Bored / depressed animals

C

CZJimmy

Well-Known Member
Just been browsing through Flickr and one thing really annoys me. The amount of comments by people on photos (and videos on youtube) that say they feel so sorry for the apes because they look bored and aren't smiling...

It just riles me up inside because these people are the type to tar every zoo with the same brush and don't realise that an ape which is 'smiling' is actually feeling threatened and a 'bored' expression doesn't neccessarily mean that they are bored...

Oh and the constant comparisons between zoos and prisons gets to me as well...:mad:

Rant over
 
That bugs me, too. I'm always hearing about how "depressed" the Toronto Zoo gorillas, orangs and elephants are, and that they'd be so much better if they were "freed."

. . . Have they forgotten that when they went to the zoo, they drove on a cutoff from the highway? Yeah, being turned into roadkill is so much better than being taken care of skilled zookeepers.
 
Last edited:
I think that a lot of people who lead boring or tiring lives tend to idealise nature and animals in the wild - they think that wild animals lead lives of glorious freedom, with no wants or cares. These same people see zoo animals as being "in prison".

The truth, which such people don't want to face, is that life in the wild is hard and gruelling, and animals need to stay "on their toes" just to stay alive.

Example: a lioness may live 15 years in the wild, and during her lifetime give birth to, say, 20 cubs; but on average only 2 or 3 of those cubs will live to old age. Most will die young, from starvation or disease or predation. In a zoo, there is no reason why almost all the cubs will not survive to reproduce. (Bad example, I suppose - zoos don't WANT to be knee-deep in lions! But you get what I'm driving at.)
 
Meaghan Edwards said:
That bugs me, too. I'm always hearing about how "depressed" the Toronto Zoo gorillas, orangs and elephants are, and that they'd be so much better if they were "freed."

. . . Have they forgotten that when they went to the zoo, they drove on a cutoff from the highway? Yeah, being turned into roadkill is so much better than being taken care of skilled zookeepers.
Click to expand...
I've a equally hard time believing that those gorillas, orangs and elephants are living a very happy and enriching life in a zoo. All three animals are highly intelligent creatures who roam large distances in their natural habitat. Some ordinary pets live more interesting lives instead of being cooped up in an exhibit.

Ara said:
I think that a lot of people who lead boring or tiring lives tend to idealise nature and animals in the wild - they think that wild animals lead lives of glorious freedom, with no wants or cares. These same people see zoo animals as being "in prison".

The truth, which such people don't want to face, is that life in the wild is hard and gruelling, and animals need to stay "on their toes" just to stay alive.
.......
Click to expand...
Should lifespan be a benchmark for a good life for a zoo animal? Then its interesting that elephants and probably orangs live shorter lives in zoos. Non animal industry sources say elephants live to about 70 years in the world, Birute Galdikas says orangs like to 60-70 years. The oldest age of an elephant in a zoo is 52. Why is it that zoos quote lower figures for animal lifespan in the wild?
 
zoom said:
I've a equally hard time believing that those gorillas, orangs and elephants are living a very happy and enriching life in a zoo. All three animals are highly intelligent creatures who roam large distances in their natural habitat. Some ordinary pets live more interesting lives instead of being cooped up in an exhibit.


Should lifespan be a benchmark for a good life for a zoo animal? Then its interesting that elephants and probably orangs live shorter lives in zoos. Non animal industry sources say elephants live to about 70 years in the world, Birute Galdikas says orangs like to 60-70 years. The oldest age of an elephant in a zoo is 52. Why is it that zoos quote lower figures for animal lifespan in the wild?
Click to expand...

I would certainly dispute your first point. Size of an enclosure is not neccesarily vital for an animal to be stimulated (of course it helps is some instances though).

If an animal is provided with enough daily enrichment and kept in a naturalistic group, it will be kept stimulated. Most of the 'big' zoos have built large naturalistic enclosures for apes and still provide them with bucketloads of enrichment as part of a zoo's responsibility to keep these animals.

Elephants do need a large amount of space, but with enough care, they do not suffer on smaller plots of land. It is a problem most zoos are recognising and this is evidenced with the huge amounts of money being spent on new enclosures all over america and europe for these animals. On the other hand, some zoos are sending their elephants away if they do not have the modern facilities, so it is a problem which is improving.

