What species would you ban from zoos?

birdsandbats said:
White and golden Tigers both occur in the wild.
Click to expand...
I do not want to get in any argument but they do not naturally occur. They are man made freaks that are very inbreed and all come from the same animal. Here is a link to one of the many articles about white Tiger (White tigers 'inbred for beauty and tourism dollars'). I do not know where you got that information but maybe check other scores rather than just reading Joe Exotic’s blog.
 
Mai Thai said:
I do not want to get in any argument but they do not naturally occur. They are man made freaks that are very inbreed and all come from the same animal. Here is a link to one of the many articles about white Tiger (White tigers 'inbred for beauty and tourism dollars'). I do not know where you got that information but maybe check other scores rather than just reading Joe Exotic’s blog.
Click to expand...
Yes, most (if not all) white and golden Tigers in zoos today are inbred, but they are not "freaks" created by Humans. White Tigers used to occur in the wild but they were all killed or captured, golden Tigers also occur in the wild and still do to this day.
 
imaginarius said:
There is certainly nuance involved, and each animal is different. But I push back on the assumption that tigers can do well in captivity with other tigers, even if things like regular feedings and ample space make that more or less true, because it gives credence to the roadside Tiger King zoos that put twelve of them together in a 20x20 ft cage, and that kind of treatment of an animal as regal as the tiger infuriates me so much.
Click to expand...
If you have read my posts well, you have read that the ideal configuration found was pairs, not alone but also not in larger groups as both increased pacing. Of-course not every individual is suited to live long-term with other tigers, but having individual tigers as the normal situation just isn't ideal.
 
Mai Thai said:
I do not want to get in any argument but they do not naturally occur. They are man made freaks that are very inbreed and all come from the same animal. Here is a link to one of the many articles about white Tiger (White tigers 'inbred for beauty and tourism dollars'). I do not know where you got that information but maybe check other scores rather than just reading Joe Exotic’s blog.
Click to expand...
As far as I know at least the white tigers do live or at least get born in the wild, though they are very rare. I believe the chances were about 1/2500. The current white-tiger line in the West has been crossed with Siberian tigers of-course, so only in India you can find these "natural" white tigers (and there should be one female in the US as well, direct import from India).
 
Jarne said:
If you have read my posts well, you have read that the ideal configuration found was pairs, not alone but also not in larger groups as both increased pacing. Of-course not every individual is suited to live long-term with other tigers, but having individual tigers as the normal situation just isn't ideal.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. Hopefully we both do agree, however, that roadside “sanctuaries” with dozens of tigers in one small cage is inhumane and wrong. And unfortunately, they are found in many, many places throughout the United States.
 
imaginarius said:
Agree to disagree. Hopefully we both do agree, however, that roadside “sanctuaries” with dozens of tigers in one small cage is inhumane and wrong. And unfortunately, they are found in many, many places throughout the United States.
Click to expand...
Of-course keeping tigers in pairs to increase their welfare is no excuse for keeping tigers in large groups. It's not a situation of alone or social, but of alone, pairs, small groups or large groups.
 
1. The Giant Panda. If it can't 'continue' with (in my opinion) far too much money spending on it as a single species then its time to distribute the limited money available more evenly to assist 100's of other species and let it curl its toes up. A few bigger and many many many Orders of smaller animals have suffered due to the decade on decade of continuous spending on this animal.
Maybe we would have a half decent population of Northern White Rhinos now (even if just captivity) if given some of the money spent on Giant Pandas in the last 40 years.

2. David Gill - Successfully removed 2016. Its not all bad news.
 
Pootle said:
1. The Giant Panda. If it can't 'continue' with (in my opinion) far too much money spending on it as a single species then its time to distribute the limited money available more evenly to assist 100's of other species and let it curl its toes up. A few bigger and many many many Orders of smaller animals have suffered due to the decade on decade of continuous spending on this animal.
Maybe we would have a half decent population of Northern White Rhinos now (even if just captivity) if given some of the money spent on Giant Pandas in the last 40 years.

.
Click to expand...

