Edinburgh Zoo Sad at some sights in Edin Zoo

[zooman64]

Re. Ravens at Edinburgh Zoo.

The point has been raised that ravens, being native to the British Isles, should not be kept in captivity in this country because we all have the opportunity to see them in the wild.

To an extent, I can understand this point of view. However, the most important thing is that the zoo in question (be it Edinburgh or any other zoo) should be able to provide a reason for keeping each and every species in its collection. A species can be kept for a variety of reasons - conservation, education, for observational research - but no species should ever be kept simply as a cage filler. Every zoo should be able to say "We keep that species because..." From wigeons to wolves, a zoo must be able to justify having that particular species in its collection. But I'm afraid I cannot see any justification for Edinburgh Zoo's keeping of ravens.

 

[Johnny Morris.]

Re. Ravens at Edinburgh Zoo.

The point has been raised that ravens, being native to the British Isles, should not be kept in captivity in this country because we all have the opportunity to see them in the wild.

To an extent, I can understand this point of view. However, the most important thing is that the zoo in question (be it Edinburgh or any other zoo) should be able to provide a reason for keeping each and every species in its collection. A species can be kept for a variety of reasons - conservation, education, for observational research - but no species should ever be kept simply as a cage filler. Every zoo should be able to say "We keep that species because..." From wigeons to wolves, a zoo must be able to justify having that particular species in its collection. But I'm afraid I cannot see any justification for Edinburgh Zoo's keeping of ravens.

I've seen Ravens in a few collections and seeing them up close has made me appreciate these truly magnificent birds more than seeing one in a field somewhere.

 

[Maguari]

But I'm afraid I cannot see any justification for Edinburgh Zoo's keeping of ravens.

Surely it's not too had to come up with some?

Education - as a representative of a local species people may nto be familiar with, or as the world's heaviest passerine bird.

But then, I don't really hold with this argument fully - as surely any animal can be justified on education grounds? If a zoo teaches its visitors nothing else, it should show them new species they may have never even heard of before, and should illustrate at least some of the diversity of animal life.

Chester's system of justification (which is being rolled out across the whole collection) is pragmatic and, alongside other such as 'conservation breeding', 'conservation (ex situ tie-in)' and 'education', includes 'display value' and 'theme enhancement' as reasons. Translation - there's no particular conservation or education message from having them, except that they are animals that paying visitors like to see or help to illustrate the theme of exhibit complexes (like the leaf insects and mantids in Realm of the Red Ape). I don't see any problem with this.

 

[Ginnieb]

Re. Ravens at Edinburgh Zoo.

The point has been raised that ravens, being native to the British Isles, should not be kept in captivity in this country because we all have the opportunity to see them in the wild.

To an extent, I can understand this point of view. However, the most important thing is that the zoo in question (be it Edinburgh or any other zoo) should be able to provide a reason for keeping each and every species in its collection. A species can be kept for a variety of reasons - conservation, education, for observational research - but no species should ever be kept simply as a cage filler. Every zoo should be able to say "We keep that species because..." From wigeons to wolves, a zoo must be able to justify having that particular species in its collection. But I'm afraid I cannot see any justification for Edinburgh Zoo's keeping of ravens.

I found this, goes some way to explaining what they are doing with ravens. I didn't realise ravens can live up to 40 years in captivity.

Raven

It's probably too late for these ravens to be able to be released but I felt they shouldn't be there and that the one I saw was trying to figure out how to escape.

 

[Maguari]

I think it was St James's Park.There were only one or two coots when I was there so I reckon the rest have flown off somewhere and therefore have the freedom to do so. They do have an enormous open park area there and no fence so I feel are without a doubt better off than zoo kept waterfowl and can fly anywhere they want to. I'm sure they choose to stay if they are being fed though as you imply! Just like my chooks

But I've no concerns with waterfowl kept in the zoo unless they are in a tight space unsuitable to their needs.

I'm pretty sure the exotic waterfowl in St James' Park is pinioned, so they can't fly anywhere.

If anything this is much more ethically dubious than the aviary-bound ravens!

 

[Maguari]

I found this, goes some way to explaining what they are doing with ravens. I didn't realise ravens can live up to 40 years in captivity.

