I think it was sometime in 2016.
Species you hate to see in zoos
- Thread starter animalszoos
- Start date
Zoos have a duty to display healthy animals and I dislike seeing those that are clearly debilitated in one way or another. Showing animals that have been "rescued" is laudable and there has already been a comment about some US zoos showing rescued bald eagles. However when these exhibits use birds with droopy wings or a obviously damaged it gives all the wrong messages. Displaying parrots that are pluckers, birds with bumble-foot, tortoises with deformed shells or primates with severe alopecia should be discouraged. These should be kept off-show.
littleRedPanda
Well-Known Member
Including Jambo at Twycross?
Broxbourne Zoo had a stump-tailed macaque that used its fingers to gouge skin out of its cheek. The zoo admitted that it shouldn't have been on show, but didn't explain why it wasn't off show.
I see your reasoning, but doesn't that risk that zoos will become somewhat glorified places, where problem animals are hidden from the public. I especially disagree with the tortoise example, as this is often due to bad care before they came to the zoo and with a strong education message that can send a clear message to visitors about animal welfare.
This would be nice.
Good points. I am not suggesting that animals with mild issues of alopecia or plucking should not be exhibited. Each case needs to be carefully considered, with respect to the welfare of the animal and the messages the public get from its display. In collections that set themselves up as rescue centres such as Monkey World one expects to see some animals with problems. Most zoos are not rescue centres and need to put forward high standards of animal welfare and the exhibition of "problem" animals that are the result of inadequate care give the wrong messages.
I have worked with tortoises for many years and there is great variation in shell shape, and some minor deformity is acceptable in display animals, and most visitors would never notice. I have however seen some horrendously deformed tortoises that should not be on show.
IMO, I feel that it's up to the zoos to put up signage explaining why the animals look deformed if the issue is that noticeable. Sometimes this is done, others times not, but as long as the zoo takes the steps to education the public about the individual in question then it's the public's fault if they don't bother to read the signs (though we all know they won't).
~Thylo
~Thylo
I've seen the one in Philly several times. It has a special burrow in the inside meerkat enclosure that's kept dark but has a glass side, so you can always see it there, but if you happen to be there when the keeper is cleaning or feeding, it gets up and runs about and plays
White tigers and lions have no place in zoos, and I usually skip visiting places that have them, especially ones that really emphasize the white (IE. "royal white bengal tigers" all over their website). I'm not a fan of hybrids, color morphs, etc. in general - they're taking up space that could be used for truly endangered animals.
I think a lot of it depends on the institution. I love watching the meerkats at Philly! It's so interesting to watch them play in their outside series of tunnels, towers, and digging areas. At other zoos, where the meerkats barely have more than a dirt covered flat area, they're not so interesting. Regarding farm animals, I appreciate places that keep rare species and make sure to let the public know what those species are, rather than generic goat/sheep/etc. Domestics in general are great for kids, though, and a lot of zoos are in very urban areas where people wouldn't otherwise see or interact with these animals. In my area, most birds of prey are rescues that can't be released and aren't capable of flying high, anyway, so I don't mind seeing them.
I'd really like zoos to start offering no-kids days. I'd pay double an entry fee at most places to not deal with screaming, grabby kids everywhere.
To be fair, true non-inbred white Bengal Tigers, white Lions, and king Cheetahs would be quite a fantastic sight to see.
As for the "no kids" days, that's a great way to get your local zoo closed
~Thylo
As for the "no kids" days, that's a great way to get your local zoo closed
~Thylo
Do those even exist, though? There hasn't been a wild white tiger spotted since the 50s, I think, and before then they were still extremely rare, since it's a recessive trait that both parents must carry that was created by a mutation. White lions were "discovered" in the 70s and were immediately brought into captivity; a wild one hasn't been spotted since the early 90s. There's been a total of 5 wild king cheetahs spotted since they were first mentioned in 1926. That mutation doesn't seem to cause health problems, at least, it's the same as the striped pattern seen in tabby cats, but it isn't going to be bred for without inbreeding.
I can dream When I was in Portland for a week I managed to go on the kids free day or whatever it was... I'm always checking the calendar from now on! It was awful!
I can dream
When I was in Portland for a week I managed to go on the kids free day or whatever it was... I'm always checking the calendar from now on! It was awful!
I completely disagree.
