Georgia Aquarium Georgia Aquarium News
- Thread starter Zebraduiker
- Start date
Getting permission to capture wildlife in the Galapagos=impossible
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
I agree. We'll see platypuses in the USA before we'll see marine iguanas again.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
In what species precisely is the Georgia Aquarium "first"? Whale sharks? Already kept in Japanese institutions years before. Emerald Tree Boa? As correctly mentioned by loxodonta, a common species in the pet trade...
Given the money they could invest, the collection is pretty standard (100 million USD spent on Common [sic!] Bottlenose Dolphins-oh, please...), to say the least. Dallas Aquarium, to name an example, seems to be a more likely candidate for obtaining rarely kept species and trying out "firsts".
What are "more cool" marine reptiles? Of all current reptiles, only sea snakes, sea turtles, the Marine Iguana and (partly) the Saltie as well as randomly a few other croc species live in marine habitats. As reduakari & ANyhuis correctly remarked, getting Marine Iguanas is out of question, and so is keeping leatherbacks.
So unless the Georgia Aquarium is recreating mosasaurs or planning to catch a "Caddy", there will be "just cool" marine reptiles as an option-and certainly no "first" among them.
European collections keeping Marine Iguanas in the past: Berlin, Frankfurt, Manchester (Belle Vue Zoo).
Given the money they could invest, the collection is pretty standard (100 million USD spent on Common [sic!] Bottlenose Dolphins-oh, please...), to say the least. Dallas Aquarium, to name an example, seems to be a more likely candidate for obtaining rarely kept species and trying out "firsts".
What are "more cool" marine reptiles? Of all current reptiles, only sea snakes, sea turtles, the Marine Iguana and (partly) the Saltie as well as randomly a few other croc species live in marine habitats. As reduakari & ANyhuis correctly remarked, getting Marine Iguanas is out of question, and so is keeping leatherbacks.
So unless the Georgia Aquarium is recreating mosasaurs or planning to catch a "Caddy", there will be "just cool" marine reptiles as an option-and certainly no "first" among them.
European collections keeping Marine Iguanas in the past: Berlin, Frankfurt, Manchester (Belle Vue Zoo).
Last edited:
By "firsts" I mean U.S. They were the first in the U.S. to have whale sharks, manta rays and have three great hammerheads on display. I was also not aware that other facilities had kept marine iguanas in the past. "More cool" reptiles was refering to more exotic and uncommon species. Not a single loggerhead and a couple gators. And it wasn't limited to marine reptiles either. I know injured leatherbacks have been at at least one accredited aquarium I know of. If it survived but was not able to be released into the wild what would happen to it? And maybe platypus would happen before marine iguanas but I would never say impossible. It may take years and a ton of money and red tape but I never say impossible. As you pointed out there is a limited amount of marine reptile species so "firsts" are scarce but some sea snake species have not been kept and "firsts" can include births, co-habitation and the amount kept at one facility.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@loxodonta: Even from a US-centric point of view, I doubt that great hammerhead sharks have not been kept in an US-institution in the past.
Loggerhead Turtles and American Alligators are just as "common" and exotic as the African black-footed penguins or Californian sea lions the aquarium already has. Although I acknowledge the skillful presentation of uncommon species, this doesn't mean that public animal husbandries such as zoos or aquariums should strive to become mere collections of the rarest species just for their rarity factor; this "stamp-collection" sampling has become a thing of the past for most zoos and aquariums.
As far as I remember, leatherback turtles have a rather poor husbandry record; even an animal unfit for re-release should not be kept on a public display if this is harmful for it.
If you know the people to know, have the apt connections and money to back you up, you might indeed be able to obtain animals that appear to be out of reach (whether this is a good thing or not, can be debated...). However, given the harsh regulations on endemic Galapagos fauna, I don't think that will change much about the "impossible" status of Marine Iguanas. And one can also question why one should get Marine Iguanas when the money could be better invested in the protection of the various endangered Cyclura iguana species of the Carribean islands...? Equally, as mentioned in another thread, one could also question why over 100 million USD are spent on Common Bottlenose dolphins, just for the sake of money-making and public entertainment, instead of putting the money to use on the protection of endangered cetacea like the Vaquita or the various left river dolphins. A great Ganges/Indus dolphin exhibit, connected with an equally great in-situ project-now that would be an awe-inspiring exhibit at the Georgia Aquarium, and a true "first" (if neglecting some former husbandry experiments in the past)! But as the Georgia Aquarium and its visitors seem to be content with its focus on "common" species, neither River Dolphins nor Marine Iguanas seem likely...
About allegedly never-kept sea snakes: to paraphrase a line from the movie "Fierce Creatures"; ever thought WHY they have not been kept yet?
Loggerhead Turtles and American Alligators are just as "common" and exotic as the African black-footed penguins or Californian sea lions the aquarium already has. Although I acknowledge the skillful presentation of uncommon species, this doesn't mean that public animal husbandries such as zoos or aquariums should strive to become mere collections of the rarest species just for their rarity factor; this "stamp-collection" sampling has become a thing of the past for most zoos and aquariums.
As far as I remember, leatherback turtles have a rather poor husbandry record; even an animal unfit for re-release should not be kept on a public display if this is harmful for it.
If you know the people to know, have the apt connections and money to back you up, you might indeed be able to obtain animals that appear to be out of reach (whether this is a good thing or not, can be debated...). However, given the harsh regulations on endemic Galapagos fauna, I don't think that will change much about the "impossible" status of Marine Iguanas. And one can also question why one should get Marine Iguanas when the money could be better invested in the protection of the various endangered Cyclura iguana species of the Carribean islands...? Equally, as mentioned in another thread, one could also question why over 100 million USD are spent on Common Bottlenose dolphins, just for the sake of money-making and public entertainment, instead of putting the money to use on the protection of endangered cetacea like the Vaquita or the various left river dolphins. A great Ganges/Indus dolphin exhibit, connected with an equally great in-situ project-now that would be an awe-inspiring exhibit at the Georgia Aquarium, and a true "first" (if neglecting some former husbandry experiments in the past)! But as the Georgia Aquarium and its visitors seem to be content with its focus on "common" species, neither River Dolphins nor Marine Iguanas seem likely...
About allegedly never-kept sea snakes: to paraphrase a line from the movie "Fierce Creatures"; ever thought WHY they have not been kept yet?
Buckeye092
Well-Known Member
Blue sharks and Mako's aren't really an option. While a 6 million gallon tank might make them more comfortable aquariums are very far from keeping pelagic sharks in captivity for more than a few months (and even then they've only experimented with White Sharks).
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@ColumbusZoo001: Well, there were some husbandry "experiments" on makos and blue sharks in the past. That's how we know that they don't last long...
@Johnny: Japanese aquariums like the one in Okinawa keep those and still more uncommon species...
@Johnny: Japanese aquariums like the one in Okinawa keep those and still more uncommon species...
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
The bottom line regarding the Georgia Aquarium (and many other USA aquariums) is that they are in business TO MAKE MONEY! Consider how many of America's best aquariums are owned by big money-making corporations (2 Landry's, 2 Ripley's, Georgia, LegoLand, Aquarium of the Bay, Mandalay Bay, Adventure Aqm, Dallas World Aqm, Moody Gardens).
Conservation is truly important to these folks, but Capitalism is even more important. And God bless them for being capitalists!!
Sun, you've complained 2 or 3 times that Georgia is bringing in bottlenose dolphins instead of some rarer dolphin species, but there's a super good reason for this -- they know that bottlenose dolphins will provide a great dolphin show, which will increase the crowds at the Georgia Aquarium, which will increase the profits for the Aquarium's owners and investors, which will in turn increase the Aquarium's budget to continue to improve itself and give us more and more great exhibits to see! It's a win-win cycle, where we -- the animal-lovers -- are the biggest winners! The Georgia Aquarium's profit-making plans are THE main reason why I was able to spend over an hour there, marvelling at seeing whale sharks for the first time (along with a manta ray and a pair of hammerhead sharks) -- and I didn't have to go all the way to Japan to see them!
