animals that should not be in zoos

[jenjen]

It drives me mad when people say they don't think polar bears should be kept in captivity without considering other ursids. I read recently that they evolved from an isolated group of grizzlies only 150,000 years ago so saying one should be kept in captivity but not the other is like saying asian elephants should be but not africans. Furthermore, in some areas where food is bountiful (particularly around salmon runs), brown bears have territories which are only a couple of square miles - around the size of a meerkat territory. In my opinion, this clearly shows that although some ursids (ie polar bears) do roam huge expanses to find food, if given a more plentiful supply they will happily live on a much smaller area of land. As such, why should keeping polar bears in captivity be such a problem?

Rant over.

its not just the size of the enclosure thats an issue for me. most species enviroments can be replicated to a certain degree. There is something a bit sad and pathetic about watching a polar bear shuffling around on concrete. The vast majority of polar bears only get to experience snow when there is bad weather.
i am not a polar bear expert, and i am unsure of polar bears suitability to captivity, but i was thinking of going to edinburgh zoo but i dont what to go to a zoo that has polar bears until i can go with a clear conscience.
i would appriciate other opions to make up my mind. thanks.

 

[redpanda]

its not just the size of the enclosure thats an issue for me. most species enviroments can be replicated to a certain degree. There is something a bit sad and pathetic about watching a polar bear shuffling around on concrete. The vast majority of polar bears only get to experience snow when there is bad weather.
i am not a polar bear expert, and i am unsure of polar bears suitability to captivity, but i was thinking of going to edinburgh zoo but i dont what to go to a zoo that has polar bears until i can go with a clear conscience.
i would appriciate other opions to make up my mind. thanks.

No, evidently you're not a polar bear expert as Edinburgh don't keep the species - Mercedes moved to a four acre enclosure at the HWP last year, it has the highest space per polar bear ratio of any in Europe so your conscience should remain clear.

Furthermore, using the argument that polar bears should not be kept in captivity because you don't like to see them shufflibnbg on concrete is like saying elephants should not be kept in captivity as the space they are kept on is under an acre. Certainly they are kept on concrete at some institutions (and, if you look at the gallery, you will see that this is one of my "pet peeves"), but there are a lot of other places (such as HWP) where the bears are given more natural substrates like grass on which to roam.

You say polar bears in captivity only get to experience snow during bad weather - do you think that they get to experience it in good weather in the wild? There are several populations which live in areas where there is not snow for at least part of the year. Not only that, but those that live out on the pack-ice generally experience just that: ice, without snow much of the time. This is certainly not a necessity for polar bears!

Finally, in regards to the comment that zoos can replicate the habitats of most other species but not polar bears, why should this be necessary? To bring up a controversial topic, the aspinall gorilla enclosures are some of the ugliest and most unnatural in the world, yet I'm pretty sure they contain some of the happiest gorillas. Conversely, several exhibits for great apes (ie Gorilla Kingdom at London) do replicate the animal's habitat yet the gorillas are reluctant to even venture outside. As such, the fact that one cannot create an accurate representation of the polar bears habitat (although this is not strictly true as many zoos like detroit, scandanavian wildlife park and the aforementioned HWP brilliantly recreate the tundra landscape) is not a valid reason for not keeping in captivity.

 

[jenjen]

re; edinburgh - thanks for that info, i was looking at a site which mentioned its polar bears, it seemed up to date. i also saw some other articles which criticized its polar bear enclosue (i was aware they were going to move her i did not know that thay had done it)

i know that not all places keep them on concrete, i did say that.

i know that they dont live on snow all year round but also experience ice and spend a lot of time swimming out at sea.

a 2005 study concluded that polar bears are unsuitable for captivity becase they are desgined to live in artic conditions and easily over heat even in sub zero temparatures. any temperature above freezing is considered warm.
Polar bears do not have any physical or morphological means of staying cool; they rely on behavior to do that. In the wild polar bears will dig deep day beds in the soil until they reach the permafrost and rest in these to cool down. These day beds are often shaded by long grasses and hummocky terrain. They may also take mud and dust baths to cool down.
In a 2003 report, researchers from Oxford University concluded that polar bears are one of the species most affected by captivity. The bears are prone to problems that include poor health and repetitive stereotypic behaviours. These problems were suggested to stem from constraints imposed on the natural behaviour of susceptible animals with wide-ranging lifestyles in the wild. The report revealed that naturally wide-ranging species show the most evidence of stress and/or psychological dysfunction in captivity.A zoo in Canada had to put one on Prozac.

The authors of the report stated: “our findings indicate that the keeping of naturally wide-ranging carnivores should either be fundamentally improved or phased out”

Many progressive zoos have phased out the keeping of polar bears in captivity, recognizing that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to provide for their needs in a captive setting.

i like zoos but i believe some animals are just not suited to captivity. i am not trying to be rude but you have not conviced me yet.

