Polar Bear Exhibits

[snowleopard]

I thought that I'd start up a new thread on polar bears, as they are a contentious species to keep in captivity. However, with the global warming scare a number of zoos are opening brand new arctic themed exhibits around North America.

There are anywhere between 90-100 polar bears in around 35 North American zoos, and the increase in multi-million dollar enclosures is undoubtedly due to the reports of decreasing ice surfaces in the Arctic. But the problem is that polar bears are notorious for adapting poorly to captivity, often pacing back and forth in inadequate "bear pits". So what do people think about the millions being poured into zoos for fancy new exhibits? The AZA award-winning Detroit Zoo's polar bear/seal habitat is widely viewed as one of the biggest and best in the world...but is that position under threat with all of these developments?

1- Pittsburgh Zoo = $12.5 million exhibit opened in 2006, with polar bears, sea otters, walruses, and an underwater viewing tunnel.

2- Maryland Zoo (Baltimore) = $9 million for its two bears.

3- Rogers William Park Zoo (Rhode Island) = $13 million as part of its $35 million master plan. Polar bears, harbour seals, bald eagles and red wolves are in a new exhibit scheduled to be finished by 2010. Some components of the exhibit have already opened.

4- Toronto Zoo = Millions on renovating and expanding its polar bear exhibit, and is due to open with other species under the name "Tundra Exhibit" in late 2009.

5- Louisville Zoo = $25 million "Glacier Run" exhibit that will feature polar bears, seals, sea lions, sea otters and a splash park for children. Soon to be completed.

6- Columbus Zoo = $18 million for a 2.5 acre exhibit devoted to polar bears. Scheduled to open this summer, 2008.

7- Calgary Zoo = $133 million Arctic/Antarctic exhibit (not all of that money is going strictly towards this single exhibit) that is still awaiting 100% financial approval. If it goes ahead then a 2010 opening date has been tentatively set for this football field-sized enclosure.

The Cincinnati Zoo (2000) and the San Diego Zoo (1996) both also fairly recently spent millions on polar bear exhibits.

 

[NZ Jeremy]

Auckland Zoo kept Polar Bears for 70 odd years, in that time they only had two cubs and only one survived to adulthood...

Thanks for that list, good to have it all in place...

 

[Taccachantrieri]

@Snowleopard How could you beat me to the punch ? I've been waiting and even setting up for a thread like this through comments on the thread "Elephants or 20 sp. of smaller animals".

To elaborate on what Snowleopard has said sea ice cover via satellite in the arctic during September of this past year hit an all time low record of 4.3 million square kilometers-39 percent below the average for the years 1979-2000 and over 20% lower than the previous record low in 2005. March 2007 (seasonal sea ice maximum) arctic sea ice extents also hit recorded lows since satellite imaging was first used in 1979.

Check out this link for a graph:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images/essays/seaice/figi2.gif

And this one for a map view:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images/essays/seaice/figi1.gif
The purple line on the graph represents average sea ice extents from 1979-2000.

It took almost a month in fall 2007 for ice ice to recover from its new recorded low to its previous low in 2005.

Graph Link:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20071017_timeseries.png

A major concern is that when ice melts it raises the albedo of the Earth's surface which causes greater absorption of heat - further contributing to warming and ice melting (positive feedback mechanism).

Ice extent reveals only part of the problem. Ice thickness is also an important consideration particularly because dating older ice could reveal records of climate change before satellite imagery. Migration of old ice can muddy results and conclusions somewhat.
Starting in the 1970's a transition to younger and thinner ice transpired in the arctic and has continued to the present. In September of 2007 the vast majority of ice was less than 3 metres thick.
Thinner ice is more susceptible to melting than thicker layers. As average thickness of ice decreases ice extent is more susceptible to decreasing.

This is one awesome video of map changes:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/summer2007_arctic_seaice.gif


Ok, back to polar bears.
Polar bears utilize sea ice to hunt for seals, the most important contributor to their diets. Although loss of sea ice may congregate seals more and lead to increased hunting success because it is easier to break through somewhat melted snow/ice, this positive effect is temporary. As seals trace ice cover further north polar bear migrations from land must increase in length and duration. Milder weather also reduces populations of ringed seals and other seal species which ultimately will result in reductions in polar bear numbers. Polar bears are specifically vulnerable to range reductions because their population density is so much lower than seals and other organisms.


If you believe that human carbon emissions are primarily responsible for the reduction in arctic sea extent and thickness by increasing temperatures, then the fate of polar bears is tied to carbon emission reductions.
It's unrealistic to expect emissions to suddenly stop altogether because of economic ramifications, and even with reductions and caps these climatic trends will continue but decrease in magnitude, if climate changes because of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Polar bear conservation is unusual in our modern world because regardless of in-situ conservation efforts like protected wildlife areas, caps on hunting etc. it is possible that the species is doomed to population threats because of climatic alteration of habitat.

If this happens reintroductions from captivity are going to do little to help populations. Zoos may have to answer whether or not they want to keep a species that is extinct in the wild and without hope of reintroduction as a model of global warming environmental impacts and what we have lost through extinctions.