Raven

It's probably too late for these ravens to be able to be released but I felt they shouldn't be there and that the one I saw was trying to figure out how to escape.

A very interesting project, actually, by the sounds of it. Thanks for that!

 

[sooty mangabey]

What I find extraordinary about this discussion - and I'm not simply criticising Ginnieb, because she is one of many who fall into this trap - is that someone who has very little to do with zoos, and who is (on the evidence of many of the comments above) fairly ignorant about wildlife, nonetheless feels herself to be an expert in matters of animal husbandry, able to divine the state of an animal's mind, able to pontificate on the rights and wrongs of keeping animals in captivity, and so on. And the views of her nephew are also deemed to be worthy of being raised, as if he were an expert on animal behaviour! So, we get all the tired old arguments, born out of prejudice and misinformation - they've got fleas! the water is dirty! the cages are too small! they looked sad!

And as for the argument about TV programmes negating the need for zoos - we can see them on our screens, so why do we need to see them in the flesh? - it's just rubbish. The OP is a travel agent. If her argument was to be followed through, she would be out of a job - after all, why travel to, say, Greece, when you can see it on TV much more easily? It was the late Clinton Keeling who made that point, and I fear he would be spinning in his grave if he were to see the quality of the discourse above.

 

[Ginnieb]

I've seen Ravens in a few collections and seeing them up close has made me appreciate these truly magnificent birds more than seeing one in a field somewhere.

Marvel maybe, but appreciate them more because you could see them close up? Hmm, I feel that is a shame. I once saw a programme that I found fascinating on wild ravens and their abilities. I don't feel the need to see one in a cage though but I can understand that seeing one close up would fascinate. I don't see this a good enough reason for keeping it there though when they live in our forests.

 

[Ginnieb]

What I find extraordinary about this discussion - and I'm not simply criticising Ginnieb, because she is one of many who fall into this trap - is that someone who has very little to do with zoos, and who is (on the evidence of many of the comments above) fairly ignorant about wildlife, nonetheless feels herself to be an expert in matters of animal husbandry, able to divine the state of an animal's mind, able to pontificate on the rights and wrongs of keeping animals in captivity, and so on. And the views of her nephew are also deemed to be worthy of being raised, as if he were an expert on animal behaviour! So, we get all the tired old arguments, born out of prejudice and misinformation - they've got fleas! the water is dirty! the cages are too small! they looked sad!

And as for the argument about TV programmes negating the need for zoos - we can see them on our screens, so why do we need to see them in the flesh? - it's just rubbish. The OP is a travel agent. If her argument was to be followed through, she would be out of a job - after all, why travel to, say, Greece, when you can see it on TV much more easily? It was the late Clinton Keeling who made that point, and I fear he would be spinning in his grave if he were to see the quality of the discourse above.

No, no no,!!! My goodness, please re-read properly! In my answers I state that I am no expert (not a zoologist or vet) but do feel I have more knowledge through experience than a genereal layperson just going to the zoo for a nice day out and having had no contact or experience at all of wildlife. I have had fairly extensive contact with wildlife including rescues and rehabilitiation. Of course I have never claimed to divine the state of an animals mind as you suggest!! But I believe that those of us who have kept, loved and have helped rehabilitate have an understanding and certain ability or awareness to recognize problems. That is altogether different to what you are stating!

As for my nephew being an expert!! Come on...!! Re-read again please! I was merely noting my observations of his reactions to seeing the animals and how quickly he was sidetracked and lost interest!!

Yes, the water is filthy in the seal enclosure, as many state here the zoo is taking action... great!! I'm glad I 'asked'!

Yes, I personally feel the hedgehog tank is way too small, that is my view, I'm sorry if that offends you.

As for the fleas... I didn't know, I do say that (more than once in different posts) and had 'asked' the question as to why the chimps had bald patches. I got some decent answers back, they may or may not be right and I look forward to emailing the zoo to ask re my questions. Let's see what they say.

I never said any animal 'looked' sad, I said I was sad!

Yes I am a travel Agent, but I do not send people to zoos, if anyone books with me to go abroad for the specific reason of wildlife viewing, it is to see animals in the wild. Ok, it could be argued Namibia and South Africa's parks are not entirely without it's fences but the animals are still free, to interact, breed freely, kill, survive without being within the confines of a 100 or 200 square foot enclosure that prevents them from doing so. That is the difference.

