hippos,dinos and prehistoric humans in captivity

joe99

joe99

Well-Known Member
10+ year member
1. most hippo enclosure have a small area of land and an big pool should there enclosures have more land because the do spend a lot on land grazing in the wild

2.how would a zoo house and care for large saurpods, therpods, marine reptiles and large pterosaurs

3.if humans bring back extinct hominins like Homo floresiensis would they be put in zoos or have human rights and live like us
 
Last edited:
1. Perhaps. Though they still need a big pool as well. Big exhibit in general, I guess.

2. If we managed to get lots of prehistoric creatures to our own time, I imagine that the larger ones likely wouldn't be kept in traditional zoos. Most places simply wouldn't have the space, though some might be able to. I imagine that most large creatures like sauropods would be kept in safari parks rather than zoos, with possibly a handful of zoos having them. Though the large marine reptiles would most likely be in zoos and aquariums, unless someone decides to make a marine safari park, I guess. Large pterosaurs, I imagine, would also be in zoos. Though really, this all depends on the behavior and lifestyles of the animals. If the animal is large but not very active, a zoo could more easily keep it.

3. Hm, depends. We don't really know a whole lot about the minds of early hominins. I guess if some of them came back, we'd probably be forced to reconsider how we define a person/human and give them their rights. Even if there was one that looked very human but had the intelligence of a chimp, people would probably be too uncomfortable seeing them in zoos. I imagine that such a hominin would stay in a research facility. The ones with intelligence levels similar to ours would likely be given human rights. Floresiensis is often believed to be very similar to us, and if that turned out to be true I can't imagine they'd be in zoos.
 
2. Preferrably (not) like this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Eley72r0Ee4/TzkPqtmeOjI/AAAAAAAAAlY/VHxqrrpxRbo/s1600/jurparc.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jICKQod.jpg

3. Depends on the hominid. I doubt Homo floresiensis would be able to "live like us". What job could they work in? There's no new Hobbit movie in sight , and Warwick Davis and Peter Dinklage have the high ground on prominent small people roles.[/QUOTE]

2. haha no in a proper zoo not a theme park

3.then what about Neanderthals, Denisovans,Homo heildelbrgensis ect...
 
joe99 said:
2. haha no in a proper zoo not a theme park

3.then what about Neanderthals, Denisovans,Homo heildelbrgensis ect...
Click to expand...

Jurassic Park resembled a safari/wildlife park more closely than a traditional theme park, at least in my opinion. Of course, it's been a while since I've seen the film, but animal theme parks tend to have more entertainment based stuff like rides, animal shows, stage shows, etc. I don't recall Jurassic Park having stuff like that.
 
TheMightyOrca said:
Jurassic Park resembled a safari/wildlife park more closely than a traditional theme park, at least in my opinion. Of course, it's been a while since I've seen the film, but animal theme parks tend to have more entertainment based stuff like rides, animal shows, stage shows, etc. I don't recall Jurassic Park having stuff like that.
Click to expand...

try doing a show with a t rex. that's most likey the reason the didn't have shows and John Hammond said the would get rides and in JP:the game the was a ride called the bone shaker
 
TheMightyOrca said:
1.

2. If we managed to get lots of prehistoric creatures to our own time, I imagine that the larger ones likely wouldn't be kept in traditional zoos. Most places simply wouldn't have the space, though some might be able to. I imagine that most large creatures like sauropods would be kept in safari parks rather than zoos, with possibly a handful of zoos having them. Though the large marine reptiles would most likely be in zoos and aquariums, unless someone decides to make a marine safari park, I guess. Large pterosaurs, I imagine, would also be in zoos. Though really, this all depends on the behavior and lifestyles of the animals. If the animal is large but not very active, a zoo could more easily keep it.

3. Hm, depends. We don't really know a whole lot about the minds of early hominins. I guess if some of them came back, we'd probably be forced to reconsider how we define a person/human and give them their rights. Even if there was one that looked very human but had the intelligence of a chimp, people would probably be too uncomfortable seeing them in zoos. I imagine that such a hominin would stay in a research facility. The ones with intelligence levels similar to ours would likely be given human rights. Floresiensis is often believed to be very similar to us, and if that turned out to be true I can't imagine they'd be in zoos.
Click to expand...

