Fair enough to both of these.
To what extent is space necessary in an enclosure?
- Thread starter animalszoos
- Start date
Fair enough to both of these.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course, but I think that the welfare of the animals in zoos should ultimately come first over the desires of people to see them.
Many animals will make an appearance at some point before the public and I think that there would only actually be a few species which would spend their time hidden away from public view all the time.
Plus you typically have other species at zoo like lemurs and monkeys which being for the most part diurnal will be active during the day and in front of the public and therefore not disappoint the expectations of seeing animals.
Another group of animals that comes to mind are raptors and owls. They are often given small spaces due to their inactive nature, after all if they are fed they just sit still most of the time conserving energy. And behind the scenes, these raptors often breed well in those small aviaries. However when put on-show in similar aviaries, those birds stop breeding. Large and well-furnished aviaries so that the birds can keep their distance from the public. A high and distanced perching place makes these birds feel safe, and that safety is needed to get these birds to breed. For vultures this is something many zoos are already adopting as these can easily be kept with other species ranging from large storks to sparrow-sized songbirds. For many other species of raptors and owls however, this isn't the case sadly enough.
I agree that welfare comes first, but welfare and the ability to show an animal don't need to infringe on each other. For some less popular species I also agree that just leaving it up to fate is the best option, the costs of trying to display them with a near 100% guarantee for visitors often aren't worth it. For the more popular species that are a bit more shy (many cats come to mind), I think using the methods I stated above is the way to go. Things like having half a leopard-exhibit only visible from one-way viewing panels for example isn't that difficult to accomplish. Visitors can then still see the leopard, and the leopard has it's privacy.
imaginarius
Well-Known Member
I think this discussion merits being divided into two: one for terrestrial creatures, and another for aquatic ones. A large land-based animal like an elephant, known to trek thousands of miles almost continuously, can be kept relatively well on a plot of 2-3 acres, with the proper enrichment, shade, access to water, and so on. The same cannot be said for a sperm whale, or any other large cetacean/pelagic shark. Without vast amounts of navigable space, they will die. So the discussion very much depends on the medium (air vs. water) in which the animal lives.
Also, just to throw another aspect into consideration, the reasons for keeping the species need to be considered; individuals which might actually be reintroduced to the wild almost certainly need more space than individuals whose fate is to just be breeding stock.
In most cases of the latter reintroduction centers are constructed in-situ, either to breed animals there from stock derived from zoos or to habituate zoo-borns to a live in semi-wild conditions.
toothlessjaws
Well-Known Member
Oh, this discussion again.
What surprises me every time this one comes up, is how many people immediately argue how enrichment of space is more important. As if the two are mutally exclusive. Its always a small enriching space vs a grassy field.
I think space, as a concept IS a form of enrichment. I think it goes without saying that monkeys need trees and foraging opportunities and elephants need lakes and things to rub against and lions need things to sniff out and gnaw in lew of hunting.
I think these things are critical requirements for animal welfare. And I think space is just another one.
Take your dog for a walk and you’ll see what I mean.
What surprises me every time this one comes up, is how many people immediately argue how enrichment of space is more important. As if the two are mutally exclusive. Its always a small enriching space vs a grassy field.
I think space, as a concept IS a form of enrichment. I think it goes without saying that monkeys need trees and foraging opportunities and elephants need lakes and things to rub against and lions need things to sniff out and gnaw in lew of hunting.
I think these things are critical requirements for animal welfare. And I think space is just another one.
Take your dog for a walk and you’ll see what I mean.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Can you offer evidence of either of these assertions?
Whilst I think much nuance must be taken in what imaginarius sais, there is some truth in it. Pelagic sharks definitively tend to do far worse on average then the shore-based species. What the reason for that is remains a topic of speculation, wether it's their tendency to swim large relatively straight distances in nature, some sort of natural instinct to navigate the ocean that gets disturbed or simply captive stress from not being in a virtually empty environment (or something else even) remains unknown. Wether pelagic whales wouldn't do well in captivity is something you can't really test due to practical limitations, but there has at least been one grey whale that has been kept for a while and released back with success.
