will they ever bring an population of river dolphins into captivity

Do you expect to see river dolphin in zoo collection in:

  • yes that is possible to see them in zoos in the next 30 years

    Votes: 14 18.4%

  • yes that is possible to see them in zoos in the next 10 years

    Votes: 3 3.9%

  • I don't think they will be kept in zoos ever again

    Votes: 59 77.6%
  • Total voters
    76
gerome

gerome

Well-Known Member
I was wondering whether the members of this forum believe it is likely that river dolphins could be brought into captivity. I understand that certain species are currently struggling, and I'm curious if housing river dolphins in captivity might help prevent them from facing the same fate as the baiji.

I understand that keeping dolphins in captivity is a controversial topic. However, considering that these species live in more restricted environments, it might be more acceptable to the public. I am also aware that there is currently one dolphin being kept at the Complejo Turístico de Quistococha.
 
I am refering to all river ceteans species
Like the yangtze finless porpoise or the ganges dolphin
 
They're cetaceans. Animal rights activists are currently trying to get the keeping of cetaceans in captivity banned in a number of countries.

So no, river dolphins aren't going to be brought into captivity anytime soon. I very much doubt there's any real appetite within the zoological world to do such a thing, everyone is simply too busy trying to safeguard the species that are already present in captivity!
 
Wisp O' Mist said:
They're cetaceans. Animal rights activists are currently trying to get the keeping of cetaceans in captivity banned in a number of countries.
Click to expand...
I think it should be that these activists have least say in what should or shouldn't be kept.
In regards to the question itself.... as much as I would like to see further research into the husbandry of cetaceans, and I do believe that river dolphins are better suited to captivity potentially than other species ... part of the modern zoo director's conscience is public appeal I think. And with the vegetarians doing enough cultural osmosis having any cetacean whatsoever can now be a liability for a collection. Because then the activists will get angry.
If I had to say - maybe some nations with less angry activists, say China or Japan [and, admittedly, quite more utilitarian conditions] may be interested in being the pioneers who look into this - but as far as goes a widespread breeding population of river dolphins in zoos and aquaria it doesn't strike me as likely. Even manatees; a logical alternative; are only so widespread these days.
Though saying that I wouldn't be surprised to see rescue centres be built to host river dolphins ..... those should have ultimate right to husbandry.
 
Last edited:
dillotest0 said:
I think it should be that these vegetarians have least say in what should or shouldn't be kept.
In regards to the question itself.... as much as I would like to see further research into the husbandry of cetaceans, and I do believe that river dolphins are better suited to captivity potentially than other species ... part of the modern zoo director's conscience is public appeal I think. And with the vegetarians doing enough cultural osmosis having any cetacean whatsoever can now be a liability for a collection. Because then the vegetarians will get angry.
If I had to say - maybe some nations with less angry vegetarians, say China or Japan [and, admittedly, quite more utilitarian conditions] may be interested in being the pioneers who look into this - but as far as goes a widespread breeding population of river dolphins in zoos and aquaria it doesn't strike me as likely. Even manatees; a logical alternative; are only so widespread these days.
Though saying that I wouldn't be surprised to see rescue centres be built to host river dolphins ..... those should have ultimate right to husbandry.
Click to expand...

Giving "funny" names to animal rights activists isn't doing any favours to your argument, which on it's own makes sense.

Thank you from a vegetarian.
 
I think its possible for South American collections to potentially obtain them via rescues, but unless social stigma against cetaceans in captivity changes I don't see them ever appearing in the west, the last place in the west who tried to get them was Dallas World Aquarium, but they were unable to get them and swapped to Antillean Manatee instead. If Amazon River Dolphins somehow did enter the country in enough numbers that a stable population could be managed it would change amazon displays completely and imo be as exciting prospect(and as unlikely as) Sumatran Rhinos, Saiga, or Philippine Eagles appearing in US collections. I would love to see river dolphins established in captivity though I just don't see it happening even if facilities were interested in adding them due to the permits, stigma, and how the borderline psychotic ARA's would respond
 
Some historical perspective: From the 1960s to the 1980s there were dozens of botos from South America imported into United States (and European?) zoos. Almost all of them died quick deaths, apparently because people didn't understand that they needed a shallow area to sleep and so they either drowned or died of sleep deprivation. Major zoos like the Fort Worth Zoo and Milwaukee Zoo kept botos. The Pittsburgh Zoo had the last one, which did live many years. It died in the early 2000s.

Apparently the Dallas World Aquarium built what is now its manatee tank to hold botos, which they obviously have not acquired.

I welcome anybody fact checking this and adding more information if they have it.

There was one baiji kept in captivity at a Chinese research facility. Douglas Adams discusses it in detail in his book Last Chance to See.
 
I see that peoply mainly focus on the latin american species, but i think if you look at from conservation angle I beleive the asian species to be more at risk at extinction and there native habitat being destroyed which could require a captive indiviuals
 
Apart from the animal rights argument and the ethics of wild sourcing 10+ (more likely dozens of) river dolphins from the wild, there is also a cost issue. Cetacean displays are prohibitively expensive if done right, so only very few zoos could afford it. Those zoos will probably be able to invest a sum of 30-40+ million euros (as the cheapest option) much better in a different way.
 
