Animal shows in zoos...

[dragon(ele)nerd]

Animal shows I think provide great enrichment for the animals ( as long as it is in a acceptable range of skills) plus it can also show the public the talents of the animals, I remember last year when I went to singapore to visit my cousins, after having a chat with the elephant talk host the show began with many array of skills.
After the show lots of young kids buzzed around us ( for I was also talking to the host at the time as well) asking more info about elephants their actual names ( now that is something I wish people at my school were more interested in!) I far as I see it, I think animal shows provide great education, though there is a line between animal shows for education and animal shows only for entertainment,

 

[Jurek7]

Eh, whenever I see keepers training animals for strictly maintenance purposes, the huge crowd gathers. I seen this when keeper in Berlin trained wild horses to show foot etc. And when keepers washed elephants it was really crowd. Of course, keepers pretended not to notice visitors but puffed with pride

Hint to any zoo workers here: what really draws people is a sight of person interacting with animals. Any form. The only better thing is if visitors themselves could interact with animals. In any form, so simple as letting people feed antelope through the fence is extremely popular.

That are my observations from European zoos. I feel some zoos with circus shows sort of push themselves into the dead end - people expect more and more shows and ignore everything else.

 

[kc7gr]

Great post kc7gr!! I liked it a lot! And I agree with what you said.
I'm currently in the US working on a bird show with the trainer who initially set up the San Diego Wild Animal Park show, and as you said the only way to educate the audience is to find the balance between information with "entertainment". In the end people are learning without even knowing...

Thank you, and I envy you the opportunity to work with the fellow who set up SDWAP's show. If what I saw is any indication, you can learn quite a bit from them. My lady and I are learning falconry, a bit at a time. Fascinating sport, but considerably more complex than it looks to the casual observer.

The 'official' term, BTW, is (I think) "edutainment." Yeah, I know, horrible travesty of the English language, but not entirely inaccurate.

Happy travels.

 

[kc7gr]

(snippage)

Hint to any zoo workers here: what really draws people is a sight of person interacting with animals. Any form. The only better thing is if visitors themselves could interact with animals. In any form, so simple as letting people feed antelope through the fence is extremely popular. That are my observations from European zoos.

(more snippage)

Your observations are absolutely correct, and they apply equally well here in the States. I was at the Woodland Park zoo in Seattle, just a couple of weekends ago, and observed that very effect with two of the raptor handlers who were out with their respective birds (a peregrine falcon and a gyr), answering questions.

I feel some zoos with circus shows sort of push themselves into the dead end - people expect more and more shows and ignore everything else.

Wow! Talk about hitting the proverbial nail on the head...!

I wish Sea World (the US-based parks) could learn that lesson. They keep claiming all their survey results are positive towards the shows they have, but I tend to think there's another effect here. Specifically, I think Sea World has been doing this same sort of thing for so long that they've actually fooled many people into thinking that the shows are all there is.

Under those conditions, of course they're going to get positive reviews! I get the impression that what they've really created is a self-reinforcing loop.

Sad, really. Even with all we've learned about cetacea over the past century or so, I think we've barely scratched the surface.

And I don't think shows like "Shamu Rocks America" are going to get us any closer to understanding such mysteries. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Happy travels.

 

[Zoos Int]

animal shows

Ive seen some shows in my time .I have also seen how many of the animals are trained to get to a stage of a professional looking show .I have just come back from Indonesia ,went to a couple of new places .I must say i agree with pat and chat shows that are educational and not carnival style .The importanchttp://www.zoochat.com/images/editor/smilie.gife of what ,where and when are very useful tools to teach the human race .I do not stand by drugged or stupefied animals for photos and cuddles Rompin and Ketamine are not the daily ingredient for animals at any given day .The long term use is very damaging and pure exploitation .I do note petting zoos that are not supervised ,Kangaroos become the latest victim of chase the animal by way ward kids and carefree parents .A very professional education show is rewarding and unimposing .I like to see when families walk away feeling educated and the animals feel respected and loved .Nocturnal animals like Koalas that sleep 20 hrs a day are not a wise choice to have for a show as its stressful and dangerous to the public ,as is a non drugged big cat .One day factor jumps into play .Some one will get hurt .My personal views and experience has shown me i m on the right track .Im sure will disagree ,thats my mind set .
Tony Greenwood Peel Zoo | Wildlife Park | Mandurah |Western Australia