This is exactly the same reason why Busch Gardens is a great zoo, and why Disney's Animal Kingdom is one of the world's very best. Funny how wonderfully this capitalism thing works!
Conservation is truly important to these folks, but Capitalism is even more important. And God bless them for being capitalists!!
Sun, you've complained 2 or 3 times that Georgia is bringing in bottlenose dolphins instead of some rarer dolphin species, but there's a super good reason for this -- they know that bottlenose dolphins will provide a great dolphin show, which will increase the crowds at the Georgia Aquarium, which will increase the profits for the Aquarium's owners and investors, which will in turn increase the Aquarium's budget to continue to improve itself and give us more and more great exhibits to see! It's a win-win cycle, where we -- the animal-lovers -- are the biggest winners! The Georgia Aquarium's profit-making plans are THE main reason why I was able to spend over an hour there, marvelling at seeing whale sharks for the first time (along with a manta ray and a pair of hammerhead sharks) -- and I didn't have to go all the way to Japan to see them!
This is exactly the same reason why Busch Gardens is a great zoo, and why Disney's Animal Kingdom is one of the world's very best. Funny how wonderfully this capitalism thing works!
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
They may be "head and shoulders above" them based on how much you "like" them, but NOT based on the size of their crowds! I'd say the attendance figures are the ultimate democratic way of determing who's best, and by those numbers, Georgia is a definite winner.
You're correct to a point, but that cuts both ways. When aquariums (and zoos) reduce their focus on increasing attendance and become "pure class" (as you say), they become overly dependent on government support. That too can be a huge problem, especially when government funding dries up. Certainly we're seeing that today (ie, the Bronx Zoo).
Capitalist or not, an aquarium of this size must have a huge attendance, just for maintenance purposes.
@ anyhuis, don't you think that they are going to keep bottlenose dolphins because these are easy to obtain? A rarer species would be hard to obtain, and spreading the captive population would mean separating individuals and decrease chances of reproduction.
@ sun wukong; I know two japanese aquariums also have whale sharks and manta ray's on display, but the cances of another aquarium doing that will be slim, to say the least. So Georgia has a really rare attraction with those animals, no matter how common the rest of their collection is.
@ anyhuis, don't you think that they are going to keep bottlenose dolphins because these are easy to obtain? A rarer species would be hard to obtain, and spreading the captive population would mean separating individuals and decrease chances of reproduction.
@ sun wukong; I know two japanese aquariums also have whale sharks and manta ray's on display, but the cances of another aquarium doing that will be slim, to say the least. So Georgia has a really rare attraction with those animals, no matter how common the rest of their collection is.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Yes, but they were initially funded by Bernie Marcus, the founder of the Home Depot stores. Six additional Atlanta-based companies (ie, AirTran) chipped in with major contributions. So while you're correct that no big corporation owns them, they are still very much in the business of running up a huge attendance base. I think the most accurate way of looking at them is that, with all of these Atlanta companies investments, the goal is to make Atlanta a bigger tourist draw as a whole. So again, that means that making money (for the community, and for the Aquarium) is the ultimate goal. But this is NOT a bad thing! You really can it both ways -- you really can be both capitalist and conservationalist. These are NOT opposing forces.
Sure, I don't doubt this is part of their reasoning.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
Well, @ANyhuis, we have discovered more than 3 times in the past that our ideas of a great zoo vastly differ from one another; your reply to my previous post only underlines this once again...
Okinawa, Osaka, Toba...Aquarium all make money-and so do Monterey Bay and the Shedd, as reduakari rightly remarked. Yet they do not limit themselves in terms of species presentation. Shopping mall-once again, spot on, @reduakari! Whale sharks, manta ray, great hammerhead shark and beluga-compared with your average public aquarium, that is all nice and fine. Yet given the ressources the people responsible for the Georgia Aquarium have, that and the current presentation is not that impressive-especially in comparison to the other aquariums mentioned above.
"It's a win-win cycle, where we -- the animal-lovers -- are the biggest winners!" Apparently, your concept of an animal lover also differs from mine. I don't think that a true animal (and nature) lover enjoys the idea of dolphins being pawed by thousands of filthy visitor hands every day for the rest of their lives for 100 mill, while several rare cetacea species disappear forever because there is no one willing to pay for their conservation...
