Should zoos keep elephants and orcas?

[Chimpangeek]

Yeah. The same with apes, especially with chimpanzees-they are too smart to be kept behind bars in the zoo prisons.So all apes should be phased out from zoos as soon as possible. Also bears and pigs, and giraffes,rhinos and hippos-they are too big and too expensive to be kept in"captivity".So also all species of seals and penguins are very expensive, if they aren't too big, so it costs too much money to keep in zoos-so all these species should be phased out,too. But maybe no animal should be kept in zoos, because it is impossbvle to release them back to the wild in most cases of mammals and birds.

Most of those species you mentioned do well in captivity, often living well beyond what their lifespan would be in the wild, unlike Orcas. I'm not against breeding irreleasable animals in captivity, since they exist in zoos to educate and inspire the public. But since conservation is important to zoo, I think they should focus more heavily on breeding threatened and endangered species, especially the many species that have successfully been reintroduced to teh wild.

Unless ocean water is being filtered in, it's very unsustainable to keep Orcas in captivity. especially in the American west which is still technically in a drought. What kind of message does that send visitors about water usage?
For comparison, the San Francisco Zoo usually has the waterfall in the grizzly bear exhibit turned off and doesn't constantly refill the pool (which only holds around 50,000 gallons).

The idea and obsession that so many people here have that no animal is too big or to difficult to be held in captivity is silly. We should focus more on the animals that do well in captivity, that NEED it.

 

[Chimpangeek]

You will have cases that when daughters get old enough to lead a herd themselves they will start challenging their mother for the leadership. In these cases you do want to split the herd and separate some of the daughters of their mother. Which is something that happens in the wild as well.

You're right, I shouldn't have spoken in absolutes.
My main point is that I think it should also be up to the elephants as to what group members stay and go, instead of forcing them into unatural/unstable groups, and breaking up families.

 

[Taisha]

This is starting to read so much like an animal liberation thread, that I am, for the first time, considering leaving Zoochat.

Yes, maybe you should, if your main interest is in collecting the number of zoos you have visited and their breeding results.
For my part I am always thankful, that there are also people on ZooChat, who seem to care about the animals involved.

 

[FBBird]

Should zoos.....

Oddly enough, as a zoo keeper, I am very much involved with the well being of captive animals.

 

[lintworm]

Yes, maybe you should, if your main interest is in collecting the number of zoos you have visited and their breeding results.
For my part I am always thankful, that there are also people on ZooChat, who seem to care about the animals involved.

You talk nonsense Taisha. Zoochat is not only for people with the same opinion as yours. Zoochat is for everybody interested in zoos / nature, whatever their specific opinion may be. Without all those different people and opinions zoochat wouldn't be half as much fun, as it is now.

 

[Taisha]

Zoochat is for everybody interested in zoos / nature, whatever their specific opinion may be.

Are you suggesting, that people, as those discussing in this thread, who simply want the best for certain animals, are just as welcome on ZooChat as animal liberation people?

 

[lintworm]

Are you suggesting, that people, as those discussing in this thread, who simply want the best for certain animals, are just as welcome on ZooChat as animal liberation people?

As long as they have a SOUND opinion with good and valid arguments without presenting their opinions as facts, than yes.

 

[Bib Fortuna]

We should focus more on the animals that do well in captivity, that NEED it.

The problem with that is-most of them are to unspectular for the visitors-but visitors bring in the money-the money runs the zoo-and the zoo can give money for conservation...

Where you got your knowldge, ocras are not doing wellunder human care ? Strange, you agree with keeping apes in"captivity", but not ocras and elephants-thsi soudn evry starneg to me.

And, fact is-orcas doing indeed VERY WELL under human care, if it is done like Seaworld is doing, and not Miami Seaqaurium. But as I said before, this thread is deplaced in a zooforum. Of course, there are some species which can't be kept in zoos for diffrent reasons, but not elephants or orcas.

 

[Chimpangeek]

We should focus more on the animals that do well in captivity, that NEED it.

The problem with that is-most of them are to unspectular for the visitors-but visitors bring in the money-the money runs the zoo-and the zoo can give money for conservation...

Where you got your knowldge, ocras are not doing wellunder human care ? Strange, you agree with keeping apes in"captivity", but not ocras and elephants-thsi soudn evry starneg to me.

And, fact is-orcas doing indeed VERY WELL under human care, if it is done like Seaworld is doing, and not Miami Seaqaurium. But as I said before, this thread is deplaced in a zooforum. Of course, there are some species which can't be kept in zoos for diffrent reasons, but not elephants or orcas.