Obviously there is some zoos which have an 'old-school' approach to keeping animals, and these really need to be improved, but you shouldn't tar every zoo with the same brush regarding stimulation.

As for animals living longer in the wild than in zoos... I really doubt that. There is the rare story of a long-lived animal in the wild, but compared to the amount of elderly animals in zoos, it doesn't match up. I think it's Adelaide Zoo which has a flamingo that realisitically would've died many, many years ago if it was a wild bird. There are many long-lived captive apes and elephants as well.

Zoos are able to provide 24-hour care for animals, a constant food source, clean water, medication, lack of predators, no habitat destruction etc so all these factors combine to help many animals live longer than they would do, if they lived out of a zoo.
 
ashley-h said:
I find that about elephants living to 70 in the wild hard to believe to be honest. I mean, there might be a few who live that long, but I highly doubt many live that long in the wild, due to their teeth wearing down, habitat destruction etc. And the oldest elephant in captivity lived to 86:
World Briefing | Asia: Taiwan: World's Oldest Elephant, 86, Is Dead - New York Times
Click to expand...
Petal just died this year at 52 and is the oldest elephant in America to date.
"Charismatic icon" Petal, oldest African elephant in U.S., dies at Philly Zoo at age 52 | Philadelphia Daily News | 06/10/2008

Les Schorbert reveals what he and other experts say about elephants living 50-70.
Ethics and Animals: How Long Do Elephants Live?

Patsy euthanized at 40 in Toronto zoo in 2006. Some sources state CEO Calvin White saying 40 was fairly old age. The arthritis which Patsy suffered and got put down for is typical of captive elephants living on packed earth/concrete surfaces.
Toronto Zoo > About the Toronto Zoo > Press Information
 
I know that several members of ZooBeat have taken this thread off topic, and so here's my two cents. I've raged against the health risks that captive elephants face, primarily a variety of foot diseases, and so I find myself agreeing with "Zoom" 100%. The majority of captive animals do live longer in zoos...except for certain species such as elephants. The barbarically hard surfaces that have plagued captive elephants all across the globe and forced many to be euthanized at an early age have contributed to shorter life spans. It's only in the last few years that enclosures have been built with tons of enrichment, loads of space, and a soft substrate for the pachyderms' feet. If things work out well then zoos will see elephants living into their 50's and 60's in the future.

As I've said before, of around 85 elephant exhibits in the United States perhaps 5 or 10 of them are better than average. Hopefully in the future that number will increase...
 
CZJimmy said:
I would certainly dispute your first point. Size of an enclosure is not neccesarily vital for an animal to be stimulated (of course it helps is some instances though).
If an animal is provided with enough daily enrichment and kept in a naturalistic group, it will be kept stimulated. Most of the 'big' zoos have built large naturalistic enclosures for apes and still provide them with bucketloads of enrichment as part of a zoo's responsibility to keep these animals.

Elephants do need a large amount of space, but with enough care, they do not suffer on smaller plots of land. It is a problem most zoos are recognising and this is evidenced with the huge amounts of money being spent on new enclosures all over america and europe for these animals. On the other hand, some zoos are sending their elephants away if they do not have the modern facilities, so it is a problem which is improving.

Obviously there is some zoos which have an 'old-school' approach to keeping animals, and these really need to be improved, but you shouldn't tar every zoo with the same brush regarding stimulation.

As for animals living longer in the wild than in zoos... I really doubt that. There is the rare story of a long-lived animal in the wild, but compared to the amount of elderly animals in zoos, it doesn't match up. I think it's Adelaide Zoo which has a flamingo that realisitically would've died many, many years ago if it was a wild bird. There are many long-lived captive apes and elephants as well.

Zoos are able to provide 24-hour care for animals, a constant food source, clean water, medication, lack of predators, no habitat destruction etc so all these factors combine to help many animals live longer than they would do, if they lived out of a zoo.
Click to expand...