 

[Leptonyx]

This sort of goes along with what Tony said above, I grabbed this from another discussion (re: Thoughts on the raptor program...):

Boy attacked by raptor at Greater Vancouver Zoo, woman says

In addition to the education/entertainment aspect, you also run the risk of doing more harm than good if a show DOESN'T go as planned. I wonder how many people left that show with a fear of raptors, or getting the wrong impression of them from that one freak accident. It's all great if a show is the perfect combination of education and entertainment, but it only takes one thing to go wrong before both are completely irrelevant.

 

[zooworker]

Well people who go to a zoo thinking that raptors are cute tame birds will come away going wow thats bad and i'm scared of them, but the majority of people understand, that although animals are in a zoo/aquarium, the trained show animals are still wild animals, as when performing shows now we emphasise natural behaviours and talk about issues to do with the species. When its all set to high level music and flashing lights and all done as entertainment and a circus if the animals make a mistake people then go wow the animal stuffed up or wow that animals scary, if your in a situation where the show is based around natural behaviours and in a natural and modest production the majority of people will realise animals are still wild animals

 

[kc7gr]

Well, in this case...

This sort of goes along with what Tony said above, I grabbed this from another discussion (re: Thoughts on the raptor program...):

(snippage)

In addition to the education/entertainment aspect, you also run the risk of doing more harm than good if a show DOESN'T go as planned. I wonder how many people left that show with a fear of raptors, or getting the wrong impression of them from that one freak accident.

(more snippage)

I have heard, second-hand, that the parents and kid are OK, and they apparently do not blame the zoo for what happened (honestly, I don't see how they COULDN'T).

However, your point is well taken. In this case, it was exceedingly poor judgment on the part of the show's owner/presenter in choosing a four-year old to pull the lure, and in selecting a hawk that had spent most of her life as a nuisance-bird control predator, with little exposure to shows, to chase it.

With that said, Sea World has had some pretty serious incidents with the orcas over the years, yet I don't see too many people who are overtly afraid of orcas or think that the ones involved in said incidents need to be "Punished" or something similarly dumb.

Birds-of-prey have been around long enough, and shown in enough different places (heck, the sport of falconry itself dates back to at least 1700 B.C.), that I think the fallout from that little fracas is going to be minimal.

Please note: I am in no way trying to degrade the seriousness of what happened, or defend the GV Zoo or its staff in any way. I happen to think they really screwed up, and it's not limited to just the one incident. I'm merely pointing out that, in the larger scheme of things, this incident is unlikely to cause lasting damage.

Happy travels.

 

[Leptonyx]

Well people who go to a zoo thinking that raptors are cute tame birds will come away going wow thats bad and i'm scared of them

I guess it's true, although it's the people with those misconceptions that I would want to educate the most...and hopefully not turn them away from it. All the same I get what you're saying about the majority of people having a realistic expectation of animals and their behavior, although I would still argue that would only go as far as an animal forgetting to do a trick/something menial. I don't think anyone (with the exception of the staff) knew that there was the potential for someone to get hurt during this flying demonstration...and that's what I think will do the most damage at the end. I'm trying to think of this purely from a "common member of the public" point of view...and I'm having a hard time seeing them accepting "it's a wild animal/it's their natural behavior" as a reason for why a four-year old boy was injured. Of course, I'm saying so specifically with regard to THIS situation...I guess it would be on a case by case basis?