On the topic of large land-based animals, a lot of variability remains. Some species like African elephants and until recently many rhinos breed badly, other species like tigers and bears are very prone to stereotypical behaviors and then you have species like Asian elephants and lions that are relatively easy to keep. Giraffes are prone to stresses, whilst pygmy hippo have the distorted sex-ratio that at least seems partially due to their captive management (though there is hope for correction). Saying that terrestrial megafauna are either difficult or easy to keep is just not doing justice to the complex situation reality is. It is true however that it's way easier to adapt enclosures to these terrestrial problems due to the enormous costs that big tanks bring with them. You can easily give an elephant a hectare (2,47 acres) in space at a reasonable cost, but giving a white shark a hectare is economically unfeasible. And for a species that is used to roaming around in near infinite nothingness, what kind of enrichment can you give?
On the topic of large land-based animals, a lot of variability remains. Some species like African elephants and until recently many rhinos breed badly, other species like tigers and bears are very prone to stereotypical behaviors and then you have species like Asian elephants and lions that are relatively easy to keep. Giraffes are prone to stresses, whilst pygmy hippo have the distorted sex-ratio that at least seems partially due to their captive management (though there is hope for correction). Saying that terrestrial megafauna are either difficult or easy to keep is just not doing justice to the complex situation reality is. It is true however that it's way easier to adapt enclosures to these terrestrial problems due to the enormous costs that big tanks bring with them. You can easily give an elephant a hectare (2,47 acres) in space at a reasonable cost, but giving a white shark a hectare is economically unfeasible. And for a species that is used to roaming around in near infinite nothingness, what kind of enrichment can you give?
imaginarius
Well-Known Member
The evidence is plain. Large terrestrial animals that are known to traverse great distances — elephants, giraffes, rhinos, the like — are held in zoos all over the world, and often live long, comfortable lives if handled properly. Great white sharks, blue whales, marlins, mako sharks? Are not held in captivity anywhere in the world. And they won’t be anytime soon, for the reasons listed above.
Blue whales have never been kept, so you can't really say anything about how well they do in smaller spaces. Zoos have just realized that it's practically not feasible to keep such species for a diversity of reasons. Wether it's tank size, cause even if we are conservative and scale up from whale-sharks it's unfeasible expensive, feeding costs or the problems with acquiring animals. Orca's and whale sharks are great examples of this, regardless of their welfare it's near impossible to set up a breeding program for them that is viable in the long term.
In comparison to terrestrial species we also tend to give large aquatic species like kille whale, dolphins and large sharks much less space. We don't know how those species would do in such large spaces, because often zoos can't afford such enclosures (though Harderwijk's dolphin lagoon is a quite cost-effective way to give dolphins that space). Fact is, for a large terrestrial species large enclosures are much cheaper then for large marine species. That's why most large animals in zoos are land-based.
imaginarius
Well-Known Member
None of what you state refutes my point. Which is that terrestrial animals and aquatic animals, regardless of the size of the animal itself or its behavioral patterns, are very, very different in terms of managing in captivity. One is much harder than the other.
Gray Whales have been kept though, and found to be unsuitable for captivity.
Your original point was that large aquatic animals needed much more space, which simply put is far from proven. It ends up having the same result of those species (near) absence in captivity, but the reasons behind it are vastly different.
Interesting, I only know of the one in San Diego (?) that they rescued and later released.
imaginarius
Well-Known Member
Talk to any marine biologist — and I have, specifically ones from the Monterey Bay Aquarium — and they will reiterate the fact that, yes, large aquatic animals need more space than aquariums can currently provide. If you need a citation, I will happily find one for you. No one likes a contrarian...
Makes sense, and seems like pretty basic knowledge to me @Jarne
And again, this isn't what you said initially. No one denies that aquaria can't provide what those species need at the moment in a practically feasible way. People just question this statement:
for which you haven't given any proof at all. So again the question: do you have proof of this statement? Cause here you essentially state that when given 2-3 acres of space, with proper furnishing of the exhibit, that those large aquatic species still couldn't be kept.
I mean, If you went to a zoo you could sort of see it for yourself........
I completely agree we have no idea what larger spaces could actually do for cetacea. We have an idea that maybe larger exhibits would get rid of the need for shows as physical enrichment but because the blue world project was cancelled we have no idea
where did you get this because only SeaWorld San Diego has held them and the keepers never said it wasn't possible in fact they actually proved it was possible