Should bears be kept in zoos?

[zoomaniac]

Should Bears kept in Zoos: Of course they should. The only question is: How should they be kept.

I agree with most of my forwriters: There is a lot do to in the zoos worldwide. Especially for the polar bears as already mentioned. Beside more space, polar bear enclosures need generally more natural elements like a grassy or soiled Ground instead of a concrete (La Flèche in France is a good example).

And all Bears need more behavoural and enviromental enrichment.

But I don't think, that the responsible persons in zoos treat their bears as second-class-animals, as some people here persume. In fact, it's the opposite: Bears are much more popular then any antilopes or other hoofstock. But to design a better hoofstock exhibit is cheaper then to design a good bear enclosure. So it's also (or only) a financial problem.

 

[tigertiger]

With regards to judging standards look at sport, you only ever get a few world class performers in their choosen sport Woods, Federer, Schumacher, Bolt, Rossi, Armstrong etc, it doesnt mean the rest are poor. Great eras in a sport usually occur on the RARE occasions that a number of world class performers emerge at the same time.

While it does not by definition mean the rest are poor, in this particular case there are more 'poor' rankings than not outside of world class. I can think of the polar bear exhibits I have seen (never getting to Detroit myself) and can only think of a small handful that are conducive to a happy life. The rest I have seen I can't look at when I visit those zoos anymore because they actually make me want to cry at the thought of an animal living there.

 

[James27]

Anyway, I agree with @mark77's point of view above. And how is the ratio of "world class" exhibits of not so popular, "non-Polar bear" species? I'm thinking of various species of lesser known hoofstock, smaller mammals, but especially birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish here. In many zoo species, one will have difficulties to name just a single so-called "world class" exhibit at all...

You make a very good point Sun, we hear no one striving for a world class snake exhibit but there's plenty of substandard ones around.

 

[reduakari]

You make a very good point Sun, we hear no one striving for a world class snake exhibit but there's plenty of substandard ones around.

Snakes don't pace (at least in a way that makes people feel uncomfortable).

 

[James27]

Right because that's a reason to give them a crappy exhibit...

 

[reduakari]

Right because that's a reason to give them a crappy exhibit...

As usual you don't get my point--much of the concern over "animal welfare" in zoos is based on anthropomorphic projection--we imagine a bear or monkey is "unhappy" because they exhibit behaviors that if seen in a human would indicate stress/boredom/insanity. People can't relate as well to a snake or a dung beetle, so the public doesn't complain--and zoos don't invest in improving their conditions

 

[James27]

Well no good zoo would leave a snake in a bad exhibit just because "the public didn't relate to it's distress". If they do then they shouldn't be open

 

[foz]

As usual you don't get my point--much of the concern over "animal welfare" in zoos is based on anthropomorphic projection--we imagine a bear or monkey is "unhappy" because they exhibit behaviors that if seen in a human would indicate stress/boredom/insanity. People can't relate as well to a snake or a dung beetle, so the public doesn't complain--and zoos don't invest in improving their conditions

But for that reason, does it mean all chimps and apes, which humans can relate to more easily, should be given better exhibits first. Then followed by the animals that can not be related to so easily?

I understand that zoo management would take this decision because as you said people will get more uspet seeing an ape in terrible condituion then seeing a snake in equally bad conditions.

The point Iam trying to make is that all animals should get enclosures that at minimum reaches all their needs, but I understand why more charismatic animals are chosen to have better exhibits first.

 

[reduakari]

Well no good zoo would leave a snake in a bad exhibit just because "the public didn't relate to it's distress". If they do then they shouldn't be open

Well I'm not sure how you would define a "bad exhibit" for snakes, but the majority of zoos around the world are content to put them in boxes that are smaller than the length of the snake, usually with limited or no places to hide, with one dead rat thrown into the cage about once a week. I can't say for sure that the snakes care, but try the same thing with an orca or an elephant and watch the public reaction!

