What animals would you add or remove from a zoo/aquarium and why?

[Panda_Fan]

In this thread we would talk about animals that you would add to a zoo/aquarium for various reasons or remove from a zoo/aquarium, mainly because the zoo/aquarium can't care for them. Any animal can be included so let your wild imagination go free. You can also give your ideas for expanding/removing/combine areas from a zoo/aquarium. Enjoy!!!!

 

[flatstingray]

If I could get myself a time machine and could back to the 80´s, I´ll like to have an exsitu insurance population of vaquitas under human care. They are small cetaceans that mainly live on shallow waters (I believe there are studies that say they mainly move above the 30ft water depth threshold). It would have a huge conservation value and tanks/facilities that today house killer whales and dolphins will comparatively offer waaaay more space for these porpoises.

 

[filovirus]

Can the animals I remove be people?

Joking. Mostly...

 

[Panda_Fan]

I would like to change a few things with cetaceans kept in captivity.

• Firstly, I think orcas shouldn't be kept in captivity.
• Dolphins should be kept in outdoors exhibits with sand, marine plants and rocks to look more natural. You could even give them interspecies enrichment with seals and sea lion! All those things let the animals feel more at home. Add to the exhibit a much bigger space than the actual space of the "dolphinariums".
• Dolphins show shouldn't be allowed. The zoos that have dolphins could give talks about the animals and do a feeding session with the animals and educate the public.

 

[cornu aspersum]

I would like to change a few things with cetaceans kept in captivity.

• Firstly, I think orcas shouldn't be kept in captivity.
• Dolphins should be kept in outdoors exhibits with sand, marine plants and rocks to look more natural. You could even give them interspecies enrichment with seals and sea lion! All those things let the animals feel more at home. Add to the exhibit a much bigger space than the actual space of the "dolphinariums".
• Dolphins show shouldn't be allowed. The zoos that have dolphins could give talks about the animals and do a feeding session with the animals and educate the public.

I'm just curious, but why should other dolphins be in captivity but not orca? Is it due to restrictions in husbandry?

 

[dillotest0]

Dolphins show shouldn't be allowed. The zoos that have dolphins could give talks about the animals and do a feeding session with the animals and educate the public.

I think particularly with finite tanks in captivity it is important that dolphins get physical enrichment in an activity. Not that it has to be a theatrical show. And it is to be done with the pretense that they will get food.

 

[Panda_Fan]

I'm just curious, but why should other dolphins be in captivity but not orca? Is it due to restrictions in husbandry?

I now the subject of orcas is a big debate but orcas are big animals and some of the tanks aren't as big as I would consider appropriate for the species. And considering the whole fiasco with documentary "Blackfish", I think that killer whales are not longer worth having in aquariums.

 

[Panda_Fan]

I think particularly with finite tanks in captivity it is important that dolphins get physical enrichment in an activity. Not that it has to be a theatrical show. And it is to be done with the pretense that they will get food.

Dolphins can get physical enrichment with out having to perform tricks, drag boats and other things for the delight of people.

 

[birdsandbats]

And considering the whole fiasco with documentary "Blackfish", I think that killer whales are not longer worth having in aquariums.

Everything said in that "documentary" is either a complete lie or incredibly misleading.

 

[cornu aspersum]

I now the subject of orcas is a big debate but orcas are big animals and some of the tanks aren't as big as I would consider appropriate for the species. And considering the whole fiasco with documentary "Blackfish", I think that killer whales are not longer worth having in aquariums.

I haven't seen Blackfish so I'm probably wrong but by 'not longer worth having in aquariums' do you mean they won't generate enough revenue for the aquarium or health problems to the orcas?

 

[birdsandbats]

I haven't seen Blackfish so I'm probably wrong

Everything said in that "documentary" is either a complete lie or incredibly misleading.

 

[Panda_Fan]

I'm not saying that the things in the documentary are true, but the bad image that people caught with the documentary really gave a bad image to the Sea World industry, even if the documentary had a lot of false information.

 

[Panda_Fan]

I haven't seen Blackfish so I'm probably wrong but by 'not longer worth having in aquariums' do you mean they won't generate enough revenue for the aquarium or health problems to the orcas?

As I said in the post above the documentary really gave a bad impression of the Sea World industry, so since the documentary release not that many people have gone the Sea World facilities (The number of visitors are compared with the amount of people that were going to Sea World before Blackfish).

 

[filovirus]

You could even give them interspecies enrichment with seals and sea lion!

Isn't the overlap in habitat between dolphins and most seals relatively slim? Like, limited to coastlines and a small band of ocean between Canada and Europe? I can find only one example of a dolphin-seal cohab and it's between two animals at the Pet Porpoise Pool Marine Park who were basically reared together. I don't know if I agree with interspecies enrichment here- they aren't naturally social with each other in the wild so I don't know why a zoo would, or should, attempt to make that happen. Surely enrichment among their own species is sufficient?