I have no argument with anyone but I will say it again...

I feel for the individual. Nature is nature where killing is for survival but confinement is prison if an animal is aware it is confined and shows signs of agitation at being there. Animals who are happily ensconsed in zoos without agitation and settled in their lives (and it is not difficult to tell these apart with a degree of insight and certain animal knowledge) I have no problem with as long as they are happy.

And I am sorry but I do not support the views of Clinton Keeling and circuses. I am afraid circus animals may have reasonable husbandry and are well fed and loved, but as an example no tiger or lion no matter how well looked after or loved in a circus environment can ever know in it's life how it feels to run a hundred years let alone freely. It lives and travels in a cage, end of. Many keepers have been mauled and killed by keepers in circus environments, that to me speaks for itself... and anyhow is a whole other thread!!

 

[TARZAN]

What I find extraordinary about this discussion - and I'm not simply criticising Ginnieb, because she is one of many who fall into this trap - is that someone who has very little to do with zoos, and who is (on the evidence of many of the comments above) fairly ignorant about wildlife, nonetheless feels herself to be an expert in matters of animal husbandry, able to divine the state of an animal's mind, able to pontificate on the rights and wrongs of keeping animals in captivity, and so on. And the views of her nephew are also deemed to be worthy of being raised, as if he were an expert on animal behaviour! So, we get all the tired old arguments, born out of prejudice and misinformation - they've got fleas! the water is dirty! the cages are too small! they looked sad!

And as for the argument about TV programmes negating the need for zoos - we can see them on our screens, so why do we need to see them in the flesh? - it's just rubbish. The OP is a travel agent. If her argument was to be followed through, she would be out of a job - after all, why travel to, say, Greece, when you can see it on TV much more easily? It was the late Clinton Keeling who made that point, and I fear he would be spinning in his grave if he were to see the quality of the discourse above.

Regarding the late Clinton Keeling,as someone who enjoyed reading his articles, I remember his comment about visiting Edinburgh Zoo years ago for the first time, his opinion?, "It's good, but not THAT good", I would say that opinion remains most valid today as a fair description of Edinburgh Zoo.

 

[Ginnieb]

I'm pretty sure the exotic waterfowl in St James' Park is pinioned, so they can't fly anywhere.

If anything this is much more ethically dubious than the aviary-bound ravens!

Absolutely!

I didn't notice that tho' (I rescued some hens once who had been and it was very noticeable) but if that is the case that would not be right. Although where did the coots go then?!

 

[Maguari]

Absolutely!

I didn't notice that tho' (I rescued some hens once who had been and it as very noticeable) but if that is the case that would not be right. Although where did the coots go then?!

The coots are native and wild - they really are just freeloaders ( ) - as are the mallards and herons, and probably the Tufted Ducks. But they have exotic (in the strict sense of 'non-native') species there like the pelicans, like Fulvous Whistling Ducks, Barnacle Geese and Ne-Nes - these will almost certainly be pinioned, but it probably won't be noticeable if they don't open their wings.

 

[Ginnieb]

A very interesting project, actually, by the sounds of it. Thanks for that!

It does sound interesting and I'm glad at least the ravens have some intelligent interaction. I just hope if they live 40 years in captivity they don't run out of interesting puzzles for them to solve!
I just felt sorry that I doubt it will ever manage to undo the wires of the cage as it was trying to do with great intent while I watched it!

 

[Ginnieb]

The coots are native and wild - they really are just freeloaders ( ) - as are the mallards and herons, and probably the Tufted Ducks. But they have exotic (in the strict sense of 'non-native') species there like the pelicans, like Fulvous Whistling Ducks, Barnacle Geese and Ne-Nes - these will almost certainly be pinioned, but it probably won't be noticeable if they don't open their wings.

I never saw pelicans or ne-nes but then I stopped halfway round. I didn't spot the barnacle geese either just the greylag but I just looked at my photos and they are def not clipped. No matter, it's a shame if they clip the others but I reckon it wouldn't do to have pelicans and the like flying into Leicester Square It's still a nice place and they are free ('ish )

A nice place for families to take their kids.

