Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

Agree that large enclosures are a good thing. You do get to a point though that you need a certain number of animals in them otherwise they can be poor use of space. To give an example of this, the mountain zebra paddock at Marwell. There are 3 zebras in a 3.5 acre paddock.

I would rather see an underused large enclosure than animals packed into too small an area though.
 
Mr Gharial said:
I see a lot of people going to mediocre or even bad zoos just to see some ultra-rare species that only that zoo has. But I would MUCH rather see an extremely common/boring species in a really good exhibit, than some rarity in a cage.
Click to expand...
I think this is a totally agreeable, valid perspective - which is why I am going to say I really do not think this is a "hot take" at all. I think the majority of zoochatters would agree, aside a handful of users.
 
Van Beal said:
I feel like more people will agree with this than I think will, but larger habitats aren’t always a bad thing. I understand that you don’t always see the animals but I think a larger habitat makes it more rewarding and exciting when you do see the animal. Of course, “larger” is connected to size of the species. You wouldn’t associate a larger enclosure for dik-dik as being the same as a larger enclosure for a leopard, for example.
Click to expand...
*coughs* Detroit Zoo *coughs*
 
tigris115 said:
Also, real hot zoo take.

Many primates are kept in far too small social groups, especially monkeys. This could just be me but I often see animals like colobus kept in really small groups of >5
Click to expand...
Not really a hot take as it is a fact that can be proven. Understocking is a serious issue for most primates, and from experience the only one that can reliably be seen in a reasonable group size at zoos is squirrel monkeys. Chimpanzees and the majority of Old World monkeys, for example, are rarely seen in groups of less than 15 in the wild, and yet are almost always seen in such small group sizes in zoos.
Van Beal said:
I feel like more people will agree with this than I think will, but larger habitats aren’t always a bad thing. I understand that you don’t always see the animals but I think a larger habitat makes it more rewarding and exciting when you do see the animal. Of course, “larger” is connected to size of the species. You wouldn’t associate a larger enclosure for dik-dik as being the same as a larger enclosure for a leopard, for example.
Click to expand...
Thoroughly agree there, and I feel as though enclosures being ‘too big’ is one of the strangest criticisms I hear of zoos - something you will only ever see on ZooChat. I think that @tigris115 is right to suggest that the real issue is understocking.
 
Kalaw said:
Thoroughly agree there, and I feel as though enclosures being ‘too big’ is one of the strangest criticisms I hear of zoos - something you will only ever see on ZooChat.
Click to expand...
I think that most members on ZooChat appreciate larger enclosures for animals. I think it's the general public who are more likely to complain about enclosure size or the density of plants preventing them from seeing an animal (although, sometimes those enclosures could be understocked or not have appropriate viewing areas.).
 
Rohin said:
I think that most members on ZooChat appreciate larger enclosures for animals. I think it's the general public who are more likely to complain about enclosure size or the density of plants preventing them from seeing an animal (although, sometimes those enclosures could be understocked or not have appropriate viewing areas.).
Click to expand...
You are right that *most* members tend to appreciate size, but many seem to hint at it being the reason for animal inactivity or poor viewing when understocking is at fault. Personally, I have always found it to be the opposite with the general public, who often seem to assume that enclosure size is the only worthwhile factor in determining how good an enclosure is, ignoring enrichment, complexity and landscaping among other factors that are equally as relevant as area. However, it is of course hard to generalise and you may be right that the average visitor would prefer a small enclosure that guarantees viewing of the animals.
 
It's an incredibly unscientific sample of one, but the most common remarks I hear around zoo visitors are about space and visibility. The former to say enclosures are 'too small' and the latter to complain if the animals can't be seen.

Broadly I think a lot (not all by any means but a fair number) of visitors want the contradiction of enclosures that are the size of a wild environment while desiring the animals in that space to be near the edge, awake and posing neatly at all times.

I agree with the sentiment I'd rather see a common animal in a brilliant, well sized, well furnished enclosure with positive enrichment and space for the animal to choose to be seen, or not, than a rare animal in a poor space. I think I also bring a hangover from wildlife watching to the zoo in that I don't expect the animals to always be visible.
 
Kalaw said:
You are right that *most* members tend to appreciate size, but many seem to hint at it being the reason for animal inactivity or poor viewing when understocking is at fault. Personally, I have always found it to be the opposite with the general public, who often seem to assume that enclosure size is the only worthwhile factor in determining how good an enclosure is, ignoring enrichment, complexity and landscaping among other factors that are equally as relevant as area. However, it is of course hard to generalise and you may be right that the average visitor would prefer a small enclosure that guarantees viewing of the animals.
Click to expand...
I think landscaping is also a significant factor in the general visitor liking enclosures- they will, for instance usually prefer big grassy lawns with mock rock for gorillas despite it not being good for the animals compared to the Howletts style gorilla cages (although the latter are also debated on the forums).
 
tigris115 said:
Also, real hot zoo take.

Many primates are kept in far too small social groups, especially monkeys. This could just be me but I often see animals like colobus kept in really small groups of >5
Click to expand...

