Species you oppose to the holding off

Sun Wukong said:
@ashley-h : There are some speculations (like SAMBRAUS: Zoo animal husbandry) that groups in zoos can have positive effects in terms of positive social interaction in usually solitary species like bears or Orang-utans.
Click to expand...

A good example of this is Chester's Sumatran Orang Utan group. The two youngsters interact with every other Orang in there and this seems to bring the entire group together. Puluh and Padang (the two males) sometimes go on their own at opposite ends of the exhibit but don't shun the attention from the other Orangs. The keepers have said to me that when Realm of the Red Ape was being designed that they wanted to keep the Orangs together at night and allow them to form their own sleeping groups, rather than seperate them like in the old house and I'd imagine this helps the group to bond more...
 
Yeah and the black bears in Berlin zoo were playing around in the water moat.
That sick about the bears in Leipzig Zoo :( Don't quite understand the church service tho :S
 
What's so sick about it? Better kill the surplus animal quickly & professionally and use it in an apt way instead of shirking the bear off to an unsuitable husbandry where it will suffer for years. Just my 2 cents...And about the church service-media and overboarding emotional humanisation of animals can lead to absurd results...
 
And it being sick is my 2 cents :) What do you tell the kids? "Oh yeah, you're eating that bear cub you saw in the zoo last week"... lol imagine...
 
snowleopard said:
the whale sharks.
Click to expand...

I agree current aquariums are too small for them. But were they especially caught for aquarium? I thought they were accidentaly caught and landed in a tank.

great white shark
Click to expand...

What I read on Monterey aquarium website, the purpose of GWS was always education about sharks and fund-raising. Apparently they had countless talks about them.

So this shark helped conservation of sharks. Captive breeding is not the only or even first reason to keep animals in aquarium.

snowleopard said:
The Vancouver Aquarium has 4 belugas and it has been a bit of a battle over the years to keep them at bay from activists.
Click to expand...

Let activists to white shark - they contribute to well-being of at least one animal! ;)
 
I fully support Monterey Bay Aquarium and its great white shark program...three down and many more to hopefully arrive in the future. The amount of data that can be retreived from the young sharks in captivity, and even more so once they are released and tracked in the wild, is enormous. The future of the species is extended each and every time they are studied in both captivity and the wild. Plus the Monterey Bay Aquarium is arguably one of the finest organizations in the world for captive wildlife.
 
Sun Wukong said:
Reminds me of Gary Larson's "Tofu antelopes"cartoon...
Click to expand...

Or Futurama's Tofu Lion belonging to Waterfall Jr..?

I actually agree with you Sun that there are very few animals which should not be kept in captivity...

IMO it is a lack of resources/facilities (size wise) and husbandry techniques which causes some people to "black list" certain species...

Cetaceans can do well at some Aquariums where they are kept in large, naturalistic tanks (Beluga's come to mind)...

6 - 7 decades ago it was thought keeping a Gorilla alive for more than a few years was a miracle, but improvements like glass in between animals and patrons, stopping public feeding and spitting into enclosures, as well as improvements in food provided and enclosure design etc. have changed this...

@Xerces, I don't think I've ever seen an apes group look "happy" (for lack of a better term) in captivity (in my limited travels) but this does not mean they should not be kept and I can assure you with their plight in the wild and their popularity among zoo goers, they are not going anywhere..!

Similarly bears zoo plight has improved markedly in the last few decades, users here can point to zoos where the bears do very well (Seattle, San Fran have good exhibits) and many, many more where they don't...

As for Elephants I think money has a lot to do with why lots of zoo are eliminating them from their collections (imagine the cost of feeding a herd 100's of kg of hay each a day) because it is expected to keep them in a herd these days and that is usually after spending millions (or 10's of millions of dollars, see LA Zoo's 40 million dollar new Elephant exhibit) bringing their enclosures up to standard...

In fact money I think has to do with a lot of the types of animals Xerces mentioned, a satisfactory standard of husbandry is known but getting the money to build these multi-million dollar exhibits takes time and most Western Zoo's that are planning on keeping them will be making this financial committment over the next 2+ decades...

Some species that haven't been mentioned that are keep in captivity and don't do well such as South American Bush Dogs, even Moose (I'm sure others users can name more) but does that mean we should keep them..? IMO no because all it will take is enterprising zoo staffer to figure out what it is they need. It could something as simple a certain vitamin in their diet, a type of substrate in their enclosure, etc...

Just some thoughts...
 
Last edited:
@NZ Jeremy: you bring up an intriguing point about keeping gorillas alive in captivity, and it is startling how quickly things change. In 1979 Seattle opened what they claim was the first ever naturalistic enclosure for gorillas, and by 1989 there were still probably only about ten or so zoos worldwide with naturalistic enclosures for gorillas. It's difficult to believe any advanced zoo now not having grass and substrate for its primates, and the zoos that don't have such material are frowned upon by many visitors.

I love to see the four beluga whales at the Vancouver Aquarium, but can't wait for them to gain more room to move in the larger tanks that are on the way within two years. It's a fine line when it comes to aquatic wildlife, because just as with mammals on land there is no space truly large enough for the vast majority of captive wildlife.
 