If I want to see whale sharks, I will rather go to the Red Sea; that's closer & cheaper for me than either going to Japan or (rather filthy) Atlanta.
If the sheer number of consumers is a sign of quality, then the American adult entertainment industry is entertainment at its best, Coca Cola better than Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne and McD the supreme cuisine worldwide...
@Johnny: Regarding the economical aspect-not really. For obtaining-look at the "2 or 3 times" I mentioned how to get non-bottlenose dolphins (-> Japanese aquariums). "(...)would mean separating individuals and decrease chances of reproduction" is also true for bottlenose dolphins.
Some river dolphins have lived for years under conditions that I wouldn't keep bottlenose dolphins (Bern, Duisburg, India) in. And as everyone who has ever kept an aquarium knows: keeping marine species is usually more work-intensive and elaborate than freshwater species (with certain exceptions to this rule...). The main reason for the Georgia Aquarium getting bottlenose dolphins is greed of gain, no real interest in conservation and lack of imagination. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the capitalistic bottom line.
Okinawa, Osaka, Toba...Aquarium all make money-and so do Monterey Bay and the Shedd, as reduakari rightly remarked. Yet they do not limit themselves in terms of species presentation. Shopping mall-once again, spot on, @reduakari! Whale sharks, manta ray, great hammerhead shark and beluga-compared with your average public aquarium, that is all nice and fine. Yet given the ressources the people responsible for the Georgia Aquarium have, that and the current presentation is not that impressive-especially in comparison to the other aquariums mentioned above.
"It's a win-win cycle, where we -- the animal-lovers -- are the biggest winners!" Apparently, your concept of an animal lover also differs from mine. I don't think that a true animal (and nature) lover enjoys the idea of dolphins being pawed by thousands of filthy visitor hands every day for the rest of their lives for 100 mill, while several rare cetacea species disappear forever because there is no one willing to pay for their conservation...
If I want to see whale sharks, I will rather go to the Red Sea; that's closer & cheaper for me than either going to Japan or (rather filthy) Atlanta.
If the sheer number of consumers is a sign of quality, then the American adult entertainment industry is entertainment at its best, Coca Cola better than Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Champagne and McD the supreme cuisine worldwide...
@Johnny: Regarding the economical aspect-not really. For obtaining-look at the "2 or 3 times" I mentioned how to get non-bottlenose dolphins (-> Japanese aquariums). "(...)would mean separating individuals and decrease chances of reproduction" is also true for bottlenose dolphins.
Some river dolphins have lived for years under conditions that I wouldn't keep bottlenose dolphins (Bern, Duisburg, India) in. And as everyone who has ever kept an aquarium knows: keeping marine species is usually more work-intensive and elaborate than freshwater species (with certain exceptions to this rule...). The main reason for the Georgia Aquarium getting bottlenose dolphins is greed of gain, no real interest in conservation and lack of imagination. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's the capitalistic bottom line.
Last edited:
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
And you know what? That's a GOOD thing -- it's good when we can have differing opinions. What's NOT good is when others' opinions are put down simply because they're not as politically correct as you think they should be, or when opposing opinions are criticized as not caring about the animals. That is not a good thing.
Folks REALLY should go back and read SnowLeopard's review of this great aquarium: https://www.zoochat.com/community/posts/65323
To use Sun's term, SnowLeopard is "spot on"! There is NO feeling of being in a shopping mall in this place! Zero! Yes, it's central court is loud -- with lots of children all around -- and it has a lot of neon, but shopping mall?? If anything, it has more of a "theme park" feel, or possibly like a casino. Where I strongly disagree with Sun is with his term "not that impressive". Clearly that's the opinion of one who has yet to see this amazing place! I think we'll see Sun's REAL reason for disliking this aquarium below...
I don't have a "concept" of an animal-lover! It's a basic common sense term! Animal-lovers are people who love animals! And they LOVE to go see them -- like me!