 

[redpanda]

re; edinburgh - thanks for that info, i was looking at a site which mentioned its polar bears, it seemed up to date. i also saw some other articles which criticized its polar bear enclosue (i was aware they were going to move her i did not know that thay had done it)

i know that not all places keep them on concrete, i did say that.

i know that they dont live on snow all year round but also experience ice and spend a lot of time swimming out at sea.

a 2005 study concluded that polar bears are unsuitable for captivity becase they are desgined to live in artic conditions and easily over heat even in sub zero temparatures. any temperature above freezing is considered warm.
Polar bears do not have any physical or morphological means of staying cool; they rely on behavior to do that. In the wild polar bears will dig deep day beds in the soil until they reach the permafrost and rest in these to cool down. These day beds are often shaded by long grasses and hummocky terrain. They may also take mud and dust baths to cool down.
In a 2003 report, researchers from Oxford University concluded that polar bears are one of the species most affected by captivity. The bears are prone to problems that include poor health and repetitive stereotypic behaviours. These problems were suggested to stem from constraints imposed on the natural behaviour of susceptible animals with wide-ranging lifestyles in the wild. The report revealed that naturally wide-ranging species show the most evidence of stress and/or psychological dysfunction in captivity.A zoo in Canada had to put one on Prozac.

The authors of the report stated: “our findings indicate that the keeping of naturally wide-ranging carnivores should either be fundamentally improved or phased out”

Many progressive zoos have phased out the keeping of polar bears in captivity, recognizing that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to provide for their needs in a captive setting.

i like zoos but i believe some animals are just not suited to captivity. i am not trying to be rude but you have not conviced me yet.

Likewise, you have not convinced me

If you know that they do not all live on concrete and need snow, then why did you bring it up on this, a very general thread about whether the animal could be kept in captivity?

Do not quote studies at me without producing a source, I could write a study saying unicorns exist if I wanted to, that doesn't make it fact. What's more, I would argue that species can very quickly adapt to warmer lifestyles, take giant otters swmming in icy waters at chestnut for example. Plus, I ask once again why you only cite polar bears in this category, if the idea of acclimatisation is such a problem for you why do you not say that arctic foxes, seals and reindeer are unsuitable for captivity.

And why can polar bears not have behavioural opportunities to keep them cool and captivity? Many zoos do give their animals cooled dens to sleep in as well as ice cubes, blood balls, misters, snow machines, mud wallows and sub-zero pools.

And to your oxford study (we're getting better) I would argue that this is because polar bears are frequently given poor exhibits rather than they cannot be kept in captivity. Even recent exhibits (San diego's "new" polar bear plunge springs to mind) are being built from the old formula of "concrete mountain, big pool" and, for this reason, many of them pace, head-bob etc. I bet you don't see this stereo-typy (unless it was pcked up at other institutions) at the previously mentioned ARoL, Scandanavian Wildlife Park and HWP.

Actually, even the authors of this report say that polar bears could be kept if the situation was "improved", as such they agree wih my arguments that polar bears can be kept in captivity.

And don't tell me that progressive zoos have moved out of the species. Some of the most progressive zoos in the world (Bronx, San diego, Omaha, Singapore) keep them. I would guess that generally the main factor in zoos phasing them out is not being able to afford a good exhibit rather than the idea that one could not be built.

 

[Maguari]

UK zoos have effectively phased out Polar Bears altogether (leaving just the two - one at Highland and one at Heythrop) but in the rest of Europe they've scarcely reduced in numbers at all, and several zoos (Gelsenkirchen/ZOOM, Rotterdam and Nuremberg spring to mind) have built new enclosures in the last few years. Polar Bears are here to stay in zoos.

 

[jenjen]

red panda:
1) i brought it up as an example among others but polar bears was the one you seized on.
2) i dont know how to post links, sorry.
3) i agree some species do adapt quickly but polar bears do not, even the ones that are born in captivity have suffered from skin dissorders due to being unable to deal with the climate.
4) i am not saying its not a problem for other species too, but i am not an expert in every captive species, (i tend to focus on cetaceans) thats why i posted to original question to find out what others thought.
5) once again i am not generalizing all zoos.
6)why do you state sinapore zoo as a good exibit when it is generaly considered one of the worst. (they were planing to get more bears but decided not to after an outcry by animal welfare groups and experts)
lets agree to disagree shall we.

 

[jenjen]

a friend asked me yesterday if it was right to keep migratory species in captivity, as their insticts to be moving would be very strong.

as this is a subject i had not thought of before i did not have an answer.