The problem which I will elaborate on latter is that currently polar bears populations are not sustainable in captivity, and housing them in zoos presents considerable husbandry, and other demands that can be quite prohibitive.
Some people might also argue that climate will switch to colder temperatures soon because anthropogenic CO2 is not capable of modifying climate to the extent seen today and because the climate fluctuates in and out of colder and warmer periods. These people would not view ex-situ Zoo polar bear conservation as importantly as people convinced that we are driving polar bear extinction.

 

[Taccachantrieri]

Surprisingly, you actually missed a few North American Zoos that are planning or have recently opened new polar bear exhibits, Snowleopard.

Memphis Zoo: 23 million Northwest Passage opened March 1st 2006.
American Bald Eagles Black Bears California Sea Lions Polar Bears
Ravens

Buffalo Zoo: planned multimillion polar bear exhibit

Toledo Zoo: 2000 8.7 million The Arctic Encounter Polar Bear Exhibit


I'm sure there might be even more NA Zoos that are planning polar bear exhibits.

 

[snowleopard]

The Buffalo Zoo has had 3 polar bears die since August 2006, and so that has put their proposed arctic exhibit in jeopardy.

It is truly amazing at how many polar bear exhibits are being built or have recently opened in North America. Taccachantrieri and I have come up with a list of 10 different zoos that have spent or will spend an absolute fortune on the great white bears, and yet other places of the world have few if any of the species. Australia has only a single institution with polar bears (Seaworld on the Gold Coast), and I believe that there is only the female Mercedes at the Edinburgh Zoo in all of the United Kingdom. Over here in North America there are around 100 polar bears, and we are feeling a little spoiled with such an abundance.

 

[snowleopard]

http://zoocheck.com/calgary/Japan Polar Bear report 2007.pdf

A 205 page document that critiques captive polar bears in Japan. This report contains a wealth of information, as well as some shocking photos of horrible exhibits...

I counted 113 photos that showed polar bears in enclosures that are terribly confining, and the poor state of many of the bears confirms that the exhibits are gradually eroding the health of the animals.

 

[CZJimmy]

Snowleopard, I think that the lack of polar bears in the UK is due to a lack of space and other resources in the majority of cases.

There are very few UK zoos which could possibly build a suitable polar bear exhibit with the required space and requirements (Chester and Whipsnade spring to mind because they would have the space and the money). Edinburgh had planned to send Mercedes to its sister park (the highland wildlife park) and import new bears, however, Their have been rumours that the zoo plans to build a new polar bear exhibit on the Edinburgh site.

In terms of Australia, I imagine their lack of bears is to do with the climate being too hot to keep bears comfortably (and without expensive AC systems). Same goes for the polar bears at Singapore (or is just the one now?).

It is good to hear so many US zoos putting money into exhibts, for what is becoming a flagship species in the "green-era".

 

[Zooplantman]

Just to add to the list:

Henry Vilas Zoo (Madison, WI) has one designed but awaiting funding
Kansas City Zoo has just begun design on one

This is yet another case where the exhibits are SOOOOOOOO expensive due to enclosure issues and LSS costs, that there is little left for space or enrichment. There are some very good ideas out there for improving polar bear's captive lives, but it falls to the keepers to do what they can with what they can find.

 

[patrick]

In terms of Australia, I imagine their lack of bears is to do with the climate being too hot to keep bears comfortably (and without expensive AC systems). Same goes for the polar bears at Singapore (or is just the one now?).

the sort of AC systems that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, that in turn melt the arctic! my friend went to seaworld and said that the four or so bears were constantly rotated between the chilled indoor dens and the outdoor exhibit. something we found amusing as it dreamed up imagery of sweating bears on conveyor a belt that loops like a trainset talking the bears through a freezer then back out into the subtropical sun!

surely its not that bad but essentially, i think thats the concept!

historically, australian zoos have had polar bears like most other zoos around the world. the climate here is appallingly inadequate for them, even the most southerly cities never get snow and the summers are hot, long and dry.

of course polar bears are like any bear and do badly in zoos as a general rule. this is in my opinion not because zoos can't adequately care for bears, its just that most zoos don't have the initiative to do so.

i think its good that northern hemisphereian zoos are making major attractions from their native fauna like polar bears - and i think its good that us australians as a general rule are not. environmental messages work better the closer they are to home.

however, the important thing to remember with polar exhibits is, that to avoid contradiction, the exhibits themselves must be "green" designed.

 

[Nigel]

Aucklands polar bears

If there was one animal that the zoo would never had exhibited if they had the luxury of hind sight , this would be it . Alot of people complained to the zoo that the polar bears were not 100% white , and there were several vetinary problems
that made the zoo management to phase out the bear enclosures permanently

The zoo even turned down the offer of two bears as a Government gift from Canada due to its history of "hassles" .

