Species you hate to see in zoos

Since watching an interview with the director of Leipzig zoo about the ethics of keeping chimpanzees in captivity (due to the fact that in nature their social groups aren't stable and they come and go as they please or as the need arises) I'd be interested to get some opinions about this from far more experienced zoochatters than me. Are they going to become a species that I'm uncomfortable with seeing in captivity - as I already am with cetaceans (in all situations) and polar bears (in most situations)
 
Goura said:
Since watching an interview with the director of Leipzig zoo about the ethics of keeping chimpanzees in captivity (due to the fact that in nature their social groups aren't stable and they come and go as they please or as the need arises) I'd be interested to get some opinions about this from far more experienced zoochatters than me. Are they going to become a species that I'm uncomfortable with seeing in captivity - as I already am with cetaceans (in all situations) and polar bears (in most situations)
Click to expand...

There seems to be that some slight error has slipped in. Chimps do have a stable social group, the tribe, but chimpanzees within a tribe choose for themselves who to spend time with and sometimes some individuals isolate themselves from the tribe for multiple days (especially a male with a sexually attractive female). So this means it often happens that foraging takes place in smaller sub-groups and the tribe might not even sleep with all its members at the same place, though this often happens.

Zoos have started to replicate this fission-fusion dynamics by creating highly comparimentalized enclosures (like Basel) or by creating very spacious enclosures, with enough sight barriers (like Leipzig), so the animals can decide for themselves who to spend time with. Off course this cannot fully replicate natural group dynamics, but behavior-wise such groups are not different to their wild counterparts, except they spend less time foraging... Chimpanzee experts like Frans de Waal and even Jane Goodall are not against Chimpanzees in captivity (given they are kept in natural groups in proper enclosures), Goodall has changed her opinion on this as in earlier books she would call zoos prisons.
 
lintworm said:
There seems to be that some slight error has slipped in.
Click to expand...
Thanks lintworm - that goes quite a long way to clarifying the situation, but surely most zoos don't consider the dynamics of chimpanzee relationships to the extent of designing enclosures to satisfy these needs?
 
Maybe not featured in zoos, but I absolutely hate reptile morphs. Pointless, seeing it’s still the same animal but prices vary just because of the colour. When people see morphs, they might automatically assume that all reptiles are like that. I prefer wild type Reticulated Python over any of their possible morphs (Tiger, Cow, etc.). When I see one, I just shake my head in disbelief. In the case of Ball Python ‘Spider’, morphs can have consequences.
 
Agree that "hate" is too strong a word. I don't like to see meerkats (no conservation value); short-clawed otters (ditto); Burmese pythons (too common); Bennett's wallabies (zoos should be more original and inaginative and choose one of the much rarer wallaby species); European eagle owls (too common); capybara (no conservation value); crested porcupine (no conservation value); "pet-shop-type" tropical fish (e.g. mollies, guppies, platies, swordtails); "pet-shop-type" birds (e.g. budgerigars, cockatiels, zebra finches, but I don't mind the true wild variety of these birds); "pet-shop-type" reptiles, e.g. bearded dragons, green iguanas, leopard geckos, corn snakes, etc. (but in the Education Centre, I think it's fine to keep these species as they can be used for demonstrations, just not using up space in the reptile house); cetaceans of any kind (what is basically a large swimming pool can never be a replication of the North Atlantic); white tigers (using up valuable space that could be put to better use for an endangered tiger subspecies); albinos and mutation colours of any species; large birds of prey such as condors or large eagles (but I make an exceptiion if the species is on the verge of extinctioon andf holding it in captivity may be ther last ditch effort to save it, e.g. Californian condor); domestic species of any kind including reindeer (leave those to the many farm parks and rare breed centres ); pinioned waterfowl (a practice fortunately dying out now); and Bactrian camels (always the domestic species). Zoos often mislead the public by saying Bactrian camels are highly endangered, but fail to make any distinction between the domestic and the endangered wild camel. I would love to see wild Bactrian camels making an appearance in our zoos, as there is a conservation imperative there.
 