 

[James27]

I'd describe it like you'd describe a bad exhibit for any other animal (e.g. No privacy, not enough room, wrong sort of habitat etc). Can't actually find a pic to prove my point. Plenty of people actually comment on snake exhibits saying how crap it is that they can't uncoil or whatever, but snakes do prefer smaller vivs as it makes them feel more secure, as a result they are less stressed (not an excuse to make vivs stupidly small however).
You REALLY need to visit the UK, a lot of work is put into a lot of reptile collections here.

 

[reduakari]

I'd describe like you'd describe a bad exhibit for any other animal (e.g. No privacy, not enough room, wrong sort of habitat etc). Can't actually find a pic to prove my point. Plenty of people actually comment on snake exhibits saying how crap it is that they can't uncoil or whatever, but snakes do prefer smaller vivs as it makes them feel more secure, as a result they are less stressed (not an excuse to make vivs stupidly small however).
You REALLY need to visit the UK, a lot of work is put into a lot of reptile collections here.

I have visited several zoos in the UK, and have seen nothing in terms of reptile management that is very different from other European or American zoos.

 

[James27]

Well I can only think of a couple of UK zoos that would just "put a snake in a small box and throw in a dead rat once a week". I assumed that maybe reptiles had it worse in the US?

 

[Dan]

I will (prematurely) stick my head out here and confirm what some of you may already have suspected: I am not sure that any wild species should be kept in captivity.

I am as keen in visiting zoos as any of you. Very interested in many aspects of that experience and all its implications. But in reality mostly for selfish reasons: I love to watch animals! (But I do not for a minute subscribe to the "conservation" argument.) And at the end of the day I am not certain that we humans have the right to keep (wild) animals in zoos.

One of these days I may try to muster what poor knowledge I have in the English language and try to express this philosophical question in a coherent thread of mine.

As for now: I would have needed the alternative "Maybe" to be able to vote.

PS
Please don´t ostracize me because of this post , I will go on contributing to the site in whatever way I can and very much enjoy it...

 

[reduakari]

I will (prematurely) stick my head out here and confirm what some of you may already have suspected: I am not sure that any wild species should be kept in captivity.

I am as keen in visiting zoos as any of you. Very interested in many aspects of that experience and all its implications. But in reality mostly for selfish reasons: I love to watch animals! (But I do not for a minute subscribe to the "conservation" argument.) And at the end of the day I am not certain that we humans have the right to keep (wild) animals in zoos.

One of these days I may try to muster what poor knowledge I have in the English language and try to express this philosophical question in a coherent thread of mine.

As for now: I would have needed the alternative "Maybe" to be able to vote.

PS
Please don´t ostracize me because of this post , I will go on contributing to the site in whatever way I can and very much enjoy it...

I very much appreciate your philosophical stance and ambivalence. I do wonder, however, how you can simply dismiss the conservation value of zoos, since it has been both demonstrated (American Bison, Asian Wild Horse, Arabian Oryx, Nene, etc) and has increasing relevance for inspiring people like yourself into action?

 

[James27]

Well I agree that animals aren't meant to be in captivity, but whilst seeing as they are and that there are so many successfully bred then I don't think it should be stopped, as reduakari mentioned above, due to the conservation work that has been going on.
And Dan, stop playing the "I don't speak English well" card, I've actually met British people who speak it worse than you

 

[Dan]

@reduakari:
I did indeed express myself very unclear on the subject and I will try to clarify.

I am ambivalent also as far as the concept of conservation goes and I have thoughts and questions such as these:

Isn´t “conservation” mainly a politically correct expression that has become an obligatory mantra for every zoo to use? (Those crappy cages in that "conservation centre" in The UK that we have debated, comes to mind.) What does it really mean? What is “true” conservation, anyway?

