Value of having bears in zoos:

[BigCatConniseur24]

I just wanted to hear your opinions on whether you all think having different species of bears in zoos. Do various bear species capture your attention and interest and do you enjoy seeing them in zoos OR would you rather see other more meat eating carnivores (I’m not talking about cats, I’m talking about other carnivores such as red pandas, pinniped. meerkats, fossas, otters, honey badgers, binturongs, coatis, kinkajous, Tasmanian devils, opossums, genets, small foxes, etc.) than bears. I have mixed feelings, as I prefer to see actual meat eating carnivores, however, and I strongly like and prefer zoos that have a strong collection of mammals from Carnivora, however, I also feel that zoos should have AT LEAST one species of bear. I think bears, are a necessary species in all zoos, and it feels very weird going to a zoo and not seeing bears. For example, my hometown the zoo, the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium has a nice lineup of cats and also other carnivores, HOWEVER, I’m disappointed because they only exhibit polar bears, when in the past they were able to exhibit Kodiak bears, spectacled bears, North American black bears, and polar bears (1970s-1998, & 2006-2010). Granted, I do realize that smaller carnivores such as fossas, and meerkats are more active and truer carnivores than bears (except for the polar bears), however, there’s just something very appealing and attractive about bears that make me feel that they need to be featured in every zoos. Yes, I realize that they do not display the same hunting behaviors as carnivores, and most of them lounge around most of the day, but I their raw strength, and power is really attractive. Plus, most of them are very strong swimmers and are expert fishermen and it is interesting to see bears tear apart their fish, and also swim around in their pools.

Anyways, what I’m asking is would you rather prefer a zoo with multiple and more true carnivores and very few bears, OR would you prefer a zoo with a smaller number of truer carnivores, but more species of bears?

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

The most importent part is that the exhibits are great. I would prefer to go to an Zoo with less species in great enclosures, than many in terrible exhibits. But I care more about that these species are both have substainble zoo populations, and are species endangered in the wild (so no american black bears and most brown bear subspecies) and should be able to be keept in human conditions (no polar bears because of that). I love to see syrian rown bears, asiatic black bears and speckeld bears. And espically sloth bears ( my favourite carnivors outside of Felidae). I in theory have nothing against pandas. But they cost to much, and I hate the influnce of the CCP it gives.

 

[Zooplantman]

I am so disappointed.
I misread the topic as "Value of having bars in zoos"
Carry on

 

[Coelacanth18]

I also feel that zoos should have AT LEAST one species of bear.

Not to self-plug, just a timely reference: my evaluation of 80 major zoos in the US found that 86% of them exhibited at least one species of bear (Evaluation of Popular Taxa in Major US Zoos & Aquaria) - so it seems that most zoos would agree with you that having bears is a good investment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I think every zoo should have bears, but they are a well-known group of animals and I think it's a positive for zoos to represent them.

Anyways, what I’m asking is would you rather prefer a zoo with multiple and more true carnivores and very few bears, OR would you prefer a zoo with a smaller number of truer carnivores, but more species of bears?

Depends on what you mean by "very few" bears - if that means "only" one or two species of bear, than I'd prefer that option. I like seeing bears - multiple kinds of bears, even - but I think the ideal zoo aims for taxonomic representation and I wouldn't want to see the average zoo ignore other groups of carnivores just to have several species of bear. Of course there's no problem with zoos specializing in certain groups of animals, but if this was the main zoo I was going to be visiting every year I'd rather see - for example - two bears, two felids, and two canids, rather than six bears and no felids or canids.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Ah yes, the "true" meat-eating Carnivora, the red pandas and marsupials

Yes, of course bears have a place in zoos. Bears do not seem to breed too readily in captivity, so I'm not sure if any bear species can be saved with a captive breeding program, but for species such as Polar Bear assurance populations are becoming more and more necessary. In the US, zoos offer forever homes to orphaned/non-releasable black and brown bears.

~Thylo

 

[BigCatConniseur24]

The most importent part is that the exhibits are great. I would prefer to go to an Zoo with less species in great enclosures, than many in terrible exhibits. But I care more about that these species are both have substainble zoo populations, and are species endangered in the wild (so no american black bears and most brown bear subspecies) and should be able to be keept in human conditions (no polar bears because of that). I love to see syrian rown bears, asiatic black bears and speckeld bears. And espically sloth bears ( my favourite carnivors outside of Felidae). I in theory have nothing against pandas. But they cost to much, and I hate the influnce of the CCP it gives.

I agree with your points, and I too prefer to see bears (I personally don’t have a problem with polar bears, North American black bears, brown bears, or grizzly bears) over pandas.

 

[ZooBinh]

I agree with your points, and I too prefer to see bears (I personally don’t have a problem with polar bears, North American black bears, brown bears, or grizzly bears) over pandas.