Had ANYONE heard anything about Georgia's new dolphin exhibit having the opportunity for "filthy" Atlantans to "paw" the dolphins?? I haven't. The only thing I've heard is that there will be lots and lots of underwater viewing opportunities and <shudder> they'll have great dolphin shows.
Wow, it's really nice that you can afford to travel to the Red Sea! Most of us can only dream of such a thing. In the meantime, we will be thankful we can join those filthy people from Atlanta and see whale sharks here in the good ol' USA.
Could this be the REAL reason you don't like the Georgia Aquarium? They are capitalist, I admit it! And apparently, you just don't like capitalism. You call it the "greed of gain", and further imply that they have "no real interest in conservation and lack of imagination". So in your mind, you simply CANNOT want to make money AND have other good intentions -- like conservation. Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@ANyhuis: No, it's actually not a good thing. As your last post illustrates, it makes finding a common ground with you really difficult. Anyone contradicting you seems to become "the enemy".
PC is the last thing on my list. If you don't want to feel "put down", then practise what you preach. Don't try to play "big-shot lawyer presenting the culprit to the jury"; if you want to discuss something with me, focus and stick to the "you". Don't condescend to me. If your arguments are valid, then you won't need the back-up of your supporters to face me...
As several threads in this forum show, I tend to disagree with several of snowleopard's opinions reg. certain zoos (yet he's always a good enough sport not to consider this a personal insult, unlike some other...), and rather agree with reduakari. And yes, his remark has been "spot on"-you can paraphrase that as often as you like. Your comparison of it to a theme park or a casino make it not better, but rather worse.
So according to your "basic common sense term", an animal lover just loves to see animals? Aha. So according to that, an animal lover would be fine to see an animal in any condition in a tiny, inadequate, barren and desolate "concrete-and-rusty bars" enclosure without options of visual retreat? Cause after all, the animal is clearly visible under this condition...
As far as I remember, the plans stated that the new facility will offer hands-on experience, swimming with dolphins etc. etc. Due to this, the human-dolphin contact is preprogrammed-and with it the possibilty of spreading zooanthroponosis. Ever inoculated a swap from a human hand? Now that is indeed something to shudder about...
"Wow, it's really nice that you can afford to travel to the Red Sea! Most of us can only dream of such a thing. In the meantime, we will be thankful we can join those filthy people from Atlanta and see whale sharks here in the good ol' USA."
Once again: don't condescend to me. And don't try to play the "United We Stand" card. That trick was already old to begin with...
If you read carefully, you will notice that I wrote "cheaper for me". Yes, sir; not everyone lives in good ol' USA. So for an European, travelling to the Red Sea can be cheaper than going to Atlanta - or Japan.
And last but not least, since you want to make it personal: no, I'm not against capitalism. I have witnessed the alternative, and it ain't pretty. However, especially given the current financial crisis, this doesn't mean that one should not be critical when it comes to capitalistic wrongdoing and yes, greed of gain.
Conservation is hardly ever a way to make (quick) bucks-but it pays off in the end. Maybe that's a lesson you still have to learn.
What you fail to understand, especially after being all hot and furious after your little inciting speech, is that I don't animadvert capitalism in general nor that I have a special chip on my shoulder when it comes to the Georgia Aquarium.
Said aquarium just represents an institution that has the means to outplay all the others in all regards, but doesn't. And that, together with the gloomy future of said endangered cetacea and your inability to lead a factual dialogue, I find rather deplorable.
PC is the last thing on my list. If you don't want to feel "put down", then practise what you preach. Don't try to play "big-shot lawyer presenting the culprit to the jury"; if you want to discuss something with me, focus and stick to the "you". Don't condescend to me. If your arguments are valid, then you won't need the back-up of your supporters to face me...
As several threads in this forum show, I tend to disagree with several of snowleopard's opinions reg. certain zoos (yet he's always a good enough sport not to consider this a personal insult, unlike some other...), and rather agree with reduakari. And yes, his remark has been "spot on"-you can paraphrase that as often as you like. Your comparison of it to a theme park or a casino make it not better, but rather worse.