2. I think large sauropds like Argentosaurus will need less space that you think. being as big as are, they have small brains and are pretty much on autopilot and are pretty much mindless look how reptiles and fish are held the you can keep a goldfish in a pretty small tank and are happy. how would you make a marine safari park? the how would a zoo hold a Quetzalcoatlus that can fly great distances

3. Australopithecus I could see in zoos but anything past homo erectus would be put in a protected area of habitat to like there own lives
 
joe99 said:
2. I think large sauropds like Argentosaurus will need less space that you think. being as big as are, they have small brains and are pretty much on autopilot and are pretty much mindless look how reptiles and fish are held the you can keep a goldfish in a pretty small tank and are happy. how would you make a marine safari park? the how would a zoo hold a Quetzalcoatlus that can fly great distances

3. Australopithecus I could see in zoos but anything past homo erectus would be put in a protected area of habitat to like there own lives
Click to expand...

2. Perhaps. Though activity level must still be taken into account. Captive elephants often suffer foot and ankle problems when they don't have enough room to move around. Sauropods might have the same issue. A quetalcoatlus would be tricky, they'd have to be held in massive buildings or aviaries. It would take a dedicated zoo with lots of space to hold 'em. As for a marine safari park, I dunno, maybe someone would make a massive lagoon or saltwater lake or a series of ocean pens, split up into sections to hold different animals. Treated like a regular safari park where guests view animals from boats, docks, and underwater tunnels. Assuming such a project would even be possible, anyway.

3. I imagine that the more advanced hominins might be given their own choice on how to live. Though I don't know if the less intelligent but still very human-looking ones would be held. Not for a matter of practicality or ethics, but because guests might be uncomfortable seeing that.
 
joe99 said:
try doing a show with a t rex. that's most likey the reason the didn't have shows and John Hammond said the would get rides and in JP:the game the was a ride called the bone shaker
Click to expand...

The place seemed to be more education-focused, so I can't imagine that animal shows would've been done anyway.
 
joe99 said:
2. I think large sauropds like Argentosaurus will need less space that you think. being as big as are, they have small brains and are pretty much on autopilot and are pretty much mindless look how reptiles and fish are held the you can keep a goldfish in a pretty small tank and are happy. how would you make a marine safari park? the how would a zoo hold a Quetzalcoatlus that can fly great distances
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with the notion that "small brains"="primitive, simple, undemanding, on autopilot". It's sometimes hard to tell whether a specimen is "happy"-hey, it's even hard to tell whether your fellow humans are really happy (=> Robin Williams). If you compare the behaviour, look, health etc. of a goldfish in a small tank (or even "better", a fishbowl) to those that are kept in a large aquarium or even a lush pond, you're hard-pressed not to admit that the fish is more content with the latter (granted that all options offer the necessary husbandry elements). So I wouldn't act on the assumption that sauropods would be happy when kept in oversized rack systems.

The original novel, DinoPark, mentioned several rides (or rather, concepts of rides that were not completed due to the animals' hostile behaviour).

As for Quetzalcoatlus and other giant azhdarchids: given the newer reconstruction as giant quadrupedal "superstorks", maybe fencing that would prohibit a running start or quad launch to gain flight might be sufficient to keep them on the ground.
Absurd Creature of the Week: The 16-Foot-Tall Reptilian Stork That Delivered Death Instead of Babies | WIRED
 
Batto said:
I strongly disagree with the notion that "small brains"="primitive, simple, undemanding, on autopilot". It's sometimes hard to tell whether a specimen is "happy"-hey, it's even hard to tell whether your fellow humans are really happy (=> Robin Williams). If you compare the behaviour, look, health etc. of a goldfish in a small tank (or even "better", a fishbowl) to those that are kept in a large aquarium or even a lush pond, you're hard-pressed not to admit that the fish is more content with the latter (granted that all options offer the necessary husbandry elements). So I wouldn't act on the assumption that sauropods would be happy when kept in oversized rack systems.

The original novel, DinoPark, mentioned several rides (or rather, concepts of rides that were not completed due to the animals' hostile behaviour).

As for Quetzalcoatlus and other giant azhdarchids: given the newer reconstruction as giant quadrupedal "superstorks", maybe fencing that would prohibit a running start or quad launch to gain flight might be sufficient to keep them on the ground.
Absurd Creature of the Week: The 16-Foot-Tall Reptilian Stork That Delivered Death Instead of Babies | WIRED
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should've said something on the goldfish thing. Small fishbowls really aren't that good for them, even if they're not super intelligent, emotional animals. Large sharks (specifically, great white and whale) tend to fare pretty poorly in captivity. And as I mentioned, an active animal can suffer physical problems if it doesn't have sufficient room to move around.