There is more information about this in the book " A tiger by the tail " which documents the early history of the Zoo
Although the polar bear enclosure was nothing to rave about , it was better than most other bear enclosures I have seen . The bears used to like sitting on top of the high pressure water fountain that was in the enclosure .


Apparently Tacoma Zoo has polar bears . Anybody been there ?

 

[snowleopard]

I've been to the Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium in Tacoma, and the polar bear exhibit won the AZA Best Exhibit Award sometime around 1983. There is a deep pool, some gravel and sand areas, as well as some large rocks and assorted debris for the bears to play around in. I believe that there are 3 bears currently there, and on their website they've announced that they are currently off exhibit as the zoo ponders some renovations. Like everyone else in North America there is talk of spending money on polar bear exhibits!

The exhibit was state-of-the-art 25 years ago, but now is slightly too small and it is difficult at times to even view the bears. I've been twice and each time (even with doubling back inside the small zoo) it's been a struggle to catch a glimpse of even one of them. It is no longer regarded as a terrific enclosure when compared to more modern day exhibits, and yet holds up better than the vast majority of "bear pits" that are common in even the very best zoos.

 

[Zooplantman]

I've never had to search for Takoma's polar bears, for what that's worth



BTW - How do you insert pictures into the body of the reply????? Do you use photobucket or something similar?

 

[Taccachantrieri]

The major problem with keeping polar bears in captivity may be that they are the largest roaming terrestrial mammal alive today! The minimum home range for polar bears is 1204 square kilometers, a small figure compared to their median home range of 79,472 square kilometers. The "Polar Bear Shoes" exhibit at Sea World, in Australia, is about 1332 square meters. This enclosure exceeds Manitoba Department of Natural Resources minimum standards which are supposed to be amongst the most stringent in the world. Remarkably this exhibit is approximately one millionth the size of polar bears minimum home range ! Polar bears have a median minimum daily travel distance of 7.1km.
Even through they travel considerable distances polar bears are constantly exposed to new environments. Their tendency to travel on moving ice also means that polar bears have to adjust their movements as compensation to ice migration. Instead of being subjugated to local changes polar bears move to favorable sites to hunt, and breed.
In captive zoological populations of carnivores home range size (in a multiple regression with body mass) and daily travel distance are positively correlated with both increases in stereotypical behavior and infant mortality in the first six months of life.
Polar bears had the lowest rate of infant survival in the first six months of life, and second highest rate of stereotypical behavior, when removing the one individual kinkajou analyzed.
Design methods to prevent these behaviors from being expressed are confined by the high cost of polar bear exhibits. Differences in micro habitats of an exhibit that allow polar bears to choose their utilization of enclosure space and still have sufficient space for movement, as well as, overall space for movement are both severely restricted in small modern polar bear exhibits.

One should also consider that most North America Zoos are about 60 degrees south of the southern range of polar bears. This difference in latitude causes dramatic differences in climate. San Diego probably is not any more climatically suitable to polar bears than Australia.


R. Clubb & G. Mason (2007). Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How understanding species differences could help zoos redesign enclosures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 303 – 328.

 

[Taccachantrieri]

@Zooplantman

What does LSS stand for?

 

[Jarkari]

A couple of years ago I was watching a doco on Seaworlds bears, the water in the exhibit is apparently cooled but the keepers said the bears prefered it not to be. . . Just somehitng I thought was interesting, not sure how true.

 

[Jurek7]

Morgan KN (Morgan, Kathleen N.), Tromborg CT (Tromborg, Chris T.). 2007. Sources of stress in captivity. APPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE: 102(3-4): 262-302

Strange. I looked into this article and could find nothing what you said. Polar bears are just twice mentioned in passing - once, that they are kept in warmer climate, second, that they benefit from opportunity to hunt.

 

[snowleopard]

A ton of people have viewed this thread, and many have commented on it, but no one has mentioned the exhibit photos from the Japanese zoos. The 113 photos show atrocious living conditions of polar bears in Japan...

 

[James27]

Polar bears had the lowest rate of infant survival in the first six months of life, and second highest rate of stereotypical behavior, when removing the one individual kinkajou analyzed.

Does this mean that kinkajou have the highest rate? Pretty surprising

 

[Taccachantrieri]

Shoot ! I can not believe I pasted the wrong citation !
I have now edited my original message to include the proper citation, which I will also include here:
R. Clubb & G. Mason (2007). Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How understanding species differences could help zoos redesign enclosures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 303 – 328.

I have never made this mistake before, and I have had to cite loads of scientific journals in my lifetime.
I could have got murdered in some circles for pasting the wrong citation.
I guess this is a warning to be careful when writing at 2 in the morning .

 

[Taccachantrieri]

As far as kinkajous are concerned there was only one article that described and quantified their stereotypical behavior. That article was describing the tendencies of one individual. The paper by R. Clubb & G. Mason on carnivores obviously didn't have the resources to scientifically describe behavior in numerous species of carnivores in numerous zoos, so they extracted data from previous published information.

Having one sample individual obviously introduces huge sampling errors. It is also possible that kinkajous do not fit the model and trends produced by R. Clubb & G. Mason.