animals that should not be in zoos

[jenjen]

(i apologise if this has already been discused)


Are there any animals that you think are not suited to captivity for any reason.
personaly my list would include

1) orca.
for many reasons, but mainly because of their strong family bonds that captivity is not able to replecate, the sheer amount of space they need that no aquarium could provide, and the amount of stress they exhibit.


2)white tigers.
after seeing films on you tube about the cruel inbreeding they go through to get these animals i think breeding them on purpose should be banned.



animals i am unsure about:
polar bears
elephants
(because of the amount of space they need to live healthly and mentaly active)

what does averyone else think?

 

[Mr Saxon]

Right okay......

1) Orcas (or any other whale or Dolphin) mainly because of the fact they are in shows to entertain people with fancy tricks and twirls. Breeding them in captivity seems a bit stupid aswell. The only time I believe these animals should be in captivity is if they are in a some form of rehabiliation centre or wildlife hospital, with intentions to release to the wild obviously.

2) Large Sharks for the same reason, minus the tricks and stuff.

3) Agree with the white tiger problem. Too many people breeding tigers for colour alone instead of for conservation and new-blood purposes, things that matter. Don't kill them though and keep them in zoos to show guests what white tigers are and that, despite looking pretty, they have been inbreed for show and teach them that it's wrong.

4) Velociraptors, those gits WILL get out. I'm serious




Any other species to me is fine, as long as if fits with the animals spacial, mental and physical needs as well as provided a rich, stimulating and happy life for the species in question

 

[Zambar]

Orcas is a tricky one for me. As long as the tank is big enough, the social dynamic is maintained and the tricks are not too elaborate I don't see too much problem with this. But most species I wouldn't want to see in captivity, such as Narwhals and Mountain Gorillas due to health issues, aren't kept in there anyway. Others include the breeding of white tigers and lions, and Chuck Norris, for obvious reasons.

 

[Cat-Man]

generally i think ANY species could be kept in captivity, however i think that are current techniqes etc are not advanced enough for some species and there are many reasons why some species shouldnt be kept in captivity, for especially Killer Whales, Elephants and to a lesser extenct (well greater in the UK) Polar Bears. Taking away the Hygene and Health Risks the way in which we keep these species enclosure also affect what we think of animals we should and shouldn't keep. Obviously Narwhal Would be one like Zambar has Specified.

Also I do Agree MR Saxon

Velociraptors are just a no go, they will escape and they will kill

but that velociraptor comment brings up another issue, Chimpanzees, (apart from Humans) The Most Dangerous Animal EVER to live, they are smart and have the abilitie to stalk and kill their prey in a VERY sophisticated way, is it right to keep these animals due to the fact that they can hunt and kill in a a way that only man can also do?

 

[Maguari]

Orcas is a tricky one for me. As long as the tank is big enough, the social dynamic is maintained and the tricks are not too elaborate I don't see too much problem with this. But most species I wouldn't want to see in captivity, such as Narwhals and Mountain Gorillas due to health issues, aren't kept in there anyway. Others include the breeding of white tigers and lions, and Chuck Norris, for obvious reasons.

Killer Whales (thanks for using the correct* name, Cat-Man ) are a specialist zoo animal, but can be kept just fine.

I can see why Narwhals would have potential problems from a tusk damage point of view, but this could possibly be worked around in a big enough exhibit.

I'm intrigued by Mountain Gorillas, though - why do you think they'd do any worse in captivity than other gorillas?


* in my opinion!

 

[Cat-Man]

its cool Maguari, same for me

 

[Tarsius]

A lot of people ask for human rights for apes. Maybe the apes are know, they are kept in captivity ? Some people have problems with eelphants in captivity, but not with apes, bears or pigs, so it is okay, to keep"stupid" animals in human care but no intelligent animals ? The keeping of elephants in zoos is doing very well since more than 200 years, and the living conditions for them were made better and better in the last twenty years.