Zoos have a duty to provide best possible care for animals. If an animal is not in best shape, it should not be moved to a backwards exhibit only to hide it from the public (usually worse furnished and away from social group). In a large social group of birds or primates (eg. baboons), you are almost guaranteeed to have several animals which are permanently injured or elderly. They should stay with their group, do not isolate or euthanise them.
Many zoos have favorite animals to which visitors and zookeepers form a long-time attachment. This continues when they are visibly old and unhealthy.
In many German zoos you can see explanation plates telling why a particular animal is looking unwell (old, with hair loss, sick, injured etc).
They are normally very well received. They show that zoos care for the animals. They can also illustrate some problems of conservation (e.g. animals injured in car accidents, shot by poachers, kept as illegal pets).
Untrue. I've been to Timbavati Game Reserve in South Africa, I think the only place where leucistic lions are found readily (or so, along with the nearby Kruger) and although I didn't find them, our guide there sees them quite often (you can search for white lion Timbavati, those pictures definitely aren't from the early 90s)
Really? If you had seen the White Lion documentary by PBS, that was in the wild, and probably wasn't filmed in the 90s.
There's a good popular article here (from 2011) which covers dates and localities of the white lions after the 1990s:
White lions of the Timbavati - Getaway Magazine
I have to ask why, and I strongly disagree. Having been long involved with wild bird rehab I can tell you that particularly for raptors it is so much easier to save a birds life than to rehab it where it can be released and hunt on its own.
Federal regs limit the number of birds a rehabber can keep so if not for zoos
many more would be need to be euthanized. Provided signage identifies
such animals I can't see what wrong message is being sent.
I don't think that I can disagree more. Zoos have a responsibility to provide the best possible homes for many species of various conditions. If zoos could only show the most pristine, healthy animals, many rescued animals would be euthanized by necessity. The zoo I work at has many rescued animals including multiple raptors that had various injuries that prevented them from surviving in the wild. If zoos didn't show these animals, the messaging would be totally lost and guests would lose any opportunity to learn about what they can do if they see an injured animal or the work that many facilities do to rehabilitate and release injured animals. I don't see how showing animals with various physical or behavioral conditions "gives all the wrong messages." What wrong message could an injured, deformed or sick animal give? Every zoo that I've visited that has a rescued animal makes it clear how the animal got there and what they are doing to remedy their condition. I personally work with multiple elderly birds that have various conditions. We have a wild turkey that is currently 17 years old (the oldest in human care we believe) and he has horrible bumblefoot. We treat it the best we can without causing undue stress. He is a favorite among staff and guests and we hear nothing but good things once they hear about his age and his various physical ailments. By your logic, we should move him somewhere nobody can see him and he'd have a completely different, and most likely lowered quality of life. The zoo would lose any message about the care that elderly animals receive and an even worse message of "the zoo only cares about the young, fit animals and sends all the old animals away to die alone" could be perceived by guests We also have tortoises, and while none of them have deformed shells, multiple ones are former pets and one was illegally owned and was probably set to be sold illegally. Lintworm already mentioned that they can be an amazing tool for educating the public about proper tortoise husbandry.
But rescue centers can not house every single animal that comes through the doors. Zoos are necessary homes for these animal so that rescue centers can have the space to bring in more animals in need. Once an animal has been cared for to the extent that the rescue center can't provide additional care, they need to be rehomed or euthanized. There are no other options for these animals.
I don't understand why an animal that has an irreversible deformity should be deemed unfit for being shown. That just sets up facilities for failure as many do not have the off show space to hold an animal that they are unable to use because some people find it upsetting. Those animals would then have to be rehomed or euthanized. This also may cause a trend in seeing these animals as "unfit" and ignored by zoos and other zoological facilities. I think this a horribly dangerous thought process.
Many zoos are doing after hours, adult only events with drinks, food, music, and special late hour animal viewing now.
They're found readily because they were introduced there. Several cubs were born in the 2000s to wild lions, but none lived to even be adolescents (I should have specified I meant adults). The current animals were introduced by the Global White Lion Protection Trust, mostly rescues from canned hunt places. They are heavily monitored and while they have a large area, they aren't free to leave, from my understanding.
This and the other replies just show we vary in degree not necessarily in principle. Zoos need to show healthy animals and this has to be the goal. I have seen far too many animals in collections that were in such poor shape they were evoking negative feelings. This clearly should be a situation we avoid.
Last edited: