big animals in city zoos...

jay said:
The big animals, eg ungulates and lions are boring because they don't so much. The more interesting ones for kids especially are the nes that are very active.
Click to expand...

Agreed that active animals are most interesting for public. But if they are active depends from enclosure design. :cool:

Example are lions in Basel vs. Arnhem. Medium-sized enclosure in Basel is richly structured, and lions are always active. Arnhem has lions in huge area of mature forest, but this is basically flat ground and tall trees. Lions sleep or stereotypically pace at the back fence waiting for food.

About animals in city zoos:
Yes, zoos need some big animals. They are most interesting for public. If zoo cares for education or fundraising, you can do it better with lions than ants.:D

Lots of city zoos have big, good enclosures and good breeding records. Many small city zoos in Europe have good and spacious enclosures because they have just a few. :cool:

Agreed that zoo doesn't need ALL big animals. If it has bears, apes and big cats it can go without elephants or giraffes. I naturally agree that many zoos need to get rid of their small outdated enclosures and some species of animals.

However, big animals need zoos. "Fewer animals in better conditions" is nice slogan, but breeding plans are scraped because zoo community lacks exhibit space. For example, no way all endangered subspecies of tiger or leopard or orangutan can have each self-sustaining population of 500 in zoos. WAZA said sadly, that zoos can exist without gorillas just as well as zoos exist without thylacines or wooly mammoths, but gorillas will not survive without zoos.

City zoos certainly will not be replaced by "open-range zoos" or "sanctuaries". :eek: People thought so 30 years ago. Most safari parks in Europe went bankrupt. They get no visitors in winter; land cost is huge and transport is tiresome. Most "sanctuaries" don't breed animals and have no secure funding.
 
@Jurek7: I agree with pretty much most of what You write (no wonder, as it supports what I wrote before...), yet:
-the 500 is just a statistical number, thought to be enough to keep the zoo population vivid for the next 100 years. However, this differs even more from animal to animal (btw: Sumatran/Bornean Orang-utans are two different species, not subspecies) than TUDGE wrote back in the 90s and is partly contradicted by species with healthy populations ofless than 300-500 individuals and seemingly doing fine. Your point considering collisation between the "More space for less animals"-agenda and the question: Where to keep the offspring then? is nevertheless an extremely important subject. I would go as far as supporting the controlled sustainable commercial use of "surplus" animals, producing animal products like meat, fur, body parts for TCM etc. This could render blackmarket dealing with poached animals less profitable and maybe kill it off in the end (see situation with some crocodilian species) and part of the profit could directly be used for the conservation of the wild animals and their native habitats. The tiger, one of the "golden cows" of zoo fans and public alike, could be a great example for that. The ethical debate about that is another subject...
-"Lots of city zoos have big, good enclosures and good breeding records. Many small city zoos in Europe have good and spacious enclosures because they have just a few." Depends on the individual zoo and animals kept. I can think of quite a bunch of city zoo exhibits worldwide which are neither spacious (which, as You correctly remarked & by keeping Hediger's older observations in mind, isn't the only thing to account for the quality of an exhibit) nor "good" (depends on the point of view: that of the animal? Zoo staff? Visitors?).
-Though WAZA said otherwise, I dare to say that gorillas could do quite well without zoos if only apt in-situ projects and protection of them and their native habitat is ensured on a permanent term.
-Absolute agreement on the open-range zoo issue in consideration of the EU;
-I'm not talking about a "sanctuary", but about zoo-connected "conservation centers" fulfilling mentioned tasks and financed by the state or the political international community (like the EU).
And about Your last question: simplified-Yes, he does. ;)
 
About orangutans - I meant 4 forms recognized now - sumatran and three subspecies of bornean.

Sun Wukong said:
I would go as far as supporting the controlled sustainable commercial use of "surplus" animals, producing animal products like meat, fur, body parts for TCM etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed in principle - just remember that all wild deer in EU exist because hunters feed, resettle and manage them.

Not the tiger, though, because of finacial/practical issues. With current low law enforcement & low cost of poaching. All wild tigers can be easily sold under the guise of farmed tigers.

Sun Wukong said:
Depends on the individual zoo and animals kept.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. Good elephant breeding herds in city zoos are e.g. in Emmen and Cologne. Elephant paddock is substantial part of total zoo area in both. It is quality of enclosure which counts - not if zoo is in a city.

