I disapprove the "special treatment" demanded for cetaceans. A bottlenose dolphin deserves the same proper, species-adequate husbandry as a Berber toad, a Walking Leaf or a Green Jay-but it certainly doesn't deserve privileges due to personal favouritism, no matter how much the New Age Wave has tried to portray dolphins as the always smiling "Ãœber"-creatures.
There are many of the cetaceans that can't, shouldn't and won't be kept in captivity, as it would be technologically impossible and way too expensive to do so-like in the case of the baleen whales (think of JJ), the sperm whale, Beaked whales etc. There are cetacean species that don't do well in captivity due to various, sometimes unknown reasons; there are species that could be kept but there are indications that the current husbandry isn't optimal and probably won't be in the future (fins of male orcas), making it questionable whether to keep on keeping them is OK or not; and then there are species that seem to do pretty fine in human captivity, like f.e. Commerson's dolphins, beluga and the ever-popular bottlenose dolphins. Is it therefore that easy to generalize and forbid keeping all of them due to rather ambiguous, mainly emotional reasons? What if I wake up next morning, saying: "I can't stand the thought of koalas kept in a zoo! They have all to disappear magically! And presto-gone they are"-would that make any sense? Certainly not; it depends on the individual case. While the husbandry of Orcas in "exhibitionistic" husbandries like in SW or the Loro Parque or dolphin shows in hotel complexes and amusement parks surely aren't something many zoo fans can relate to easily, the husbandry of dolphins at Harderwijk f.e. doesn't seem to trigger many negative feelings; like I said, it depends on the individual case, species & circumstances.
Frankly, I think that some cetaceans do qualify for professional animal husbandry and that some highly endangered species could benefit from projects in "Harderwijk style", like the vaquita or various river dolphins. Additionally, I also think that the knowledge derived from the experiences in captivity can be useful in helping wild populations; think f.e. in terms of veterinary knowledge (where to take blood from, common diseases, medication, dose etc.). And the "ambassador" role of the captive cetaceans on people should not be neglected, either. However, this doesn't mean that current husbandry conditions should not be optimized if needed-but this is also true for ALL species kept in human custody.
Well said, I agree to a great extent.
My thoughts are that so far even bottlenoses and others are not doing very well in captivity. Many young die ,many adults die to early. Lots of disease as well.
Not strangely, this occurs in the showbassins and the smaller bassins.
I haven't been in Harderwijk for at least 7 years ,and I'm not planning on going back, but I've spoken about it with a girl I know who is a dolphin freak; she told me how great the laguna is and how well the dolphins do.
Maybe I should reconsider. Sadly, it's not possible to house all dolphins in facilities this style.
Btw, considering Harderwijk: it does trigger negative reactions in the Netherlands from - well ,you know who.
I agree their keeping and husbrandy should be optimalized; maybe in that case, they have a future in zoos.
But I do not really believe in it.
Look, I don't think you want to hear some of my argumentation. I've read a lot on websites made by activists. Not that I am one or even like them.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
But I do agree on some points - this considers many species though.
The main argument is the bad state of health and husbandry in many dolphins and the short lifespan (which also does for orcas, btw).
This is a serious point. I am not wishing to dissapear, but if it cannot be done to improve this points to a high extent and to stop using them in shows, I'm afraid they better do dissapear.
Just wishing them to disappear because one has a personal grudge or rather indifference torwards their husbandry, sometimes based on a lack of better knowledge of the subject, isn't a valid point and won't be taken seriously in the (pro) zoo world.
Look, Sun ,I do not want to get into a long time conflict with you, but things like these are, even if meant constructive, in my opinion not very helping towards a discussion.
There is a thin line between criticizing and offending (which you are not crossing though).
I know very well I shouldn't have named some species maybe, I'm not that knowledgable on all.
I do have studied the keeping and husbrandry of some, which so far in the case of cetaceans supported my believe they shouldn't be kept.
Look, I'm not ,and I'll say it again, a great liker of the popular species. It's a grudge, I know. I'm not indifferent though. If I was, would I enjoy watching lion and tiger cubs ,baby elephants and more?