Tall fencing could work, if the exhibit is small enough and the fence tall enough to prevent takeoff. Though the appeal of the pterosaurs is that they're big, flying monsters. I imagine that zoo guests would want to come and see it fly. It would be like making an otter exhibit without a place for said otter to swim. People want to see the otter swim. So a large pterosaur in a zoo would likely result in the facility coming up with a totally new type of exhibit. (really, many large prehistoric creatures would cause this) Buuuut I imagine that if we got large, extinct creatures and they were obtained by captive facilities other than research facilities, for-profit places might be more likely to get a lot of them simply on a matter of space and resources.
 
TheMightyOrca said:
Though the appeal of the pterosaurs is that they're big, flying monsters. I imagine that zoo guests would want to come and see it fly. It would be like making an otter exhibit without a place for said otter to swim. People want to see the otter swim. .
Click to expand...

Most of the largest flying birds (condors, eagles, OW vultures, marabou storks, bustards, swans) are kept in zoos without allowing them to fly properly (except in a few flightshows). Now imagine a giant creature unlike anything we have today, as tall as a giraffe, with a weird 6 feet long beak, towering over you. That alone should impress most visitors.

As for otters: people want to see otters being cute and active. Swimming is just part of that.

Great white sharks and whale sharks have been / are kept in captivity-unlike mako sharks, basking shark, Greenland shark...;)
 
Batto said:
I strongly disagree with the notion that "small brains"="primitive, simple, undemanding, on autopilot". It's sometimes hard to tell whether a specimen is "happy"-hey, it's even hard to tell whether your fellow humans are really happy (=> Robin Williams). If you compare the behaviour, look, health etc. of a goldfish in a small tank (or even "better", a fishbowl) to those that are kept in a large aquarium or even a lush pond, you're hard-pressed not to admit that the fish is more content with the latter (granted that all options offer the necessary husbandry elements). So I wouldn't act on the assumption that sauropods would be happy when kept in oversized rack systems.

The original novel, DinoPark, mentioned several rides (or rather, concepts of rides that were not completed due to the animals' hostile behaviour).

As for Quetzalcoatlus and other giant azhdarchids: given the newer reconstruction as giant quadrupedal "superstorks", maybe fencing that would prohibit a running start or quad launch to gain flight might be sufficient to keep them on the ground.
Absurd Creature of the Week: The 16-Foot-Tall Reptilian Stork That Delivered Death Instead of Babies | WIRED
Click to expand...

yeah It will be happier with more space but im saying that may have an effect on it housing need. it wouldn't need much enrichment and how would you a rack system that can have 10+ ton animals.

having a Quetz that can fly is like having a hippo that cant swim
 
Batto said:
Most of the largest flying birds (condors, eagles, OW vultures, marabou storks, bustards, swans) are kept in zoos without allowing them to fly properly (except in a few flightshows). Now imagine a giant creature unlike anything we have today, as tall as a giraffe, with a weird 6 feet long beak, towering over you. That alone should impress most visitors.

As for otters: people want to see otters being cute and active. Swimming is just part of that.

Great white sharks and whale sharks have been / are kept in captivity-unlike mako sharks, basking shark, Greenland shark...;)
Click to expand...

ture what if they let it out for a fly but the only problem how would you keep them from flying away?

not a adult great white though
 
joe99 said:
it wouldn't need much enrichment (...)
Click to expand...

How would you know that sauropods, a group of animals no human has ever seen alive, might not need "much enrichment"? Frankly, we don't know that, and most likely, we will never do. As for the rack system: just take it with a grain of salt.;)

joe99 said:
having a Quetz that can fly is like having a hippo that cant swim
Click to expand...
Ah, the joys of missing negations...;)

Regarding adult great whites: to quote directly from lintworm-never say never. It's far more likely than speculating on how to attract an escaped azhdarchid back into its cage (lots of birdseed, maybe?).;)
 
Last edited:
In point of fact, it is not known whether azdarchid pterosaurs such as Quetzalcoatlus *could* fly - it is assumed that they could, given a running start, but it is equally possible they were secondarily flightless or due to their size seldom flew at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top