 

[Leptonyx]

(more snippage)

I have heard, second-hand, that the parents and kid are OK, and they apparently do not blame the zoo for what happened (honestly, I don't see how they COULDN'T).

I stand corrected. Thanks kc7gr for that post! Glad to hear they're doing okay and it wasn't serious- the newspaper article made it sound so much worse...and yes...orcas...don't get me started...

 

[mjmorg89]

I went to a bird of prey display yesterday where they flew some amazing birds. They're finale was to fly 5 kites at once, which did strike me as not a very safe thing to do with only 3 trainers present. The audience were told not to stand up and stay still or the birds would think we had food and mob us (another reason to become nervous). With in 2 minutes the trainer giving the talk had been mobbed by one of the kites which knocked off his mic and glasses and sent blood streaming down his face! A few minutes later the same bird dive-bombed again and knocked the lens out of his glasses this time, as well as more cuts to the face. All of the birds flew very low and close to the audience but it was obvious to see that everyone was very nervous after what we had seen. Shortly after this they decided to end the show by capturing 3 of the kites and one by one taking them back to their avairy but still being mobbed by the 2 remaining birds. The whole thing just didn't seem very safe at all. They then told us by easter they were planning on flying 12 kites together!! For what reason, I have no idea, just seems stupid to me. However the rest of the show was great and apart from the kites the place seemed to have very experienced staff and was a good set up.

 

[Miguel]

It seems that all comes down to the way the shows are done... Like everything else in life, there are good and bad sides. The problem is that the bad ones always "burn" the good ones.

I still believe a good show (from the training, educational and animal welfare point of view) is a valuable tool to engage zoo visitors.
My goal with what I do is to educate, engage and empower people about animals. All this in a safe and fun way...

I'm enjoying reading all posts on this thread, much different then I was waiting for...

 

[DDcorvus]

I ve seen shows with 5 kites together in the past with just 2 trainers. Never something went wrong in this sence (sometimes some of the birds wandered off) but kites attacking their trainer mmmmh....

Do you know if they birds were hand or parentraised?

 

[Miguel]

I ve seen shows with 5 kites together in the past with just 2 trainers. Never something went wrong in this sence (sometimes some of the birds wandered off) but kites attacking their trainer mmmmh....

Do you know if they birds were hand or parentraised?

I've seen show with more then that, and on my own show we used to fly 4 or 5 and never had any problem...
Like you say it all comes to how the birds are reared, although in the case of kites I'd go more for the weight the birds are flying at rather then how they were raised.

It all comes down to how people manage and set up those shows (any kind of animal shows).

 

[mjmorg89]

I have no idea how they were raised sorry. I know that 2 of them were black kites and the other 3 were red and black cross, which is apparently the only place in captivity that has them (or so I was told). Although I don't know if that would make any difference? The rest of the show seemed very good and the staff were very knowledgeable, just the kites were acting up.

 

[Miguel]

...were red and black cross, which is apparently the only place in captivity that has them (or so I was told)...

I have one too... There's not much difference apart then their size. As any hybrid there's not much use for those animals...
From what I know there's no difference in behavior, the only thing that occurs to me is that the hybrids because their bigger can try to "dominate" the smaller ones, causing some disputes...

Where was that display? I'll be traveling to the UK soon, and I'd like to visit some places there...

 

[black_wreath]

The seal shows that I have seen at Taronga Zoo and Sea World seemed okay as they were aimed at very young audiences and both used the seals to spread strong environmental messages and gave good impressions of the animal's intelligence. I think shows are mostly unnecessary but not altogether a bad thing.