Thanks for all your imput Maguari, I keep needing to go and do some work but keep getting caught up again! It's been great chatting!!

 

[Mr T]

Absolutely!

I didn't notice that tho' (I rescued some hens once who had been and it was very noticeable) but if that is the case that would not be right. Although where did the coots go then?!

Why would hens be pinioned? I though they were unable to fly anyway. As for the coots, well maybe they were hiding from you in a bush or some reeds. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there!

 

[Mr T]

No, no no,!!! My goodness, please re-read properly! In my answers I state that I am no expert (not a zoologist or vet) but do feel I have more knowledge through experience than a genereal layperson just going to the zoo for a nice day out and having had no contact or experience at all of wildlife. I have had fairly extensive contact with wildlife including rescues and rehabilitiation. Of course I have never claimed to divine the state of an animals mind as you suggest!! But I believe that those of us who have kept, loved and have helped rehabilitate have an understanding and certain ability or awareness to recognize problems. That is altogether different to what you are stating!

As for my nephew being an expert!! Come on...!! Re-read again please! I was merely noting my observations of his reactions to seeing the animals and how quickly he was sidetracked and lost interest!!

Yes, the water is filthy in the seal enclosure, as many state here the zoo is taking action... great!! I'm glad I 'asked'!

Yes, I personally feel the hedgehog tank is way too small, that is my view, I'm sorry if that offends you.

As for the fleas... I didn't know, I do say that (more than once in different posts) and had 'asked' the question as to why the chimps had bald patches. I got some decent answers back, they may or may not be right and I look forward to emailing the zoo to ask re my questions. Let's see what they say.

I never said any animal 'looked' sad, I said I was sad!

Yes I am a travel Agent, but I do not send people to zoos, if anyone books with me to go abroad for the specific reason of wildlife viewing, it is to see animals in the wild. Ok, it could be argued Namibia and South Africa's parks are not entirely without it's fences but the animals are still free, to interact, breed freely, kill, survive without being within the confines of a 100 or 200 square foot enclosure that prevents them from doing so. That is the difference.

I have no argument with anyone but I will say it again...

I feel for the individual. Nature is nature where killing is for survival but confinement is prison if an animal is aware it is confined and shows signs of agitation at being there. Animals who are happily ensconsed in zoos without agitation and settled in their lives (and it is not difficult to tell these apart with a degree of insight and certain animal knowledge) I have no problem with as long as they are happy.

And I am sorry but I do not support the views of Clinton Keeling and circuses. I am afraid circus animals may have reasonable husbandry and are well fed and loved, but as an example no tiger or lion no matter how well looked after or loved in a circus environment can ever know in it's life how it feels to run a hundred years let alone freely. It lives and travels in a cage, end of. Many keepers have been mauled and killed by keepers in circus environments, that to me speaks for itself... and anyhow is a whole other thread!!

You are claiming to have more knowledge of animals than a layperson yet you still refer to a seal (it is a sealion) a hedgehog (which I believe is a tenrec) and chimps as monkeys.

 

[Lesley4444]

Not to get to personal but you just contradicted yourself in the same post... you said...

"I never said any animal 'looked' sad, I said I was sad!"

Then said... "I have no problem with as long as they are happy"

Edinburgh Zoo as strong links with Stirling University...the ravens at the zoo... like the squirrel monkeys and capuchins in living links are involved in studies carried out by the university and thats why they are in the zoo... as shown on the zoo website...Edinburgh Zoo has one of the best zoo websites in my opinon with accurate information about individual animals in there care...

Raven

Edinburgh Zoo is far from perfect... but atleast they are attempting to change for the better... the newer enclosures are a testimony to that. You seemed to enjoy aspects of the zoo yet you didnt mention them.

You are saying that people should go to the natural places and see these animals. I agree with that... and i have done it... seeing a bengal tiger and leopard in india has been the highlight of my wildlife achievement to date. But a very important point has to be made. I would NEVER have been so passionate about wildlife or conservation had it not been for Edinburgh Zoo and me spending time there as a child and conditions then were worse. Kids cannot spend hrs on the back of a safari jeep waiting to see a tiger or leopard... but they can go to the zoo and 90% of the time see them and get inspired by them.

I recently bought my neice a membership for the zoo.. and i will continue to take her.. because its those kind of encounters with zoo animals that made me want to conserve their wild cousins.