I have a very hard time believing corporate spin about size of an enclosure for a intelligent creatures like elephant/orangutan/gorilla not being vital and could be made up by enrichment activities featuring modified balls, bird feeders,
tree trunks. These animals spend about 50% daylight in the wild foraging, moving fair distances and interacting with their complex environments.
The right and wrong ways to zoo it - Opinion - smh.com.au
Save elephants from zoos - Opinion - theage.com.au

Do you believe that the expensively built habitat for elephants at Taronga fits the definition of humane (much less the touted four seasons luxury standard) on less than one fifth of one hectare?

Is the National Zoo a fairly decent setup for orangutan 'conservation'? Then why are they exhibiting pathological behaviour?
YouTube - Orangutan Eating barf @ National Zoo
YouTube - Orangutan Vomit Fun

If zoo protects elephants/gorillas/orangs by keeping them free from predation and starvation and provide medical care, then these captive animals should be living _longer_ in zoos. But as I've said in my earlier posts, I believe information on lifespan of animals have been revised downwards by self interested parties.
Ethics and Animals: How Long Do Elephants Live?
science.ca Profile : Biruté Galdikas
 
snowleopard said:
If things work out well then zoos will see elephants living into their 50's and 60's in the future.
Click to expand...

I disagree Snowleopard, I think if very large, well designed enclosures with enrichment, rubber floors etc are utilised and elephants are kept there from birth, there will be no reason elephants will not live into their 80's and 90's...

That, on average, zoo animals live a longer, healthier, more stress-free life in modern zoos cannot even be up for debate, suggesting otherwise is ridiculous but does this equal a happier life..? Now that can be debated...
 
Zoom, I believe that elephants have been short-changed when it comes to exhibit standard in zoos, so perhaps this was a bad example to use in my argument. I most certainly wouldn't class Taronga's as adequete (that is far too small).

As for enrichment, a lot of zoos do more for enrichment than just the items you listed. Most of the modern primate enclosures provide live plants, scattered food, sometimes deep-littered and natural substrates. Of my zoos visited, only Twycross hasn't given a good enough standard for ape exhibits (no plants, cardboard boxes, old clothing, fire hose).

I can't comment on the National Zoo Orangs as I have not seen them in person...

About the age thing, as NZ Jeremy has said, the fact that zoo animals live longer shouldn't be up for debate, but quality of life can be, and this should be assessed on a zoo-to-zoo basis, rather than a blunt statement such as 'all animals in zoos have a bad life'.

I don't want to cause a mass argument, just a little friendly debate.
 
Zoom, 52 might be the oldest elephant in America, but I was saying that the oldest elephant in captivity died at 86.
Do you not agree with keeping animals in captivity at all, or is it just elephants?
 
Woodland Park Zoo Press Release

Interesting that Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo just euthanized a 32 year-old zebra, which is rather old for that species. Personally my major beef with zoos is in the area of elephants, as I've read many horrendous reports on the awful physical conditon of pachyderms that spent decades on rock-hard concrete. I think that just about any other species of animal generally lives longer in captivity, but with elephants that is simply not the case.

However, with all of the new enclosures popping up everywhere for elephants then maybe they will begin to live into their '60's and even '70's on a regular basis. Only time will tell, but the use of soft substrate instead of cement will undoubtedly make a world of difference.
 
ashley-h said:
Zoom, 52 might be the oldest elephant in America, but I was saying that the oldest elephant in captivity died at 86.
Do you not agree with keeping animals in captivity at all, or is it just elephants?
Click to expand...

That is a very atypical example which make even 5-star zoos look even worse and does not address my point. The average lifespan for captive elephants in North America is an absymal 36 years compared to 60 in the wild some sources state African elephants can live up to 80.

I am not affiliated with PETA or any animal rights group. What I'm against is the hypocrisy about conservation, the cruelty necessary to train zoo/performing animals and bald denials and revisionism. My initial post was to rebut the clueless remark made specifically about orangutans, gorillas and elephants.
 
CZJimmy said:
Zoom, I believe that elephants have been short-changed when it comes to exhibit standard in zoos, so perhaps this was a bad example to use in my argument. I most certainly wouldn't class Taronga's as adequete (that is far too small).

As for enrichment, a lot of zoos do more for enrichment than just the items you listed. Most of the modern primate enclosures provide live plants, scattered food, sometimes deep-littered and natural substrates. Of my zoos visited, only Twycross hasn't given a good enough standard for ape exhibits (no plants, cardboard boxes, old clothing, fire hose).

I can't comment on the National Zoo Orangs as I have not seen them in person...

About the age thing, as NZ Jeremy has said, the fact that zoo animals live longer shouldn't be up for debate, but quality of life can be, and this should be assessed on a zoo-to-zoo basis, rather than a blunt statement such as 'all animals in zoos have a bad life'.
I don't want to cause a mass argument, just a little friendly debate.
Click to expand...

Short changed is putting it mildly. Despite the advantages captive elephants generally live drastically shorter lives and alot of it while in pain.

Who makes the decision that enrichment performs up to its task? Is it suppose to supplement an animals daily activity or is suppose to cover up deficiencies of the zoo environment? Is it becoming an industry within an industry. Didn't we all get the same self serving pap when exotics like gorillas were supposedly better off hand raised in prams and cribs and shuttled off to other places as needed instead of maintaining natural family groups? I suspect very intelligent mammals who spend half their day foraging and who have large complex kinship groups need a little more than an easter egg hunt for scattered food.

About age, I did not mean to make a blanket statement. My initial post was to address a remark about gorillas, orangutans and elephants living the highlife when these are the problem animals in captivity. There is a denial about shorter lifespan of captive elephants and possibly of the orangutan and gorillas. I think self interest may be at work when experts make categorical statements about orangutan - lifespan in the wild is supposedly still hard to estimate or not known. Orcas and dolphins(some species?) are also notorious for having much shorter lives in captivity.

There is a curious distinction between more scholarly sources and more common sources. The more scholarly sources will give longer lifespans for animals while infotainment and zoo websites will cite the lower end.
Orangutanlink says lifespan 50-60 yrs in the wild.

The quality of life elephants, gorillas and orangs in captivity its a depressing situation even in better zoos. All three animals are typically overweight. Drugs and surgery are necessary to fix man made ailments. Elephants commonly get painkillers and steroids for hard floor surfaces. Orangutans get air sacculitis from inhaling their feces because of lack of climbing opportunities which may require surgery. Elephants and gorillas are infertile in captivity(one third of gorillas in captivity) because of abnormal hormonal levels and fertility drugs may be used. Feces eating and vomit reingestion are problems with gorillas and orangutans. Prozac have been used for all three animals for abnormal behaviours.
 
Last edited:
Hi Zoom,

What your saying doesn't really make sense, and let me explain why.

It seems you’re stating maximum life spans for wild animals and not the average life span, which would be a lot lower (I suspect that 60 is a lot higher for than is correct for average life span of an elephant). This information is just not reliable enough for us to use, it maybe a hundred years time when their has been a lot longer monitoring of wild elephants in game parks then we will see the true average age) The problem comes when you are comparing this to average life spans in zoo's, yes this is going to be lower than stated by zoo's but zoo's tend to show life spans animals CAN reach in the captivity compared to in the wild which can be longer due to medical treatment provided.

Plus I would take most statistics with a pinch of salt because they are so manipulated to achieve the required outcome.

Now I agree with some aspects of the quality of life is poor elephants, gorillas and orangs in captivity. But its proven through the ages that we are still learning how to keep these animals with a rich quality of life. There are some Zoo's that are better than others and the whole zoo community are slow sharing their experiences for the good of the animals.
 
I think average lifespan of wild elephants would be very low, much shorter than even worse zoos and circuses. African elephant population fallen approximately 50% in the last decades, and Asian population is falling still.

About sad apes - I suppose we should keep more bottlenose dolphins - they are always smiling!
 
Interestingly, looking at some statistics, circus elephants tend to live quite long.
Anne in Bobby Roberts circus is mid 50's I think, and I've heard of some living into their late 50's/60's.
And "About sad apes - I suppose we should keep more bottlenose dolphins - they are always smiling!" - Lol!
 
zoom said:
Short changed is putting it mildly. Despite the advantages captive elephants generally live drastically shorter lives and alot of it while in pain.