 

[redpanda]

1) i brought it up as an example among others but polar bears was the one you seized on.

That's because I can see the argument that cetaceans (and even elephants, but less so) should not be kept in captivity. I do not, however, see this with polar bears, especially when other ursids are not mentioned.

2) i dont know how to post links, sorry.

Cut and paste the web address - it took me about a year to figure that out!

3) i agree some species do adapt quickly but polar bears do not, even the ones that are born in captivity have suffered from skin dissorders due to being unable to deal with the climate.

And yet many haven't. If given shade and enough opportunities to cool themselves down when they do over-heat, I do not see this as too great an obstacle especially considering the adaptability of ursids and the relatively short time polar bears have been separate from browns. Again, I think this is more to do with the fact that polar bears are generally given exhibits which do not properly meet their needs as opposed to them being inherently unsuitable for captivity.

4) i am not saying its not a problem for other species too, but i am not an expert in every captive species, (i tend to focus on cetaceans) thats why i posted to original question to find out what others thought.

Sorry, I can't find what you're referring to in my post - what's not a problem?

5) once again i am not generalizing all zoos.

Well then what are you arguing? This is a thread about whether certain animals should be kept in zoos and, therefore, that means that at the same time as considering the crappy concrete pits, we are also talking about whether polar bears should be kept in the very best exhibits. This is a thread to generalise all zoos.

6)why do you state sinapore zoo as a good exibit when it is generaly considered one of the worst. (they were planing to get more bears but decided not to after an outcry by animal welfare groups and experts)

I did not state Singapore's exhibit as a good one, from what I have seen I think it looks terrible. However, few would argue that the Singapore zoo is a "progressive" zoo, and my point was that progressive zoos are not phasing out polar bears.

 

[Tarsius]

Without migratory species, the zoos would be empty.....

@Sun Wukong. Its okay, to keep orphaned elephants seals for a short time in a zoo, San Francisco is doing that, and release them later back into the wild. I've never heared, that any shelter is keeping elephant seals forever. I'm not sure, but I belive, one or two aquariums in japan are keeping elephant seals.

Berlin Zoo has kept an elephant seal, who was attacked by a white shark near to south africa. "Sharky" was a very problematic animal who has attacked several times the keepers. He died just a couple of years after he has arrived at the zoo, so he did the same, as all his predecessors.

Some animals can't be kept succesfully in zoos, because of their natural diet, which can't be replaced to a replacement food, Pangolins or Moose for example. A lot of them are dying to early, and many zoos have to replace died moose with new animals from other zoos or from the wild, because the population is not growing through own breeding. The average high age of moose is in european zoos 9 years....In the case of pangolins, most european zoos has stopped any attempts to keep them; only Leipzig Zoo is keeping a pair of chinese pangolins. They doing well,as far as I know, and we'll see, how long they will be alive and if they will have any offspring. Breeding of them has never happend, even in asian zoos. Instead of keeping them in human care, it would be better, to protect them in the wild.

 

[Sun Wukong]

One should not generalize when it comes to cetaceans; there are several species among them that don't seem to do any worse than most of the already established mammalian zoo species.

During a conference workshop in LA two years ago I went to a local marine mammal rescue centre. Various pinniped species were kept there, among others several Northern Elephant seal pups. One of them had an apparent visus problem and according to the guide, was unfit to be ever re-released into the wild. So what to do with it in the future?

While I agree 100% with you on behalf of the necessity of the in-situ protection of the original habitat, @Tarsius, I do think that for gaining basic information on f.e. the veterinary treatment of the species (which could be hugely important for the protection of the population in the case of an epidemic outbreak), ex-situ husbandry can be incredibly useful.

I also agree with redpanda: just because bad husbandry records occured mainly due to bad incorrect husbandry, one should not rule out the general idea of keeping them. That's like saying: "Geez, our car broke down last week because we never maintained it properly. So let's ban driving cars in general."

 

[Pertinax]

How about- all Flamingoes, Storks, Cranes, Pelicans, Waterfowl and other bird species which are kept in open enclosures but have to be Pinioned to prevent flight?

 

[DDcorvus]

How about- all Flamingoes, Storks, Cranes, Pelicans, Waterfowl and other bird species which are kept in open enclosures but have to be Pinioned to prevent flight?

ideally zoos keep these in big aviaries, which is both feasible and better for the birds (plus in my eyes a lot nicer to look at). So in my eyes this is a case like the polar bears: These birds are quite easy to keep, but not all zoos are creating the ideal enclosure.

 

[Aram]

ideally zoos keep these in big aviaries, which is both feasible and better for the birds (plus in my eyes a lot nicer to look at). So in my eyes this is a case like the polar bears: These birds are quite easy to keep, but not all zoos are creating the ideal enclosure.

I think I have a great example of how far some Zoo's can go to avoid pinioning their birds.
Check out the project page from Odense Zoo in Denmark, for the largest aviary in Europe: Odense Zoo

However, I believe that keeping any animal in zoos compromizes their natural behavirour. Stretching as far as you can go towards natural habitat is always prefferable, but I doubt Zoo's will ever reach a point where I can condone capturing wild animals and putting them in Zoos, or Aquatic Parks (Orca's and Dolphins).
I guess the difference for me is wether the animal once knew something different, better, and to some degree more fullfilling to its instincts.

In short; No wild animals in Zoos. Only Zoo-bred animals, if I had my wish.

 

[Sun Wukong]

In short; No wild animals in Zoos. Only Zoo-bred animals, if I had my wish.

According to your logic, there would be no animals in a zoo-as all species in captivity started with an original wild-caught founding population.

Being kept in a zoo leaves its marks on the animal in question. Some species, however, cope better with this than others-due to reasons already mentioned.

 

[Jurek7]

How about- all Flamingoes, Storks, Cranes, Pelicans, Waterfowl and other bird species which are kept in open enclosures but have to be Pinioned to prevent flight?

Man, one or two species of waterfowl - nene and laysan duck - would be extinct on this planet if not kept pinioned...

 

[Jurek7]

But there is a new point I did not think before.

Is it right at all to decide what the whole society "should" or "should not" see?

If somebody feels that dolphins "should not be in zoos" does it give him right to force on majority of people, who might completely rationally believe otherwise, not to see dolphins?

I think not.

 

[Jurek7]

There was a discussion about the same topic about a year ago. I feel that some newer members could do well to read it, because many arguments were already raised.

During a conference workshop in LA two years ago I went to a local marine mammal rescue centre. Various pinniped species were kept there, among others several Northern Elephant seal pups. One of them had an apparent visus problem and according to the guide, was unfit to be ever re-released into the wild. So what to do with it in the future?

Naturally - throw it into the orca pool! Give the poor predators at last a chance!

I think this point was discussed before. If animals should not be kept in zoo, then animals should first be let go extinct in nature - to stop them from suffering even more from diseases, starvation, predators...

 

[Aram]

According to your logic, there would be no animals in a zoo-as all species in captivity started with an original wild-caught founding population.

Most of the original zoo populating animals were, yes, and what's done is done. The offspring from these animals could probably not survive in the wild if they were let out, and so they and their descendants in return will remain in Zoos until the bloodline stops.
Much has changed since then however, among them is the awareness of the consequences of caging a wild animal, and besides the marine animals mentioned earlier, I believe there are rules against capturing animals with the intent of displaying them for profit.
New additions to Zoos these days come from endangered species that are wounded, treated and possibly too weak to return to the wild. Cubs or other offspring that are found after the mother is killed by hunters, or has died by some other hand than human. Im sure there are other 'sanctified' sources of new additions, but these are just off the top of my head.
All in all, putting a wild animal in a zoo is the penultimate option, where the final option is worse - letting the animal die, or if its an endangered species, letting the species die out.

 

[Sun Wukong]

Not "most", but practically all, @Aram. Or can you name a counterexample?
Various examples illustrate that the captive-born offspring of different species can survive in the wild if given the right conditions (Florida cougar project, East American peregrine falcon project, Takhi project...), even if it requires more than one try(GLTs).

In some cases, just collecting the sick, wounded & orphaned (what a great selection to base your population on...) isn't enough; quite a lot of animals of various species are still wild-caught for the mere "intent of displaying them for profit", with all the oh so great "rules" (if you're referring to CITES & Co.) being bent if needed. Think of many species of fish (larger sharks), birds or invertebrates (all those butterflies for the butterfly houses).
Personally, I think that a lot of the legal restrictions actually make the serious work of maintaining a healthy ex-situ population a much more difficult and frustrating task and can be pretty counterproductive. And that shouldn't be the case, should it?

I do agree strongly with Jurek7's point of view (except when it comes to feeding blind cubs to orcas...): who gives anyone the right to proclaim that this and that species (especially cetaceans) should be banned from zoos? Especially all his & her "argumentation" is based on biased emotions, and not factual knowledge.

 

[Pertinax]

Man, one or two species of waterfowl - nene and laysan duck - would be extinct on this planet if not kept pinioned...

True enough, but it was captive breeding, rather than pinioning, that saved them. They could have been kept full-winged in Aviaries instead, for example. But 50 years or so on, is it still justified/acceptable to remove a bird's ability to fly?

I once kept some pinioned waterfowl and at close hand it quickly became obvious just how frustrating it is for them to remain permanently grounded- they never lose the desire to fly... I don't approve now just for that reason.