Sun Wukong said:
I dare to say that gorillas could do quite well without zoos if only apt in-situ projects and protection of them and their native habitat is ensured on a permanent term.
Click to expand...

Agreed but - caveat is "if it is ensured". First issue is money. Zoo gorillas can and do raise Euros and USD for wild gorilla conservation. Second, many gorilla countries are unstable politically. You have rebellions, insurgencies and no national park or breeding station in native country can operate. Only these months staff of Virunga NP fled again from rebels. :/ Dian Fossey didn't appreciate this political problem, even if she herself had to flee rebellion once.
 
@Jurek7: About the tiger: no, especially the tiger! If it is possible to seperate between farmed and poached crocodile goods, then proper labelling and a controlled "from stable to table" concept can also be possible for tigers. Of course no system is impeccable and tricksters will always find a way to sneek through; but You could f.e. detect whether the tiger product comes from a farmed or wild specimen if You conduct sample testing of the product (f.e. Ouchterlony, ELIAS or IE testing to detect the protein signature the tiger was fed on- domestic animals or game (deer f.e.) ).
-The role of a zoo specimen as ambassodor of its species to raise money isn't new-and I think I already mentioned it. However: is the ex-situ zoo program at the moment the only way to save gorillas in general? Certainly not, as there are still wild gorillas around-and only the Western Lowland subspecies is kept in a considerable number in zoos. And though most of Africa doesn't seem to stop on its downhill ride to disaster, there is still the hope and the possibility left to keep the gorillas alive in their native habitat. Relying solely on an ex-situ program is in the case of the gorillas the last grasp at straws. Let's hope that it will never come to that.
The main role of zoos concerning gorillas at the moment is the mentioned fundraising, scientific/veterinary support and especially the raising of public awareness (though I still think that most people visiting the zoo feel entertained by the gorillas and won't spend a second thought on their situation in the wild...); organisations like the WWF could do the same, but zoos (with cute baby gorillas and mighty silverbacks as living examples) could be more efficient in that.
 
Gorillas are definitely a hot topic, due to the lack of conservation efforts by big-name zoos, and contradicted by the fact that they are certainly marquee mammals. The Seattle Zoo just recently (October) had its 12th baby gorilla born in captivity, and there was the obligatory photo in the local newspaper. Since then zoo attendance has increased at a time of the year when it is cold and rainy.

Perhaps the Bronx Zoo has the best idea, by forcing zoo patrons to give money towards gorilla conservation projects before they enter the Congo Gorilla Rainforest exhibit. That extra cash is on top of the main zoo entry fee, and therefore it all goes towards conservation efforts.
 
id like to put an australian slant on this one.....the above is all debatable and there are valid points for all......but I think a zoo needs animals, and here in Australia the recent importation of elephants into our country has 'secured' (i use the word optimistically) the future of one of very few exotic species in this country.
if we are going to be realistic about it, here in Australia we were looking at zoos with the following viable populations. its still a very real possibility too. we all know that the situation for p hippos, peccary and golden cats is dire.
lions, cheetah, tiger, hunting dog, serval, red panda, meerkat and otter
giraffe, zebra, oryx, addax, white rhino
various primates
at least now we have elephants. so if were going to have zoos, we need animals. and with zoo populations all over the country crashing rapidly, there might just be a bit more space for eles soon
 
Kiwi- I guess you work at or visit Newquay Zoo often. Do you know what's happening to the Diana Monkeys at present?
 
Surely the main point of this thread is if you have a big enough zoo in a large city i.e tierpark Berlin you can keep big animals in big groups, small zoos like London and Antwerp should not. Enough said!
 
kiang said:
Surely the main point of this thread is if you have a big enough zoo in a large city i.e tierpark Berlin you can keep big animals in big groups, small zoos like London and Antwerp should not. Enough said!
Click to expand...

Kiang,

It is size of enclosure, not a zoo, which counts.

Many European zoos built very spacious exhibits despite small area of the zoo overall.

Emmen zoo is just 8 ha (Antwerp - 10 ha, London - 10 ha), but has very good exhibits for breeding groups of giraffes and elephants. I must say, that these two paddocks together occupy maybe a third of the zoo area.