So according to your "basic common sense term", an animal lover just loves to see animals? Aha. So according to that, an animal lover would be fine to see an animal in any condition in a tiny, inadequate, barren and desolate "concrete-and-rusty bars" enclosure without options of visual retreat? Cause after all, the animal is clearly visible under this condition...
As far as I remember, the plans stated that the new facility will offer hands-on experience, swimming with dolphins etc. etc. Due to this, the human-dolphin contact is preprogrammed-and with it the possibilty of spreading zooanthroponosis. Ever inoculated a swap from a human hand? Now that is indeed something to shudder about...
"Wow, it's really nice that you can afford to travel to the Red Sea! Most of us can only dream of such a thing. In the meantime, we will be thankful we can join those filthy people from Atlanta and see whale sharks here in the good ol' USA."
Once again: don't condescend to me. And don't try to play the "United We Stand" card. That trick was already old to begin with...
If you read carefully, you will notice that I wrote "cheaper for me". Yes, sir; not everyone lives in good ol' USA. So for an European, travelling to the Red Sea can be cheaper than going to Atlanta - or Japan.
And last but not least, since you want to make it personal: no, I'm not against capitalism. I have witnessed the alternative, and it ain't pretty. However, especially given the current financial crisis, this doesn't mean that one should not be critical when it comes to capitalistic wrongdoing and yes, greed of gain.
Conservation is hardly ever a way to make (quick) bucks-but it pays off in the end. Maybe that's a lesson you still have to learn.
What you fail to understand, especially after being all hot and furious after your little inciting speech, is that I don't animadvert capitalism in general nor that I have a special chip on my shoulder when it comes to the Georgia Aquarium.
Said aquarium just represents an institution that has the means to outplay all the others in all regards, but doesn't. And that, together with the gloomy future of said endangered cetacea and your inability to lead a factual dialogue, I find rather deplorable.
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I have NO idea about these things!! "hot and furious"?????
Yikes, Sun, what did I say to get you so worked up? I started my post with a positive statement that it's GOOD to have differing opinions! That's what ZooChat is for. Just don't put down others' opinions! Where did you get the idea that you are "the enemy" if you disagree with me? And where did you get the idea that I'm for "concrete-and-rusty bars" enclosures? What have I ever said that advocates that? You are putting words in my mouth!
I will say that I do understand that the Red Sea is closer to you than Atlanta or Japan. My only point was that for about 450 million of us (North Americans), Atlanta is closer -- and it's a great thing that they've made whale sharks available for us to see. I also stand corrected that you are an anti-capitalist, as I think you're from a former socialist nation (Czech Republic?). I guess I was just a bit offended by your rhetoric, equating Georgia's capitalist pursuits with a "greed of gain". Hopefully you'll reconsider that statement. I personally applaud Bernie Marcus and the other investors who brought us the Georgia Aquarium. At great financial risk to themselves, they've provided a great place for all of us, but particularly for children. The "theme park" atmosphere that some are so offended by is exactly what most children love, and thus this particular Aquarium is especially popular with kids! Isn't that a great thing? They have a great play area, many fun touch tanks, and even a Disney-quality 3-D movie. The huge gift shop, extensive food court, and even all the neon lights -- all make this place a huge hit with the kids! What do you want it to be? A library?
On top of this, they are making their own community (Atlanta) better -- making it a major tourist magnet. As SnowLeopard pointed out, with this Aquarium, the next door World of Coca Cola, CNN tours, and other fun things, your "filthy" Atlanta is a "happening place".
At the same time, it's my humble opinion that it's a cheap shot to suggest that they have "no real interest in conservation", as you said. Why -- because they'd rather bring in real crowd-drawing species, instead of the animals YOU want them to bring in? Maybe they don't have YOUR same interest in conservation, but that's OK, isn't it?
Back last summer, when you were bashing Omaha (after SnowLeopard's positive review of it), I asked you: WHY is it so important to come on here and post NEGATIVE things about zoos and aquariums you don't like? Many here like to come on and post positive things -- but you tend to be almost always negative. Why? If someone wants to post "Omaha is great" or "Georgia Aquarium is great", why is it so important to contradict them?