There are enough "spectacular" species in captivity. People who really wanna see Orcas can go to the nearest whale watching tour and see them in the wild, as they can be seen off almost any coast around the world. They benefit conservation more than anything. Keeping a pod of orcas in a big tank is not only expensive and unnatural, and probably not very profitable for conservation, but it's a slap in the face to conservation with the water waste in drought stricken places like California, Texas and Ohio. Most captive orcas haven't lived over 40, at least the ones captured in the 60s and 70s.
Why is it wierd that I support keeping apes in captivity, but not orcas? Apes live longer healthier lives than they do in the wild, they breed well, are comparatively much less expensive and also spectacular. People have a more emotional connection with apes they see in captivity, because they remind us so much of ourselves. I said I agreed with keeping elephants in captivity. I just have high standard of animal welfare. I'd prefer not see a species in captivity, then see one that is unhappy and unable to be given the care and enriching environment that it deserves. Is it wrong that I'm concerned about the wellbeing of animals in captivity and willing to question the establishment view?

 

[Chimpangeek]

Are you suggesting, that people, as those discussing in this thread, who simply want the best for certain animals, are just as welcome on ZooChat as animal liberation people?

animal liberationists would be in favour of euthanizing captive orcas, not gradually phasing them out of captivityi like I'm suggesting. The craziest fringe of animal liberationists are basically domestic terrorists. The (comparatively) less radical groups like PETA have done some good things like pressuring local governments and dairy and meat producers to use humane methods of farming and slaughtering.
Equating all people who are concerned with the ethics of keeping a large cetacean in captivity is like equating good Muslims with ISIS

 

[TheMightyOrca]

animal liberationists would be in favour of euthanizing captive orcas, not gradually phasing them out of captivityi like I'm suggesting. The craziest fringe of animal liberationists are basically domestic terrorists. The (comparatively) less radical groups like PETA have done some good things like pressuring local governments and dairy and meat producers to use humane methods of farming and slaughtering.
Equating all people who are concerned with the ethics of keeping a large cetacean in captivity is like equating good Muslims with ISIS

Eh, I still wouldn't trust PETA, they euthanize lots of animals. But there are many groups opposed to orca/cetacean captivity that agree with simply phasing it out.

 

[Batto]

The option "phase out" is often promoted, but rarely its long-term practical implications are considered or understood. The specimens in question will not magically disappear into thin air; they will remain in capitivity, most likely within the same facility, till their individual lives end. All that financed by-? Depending on the species and individual specimens, the individual die off could take more than a while. While so, they will be prohibited by one way or another from a highly important behavioural and social aspect of their daily lives and wellbeing: reproduction.

As for whaling tours as an alternative: this also entails all the negative aspects connected to invasive animal tourism, may it be orcas, mountain gorillas or whale sharks.
The Negative Impacts of Whale-Watching

 

[DDcorvus]

And PETA would never accept that, their view is still that an animal is better of dead than in captivity. Calling them more moderate is also giving a wrong picture in my view.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

The option "phase out" is often promoted, but rarely its long-term practical implications are considered or understood. The specimens in question will not magically disappear into thin air; they will remain in capitivity, most likely within the same facility, till their individual lives end. All that financed by-? Depending on the species and individual specimens, the individual die off could take more than a while. While so, they will be prohibited by one way or another from a highly important behavioural and social aspect of their daily lives and wellbeing: reproduction.

As for whaling tours as an alternative: this also entails all the negative aspects connected to invasive animal tourism, may it be orcas, mountain gorillas or whale sharks.
The Negative Impacts of Whale-Watching

Obviously the place keeping the animals would pay for their care. If an aquarium or theme park were to phase out their orcas, the orcas would still be on display. People would still be coming to see them. Zoos and aquariums phase out animals all the time, it's not like it's some radical new idea.

 

[Jurek7]

As for whaling tours as an alternative: this also entails all the negative aspects connected to invasive animal tourism, may it be orcas, mountain gorillas or whale sharks.
The Negative Impacts of Whale-Watching

Precisely - when zoo enclosures are improved, the same criticism is passed to wildlife encounters in the wild, ecotourism etc.

Disappearance of the species in the wild, however, receives little interest. Much is because it is easier to get good photos of zoos and whale watching tours than rainforest cutters in Asia or whale hunters.

Remember, that as we are discussing it, elephant populations are falling and elephant habitat get lost in Asia. Anybody cares about all the rainforest being cut all over Malay peninsula?