When, for instance, some of the types of rhino most probably go extinct in the wild in the near future, is it morally justified to keep them alive in zoos? If so, for what reason? For our amusement and entertainment? Or as “education”? In what way will we be educated? Will it stop us humans from eradicating other species? I don´t know.

You mention a number of examples where species gone extinct in the wild have been saved and reintroduced to the wild, the American buffalo for instance. But is it very likely that we will see many more examples like that in the future? I am pessimistic. Take Sub-Sahara Africa as an example. This part of the continent is totally disintegrating in every possible way – politically, socially, economically etc. Famine, disease, civil war and genocide. Most likely a great number of species will go extinct in the process. Is it justified to keep these species in zoos because of a most uncertain possibility that they may be reintroduced in the wild some time in the future? I don´t know.

In the rest of the world, the "success" and expansion of humans create similar effects on the fauna. Here it will most likely be even more impossible to reintroduce species extinct in the wild.

@ashely-h:
Thanks but you know what I mean: I spell words wrong and make all sorts of grammatical errors and my written English is basically very simple. In my own language I actually write rather good and therefore it irritates me that I cannot do the same when I debate on the net.

 

[zooman]

Until allot more people say "this is not good enough" most bears. At a guess probably 95% will continue to live in what l personally would call unacceptable conditions in captivity.

So yes to all of you who may belive that bears should be kept in captivity on the provision that they are well looked after. The facts today are that they are NOT! With most going to end live out there life in the appaling conditions they are in today! Tommorow and every day after that. Just not acceptable.

So maybe instead of arguing that all animals in captivity deserve better. Obviously they do. The discussion on this thread is about bears. Today 95% of bears in captivity are in totally unaceptable conditions. Should they be in captivity? Of course not in my opinion.

I have not seen the "world class exhibits" so will not say they are totally unacceptable without personally seeing them.

 

[BlackRhino]

I would not say 95% of bears in captivity are suffering, at least in the U.S. I really don't even think the ones living in the outdated grottoes are truly suffering. They are still being provided for, given enrichment, and receive the best of care. That's not suffering.

 

[foz]

here are a few bear enclosures/exhiits from the gallery that i would class as being unacceptable, okay enclosures and really good enclosures:

Unacceptable:
http://www.zoochat.com/445/polar-bear-enclosure-92909/
http://www.zoochat.com/1012/one-only-bad-enclosure-exhibit-skanes-91323/
http://www.zoochat.com/824/brown-bear-enclosure-luebeck-tierpark-2007-a-49761/
http://www.zoochat.com/107/polar-bear-enclosure-schonbrunn-zoo-vienna-60200/
http://www.zoochat.com/59/sloth-bear-enclosure-83424/
http://www.zoochat.com/556/cincinnati-zoo-american-black-bear-grotto-41666/

okay/good enclosures:
http://www.zoochat.com/218/bear-enclosure-92096/
http://www.zoochat.com/1012/brown-bear-exhibit-no-2-a-91330/
http://www.zoochat.com/1117/sloth-bear-exhibit-91532/
http://www.zoochat.com/524/black-bear-enclosure-87373/
http://www.zoochat.com/491/bears-dartmoor-60521/

really good:
http://www.zoochat.com/526/1-5-acre-grizzly-bear-enclosure-92255/
http://www.zoochat.com/42/bears-cloud-forest-photos-89082/
http://www.zoochat.com/423/ree-park-bear-lake-60900/
http://www.zoochat.com/424/scandinavian-wildlife-park-polar-bear-park-47457/
http://www.zoochat.com/594/oregon-zoo-black-bear-exhibit-43762/
http://www.zoochat.com/562/arctic-ring-life-detroit-zoo-42083/

 

[mark77]

I would not say 95% of bears in captivity are suffering, at least in the U.S. I really don't even think the ones living in the outdated grottoes are truly suffering. They are still being provided for, given enrichment, and receive the best of care. That's not suffering.

agreed and i think the same can be said for much of western europe.