not easy, and yes, lots of animals die along migratory journeys (songbirds are a good example of this), but I think you are over-emphasizing how much animals are making a conscious choice to migrate versus following what they are genetically or socially hardwired to do.

Yes, I do think my post over-emphasized the conscious choice of an animal to migrate, and was ignorant of the instinct behind it.
But I do think, again, if some sort of climate/geographical change resulted in greater availability of mates, prevalence of food, and secure environment in a part if a species geographical range, could , over generations, cause the animal to slowly abandon its migratory habits[ I know, this part I didn't type in my original post]. The opposite could also happen-a non-migratory species could become migratory too, and indeed many migratory species today were non-migratory in the past.
I am not trying to defend my post by adding information i didnt originally post in it, and accept my mistake.

 

[OkapiJohn]

But I do think, again, if some sort of climate/geographical change resulted in greater availability of mates, prevalence of food, and secure environment in a part if a species geographical range, could , over generations, cause the animal to slowly abandon its migratory habits[ I know, this part I didn't type in my original post]. The opposite could also happen-a non-migratory species could become migratory too, and indeed many migratory species today were non-migratory in the past.
.

This is exactly what population managers try to avoid: Adaptation to captivity or domestication. If by selection (either natural or artificial) some wild traits are lost you stop having the same species you once wanted to have in the zoo. You are just breeding something new. A domesticated version of that primordial species - as you can imagine, this has zero conservation value and you are just breeding a species for mere zoo display. It is unrealistic to believe that all species will just do well in the zoo. Species are the result of millions of years of evolution to a particular set of conditions and environments. When you bring them to a zoo you create a mismatch between what the species evolved for and what its current environment is. This has consequences - for the welfare of the individuals and for the evolutionary integrity of that population. Putting it simply, for some species we are better at mitigating this than for others (And perhaps this is what most in the community consider as "doing well in zoos"). But the problem is still there. We do not know enough of every species' biology to be able to replicate the same evolutionary conditions for which that species is fit. I am talking about diet, environment, mating systems, photoperiods, seasonality, social structures, predation/flight behaviours, etc...

 

[S. Venaticus]

Pronghorns do well in some US zoos, too.

I wanted to ask... Do pronghorns, wildebeest or saigas get migratory restlessness in zoos? (Sorry if this seems kind of irrelevant in this particular thread, but I couldn't find anywhere more appropriate)