Dolphins should be kept in outdoors exhibits with sand, marine plants and rocks to look more natural.

I don't disagree with the tank decor suggestion (I find the pure concrete tanks to be... less-than-inspiring at best and depressing to look at at worst) though I do want to point out there's some very good reasons that most dolphinariums are empty. For one, cetaceans just don't use "hides" the same way that small fish do. The reason we see reef tanks often so densely packed with plants and stones and structures is because in the wild, they rely on those spaces to hide- having them in the tank makes the animals less stressed. Cetaceans, though, benefit most from wide open swimming spaces. They spend the bulk of their time in open water and don't really use the environment in the same way that fish do. Thus, any sprawling decorations only really serve to reduce the amount of usable space in the tank for the animal. Secondary to this is the fact that they're a real pain to clean. You ever try to disinfect a rock? It's a real pain! Losing a large marine mammal to disease is a much costlier endeavor (not to mention much worse-looking from a PR standpoint) and so it's in the interest of the zoo to have an enclosure that's not only easy to clean, but very easy to observe any issues in- whether they be structural or involving the animal.

I do not agree with keeping them outdoors. At least I don't think it's strictly necessary- it feels to me like it introduces far more risks than it does benefits. By all means, provide them with natural light (my zoo's former dolphin tank has a [glass-covered] sunroof over it) but I just don't think the pros outweigh the potential cons here.

I do agree that I have some moral qualms about trick-based shows (mostly that they prioritize entertainment over education, and exposing the animal to loud raucous crowds) but objectively teaching a dolphin to roll over for a crowd isn't really different to teaching them to roll over during a medical check. It scratches the same itch in their brain. I also agree that orcas shouldn't be kept in captivity for the sole reason that no captive spaces can reasonably provide the space required for a huge animal that roams so much. Cetaceans in general make me a bit uncomfortable... but I'd be lying if I said they weren't magical to see. I'm visiting the Shedd Aquarium this summer and am personally thrilled to see belugas for the first time. I dunno. They're a tricky thing. I think the smaller the cetacean, the easier it is to meet their needs and the better I feel about them being in captivity.

 

[Batto]

Palaeoloxodon falconeri. Even smaller zoos could keep elephants then and slightly decrease the likeliness of sheepish people asking "But where are the elephants?" Right there in front of you, n00b.
Old cranky NewYorkers might rant a little less about Central Park Zoo not having larger animals, but more about the overprized miniature Elephant Odyssey imitation exhibit. British zoo fans could happily argue with one another why Jersey Zoo gave away their last P. falconeri...
And all over the world, infantile dim-witted mothers brutally using their prams/strollers as a battering ram to conquer the zoo could point out these tiny elephants to their offspring, squeaking excitedly, in a high-pitched frequency that awakes sleeping bats kms / miles away, "Look at those baaaby elephants!!! Sooo cuuuute!!!" while sharing this profound relevation with her virtual online audience, using her glittery latest IPhone modell, held with equally glittery lengthy artificial claws. Her equally infantile dim-witted offspring co-producer might add "I thought that'd be bigger". Both would deliberately avoid reading both the huge zoo sign and the online comments correcting them, to prevent themselves and their spawn from actually learning something from their zoo visit. A nearby eavesdropping ZooChatter would then open up a new thread at ZooChat, ZooFreunde etc., to lambast the ignorance of zoo muggles. In the meantime, the local anti-zoo lobbyist would still be at home, having finally woken up at 11:45 am after a lengthy social media comment section battle the night before, and would now merrily paint her "Free the Baby Elephants" poster for the upcoming rally in front of the zoo, together with her two blue-haired fellow believers.
At the same time, somewhere else, an EAZA / AZA /BIAZA / WAZA / WGAS-AZA... task force would be trying to find a way to phase out P. falconeri husbandry to make room for more meerkat zoo exhibits. Or, as pointed out by @PossumRoach , soulless animatronics.

And this, dear kids, is how to hijack another boring discussion about "Why orcas [or orcs] should not be kept in captivity."

 

[Panda_Fan]

Isn't the overlap in habitat between dolphins and most seals relatively slim? Like, limited to coastlines and a small band of ocean between Canada and Europe? I can find only one example of a dolphin-seal cohab and it's between two animals at the Pet Porpoise Pool Marine Park who were basically reared together. I don't know if I agree with interspecies enrichment here- they aren't naturally social with each other in the wild so I don't know why a zoo would, or should, attempt to make that happen. Surely enrichment among their own species is sufficient?