 

[Batto]

Obviously the place keeping the animals would pay for their care. If an aquarium or theme park were to phase out their orcas, the orcas would still be on display. People would still be coming to see them. Zoos and aquariums phase out animals all the time, it's not like it's some radical new idea.

Would they? Or rather, would they have to? What if the facility keeping the species to be phased out goes bancrupt, or claims to be unable to sustain the animals any longer, due to lack of revenue? That's not some radical new idea, either, and has happened before. Will the phase-out supporters step into the breach, or are they going to assume the role of the three wise monkeys? I've seen all that happen too many times to too many animals, may it be confiscated pets from private animal owners, circus animals, roadside zoo specimens, animal horders' "collections", neglected farm animals...Usually, the animals get the short end of the stick.
Would the orcas still be allowed to perform? Would SeaWorld still be allowed to use them for PR, merchandising etc.?
How would the reproduction ban effect the individual well-being of the animals? All that and more is usually not considered by phase-out advocats.
Yes, zoos and aquaria have been phasing out species before; but it's often not as simple as some assume it to be. Quite often, the last specimens spend their lives in some backyard enclosure, or "disappear" into the exotic animal trade and wash up in unsuitable husbandries or as part of someone's BBQ; out of the public eye, and thus mind.
If phasing out is considered as a valid option, all consequences should be taken into account.

 

[Chimpangeek]

Precisely - when zoo enclosures are improved, the same criticism is passed to wildlife encounters in the wild, ecotourism etc.

Disappearance of the species in the wild, however, receives little interest. Much is because it is easier to get good photos of zoos and whale watching tours than rainforest cutters in Asia or whale hunters.

Remember, that as we are discussing it, elephant populations are falling and elephant habitat get lost in Asia. Anybody cares about all the rainforest being cut all over Malay peninsula?

I have a palm oil free household. Which is hard because it's in food, skin products, hair products etc

 

[Chimpangeek]

Would they? Or rather, would they have to? What if the facility keeping the species to be phased out goes bancrupt, or claims to be unable to sustain the animals any longer, due to lack of revenue? That's not some radical new idea, either, and has happened before. Will the phase-out supporters step into the breach, or are they going to assume the role of the three wise monkeys? I've seen all that happen too many times to too many animals, may it be confiscated pets from private animal owners, circus animals, roadside zoo specimens, animal horders' "collections", neglected farm animals...Usually, the animals get the short end of the stick.
Would the orcas still be allowed to perform? Would SeaWorld still be allowed to use them for PR, merchandising etc.?
How would the reproduction ban effect the individual well-being of the animals? All that and more is usually not considered by phase-out advocats.
Yes, zoos and aquaria have been phasing out species before; but it's often not as simple as some assume it to be. Quite often, the last specimens spend their lives in some backyard enclosure, or "disappear" into the exotic animal trade and wash up in unsuitable husbandries or as part of someone's BBQ; out of the public eye, and thus mind.
If phasing out is considered as a valid option, all consequences should be taken into account.

Good point

 

[HyakkoShachi]

Any species of animal can be kept in captivity, some are just more difficult than others. Orcas are only a bit more difficult than large land mammals, but not much. They are definitely expensive, but facilities with enough money to care for them should be allowed to do so, it's not up to us to be deciding companies budgets and frankly, giving them the best care possible is worth the cost. That's not to say there was no argument in the past, but as it stands in 2015 keeping orcas should be considered no worse than keeping elephants.

At Seaworld parks there have been no premature deaths of animals born in those same parks after 1990 not counting stillbirths or animals born having problems. Most premature deaths are of wild caught animals, there's no reason to believe these captive born whales won't live past 40 like wild whales do.
Anyways, comparing the lifespans just doesn't work as proper facilities weren't available 40 years ago. It's almost dishonest to be making the comparison really.

They also breed very well in captivity, there's been a successful birth almost every year since 1990. Ever since finding that certain pool shapes allow for better nursing calves have gotten a better survival rate than wild born calves in a certain endangered population. If anything we should be worried about the possibility of surplus orcas, already there are male captive born whales that probably shouldn't breed anymore because their genes are over represented.

So the only other arguments against are their size and intelligence, which are no different than arguments against elephants, either both are phased out or neither.

Otherewise we must admit to having a double standard for animals that live in water, which most humans clearly do considering our depletion of the ocean.

 

[Jurek7]

Great apes are most intelligent animals, and can be kept in captivity, numerous times they voluntarily prefer captivity, so the issue is settled.

I think whole issue of orcas and elephants is that laymen (including activists) have little idea of their lives and are prone to fantasies over them. And of money - there is lots of donations to be gathered on campaigning for them.