uh yeah that's what I said, I was defending your remarks about zoos not knowing how much space animals truly need
To what extent is space necessary in an enclosure?
- Thread starter animalszoos
- Start date
That was directed to imaginarius, I was just using your post to clarify what I meant
That’s happened a few times; for instance SeaWorld’s attempts in the 1970’s and 80’s, as well as the Shark that only lived 3 days at a Japanese Aquarium in 2016.
I mean at Monterey bay. But yeah, another way that Great white sharks are not that adaptable to captivity.
imaginarius
Well-Known Member
Technically yes, if facilities had the money and space for enormous tanks — encompassing a whole row of city blocks each — to house these species, then it would perhaps be comparable. But zoos in 1900 had the space and, in many cases, the means to give elephants three acres of exhibit space, they just didn’t do it because they didn’t know any better. Those were the days when zoos were glorified circuses with all of their animals in tiny cages. Aquaria do not have the resources, and never have had the resources, to give a great white a 50 million gallon tank even if they wanted to do it. And do you honestly see that changing anytime soon, or even in the next 50 years? The financial impediment will always be near-insurmountable.
I would say that the amount of space an animals needs in captivity depends on two factors: its size, and its lifestyle.
For the first factor, it’s pretty obvious that animals come in all shapes and sizes. That means that different sized animals have different needs and requirements that need to be met when it comes to space. For example, a zoo that keeps elephants and snakes would put their elephants in a large field or courtyard, providing them plenty of room to roam. Their snakes however, would probably be put in a smaller exhibit, due to their smaller size. Swapping these two animal’s exhibits would be disastrous to the safety and welfare of the animals, and would probably place the zoo in a lot of trouble with PETA, AZA, & the law.
For the second factor, it is important to know an animal’s day-to-day lifestyle and behavior to determine an adequate amount of space for it. For example, a mainly sedentary animal such as a koala or sloth, would need way less space than an animal that is constantly moving around it’s exhibit. An active animal would need plenty of room to forage and explore its surroundings, and failure to do so may lead to it being unenriched, bored, or depressed. An inactive animal however, would need way less space, since they would probably never move around anyway, even if given more than enough space.
For the first factor, it’s pretty obvious that animals come in all shapes and sizes. That means that different sized animals have different needs and requirements that need to be met when it comes to space. For example, a zoo that keeps elephants and snakes would put their elephants in a large field or courtyard, providing them plenty of room to roam. Their snakes however, would probably be put in a smaller exhibit, due to their smaller size. Swapping these two animal’s exhibits would be disastrous to the safety and welfare of the animals, and would probably place the zoo in a lot of trouble with PETA, AZA, & the law.
For the second factor, it is important to know an animal’s day-to-day lifestyle and behavior to determine an adequate amount of space for it. For example, a mainly sedentary animal such as a koala or sloth, would need way less space than an animal that is constantly moving around it’s exhibit. An active animal would need plenty of room to forage and explore its surroundings, and failure to do so may lead to it being unenriched, bored, or depressed. An inactive animal however, would need way less space, since they would probably never move around anyway, even if given more than enough space.
I don't think another quite important facet of this question has been explored yet. To what extent do visitors care about how much space an animal gets?
Enclosure size can compromise animal welfare if it restricts behaviour or leads to environmental challenge. Therefore, there is a generally held assumption that, as enclosures become proportionally smaller, they compromise animal welfare more. The most important thing for the animals in terms of space is that the area of the enclosure is enough such that it can perform certain behaviours (most importantly behaviours required to limit stress) like distancing and comforting behaviours. It has already been found that more or less barren (unused) space in the exhibit is of no consequence to captive primates (Reinhardt et al. 1996). However, this is only the scientific side of things.
On the visitor side, visitors will first see how complex the exhibit is and then slowly get an idea of the enclosure size (unless the exhibit is small, like for a snake). Therefore in a sense the complexity in prioritized in the sense that it comes first. However, studies have shown that the size of an enclosure is of paramount importance. If visitors were shown a photo of the exhibit for Barbary macaques at HWP (massive expanse of grass), and then an exhibit for the same species from Vienna (with much more complexity, climbing opportunities and enrichment) they would still undoubtedly say HWP's was better because of the gulf in size.
Enclosure size can compromise animal welfare if it restricts behaviour or leads to environmental challenge. Therefore, there is a generally held assumption that, as enclosures become proportionally smaller, they compromise animal welfare more. The most important thing for the animals in terms of space is that the area of the enclosure is enough such that it can perform certain behaviours (most importantly behaviours required to limit stress) like distancing and comforting behaviours. It has already been found that more or less barren (unused) space in the exhibit is of no consequence to captive primates (Reinhardt et al. 1996). However, this is only the scientific side of things.
On the visitor side, visitors will first see how complex the exhibit is and then slowly get an idea of the enclosure size (unless the exhibit is small, like for a snake). Therefore in a sense the complexity in prioritized in the sense that it comes first. However, studies have shown that the size of an enclosure is of paramount importance. If visitors were shown a photo of the exhibit for Barbary macaques at HWP (massive expanse of grass), and then an exhibit for the same species from Vienna (with much more complexity, climbing opportunities and enrichment) they would still undoubtedly say HWP's was better because of the gulf in size.
Probably such tanks will always be out of reach in terms of costs, which I've already stated many times throughout this thread. Obviously we can't pay for exhibits big enough right now and quite possibly we will never be able to. I just refuted your baseless comparison between terrestrial and aquatic species, because as you now say yourself no comparison is possible. Up to this day the needs of many pelagic species remain unknown. You can only compare wether or not what we can provide matches the animal's needs.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
It is not only the construction cost. The operations cost of such tanks would be huge as well. Every year.
Simply filtration and cooling would already be enormously expensive, and that's without all the other maintenance like window-pollishing, algae removal, water changes, ....
The big problem with huge tanks is also that visibility in water is lower. You can easily see an elephant from 100+ meters away (110+ yards that is) but clear visibility in tanks is only a few dozen meters. Much further and things fade away in the background. In a decently stocked tank this creates a lovely effect of fish appearing and disappearing in the void without ever having an empty tank. In a tank only holding a great white (or even a few) you get an extremely empty tank.