Let's take a shower of realism! This type of endeavour will become real the day local governments decide to act and do something. Before that happens it is better to forget about it. If they decide on it, they will capture animals for ex-situ conservation and bring them to a fit-for-purpose facility. Zoological displays would be at the bottom of their interest. Just look at the Sumatran rhino sanctuary: it is an ex-situ breeding facility but closed to the public. You cannot even visit it without an invitation from the Indonesian government. Giant eland is being bred in a closed reserve in Senegal. Another example is the Iberian Lynx, which was bred in centres rather than zoos. All of these were government-run projects not single zoos deciding for it.
Just the cost of transporting animals to the other side of the world is a waste of money and time that is better employed in setting up a local breeding facility.
Those who advocate we must have every unicorn possible in the zoo are not that different from those 19th-century museum directors who sent expeditions around the world to collect cultural, archaeological and art artefacts for display in their museums. Bringing these animals to the zoo will not bring anything substantial to their conservation in the wild nor help the range countries to do better conservation; just like every object brought and displayed in European and American museums did not bring anything to the people those objects were stolen from.
In my honest opinion: going to those countries and telling them: "Look we will take your animals away to our country because you do not know better" is the biggest little piece of colonial mindset that still persists among many zoo enthusiasts.

Modern conservation work is supporting these countries in their conservation challenges, not patronising them.
So what is being tried to be discussed in this threat is, so sorry for my bluntness, a couple of decades, if not centuries, outdated.
 
OkapiJohn said:
Let's take a shower of realism! This type of endeavour will become real the day local governments decide to act and do something. Before that happens it is better to forget about it. If they decide on it, they will capture animals for ex-situ conservation and bring them to a fit-for-purpose facility. Zoological displays would be at the bottom of their interest. Just look at the Sumatran rhino sanctuary: it is an ex-situ breeding facility but closed to the public. You cannot even visit it without an invitation from the Indonesian government. Giant eland is being bred in a closed reserve in Senegal. Another example is the Iberian Lynx, which was bred in centres rather than zoos. All of these were government-run projects not single zoos deciding for it.
Click to expand...
To build on this point ...
I think sometimes the two can work hand in hand on occasion. Say the government-run breeding centres become overpopulated or such, or similar thing happens - so surplus animals can be sent to zoos for display. And usually this happens on a local basis I will say - it was in the past that only zoos in Spain could have an Iberian Lynx; and only later on did they become available to zoos in Portugal and France [inch by inch!] and only recently have they been considered for one UK collection's master-plan. [which by no means definite]

And I think to some degree - as much as it pains me to think, selfish as I am - the nations to which these animals belong ultimately have whole say as to what becomes of them and how they may be exhibited. And the Amazon River Dolphin is an endangered species - but to think logically for a moment - this is an animal that brings people to South America. The pink dolphin is easily marketable. It's great for ecotourism. Tigers are great for ecotourism too - but unlike dolphins they are far less expensive to care for, easier to breed, and are less controversial. Why then, would the governments wish to send away these good 'living tourist magnets' to anyone who wants them?

I do not condemn entirely what was done in the 20th century - as ecotourism then was lesser-exploited and travel was somewhat more difficult. But these days ecotourism is booming. I think the only way I can really see a captive programme for these animals work is if they are unreleasable animals. And even then, you'd need several of those to start a breeding programme, and that'd be very expensive.

I think in regards to the Asiatic species of river dolphin with the Baiji it's virtually extinct if not totally extinct already. Ganges Dolphin I honestly don't know ... but if there ever was attempt to start captive husbandry of it I would guess ARAs would latch onto 'dolphin' and there'd be scrutiny.
 
OkapiJohn said:
In my honest opinion: going to those countries and telling them: "Look we will take your animals away to our country because you do not know better" is the biggest little piece of colonial mindset that still persists among many zoo enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

Well the opening poster made no mention of colonial poaching, he merely asked about "in captivity", which would not rule out captivity in their native countries. For any species I don't think anyone would argue that healthy populations in their native range is not the ideal. However there does come a time where that is not possible. I think one of the more recent examples of this would be the California Condor. I remember well the bitter arguments whether or not they should be brought into captivity, which up to that time had not really been attempted. Some argued that letting them go extinct was actually preferable than bringing them into captivity. Such people are welcome to their opinions
but I vehemently disagreed then and would now. (too bad for the Condor Lice that subsequently became extinct , but that was going to happen anyway).
And now we know that the biggest problem was lead poisoning - and that bit of ignorance would
have assured their extinction had they not been brought into captivity
As for river dolphins I think that would be a very long shot if dependent on zoos alone, but I do not rule out that they can't be part of any possible solution.
IMO translocating to lakes would be a more worthy undertaking compared to 4-5 pairs in zoos.
I would hope for in situ solutions above all , but again sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe river dolphins will be brought into US zoos. Too much controversy to wild capture and transport them. The only collection I could see ever trying again would be the Dallas World Aquarium.

I think more facilities could open in their native range for ex-situ conservation. Efforts like this are being done in China with the Yangtze finless porpoise. Some long term captives and even a captive-bred individual were released into reserves for repopulation successfully. This kind of situation I could see occurring. Maybe MAYBE if such facilities end up overpopulated, surplus animals could be sent to the US but this is a stretch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top