Pandas are bears you know? Or do you mean other bears over pandas.

 

[BigCatConniseur24]

Pandas are bears you know? Or do you mean other bears over pandas.

I meant to say other species over bears over giant pandas. Aka bears that eat more than plants. I’m a carnivore lover at heart (as well and huge BBQ/grilled meat fan, and seafood fan), and I prefer animals that eat meat and especially those that hunt and kill their own prey. Yes, I realize that most species of bears (aside from polar bears), eat more vegetation than meat, but I would much rather see a black bear or a brown bear hunting and devouring a salmon (some black bears and brown bears also sometimes kill hunt and kill meat such as deer). No, they are not as skilled or accomplished predators as other mammal hunters of the order Carnivora, but they possess such great strength and power, and most are superior fighters/wrestlers to most animals that challenge them. It’s not often that adult bears get intimidated or killed by other animals. I like the ferocity of bears, even if they don’t display these behaviors on a regular basis.

 

[BigCatConniseur24]

Not to self-plug, just a timely reference: my evaluation of 80 major zoos in the US found that 86% of them exhibited at least one species of bear (Evaluation of Popular Taxa in Major US Zoos & Aquaria) - so it seems that most zoos would agree with you that having bears is a good investment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I think every zoo should have bears, but they are a well-known group of animals and I think it's a positive for zoos to represent them.



Depends on what you mean by "very few" bears - if that means "only" one or two species of bear, than I'd prefer that option. I like seeing bears - multiple kinds of bears, even - but I think the ideal zoo aims for taxonomic representation and I wouldn't want to see the average zoo ignore other groups of carnivores just to have several species of bear. Of course there's no problem with zoos specializing in certain groups of animals, but if this was the main zoo I was going to be visiting every year I'd rather see - for example - two bears, two felids, and two canids, rather than six bears and no felids or canids.

Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you and I’m all for equal taxonomic representation.

My zoo decently represents the mammalian order Carnivora well, but there’s not equal distribution among the different members of Carnivora. Here’s what it CURRENTLY looks like:

Cats: 1. Canada Lynx 2. Amur Tigers 3. African Lions 4. Amur Leopards 5. South African Cheetahs 6. Clouded Leopards 7. Ocelots (in the next 2-3 years, they will add snow leopards, which will increase their number to 8.)

Canids: 0 (they do have fennec foxes, but they don’t have an exhibit, they are animal ambassadors)

Bears: 1. Polar Bears

Feliformia: 1. Fossas 2. Meerkats

Mustelids: 1. North American River Otters 2. Northern Sea Otters 3. Striped Skunks

Pinnipeds: 1. California Sea Lions 2. Northern Elephant Seals.

Red Panda: 1. Red Pandas

Now, I’m obviously a HUGE cat lover and fanatic, and I love the lineup of cats at my home zoo (even though I want to see jaguars, or cougars, and snow leopards in the future), however the fact that they only have one species of bear and no species of dog, honestly kind of bothers me, especially when due to the fact that they had this lineup of animals belonging to Carnivora in 2006 even though it was short-lived:

2006:
Cats:
1. Snow Leopards 2. Amur Tigers 3. South African Cheetahs 4. Amur Leopards 5. African Lions

Bears: 1. Kodiak Bears 2. North American Black Bears 3. Spectacled Bears 4. Polar Bears

Dogs: 1. African Wild Dogs (pack of 4, in a mixed species exhibit with an elderly female South African cheetah, how cool is that?! You don’t see that everyday and I love interspecies relationships.)

Feliformes: 1. Meerkats

Mustelids: 1. North American River Otters 2. Striped Skunks

Pinnipeds: 1. California Sea Lions

Anyways, my point is I’d rather see a zoo that has a more equal representation of cats to bears like my home zoo did in 2006, than the current version which has 7 species of cats compared to only 1 lone species of bear. I mean yes, I want to see lots of cats, but I also want to see more bears than just two polar bears that rotate turns on exhibit. The bears that appeal to me the most are polar bears, brown bears (both the North American and Eurasian ones), black bears (both the North American and asiatic ones), and sloth bears and to a lesser extent spectacled bears, sun bears, and giant pandas.

 

[BigCatConniseur24]

Ah yes, the "true" meat-eating Carnivora, the red pandas and marsupials

Yes, of course bears have a place in zoos. Bears do not seem to breed too readily in captivity, so I'm not sure if any bear species can be saved with a captive breeding program, but for species such as Polar Bear assurance populations are becoming more and more necessary. In the US, zoos offer forever homes to orphaned/non-releasable black and brown bears.