So basicily like a orca - animal wellfare
 
imaginarius said:
As for tigers, I do not know what study you read, but they live solitary lives in the wild. All of them, with the exception of a mother and her cubs. They are reclusive, shy, and never found in pairs or groups, and any AZA facility that knows what it’s doing is going to try and reflect that. (...) For tigers, that is unambiguous.
Click to expand...

imaginarius said:
Agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, you can disagree if you like but @Jarne and others are factually correct; tigers being solitary creatures is not unambiguous. Social management with multiple individuals living together is both possible and beneficial in many circumstances, and many AZA facilities do exactly that - because they know what they are doing.

imaginarius said:
But I push back on the assumption that tigers can do well in captivity with other tigers (...) because it gives credence to the roadside Tiger King zoos that put twelve of them together in a 20x20 ft cage
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Joe Exotic consistently failed to provide adequate husbandry to their animals on all fronts: diet, training, spatial use, sanitation, safety, veterinary care... the list unfortunately goes on. His enclosures were overcrowded and the animals were constantly stressed and volatile due to their living conditions. The fact that he and other roadside zoo owners do this is not an indictment of managing multiple tigers in the same space; it is an indictment of doing it incorrectly and irresponsibly.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
With all due respect, you can disagree if you like but @Jarne and others are factually correct; tigers being solitary creatures is not unambiguous. Social management with multiple individuals living together is both possible and beneficial in many circumstances, and many AZA facilities do exactly that - because they know what they are doing.



No it doesn't. Joe Exotic consistently failed to provide adequate husbandry to their animals on all fronts: diet, training, spatial use, sanitation, safety, veterinary care... the list unfortunately goes on. His enclosures were overcrowded and the animals were constantly stressed and volatile due to their living conditions. The fact that he and other roadside zoo owners do this is not an indictment of managing multiple tigers in the same space; it is an indictment of doing it incorrectly and irresponsibly.
Click to expand...
What he says basically. If a study proves that keeping tigers in pairs is an ideal situation in many cases, AZA zoos not doing this is not going to stop Joe and others to stop keeping tigers the way they want to. Because they don't give a **** about whatever guidelines are published doesn't mean that the big zoos should also neglect these guidelines in the opposite way. There's just no point in that. That's like saying because some zoos keep baboons in overcrowded situations that big zoos should start keeping them in very small groups. It's not going to stop those few institutions from overcrowding, and instead of improving welfare for some you are decreasing welfare for those who could have easily had better welfare. And for a species like tigers which is extremely prone to pacing, those small benefits are really welcome.
 
Jarne said:
What he says basically. If a study proves that keeping tigers in pairs is an ideal situation in many cases, AZA zoos not doing this is not going to stop Joe and others to stop keeping tigers the way they want to. Because they don't give a **** about whatever guidelines are published doesn't mean that the big zoos should also neglect these guidelines in the opposite way. There's just no point in that. That's like saying because some zoos keep baboons in overcrowded situations that big zoos should start keeping them in very small groups. It's not going to stop those few institutions from overcrowding, and instead of improving welfare for some you are decreasing welfare for those who could have easily had better welfare. And for a species like tigers which is extremely prone to pacing, those small benefits are really welcome.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that Joe Exotic is a conservation hero ? :confused: o_O
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
So basicily like a orca - animal wellfare
Click to expand...

Hello Giratinals,

No, not as in any welfare of keeping in captivity. I've only seen Giant Panda's at 2 UK locations (London & Edinburgh) in my life and for about 30 mins in total from 40 odd years of life, so I know very little how they adapt or don't to captivity, although my opinion for what its worth is that they do OK generally in captivity.

I was approaching this question from a commercial (money costings etc,) perspective from over many decades of Zoos doing this rather than a welfare one. Example : When Edinburgh Zoo took control of exhibiting this species, it was determinantal to the zoo keeping of other species, other species that needed conservation as much as the large cuddly Pandas had to leave the zoo to save money, in my opinion they hindered this zoo. They are expensive to keep, expensive to 'rent' (you only borrow them I understand). Other Zoo Chatters will know more about this.
To conclude why I don't like Giant Pandas in Zoos is because the money it costs to keep them could in my opinion be better spent on a whole host of other critters.
Also, I think the WWF are missing a trick having this animal as their main 'logo'.
 
Last edited:
The economic balance of pandas does indeed tend to be negative one. Maybe there are some rare exceptions where their presence combined with other additions (Pairi Daiza comes to mind) might be economically viable. But in general they cost more money then they bring in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top