I answered all your questions on previous posts regarding the chimps, the leopard, the ravens and the hedgehog (thats actually a tenrec..lol).. so we will have to agree to dissagree on things are you dont seem to be taking on board what many people are saying to you and still saying the animal was "sad" or the enclosure was to small. these are all your opinon which you are welcome to express

 

[kiang]

Where are the ravens currently kept at the zoo?

 

[Lesley4444]

Where the gret grey owls were then then the vultures. They use to be opposite the camel house

 

[Simon McGlary]

Ravens at Edinburgh Zoo

The ravens have also been part of a research programme testing the raven's cognitive abilities. Indeed, with some of the tests, they had to be prepared out of sight of the ravens as they would often reverse the process used by the keeper or researcher in setting up the puzzle feeder! There is also ongoing research on wild crows in the immediate vicinity of the zoo as part of further research into corvid cognitive abilities (look out for ringed crows.)

The leopards.

There has been extensive research again into their behaviours. Often zoology students from the local university can be seen spending hours at enclosures with a watch and clipboard. The "pacing" behaviour could have so many more causes than just boredom.
Both leopards used to be in enclosures where the jaguar is now. The female, now in the lower of the 2 enclosures, used to be notorious for this behaviour. It would break when a keeper was approaching, the door to her back indoor area was open or a specific education officer approached who she would immediately try and attack. Since moving she has calmed remarkably and when she comes into season she becomes very playful looking. She also paws at the lower dividing door between the enclosures, the area in which the male can often be seen "pacing". I would argue that he is patrolling as he confines this behaviour to just that corner. They have previously been introduced when, apparently, she tried to attack him so his nervousness about her presence is understandable. It is hoped that having a different environment, and especially a different climate, at Highland Wildlife Park might change their behaviours yet again.

Sea lion enclosure

The water is tested regularly and is relatively clean. It is dark though but that comes from a mix of the water coming through a reed bed filtration system (and why the enclosure immediately above it is "empty" and the rock and concrete used in the construction of the also being dark. Loch Ness, for example, is pitch black from the water that has filtered through peat bogs and dark soils in the surrounding area. the filtration system is, however, regarded as being out of date, and the sea lion is moving on to another enclosure.

Panda enclosure

The panda enclosure was also approved by the panda experts from China. Yes, pandas are often seen as a political entity but research work done in zoos, not just on pandas and not just in Edinburgh, can have a valuable input to our understanding to animals in the wild too. As mentioned elsewhere all animals patrol their territory looking out for potential threats, anything new in the area and perhaps a new food source. Territory size is often related to availability of food. In the case of zoos, very available, hence the need for zoos to find interesting ways in feeding the animals, such as smaller more frequent feeds in the case of the pandas.
The male panda had colic. Something that, on calling China, it was established is more common than many are aware in pandas!

Chimps

Ricky, in particular, has a lot of bald patches on his back. He's a 50 year old chimp so with a mix of age and overgrooming he's lost a bit there. Chimps, just like humans (we do share over 98% DNA) can also have bald bits for a whole host of reasons, even grey as two of the newer chimps are in a very noticeable way. One is a 31 year old female and the other her 15 year old daughter. With chimp politics and their society being just as complex as ours in some cases there can be so many factors.

It would be amazing useful to have lots of people around the zoo to be able to explain these things but often keepers are busy cleaning enclosures, preparing food, preparing enrichment and a whole host of other tasks that they are unable to spend as much time as they would like to talk about the animals. Talks can only cover a selected area. When preparing the daily talks programmes the problem is usually more what to leave out rather than what to put in! One of the things that Edinburgh is trying to do is to have more volunteers out in the zoo to answer queries such as these!

I'm sure that without someone there to answer questions and, particularly when you are short of time, the lack of opportunity to spend sufficient time at any given enclosure similar issues would be raised at any zoo. Suffice to say that every good zoo is continually assessing the needs and welfare of its animals along with the animals it keeps.

I would encourage you to email the zoo with your concerns, Ginnieb, and I am sure they would be more than willing to give you a very fully and detailed response that I am sure would put your mind at ease. I am sure that any good zoo would do the same and hopefully I could include most if not all UK zoo in that.