 

[hedigerfan]

Two aspects that have not been touched upon but are at the heart of the question are: how did the show source their animals; and where are the animals kept for the bulk of the 24 hour day when they are not performing?
Zoos and aquaria talk about creating environments for their animals so that they can behave as normally as possible, which normally means their main exhibit animals. But if young animals are removed from their parents to be hand-reared specifically for shows, no matter how educational the content, is that appropriate? The youngsters are not being removed for their welfare but for our entertainment. And do not always believe the story that they had to be hand-reared because their mother abandoned them or she did not have enough milk since in most cases this would indicate that the source collection was either not providing the mother with the correct conditions or that they were pulled on purpose.
My other point is more disturbing; where are the show animals normally housed? A few collections have their show animal accomodation on exhibit; Bristol recently built such a facility. But most zoos keep them very much behind the scenes, often in very small facilities, sometimes in glorified pet carriers, that the public would generally consider substandard housing that often includes social species housed singly.
No matter how interesting or valuable the learning experience of the show is, nothing can justify this.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

Two aspects that have not been touched upon but are at the heart of the question are: how did the show source their animals; and where are the animals kept for the bulk of the 24 hour day when they are not performing?
Zoos and aquaria talk about creating environments for their animals so that they can behave as normally as possible, which normally means their main exhibit animals. But if young animals are removed from their parents to be hand-reared specifically for shows, no matter how educational the content, is that appropriate? The youngsters are not being removed for their welfare but for our entertainment. And do not always believe the story that they had to be hand-reared because their mother abandoned them or she did not have enough milk since in most cases this would indicate that the source collection was either not providing the mother with the correct conditions or that they were pulled on purpose.
My other point is more disturbing; where are the show animals normally housed? A few collections have their show animal accomodation on exhibit; Bristol recently built such a facility. But most zoos keep them very much behind the scenes, often in very small facilities, sometimes in glorified pet carriers, that the public would generally consider substandard housing that often includes social species housed singly.
No matter how interesting or valuable the learning experience of the show is, nothing can justify this.

Do a lot of facilities rear young animals specifically for shows? Many shows I've seen use small and medium sized, non-aggressive animal species that wouldn't need much, if any training to be in a show.

Anyway, as for my opinion on shows... They can be good, but they can also be bad. Education is one part of it, but I also think some shows can run the risk of sending the wrong message. I'm not really a fan of a lot of marine mammal shows, for instance, because so many are too circus-like for my taste. Not only do they lack educational content, but I think they send a message that isn't conducive to conservation. By presenting the animals as performers, guests may be less likely to view them as wild animals. If you want your captive animals to be ambassadors for their wild counterparts, having them do silly tricks to bad music isn't a good way to go.

But I've seen my share of good bird shows, where I grew up, there was a birding festival every year and we always went on it as a field trip. They would have raptor shows that were cool and educational. I went to the Minnesota Zoo as a kid and they also had a great bird show. I've also seen some small animal shows, you know, where they just bring animals out on stage and talk to them, that were good.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

Wow! Talk about hitting the proverbial nail on the head...!

I wish Sea World (the US-based parks) could learn that lesson. They keep claiming all their survey results are positive towards the shows they have, but I tend to think there's another effect here. Specifically, I think Sea World has been doing this same sort of thing for so long that they've actually fooled many people into thinking that the shows are all there is.

Under those conditions, of course they're going to get positive reviews! I get the impression that what they've really created is a self-reinforcing loop.

SeaWorld might not be the #1 subject for these discussions since they're a theme park with animals rather than a traditional zoo. They probably wouldn't even keep so many marine mammals if they couldn't do shows or interaction programs. But I do agree that even with zoos, there is kind of a self-reinforcing loop, as you say. The zoo offers shows, people go to see the shows, and they demand to keep seeing shows. Most of the people who oppose the shows probably aren't visiting in the first place. This is probably a big reason silly marine mammal shows are still very common even in zoos and aquariums that are more education-focused. If a place has sea lions or dolphins, people just expect a show. Seriously, if you opened up an aquarium with dolphins and no shows, people would constantly be asking when the next show is, ha ha. And since things like shows and interaction programs can bring in a good amount of money, I can see why a zoo would give in to it.