zooman64 said:
Agree that "hate" is too strong a word. I don't like to see meerkats (no conservation value); short-clawed otters (ditto); Burmese pythons (too common); Bennett's wallabies (zoos should be more original and inaginative and choose one of the much rarer wallaby species); European eagle owls (too common); capybara (no conservation value); crested porcupine (no conservation value); "pet-shop-type" tropical fish (e.g. mollies, guppies, platies, swordtails); "pet-shop-type" birds (e.g. budgerigars, cockatiels, zebra finches, but I don't mind the true wild variety of these birds); "pet-shop-type" reptiles, e.g. bearded dragons, green iguanas, leopard geckos, corn snakes, etc. (but in the Education Centre, I think it's fine to keep these species as they can be used for demonstrations, just not using up space in the reptile house); cetaceans of any kind (what is basically a large swimming pool can never be a replication of the North Atlantic); white tigers (using up valuable space that could be put to better use for an endangered tiger subspecies); albinos and mutation colours of any species; large birds of prey such as condors or large eagles (but I make an exceptiion if the species is on the verge of extinctioon andf holding it in captivity may be ther last ditch effort to save it, e.g. Californian condor); domestic species of any kind including reindeer (leave those to the many farm parks and rare breed centres ); pinioned waterfowl (a practice fortunately dying out now); and Bactrian camels (always the domestic species). Zoos often mislead the public by saying Bactrian camels are highly endangered, but fail to make any distinction between the domestic and the endangered wild camel. I would love to see wild Bactrian camels making an appearance in our zoos, as there is a conservation imperative there.
Click to expand...

A wide-ranging list, covering pretty much everything of interest to the general visitor, whose support and spend is required to pay the bills, subsidize the 'interesting spp' and (if there is anything left) do a bit of education and conservation work...
 
zooman64 said:
Agree that "hate" is too strong a word. I don't like to see meerkats (no conservation value); short-clawed otters (ditto); Burmese pythons (too common); Bennett's wallabies (zoos should be more original and inaginative and choose one of the much rarer wallaby species); European eagle owls (too common); capybara (no conservation value); crested porcupine (no conservation value); "pet-shop-type" tropical fish (e.g. mollies, guppies, platies, swordtails); "pet-shop-type" birds (e.g. budgerigars, cockatiels, zebra finches, but I don't mind the true wild variety of these birds); "pet-shop-type" reptiles, e.g. bearded dragons, green iguanas, leopard geckos, corn snakes, etc. (but in the Education Centre, I think it's fine to keep these species as they can be used for demonstrations, just not using up space in the reptile house); cetaceans of any kind (what is basically a large swimming pool can never be a replication of the North Atlantic); white tigers (using up valuable space that could be put to better use for an endangered tiger subspecies); albinos and mutation colours of any species; large birds of prey such as condors or large eagles (but I make an exceptiion if the species is on the verge of extinctioon andf holding it in captivity may be ther last ditch effort to save it, e.g. Californian condor); domestic species of any kind including reindeer (leave those to the many farm parks and rare breed centres ); pinioned waterfowl (a practice fortunately dying out now); and Bactrian camels (always the domestic species). Zoos often mislead the public by saying Bactrian camels are highly endangered, but fail to make any distinction between the domestic and the endangered wild camel. I would love to see wild Bactrian camels making an appearance in our zoos, as there is a conservation imperative there.
Click to expand...

For the record, Asian Small-Clawed Otter are endangered in the wild so the captive populations do have some sort of conservation value. I would imagine European Eagle-Owls do also have conservation value in many of the countries they're native to. Not to mention there are many subspecies of this species found in zoos and I believe one or two of them are endangered.

~Thylo
 
Andrew Swales said:
A wide-ranging list, covering pretty much everything of interest to the general visitor, whose support and spend is required to pay the bills, subsidize the 'interesting spp' and (if there is anything left) do a bit of education and conservation work...
Click to expand...

So what? It is a long list based on personal preferences of somebody who is an enthusiast, not a zoo director.
 
Hmmm....

I do think that from our point of view, we can be forgiven for not actively enjoying observing certain species' presence at a zoo. However, we are not allowed then to blame zoo directors for bringing in these ABC species: quite simply, without these megafauna in zoos, zoos (the places we love) would not exist due to lack of funding.
 
- Giant Pandas outside China. There's no need for an ex-situ breeding programme, their presence in a non-Chinese zoo tends to be the result of some very dodgy diplomatic machinations (Gerald Durrell called them 'piebald prostitutes'), they don't breed well away from home, and they take up space and resources which could be put to better use.
- Common domestic animals - Bactrian Camels, Reindeer, Yaks, Bali Cattle - masquerading as their endangered wild cousins.
- Alpacas and Llamas, which take up space which would be better used for Vicuna and Guanaco.
- Common aquarium fish which either cannot be bred in captivity (such as Mormyrids and many marines) or are farmed in large numbers for the trade. There are exceptions to this: such species are often great for enrichment purposes around rarer species, and all public aquaria end up lumbered with donated tankbusters, but on the whole zoos and aquaria should not be spending money on species which can be found in the average pet shop.
- Meerkats. I appreciate that they bring in a lot more money than they cost, but I generally avoid their enclosures.
 