So I see no reason for not keeping elephants in human care.But there are indeed animals, which an't be kept in human care for several reasons. Elephants seals are a very good example. Many of them were kept in many zoos worldwirde. Most of them died for several reasons long before their time, there were several brths of elephants elas in zoos, but I know, just three of them good be raised in europe,in Berlin, Stuttgart and Antwerp, altough the species were kept a long time in all three institutions, and many elephants elas did in these three zoos. The youngsters born at Berlin and Stuttgart, both handraised, died a couple og month after their birth, the young bull Eric, born and I think, parent raised at antwerp zoo, was send to Berlin, where he died very young. I think, one of the problems with these guys are to small pools, which are not deep enough. The other problem was the aggressivity of the bulls against their females. In nature, bulls fighting fo the femals, so maybe , the bull have lost their aggresivity and mate then with the females. In Zoos, only one adult bullw as kept all the time together with one or two femals in very small exhibits. In nature, the bulls leaving the females after mating season and they live their own live in the ocean. I belive, most zoos are now thinking, elephant seals can't be kept successful in human care ( a successful keeping means with a successful breeding and raising the species in human care, not only to keep them alive for a while and replace the dead animals, what they have done with so many species, which are now dissappeared from the collections) ) maybe it can be possible with huge exhibits and huge, deep pools and the try, to copy the natural mating behaviour of them, but this could very difficult and very, very expensive. So the zoos save that money and try to help elephant seals in the wild. Nevertheless, I like them very much, great animals, but not to keep them in human care, makes more sense to me.

@Maguari. Orca is one of the correct names for Orcinus orca, "Killer whale" is the mostly used name for that species in england and USA. I know, Orcas kill their prey as every other predator is doing, but "Killer" sounds very hard for an animal, so most people I know, using Orca or, in german"Schwertwal,( sword whale ) which is the most common german name for Orcinus orca. Noone is calling a Tiger "Killer Cat" or a an african wild dog"Killer Dog", altough they are doing the same what orcas are doing....

 

[Maguari]

Noone is calling a Tiger "Killer Cat" or a an african wild dog"Killer Dog", altough they are doing the same what orcas are doing....

No, but if they had been called that for years as the Killer Whale has, then I would be saying they should still be called that too.

Incidentally, they may not be called Killer Dogs but (as noted earlier in another thread) African Wild Dogs are also known as Cape Hunting Dogs, which is along the same lines.

 

[Cat-Man]

Can i say it is known in Britain (UK) as the Killer Whale, England is not a term for thw whole nation

 

[Maguari]

Can i say it is known in Britain (UK) as the Killer Whale, England is not a term for thw whole nation

But equally, Britain and the UK are not interchangeable terms, the former being the main island of the country that is the latter (and in any case, Tarsius just said that the term was widely used in England, which is true - no comment was made about the rest of the UK!).

But let's let this thread get back to topic before we get moderators prowling in here!




The only group I can imagine never being possible to keep in captivity are baleen whales - both on a size front and a how-on-earth-would-you-feed-them front.

 

[Jurek7]

I think it was discussed to death about cetaceans, elephants and apes in zoos.

What about bigfoots? I think people who try to disturb or catch him should be prosecuted!

 

[redpanda]

It drives me mad when people say they don't think polar bears should be kept in captivity without considering other ursids. I read recently that they evolved from an isolated group of grizzlies only 150,000 years ago so saying one should be kept in captivity but not the other is like saying asian elephants should be but not africans. Furthermore, in some areas where food is bountiful (particularly around salmon runs), brown bears have territories which are only a couple of square miles - around the size of a meerkat territory. In my opinion, this clearly shows that although some ursids (ie polar bears) do roam huge expanses to find food, if given a more plentiful supply they will happily live on a much smaller area of land. As such, why should keeping polar bears in captivity be such a problem?

Rant over.

 

[Maguari]

It drives me mad when people say they don't think polar bears should be kept in captivity without considering other ursids. I read recently that they evolved from an isolated group of grizzlies only 150,000 years ago so saying one should be kept in captivity but not the other is like saying asian elephants should be but not africans. Furthermore, in some areas where food is bountiful (particularly around salmon runs), brown bears have territories which are only a couple of square miles - around the size of a meerkat territory. In my opinion, this clearly shows that although some ursids (ie polar bears) do roam huge expanses to find food, if given a more plentiful supply they will happily live on a much smaller area of land. As such, why should keeping polar bears in captivity be such a problem?

