What species would you ban from zoos?

ralph said:
I've never seen a honey badger that did not exhibit stereotypical behavior (I've seen them in 4 zoos), so perhaps they're just not well suited for captivity.
Click to expand...

Tayras fall into that boat as well. They don't appear to do well.
 
ralph said:
I've never seen a honey badger that did not exhibit stereotypical behavior (I've seen them in 4 zoos), so perhaps they're just not well suited for captivity.
Click to expand...
As far as I know breeding also doesn't support the current population. Regardless of welfare I think that's money better spend on other species.
 
Last edited:
Dassie rat said:
The fossa is a member of a related family, Eupleriidae, and appeared in Madagascar.
Click to expand...
But not a mongoose, not in a taxonomical way and not even close in behavior. When it would've been something like narrow-striped mongoose that has an ecological function and way of living similar to social mongoose I'd give you a bit of credit, but a fossa behaves more like a cougar in being primarily nocturnal/crepuscular, solitary to semi-social and a predator of larger mammals. There are more solitary mongooses, but they still don't eat such large animals as lemurs and I believe they are all diurnal.
 
Bubalus said:
Meerkats
ASCOs
Ring Tailed Lemurs
Lorikeets
Red Necked Wallabies


Purely to show the public there is more to life then these species
Click to expand...
Two of those are endangered, all are easy to care for. They are common for good reason, and I have no problem seeing them. In fact I enjoy it (I don't see too many lorikeets in zoos).

Chlidonias said:
What other mongooses are used in media? Meerkats are famously used in a multitude of media around the world, especially in advertising.
Click to expand...
Maybe more often in other parts of the world? I've never seen an advertisement use a Meerkat.
 
There's no doubt that meerkats are more popular than other mongoose species. The dwarf mongoose would be the next most common species, at least in the United States.
 
nczoofan said:
Mainly invasive species in certain areas. So Cane Toads in the Southern U.S. being a big example (I also would ban them from being owned privately).

Also while not a ban, I really hope aquariums don't try to keep certain pelagic sharks in captivity like Great White Shark, especially since they generally don't do well in captivity.
Click to expand...
if you are for banning animals for being invasive in the private trade, would you be for banning house cats as well or would you come up with some erroneous excuse over them bein domestic?
 
Only species I would ever considering banning is those who do not thrive and are just not suited with their health, bonus points if they really have no endangerment and therefore don't really have to be in zoos (e.g. all the pointless mice species scattered around the zoos).

Furthermore cetaceans are a good candidate. I just think the whole controversy is not worth their keeping and just be done with it, besides, at some point we also gotta ask if we really need so many of them in zoos when we cannot release them properly either so reintroduction down the line seems to be a not viable option.

Just really ban anything that doesn't do well in captivity.
 
Bravo for none of you saying elephants. Because too many are trying their best to bar them from zoos throughout the United States because “not enough space” or “unethical”.

The San Diego Zoo proves that elephants can work in a zoo setting if they give them the basic needs of enrichment and a herd to be social with. Better than just plain banning then everywhere.
 
In my opinion, if an animal can live comfortably and thrive in captivity, it should be kept. I read a post somewhere on this website that said that species of the IUCN status “least concern”, should not be kept, due to them taking up the space that more endangered animals need. And yes, I believe that more threatened species should have more of a priority when it comes to a zoo’s choice of what and what not to phase out of their collection. But if theres enough space, I think they should still be here in captivity. Why? Because I believe these animals can inspire people, and like other people said above, all have a story to tell. A zoo’s main purpose is conservation, but what good is conservation if there’s nobody around who gives a crap to help the cause or do anything about it? Whenever I see a cool-looking animal in a zoo, I feel inspired. I feel like we need to conserve this species and its habitat, so the species can continue surviving for many years to come, and let future generations enjoy them. Whether an animal is endangered or not, it still has the potential to convince somebody to make a change. Whether it’s as small as recycling a bottle, or as big as donating a large sum of money to a wildlife conservation organization. If enough people care about preserving and protecting our world’s flora and fauna from things like pollution and poaching, then maybe all of our environmental issues can be eventually resolved.

Sorry that was so long :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top