NZ Jeremy said:
Some species that haven't been mentioned that are keep in captivity and don't do well such as South American Bush Dogs, even Moose
Click to expand...

Here in Scandinavia, keeping moose is easy. Also, Randers Regnskov Tropical Zoo had bush dog babies this fall :D
 
Yeah, bush dogs & moose aren't that difficult to keep; it's mainly the selective browsing for leaves that makes keeping moose a bit more challenging for zoos; yet there are quite of a bunch of them in North American and European zoos and wildlife parks. And about money: it's a key factor, yet it depends HOW and on WHAT the money is spent; quite often, a multi-million dollar exhibit is less adequate than a much, much cheaper version.

And about "happy apes" in zoos: oh, I have seen some-they're called "Bonobos"-and I think You all know why they were happy...;)
 
Last edited:
Perhaps someone should start a new thread, if there isn't one already, on the best multi-million dollar zoo exhibits. We could analyze these massive investments and begin to nitpick on the qualities and detrimental side effects of each. I agree that at many locations there is a lot of money being tossed around, but there are not many outstanding exhibits being built that justify the enormous cost.
 
Sun Wukong said:
a multi-million dollar exhibit is less adequate than a much, much cheaper version.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that often this "extra" money is spend on aethestics and keeping enclosures "open air/barless"..?
 
@NZ Jeremy: Sorry that I start to sound that I contradict to everything and everyone-but: aesthetics-depends completely on Your individual point of view. If You ask 5 people about their personal opinion about the aesthetic character of a building, You usually end up with (at least) 5 different opinions. And if all 5 agree that it is ugly, someone did a terrible job... Best example: Munich Zoo's newer buildings or Omaha's Desert Dome. Additionally, the opinions are also transient in the flow of time; just think of old zoo buildings. When they were built, everyone said: "Oh, it's modern, it's hip, it's cool". Now, 10 or 20 years later, everyone looks at them and says: "How could they ever build such trash?" Same thing if You look at old family photos...;)
And the "open air/barless" enclosures: often it's just masquerade and window dressing-they just replace older with newer looking bars. And behind the scenes, hardly anything changes. I can't remember how many times I have heard zookeepers mutter "The old exhibit was much better to work at"....;)
 
I meant general aesthetic's i.e. visible bars vs. open grotto's/mock rock... I willing to bet 9 out of 10 zoo visitors would say they prefer the latter and that in 9 out of 10 cases the latter would be more expensive to construct...
 
@NZ Jeremy: the great ape enclosures at Howletts and Port Lymphe are classic examples. Moated, lush forests or barred, glassed and full of hay cages? Those two parks chose the latter route, but for many reasons it remains a contentious decision. They claim that the look is subserviant to the good an exhibit does for its inhabitants, but the public seems to clamour for lush, green enclosures.
 
@Snowleopard... I think that proves both mine and Sun's points...

The Gorillas at those two zoos are some of the most successful troops in the world (surely we can agree on that? Especially considering they have enough excess to consider re-introduction?)... However many zoo goers find the enclosures "ugly" but I bet they are a lot cheaper than some of the new Gorilla exhibits around the world (see, again LA Zoo's, $19 million Gorilla exhibit, which by the way houses ONLY 5 Gorillas at the moment, almost 4 million a Gorilla in development)..!

I think the scope of building in the 3rd dimension with great apes is greatly under utilised... Imagine how much (hate to use it again) "happier" Chimps, Bonobos, Orangs and to a lesser extent Gorillas would be in cage exhibits say 30m x 30m wide and 10m high, heavily planted with large trees and foliage (so much so visitors could barely see the bars and would have to "search" for the animals), multiple rotating BE's and feeding methods, introduced scents, even multiple (similar) rotating habitats, with different male and female scents of the same species, possibly other species (say Siamangs for Orangs, Colobus for Gorillas etc) with nets say 1m or 2 off the ground to catch any falling apes, with an another ground dwelling species underneath these nets. Elevated platforms for visitors "peering" through reflective glass (glass in viewing areas only, the rest bars, hidden from the public's view as much as possible) into the apes world rather than forced into ours... With spacious night dens and exercise day rooms with full skylights... I think that would be effective both in cost (considering some of the modern Western zoo developments) and husbandry terms...

These are just some ruminations, not being in the zoo industry I can't comment on their praticality but a little thought can quickly provide some fabulous, cheap, effective (I hope) ideas, hopefully food for thought though...

The problems as I see it, as "zoo lovers, knowledgable zoo fans, or in the zoo industry" as the majority of users on this board are, we know a good exhibit extends to more than either bars or appearance... As Sun rightly points out, night quarters (where animals spend most of their time are not that different to decades [or more] ago)... The problem is the general public demands from zoos (especially "our Western zoos") not what is best from the animals point of view (except while on exhibit) but what is acceptable to keep the animals relatively healthy, happy and breeding (as a whole) but what is also very appealing to the eye...

Whew, thats a lot of typing, methinks Sun is going to cut me down to size, so let me point out these are my own humble opinions...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top