~Thylo

I love zoos that give homes to both brown and black bears! Those are my other two favorite species of bears besides polar bears. That is what I miss the most about my home zoo. Yes, I love their polar bears, but unfortunately the Kodiak bear died in 2010 and they did not replace him, the spectacled bear died in 2012, and even though there are supposed to be more in the future in a completely new exhibit, and there haven’t been black bears for at least 6-7 years.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Skunks are Mephitidae, not Mustelidae.

And again, red pandas are primarily herbivores so I'm not sure why they count as "true" carnivores but most bears do not? Additionally, opossums (like some other marsupial orders) are omnivorous, not carnivorous. Dasyurids, while carnivorous marsupials, are no more Carnivora than opossums, wombats, or kangaroos.

~Thylo

 

[BigCatConniseur24]

Skunks are Mephitidae, not Mustelidae.

And again, red pandas are primarily herbivores so I'm not sure why they count as "true" carnivores but most bears do not? Additionally, opossums (like some other marsupial orders) are omnivorous, not carnivorous. Dasyurids, while carnivorous marsupials, are no more Carnivora than opossums, wombats, or kangaroos.

~Thylo

Sorry, my mistake about putting the skunks in the wrong category. I honestly did not know that until you corrected me. And yes, you are right red pandas are significantly more herbivorous than carnivorous in eating habits, in addition to opossums being omnivorous and not carnivorous. The marsupials that you listed certainly sound interesting. The wildlife of Australia in general has always fascinated me. At my zoo we represent Australia with Red Kangaroos and Bennett’s Wallabies. We used to exhibit Western Grey Kangaroos.

 

[BigCatConniseur24]

Skunks are Mephitidae, not Mustelidae.

And again, red pandas are primarily herbivores so I'm not sure why they count as "true" carnivores but most bears do not? Additionally, opossums (like some other marsupial orders) are omnivorous, not carnivorous. Dasyurids, while carnivorous marsupials, are no more Carnivora than opossums, wombats, or kangaroos.

~Thylo

Also, I know that Matsche’s Tree Kangaroos are not exhibited in Australia, but rather in New Guinea, but we also exhibited those up until 2004. Very fascinating animal that I extremely rarely get to see. Unfortunately, I vaguely remember it, so I don’t have any specific memories of it, but from what I’ve researched they are very fascinating species of marsupials.

 

[TZDugong]

For example, my hometown the zoo, the Pittsburgh Zoo & PPG Aquarium has a nice lineup of cats and also other carnivores, HOWEVER, I’m disappointed because they only exhibit polar bears, when in the past they were able to exhibit Kodiak bears, spectacled bears, North American black bears, and polar bears (1970s-1998, & 2006-2010).

I wouldn't say the lack of bears at Pittsburgh is that disappointing, considering how terrible all the bear exhibits were other than Polar Bears (who don't have a very good exhibit either it must be said).

As for my thoughts on bears, I like them quite a bit and they usually make for a nice exhibit, but I don't really think you *need* more than two species of them. Would like more zoos to exhibits Sloth, Spectacled and Sun bears, which I feel are a little under-appreciated in north american zoos, at least compared to Brown, Polar or Black bears (although obviously there is good reasoning for this).

 

[Xenarthra]

I dig this thread, it got me thinking and it made me realize I appreciate my home zoo's bears way more than I originally thought. Fresno exhibited a pair of grizzlies from 1976 to 2013, and growing up I enjoyed seeing them but wasn't enamored either, I was never a huge bear fan. Then they started exhibiting sloth bears and still, I enjoyed them but didn't spend a ton of time viewing.

And then the bears left temporarily, as a massive exhibit upgrade is happening for them, and the zoo has been bear-less. And you know what? On my last visit I really noticed it. They're large, charismatic animals and it was weird for that taxon to be unrepresented. I don't know if every zoo should have multiple species, but at least 1 or 2 really fills out the collection.

I agree with the point up the thread about exhibit quality too. A lot of the bears I've seen have been in lackluster exhibits, and given how many varieties of enrichment and terrain they can utilize in their day-to-day, I think that's a shame.

 

[Neva]

Well, comparing bears to other carnivores is hard to me... as like @Xenarthra noticed - bears are charismatic animals, "a bear" in general is well-known and have a place in people minds. It's hard to me to compare bears to small carnivores as I believe bears are way more challenging to create a proper, good exhibit than for a e.g. genet, meerkats or small foxes (or it's just really different).

Personally, I think it would be great to have well-going programmes for Asian bears: Asiatic black bear, Sun bear and Sloth bear as they are all vulnerable and live also in areas which are under bigger pressure from humans. However I'm not a specialist in bears, so it's just my personal thought (you can "change my mind").
And to answer the question I think 1-2 bear species should be kept at least. This can also shows the diversity of the family which is awesome! Even with "all the black bears"