I agree with this but think it's a tricky problem to solve.

I mean, there's one answer that's very straightforward: If you can't keep an appropriately-sized group, don't keep any at all. Obviously if you're against primates being in zoos, this is the solution. But I really enjoy seeing primates in zoos, especially great apes, so this solution is a bit... meh. That's just for my personal taste, too- it's ignoring all the benefits that come from having these animals in captivity.

I think it's challenging in part because a decent chunk of the general public- maybe not the majority, but a decent chunk- doesn't want to see any primates in captivity. Going to these groups and saying "hey, the way we can best provide a social climate for these animals is actually by having more of them in captivity, a LOT more"... that's a pretty hard sell for some people, I think. And something of a tricky sell for investors, too- "We need funding to house and care for a dozen capuchins, not just five".

The solution at the end of the day does boil down to "If you can't provide these animals with appropriate conditions, including appropriately numbered social groups, don't house them at all". But I think that would eliminate a pretty sizable chunk of primate populations in US zoos.

I'd be keen on seeing research done on how to mitigate stress caused by smaller-than-appropriate social groups. Does trainer involvement help? Additional enrichment opportunities? Does an animal born and raised in a smaller-than-natural social group fare better or worse than one in a larger group? Etc etc.
 
Kalaw said:
the majority of Old World monkeys, for example, are rarely seen in groups of less than 15 in the wild, and yet are almost always seen in such small group sizes in zoos.
Click to expand...

That is not quite true. There are species like talapoins and (man)drills that typically live in huge groups. But group sizes of many species are far smaller. E.g. debrazza's guenon and owl-faced guenons typically live in groups of <5 members in the wild too. Plenty of species can live in large groups, but small group sizes are not uncommon. I have seen plenty of colobus groups (Angolan and guereza) consisting of 5-10 animals, even though they can also form much larger groups.

filovirus said:
I think it's challenging in part because a decent chunk of the general public- maybe not the majority, but a decent chunk- doesn't want to see any primates in captivity.
Click to expand...

Can you back that claim up with any evidence, it is completely new to me. Opposition to cetaceans and elephants is not uncommon, the same for great apes, but primates in general....
 
lintworm said:
Can you back that claim up with any evidence, it is completely new to me. Opposition to cetaceans and elephants is not uncommon, the same for great apes, but primates in general....
Click to expand...

I'll readily admit that I was too hasty in how I described it in my initial post. It's far from a majority, certainly. But I think if you take "people who are against primates in zoos", a not-majority-but-still-decent chunk of that group would say that they don't want to see ANY primates, including monkeys, in zoos.

BornFree in the UK has taken a stance against any primates in captivity, including monkeys and lemurs, and I don't think I need to find a specific source to suggest that PETA has a similarly comprehensive view. Two extremists groups to be sure, but a not inconsiderate number of people subscribe to their viewpoints.

My personal experience is far from evidence but a fair few people in my life have expressed hesitancies about monkeys in zoos. Idk. I'm struggling to find solid numbers on the percentages of people who think apes shouldn't be in zoos and people who think any primates shouldn't be in zoos- but I feel confident saying that these people exist and that while they're likely the minority, they aren't insignificant in number.

I think my initial argument is still sound.
 
I’ll throw a few hot takes in the mix just for fun, most if not all will be aquarium related as that’s my side of things:

- SeaWorld Orlando might have the very best shark displays in the US. In terms of sheer diversity not even Georgia comes close.
- Monterey Bay Aquarium needs to return to their old ways of experimenting with previously unseen species in American facilities. The Open Sea exhibit post remodel is soooooo boring. It’s probably the best experimental exhibit platform for pelagic species in the States and they’re not using it at all, unlike somewhat similarly geared aquariums like Tokyo Sea Life Park in Japan.
- Aquarium and zoo websites are an absolute nightmare for those interested in finding out what species are present where. The chasm in quality between aquariums like Georgia who at least try to keep an accurate database and those like any of the Sea Lifes who don’t keep any sort of accurate list is astonishing. It wouldn’t be hard for every facility to have a semi complete list!
 
Seth S. said:
I’ll throw a few hot takes in the mix just for fun, most if not all will be aquarium related as that’s my side of things:

- SeaWorld Orlando might have the very best shark displays in the US. In terms of sheer diversity not even Georgia comes close.
- Monterey Bay Aquarium needs to return to their old ways of experimenting with previously unseen species in American facilities. The Open Sea exhibit post remodel is soooooo boring. It’s probably the best experimental exhibit platform for pelagic species in the States and they’re not using it at all, unlike somewhat similarly geared aquariums like Tokyo Sea Life Park in Japan.
- Aquarium and zoo websites are an absolute nightmare for those interested in finding out what species are present where. The chasm in quality between aquariums like Georgia who at least try to keep an accurate database and those like any of the Sea Lifes who don’t keep any sort of accurate list is astonishing. It wouldn’t be hard for every facility to have a semi complete list!
Click to expand...
Tell me about it, Columbus shrunk the list of animals list on their website along with San Diego. Henry Doorly doesn't even have one at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top