I don't disagree with the tank decor suggestion (I find the pure concrete tanks to be... less-than-inspiring at best and depressing to look at at worst) though I do want to point out there's some very good reasons that most dolphinariums are empty. For one, cetaceans just don't use "hides" the same way that small fish do. The reason we see reef tanks often so densely packed with plants and stones and structures is because in the wild, they rely on those spaces to hide- having them in the tank makes the animals less stressed. Cetaceans, though, benefit most from wide open swimming spaces. They spend the bulk of their time in open water and don't really use the environment in the same way that fish do. Thus, any sprawling decorations only really serve to reduce the amount of usable space in the tank for the animal. Secondary to this is the fact that they're a real pain to clean. You ever try to disinfect a rock? It's a real pain! Losing a large marine mammal to disease is a much costlier endeavor (not to mention much worse-looking from a PR standpoint) and so it's in the interest of the zoo to have an enclosure that's not only easy to clean, but very easy to observe any issues in- whether they be structural or involving the animal.

I do not agree with keeping them outdoors. At least I don't think it's strictly necessary- it feels to me like it introduces far more risks than it does benefits. By all means, provide them with natural light (my zoo's former dolphin tank has a [glass-covered] sunroof over it) but I just don't think the pros outweigh the potential cons here.

I do agree that I have some moral qualms about trick-based shows (mostly that they prioritize entertainment over education, and exposing the animal to loud raucous crowds) but objectively teaching a dolphin to roll over for a crowd isn't really different to teaching them to roll over during a medical check. It scratches the same itch in their brain. I also agree that orcas shouldn't be kept in captivity for the sole reason that no captive spaces can reasonably provide the space required for a huge animal that roams so much. Cetaceans in general make me a bit uncomfortable... but I'd be lying if I said they weren't magical to see. I'm visiting the Shedd Aquarium this summer and am personally thrilled to see belugas for the first time. I dunno. They're a tricky thing. I think the smaller the cetacean, the easier it is to meet their needs and the better I feel about them being in captivity.

I think that having a glass roof is also a great alternative to not put on risk the animals welfare.
The decoration was only an idea, because concrete tanks aren't that inspiring. I know that cleaning the rock and the sand is a pain but some zoos have done it. I think Brookfield zoo added rocks to their dolphin tank.

 

[PossumRoach]

At the same time, somewhere else, an EAZA / AAZA task force is trying to find a way to phase out P. falconeri husbandry to make room for more meerkat zoo exhibits.

If it is the EAZA then sure, but if it is the AZA we are talking about, I don’t even think they would replace it with an animal. It would probably be a playground or an animatronic dinosaur area where guests have to cough up more money to entertain their children.

 

[JVM]

If it is the EAZA then sure, but if it is the AZA we are talking about, I don’t even think they would replace it with an animal. It would probably be a playground or an animatronic dinosaur area where guests have to cough up more money to entertain their children.

From what I've seen, the BIAZA does this sometimes as well. I saw some excellent dinosaurs at Yorkshire and some wonderful playgrounds at Battersea and Chester.

I really, really don't have a consistent answer for this kind of question. There are days I am intensely gripped by the realities of keeping sustainable populations, in which case I want to phase out lots of species, and there are days the imagination creeps back in and I want to add this or that animal that I think would be educational or interesting.

I think for now I'd say I think there should be more caprid populations in the US and UK. I have seen multiple facilities with empty exhibits for this group and it's a shame. I am not particularly enthusiastic about caprids but the empty exhibits make me feel there is a need that isn't being filled. Ibex can be very impressive specimens, let's get more of those maybe!

I think London could use bears. I'd like to see tigers and antelope or gazelle back at Lincoln Park although it's not feasible in the current footprint. There's a lot Brookfield could use in my opinion but most plausibly, some kind of larger, charismatic reptile. Milwaukee needs a canid.

 

[filovirus]

I will say (in an effort to stay on topic lol) that I wish the MN zoo had a great ape. Como's got two- gorillas and orangutans- and while there was some talk last decade about adding an orangutan program to the MN zoo, nothing ever came of it. There's a pretty solid variety of other primates (Colobus, De Brazza's, gold lion tamarin, lemurs, snow monkeys, and white-cheeked gibbons) but no great apes! In general though I find the MN zoo lacking in ABC species compared to Como- despite the Minnesota zoo having much more robust and enriched enclosures/facilities. No lions, no giraffes, no zebras...

 

[birdsandbats]

I will say (in an effort to stay on topic lol) that I wish the MN zoo had a great ape. Como's got two- gorillas and orangutans- and while there was some talk last decade about adding an orangutan program to the MN zoo, nothing ever came of it. There's a pretty solid variety of other primates (Colobus, De Brazza's, gold lion tamarin, lemurs, snow monkeys, and white-cheeked gibbons) but no great apes! In general though I find the MN zoo lacking in ABC species compared to Como- despite the Minnesota zoo having much more robust and enriched enclosures/facilities. No lions, no giraffes, no zebras...

Minnesota's lack of iconic animals is a big part of the reason I prefer it over Como. Como Park is probably the most generic zoo in America. It's honestly kind of boring.