While I don't hate seeing any animals, I strongly disapprove of using valuable zoo space for Zoo Farms. Many in this thread have mentioned "domestics," animals from other countries, but at least those present species one might never see. On the other hand, devoting precious zoo acreage to average, everyday, ordinary chickens, goats, sheep, cows, and donkeys that can be seen at petting zoos, farms, and even passing by on the road, is simply reneging on our mission of conserving and saving endangered animals from extinction. At least zoos like the Bronx have a children's zoo which includes foreign domestic and endangered species side by side with farm animals. NZP, though has an actual Kids' Farm complete with barn and paddocks (sponsored by State Farm!) taking up space that could be used for exhibiting and breeding endangered species in a completely land-locked zoo that needs every inch it can carve out.
 
gentle lemur said:
Hybrids, 'fancy' varieties and colour mutations. Albino anything, all fancy goldfish, black mollies, Catalina macaws, 'Flower Horns', leucistic lovebirds, rosa Bourkes, veiltail guppies, white lions, white tigers, zeedonks etc. I have no problem with common natural colour forms (such as black leopards) and educational examples of domestic animal breeds
Click to expand...
I agree!
 
For all of you hating domestics/farms, spend some time hanging out in one. It is one of the highlights for nearly every kid that visits a zoo, and gives them an opportunity to interact with animals that they wouldn't otherwise see, especially in city zoos. To them, a goat or a domestic camel is as foreign as a koala or sea otter. Farm areas also promote healthy interactions with animals in general, ways to help the environment, and other important education opportunities that kids are more likely to remember because they're interactive. Kids also friggin LOVE meerkats.These animals are not taking up space that could be used for endangered species, because the zoos likely wouldn't be able to afford those species at all without the funds brought in.
 
TinoPup said:
Kids also friggin LOVE meerkats.These animals are not taking up space that could be used for endangered species, because the zoos likely wouldn't be able to afford those species at all without the funds brought in.
Click to expand...

I mean, they are taking up space that could be used for a more endangered species. Also the implication that Meerkats are bringing in the funds that allow zoos to keep all these endangered species isn't true, as there are plenty of zoos (Bronx for example) that do just fine without Meerkats.

You are correct, though, in that most zoos must devote at least some space on species that will peak the interest of the general public before they walk through the gate.

~Thylo
 
Literally, yes, they are taking up space. But without those farm areas, a lot of kids aren't interested in going to the zoo, especially return visits. Kids/families make up the bulk of visits to just about every zoo.
I didn't say meerkats bring in all that funding, I said kids love meerkats. With your example, they have so much to offer - including a nice children's zoo - that one species like that isn't going to make a difference. It might for a tiny zoo, though.
 
TinoPup said:
Literally, yes, they are taking up space. But without those farm areas, a lot of kids aren't interested in going to the zoo, especially return visits. Kids/families make up the bulk of visits to just about every zoo.
I didn't say meerkats bring in all that funding, I said kids love meerkats. With your example, they have so much to offer - including a nice children's zoo - that one species like that isn't going to make a difference. It might for a tiny zoo, though.
Click to expand...

Despite the popularity of farm areas, I still disagree with that statement. You're absolutely correct on what they can offer for children, but kids are going to visit for the big cats, bears, otters, elephants, rhinos, monkeys, etc., not for the goats and chickens. I also think you're undervaluing the extent of a small child's curiosity. I know when I visit zoos the majority of interest found in reptile houses and aquariums comes from kids. A child will visit because of the animals in general. A farm is an added benefit often times, yes, but if a kid's local zoo doesn't have one, they're not going to know they shouldn't want to revisit without one.

For a tiny zoo, maybe. Maritime Aquarium does market their Meerkats more than any other animal.

~Thylo
 
I think that hands-on "farms" and contact areas with domestic animals are absolutely extremely valuable for children. I can't tell you how many times that I've heard a child say that that was the first time they'd ever touched an ANIMAL. It is consistently one of the most popular exhibits for kids even if we as adults find it boring. When Audubon Zoo's contact yard was closed for a little while (while a new one was built), I saw so many angry comments from parents on their website demanding that the contact yard be brought back because that's what their kid loved the most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top