Similarly, Cologne (20ha) has now 2 ha Elephant-park, larger than elephant area in Berlin Tierpark. Leipzig has sizable elephant area, and devoted a quarter of zoo area for great ape "Pongoland" etc.

I think this is direction to go for many more zoos. Requires just levelling of many old enclosures.
 
this is such an interesting topic.....im a bit of a fence sitter on this once. with species like elephants space is a great thing but at the risk of being shot down by the proponents of maximum space i will say that I believe what is within the space is as important as the ammount itself.
with elephants in particular in mind, Melbourne and Taronga Zoo have created excellent elephant enclosures. these enclosures could probably both be improved upon and in time will, i reckon be expanded. but for the time being they are great facilities. in particular Taronga's new enclosure isnt much bigger than the old exhibit; there are now 5 elephants in the same ammount of space previously dedicated to two. but the balanced herd strucutre and copious ammounts of enrichment provided, as well as the variabiity of the recreated environment has resulted in a display which draws the crowds like nothing else. combined with a daily regime of outside walks these animals are doing very well, perhaps as well or if not better than their counterparts at WPZ. (an open range facility).
as i mentioned in a previous post many exotic species in Australian zoos are dying out, bad in some ways and good in others, such as freeing up space for fewer species. almost all of our majo urban zoos in this country are quite big and in contrast to European zoos have few heritage structures to impede expansion. on the balance of this argument i think zoos would do well to design exhibits around keystone species like elephants, rhino, hippo, great apes, bears and big cats and base smaller exhibits around them, tied together by particular themes.
 
I strongly disagree that the elephant facility in Taronga is "great" for the time being. The enclosure has a little bit more then 2.000 m² and that is way smaller then far most new elephant enclosures built in Europe in the last years. And there are reasons why all these zoos in Europe (and some in the US) are dedicating so much more space for elephants. I agree that it is very important what is in the space, especially for animals which don`t like open space like monkeys, apes, big cats ect. But for elephants, rhinos, hipps and giraffes, space DOES matter. Regarding elephants, enrichment possibilities are very limited when the elephants can overlook and explore the hole paddock in about 2 seconds and with very few steps. They can`t go away from each other in just 2.000 m² when there are problems in the herd. 2.000 m² is too small to support grass; just look at the Taronga yard now, all the nice fresh green grass is already gone. The elephants destroyed it in a few months. And it will be extremely difficult for the keepers to encourage hem to walk enough to stay healthy in long-term without taking them out of the enclosure for walks. Yes now it`s possible with the females but what if one of them starts to attack keepers in a couple of years? This has happened too often in US and european zoos. And the biggest mistake Tarongs made in my opinion is that they are building the bull enclosure in a place where it is impossible to connect both yards, which would give both the female herd and the male twice the space and much more diversion and enrichment possibilties.

The Melbourne elephant is better in my opinion because with the 3 yards, the keepers can shift the elephants around and give them every day something different to explore.

I think it`s ridiculous to argue that both facilities can be expanded in the future. Sorry, both zoos just spend dozends of million of dollars to create state of the art exhibits. You should think that the result should last more then just a few years, don`t you?
 
Why should animals like "monkeys, apes, big cats ect." not "like" "open space", wheras for "elephants, rhinos, hipp(o)s and giraffes, space DOES matter"? One should not make an artificial separation here, even if the right amount of "space" for the display of the animal's natural behaviour differs greatly from species to species (think of the Greater Chevrotain as an extreme example that seems to breed better in smaller than in larger exhibit, or of the Patas monkey as a open Savanna species; besides: do firstly mentioned species really need less "space"?). The size of the enclosure, or rather, more importantly: the actual size of the area which can be used by the animals is only one of several factors defining the quality and aptness of the exhibit. Said larger mammals simply need more "space" in a zoo because of their greater size; the correlation of the animal size and that of its enclosure is in their case much more obvious even to the untrained eye. Secondly, said large mammals naturally can use fewer levels of their exhibit in comparison to f.e. a climbing or flying species. Nevertheless, apt "space" DOES matter for ALL species - no special treatment for anyone, no matter what size they are.

And about expanding expensive elephant enclosures ( yes, I noticed: too many alliterations...): this is unfortunately the destiny of actually pretty every zoo building-being built for a (quite often needlessly) high amount of money, only to be rebuilt or even destroyed in the future to fit the then current animal husbandry and presentation concepts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top