Who makes the decision that enrichment performs up to its task? Is it suppose to supplement an animals daily activity or is suppose to cover up deficiencies of the zoo environment? Is it becoming an industry within an industry. Didn't we all get the same self serving pap when exotics like gorillas were supposedly better off hand raised in prams and cribs and shuttled off to other places as needed instead of maintaining natural family groups? I suspect very intelligent mammals who spend half their day foraging and who have large complex kinship groups need a little more than an easter egg hunt for scattered food.

About age, I did not mean to make a blanket statement. My initial post was to address a remark about gorillas, orangutans and elephants living the highlife when these are the problem animals in captivity. There is a denial about shorter lifespan of captive elephants and possibly of the orangutan and gorillas. I think self interest may be at work when experts make categorical statements about orangutan - lifespan in the wild is supposedly still hard to estimate or not known. Orcas and dolphins(some species?) are also notorious for having much shorter lives in captivity.

There is a curious distinction between more scholarly sources and more common sources. The more scholarly sources will give longer lifespans for animals while infotainment and zoo websites will cite the lower end.
Orangutanlink says lifespan 50-60 yrs in the wild.

The quality of life elephants, gorillas and orangs in captivity its a depressing situation even in better zoos. All three animals are typically overweight. Drugs and surgery are necessary to fix man made ailments. Elephants commonly get painkillers and steroids for hard floor surfaces. Orangutans get air sacculitis from inhaling their feces because of lack of climbing opportunities which may require surgery. Elephants and gorillas are infertile in captivity(one third of gorillas in captivity) because of abnormal hormonal levels and fertility drugs may be used. Feces eating and vomit reingestion are problems with gorillas and orangutans. Prozac have been used for all three animals for abnormal behaviours.
Click to expand...

Your arguement is not new where lovable species like eles, orangs and gorillas are concerned, but if you are to sway us than give us scientifically based, argumentative and well documented facts of field biology and ecology of the species concerned. Example, you cite a site on wild orangs ages, yet the field experts are not even sure how old they become. So how come you can make that distinction? I have yet to see a well-documented orang study that has indulged in wild orang genetics, relatedness and bonding like Cynthia Moss has achieved in elephants in Amboseli.

The gorilla article in the NY Times was very sensationalist as it usually gets when for short high interest wildlife news is concerned. It has been known that semen from captive silverback gorilla tends to be of low quality and yes 1/3 of gorillas males fail to sire offspring. Where the article makes inferred assumptions, the zoo biologists breaking their heads over this problem are just not sure what is going on. And to put it plainly no field biologist has ever studied semen quality on wild gorillas are under what circumstances gorilla silverbacks do go on to breed and what percentage of wild silverbacks become successful breeders.

Re elephants and hard standing. That issue is well known in captivity and true we can never provide the big expanses that wild elephants can explore and thus hard standings in zoos is an issue. It is an evolving science how we should house our elephants in captivity (and do not give us that **** that elephants do not belong in zoos ... cause that is an elitist "happy few family" view that only those that wander the big wide open spaces like myself can financially permit themselves and that only at the expense of gassing the environment 10,000 times over) and which substrates and surfaces will suit them best. In my home zoo we currently are experimenting with wood chips and deep sand as well as having the usual concrete flooring in places (this while awaiting planning permission for a building a completely new ele exhibit for 3 different groupsings).

On a similar note: do not believe that we can withstand the human onslaught on wild habitats if we do not have zoos for people to really experience wild animals and provide them with the reasoning why species extinction should be avoided, biodiversity conservation is norm if we are to survive as a species ourselves and that habitat protection and protected areas are needed to stem our decline into the abyss. Most people will never be able to travel that far and can only experience direct contact to wild animals in their local zoo. Besides most protected areas are merely enclosed spaces in which wildlife and wild plants can still prosper without major human interference and the romantic idea that wildlife should be left by itself died out when the first explorers went deep into our planet and now it is home to 6 billion people (that is 2-3 billion too much already ... who wants to jump first ... anyone???). :eek:

So, give me scientifically valid facts over argumentative ficton ... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top