Rant over.

With you on every ranting word of that redpanda. Wide-ranging animals are generally only wide-ranging because they need to be to get enough food.

 

[CindelP]

I personally believe that ANY animal could and even should be kept and bred at Zoos.

With the right amount of money/space/will anything can be done and space and family bonds can be arranged.

More than this was worries me most is the clima/weather!

It bugs me a lot to see African Hoofstock in cold rainy countries as well see nordic spp in hot sunny weather.
Sure that they adapt and even breed sucessfully but is it OK to see Bongos or Impalas in the snow or in the muddy cloudy ground?

 

[Zambar]

Mountain Gorillas often die prematurely due to respiratory problems in captivity, as very few zoos can recreate the altitude and climate they need to survive.

And to those who say any animal can be kept in captivity: Blue Whale?

 

[Maguari]

Mountain Gorillas often die prematurely due to respiratory problems in captivity, as very few zoos can recreate the altitude and climate they need to survive.

I've not heard that before, but wouldn't have thought this was insurmountable - plenty of other highland animals acclimatise to lower altitude just fine.

And to those who say any animal can be kept in captivity: Blue Whale?

I think in realistic terms you're right that baleen whales are the exception (as above). That said, given that it would be hypothetically possible to build a big enough exhibit if you were insanely rich and owned, say, Kazakhstan, the only theoretical block would be the feeding - it would be very difficult to supply enough of the right type consistently.

 

[CindelP]

And to those who say any animal can be kept in captivity: Blue Whale?

If a Zoo can give them proper space and food, I see no problem.

Now if you're going to say that probably no zoo have money, space and availability to built a decent enclosure for a blue whale, I can agree.

 

[Sun Wukong]

There are a lot of people constantly complaining about apes and bears being kept in zoos, @Tarsius-probably at least as much as those complaining about elephants or dolphins kept in captivity. Keeping elephant seals in zoos in an adequate way sure isn't easy-but what to do with the elephant seal orphans in various US marine mammal shelters that for various reasons (i.e. being blind, have amputated limbs etc.) can not be reintroduced into the wild? Keeping them in a decent zoo enclosure might be the better option than having to squeeze them in an obscure makeshift cage somewhere in the back of the shelters.

Whether or not to call orcas "killer whales" is PC; for their prey, they surely are deadly killers...


Things have changed a lot in zoos since the 1960s and 1970s where your assumptions seem to come from, @Zambar; in fact, there might be at least one Mountain gorilla already (and still) living in a major European zoo for several decades...

I do think that it is a good thing to keep certain cetaceans in captivity. A lot has and still can be learned from their husbandry that can benefit their wild relatives, in particular on the field of marine mammal medicine.

In general, there are certain species that should (sic!) not be kept in captivity-may it be that they perform rather poorly on public displays (all those sad stressed tarantulas with naked backs...), can not be adequately kept, fed and maintained (Olive Colobus, most insectivorous microchiroptera, colugos...), are too specific in their habitat specialisation (like a lot of parasites...), too big, too secretive or too small (pretty much most invertebrates) and uninteresting for the public (Earless monitor lizard, Typhlopidae...) or are so rare, fragile and endangered that they might benefit more from in-situ protection of their habitat than ex-situ breeding & display (most amphibians).

All in all, only a very small minority of the current animal species (mostly members of the mammalian megafauna) actually qualify for being kept more or less adequately in modern zoos-also in regard to the expectations to the paying public.

 

[Pertinax]

Mountain Gorillas often die prematurely due to respiratory problems in captivity, as very few zoos can recreate the altitude and climate they need to survive.

Only four 'true' Mountain Gorillas- from the Virunga Volcanoes region, are known to have been kept in captivity. Of those, the two most recent were the females at Koln Zoo in the 1970's which survived into adulthood, though they did both die at a comparatively early age but I don't think it was from respiratory problems.

The female 'Amahoro' currently at Antwerp may be a 'mountain' gorilla but her exact provenance is debateable as her appearance indicates she is not a true 'Berengei' from the Virunga volcanoes region.

 

[redpanda]

Perhaps Zambar is getting confused with the gorillas at Singapore which, if I remember correctly, all died from an air-borne virus.