Look, again. Maybe opposition to the keeping is a strong word. I just have very strong second thoughts on it. I will keep on criticizing what I do not like.
I've seen very good things for almost any species.
I know my point hasn't been made valid or argumented. You've made it all to clear, and it doesn't need to be said all over again.
There is a line between debating and getting personal.
Look, I'm only just here; I do not want conflicts with members as of yet.
All in all: No special treatment for dolphins, apes, elephants etc.
Depends on what you mean... every speciesn needs a special treatment matching up to the specific needs.
Could you elaborate on the term 'special treatment'?
Why didn't Brown Bears reproduce a lot in European collections during the last years? The answer is simple: decades before, the zoos had way too many cubs and didn't know where to put them-which resulted in quite strong pulic reactions (see Leipzig Bear "funeral"). Therefore, the zoos introduced birth control measurements and thus avoided unwanted pregnancies. Now the Brown Bears in European collections are dying off and are too old to reproduce...which will result in Brown Bears brought in from other countries or the replacement with other bear species (which wouldn't be a bad thing).
Apes + trees = escapes, hurt staff/visitors and frustrated zoo gardeners; a possible solution-see Seattle Zoo.
Well, I cannot speak about decades ago, as I'm only visiting zoos for about a single decade.
I know about the age of many brown bears, but my belief is it also might have to do with inadequacy of some facilities. Also ,many go into hibernation and then give birth. I do not know of hibernating brown bears in zoos, actually.
It's pretty sad they aren't breeding, but maybe others species are. Not a bad thing to make space.
I wasn't saying - on the apes - they should be able to actually get up in the trees. I know zoos where they have them ,and are kept out of most (especially near the edge).
This for example was done at Arnhem zoo (not in a very good-looking way though ; the electrified iron wires are all too visible, even from great distance).
Even if one so ,though apes can still get over or out. It has happened in Arnhem in the past (they used sticks and cooperated to get on a roof ,I believe).
Maybe trees isn't the very best solution, but I do not know what Seattle zoo has done.
My main point is that in my opinion the currently common climbing structures aren't always sufficient.
Of course, a good environment can be made without real trees.
A good exhibits offers animals the possibility to hide if needed-and half of the day (at night) nhardly anyone watches them, anyway.
Of course; I wholehartedly agree.
Many new exhibits keep this in mind, which is only good. For example, in the Belgian zoo law it is clearly stated (I have a print) that animals need hiding places.
Too bad that in my opinion the regulations for stables and inner enclosures are still weak; I do not have a problem with it when they sleep. But if they are separated for longtime, I do. Separated animals ,even when not being watched ,need to have their needs met.
To me , the fact no-one watches them at night is not a reason to make the night cages very small.
But I agree if it's not visible, it's probably not interesting to think about.
Even You personally prefer small critters, @Xerxes-do You think that most visitors share this attitude? If so, why are they all flocking to the apes etc. and leave You marvelling at Your favourites in solitude? Why do the zoos not consist solely of the animals You prefer? And why not also let all snakes "disappear magically" as You stated not to like them either...? The answers to these and other similar questions can be found in various threads in this forum.
Of course most do not share this attitude.
I have done enough zoo visits to know clearly which animals are popular.
I understand this, and thus think that the popular species are needed. I don't pay as much attention to them as most, but I still watch them.
Even the ones I don't like so much, can be pretty nice.
I'm interested in most animals ,but I believe most here have their favourites. So do I.
This does not mean the other animals should not be present. Search a good balance, I'd say.
Maybe someone should let me get to know the popular and charismatic animals better and let me appreciate them ever more. A challenge ,you say ?
Really, you're taking this a bit far now. That I stated I do not like some species or have less interest in them (which might be a strong term, though) is not a reason to let them dissapear.
I do not want to see snakes go. The reason for me not liking them is I was dead scared as a child.
The same as I still have nowadays, but towards mice and rats. Favourite prey of many snakes, btw.
I will read and watch through the other topics. It will be very interesting.
Yet be told that You can't measure everything just based on Your personal point of view; sometimes, being objective can be way more helpful.
You've made your point clear, and I understand.
You do not need to state it time and time again.
