I would say many Zoo animals are MORE dangerous, since they both lose their matural fear of humans, but would not allow random people they know to touch them
Why are so many people completely clueless on how dangerous zoo animals are?
- Thread starter Pleistocene891
- Start date
I tend to notice this cute and "harmless" view for the many popular mammals in zoos, typically bears, big cats, and elephants. Quite the opposite view for reptiles, especially snakes. When I volunteered at my city's zoo, I can't say how many times I've heard people call the lions cute or want to touch the elephants but shudder in fear at the sight of a rat snake behind glass, or talk about harming said snake. I understand the fear of snakes and can respect it's a feeling someone can't help, but me personally, I think I'd be more willing to stick my hand in the snake's enclosure before attempting to hug a lion.
Corangurilla
Well-Known Member
A 6-ton giant with two spears for teeth, a muscular face tentacle, and poor eyesight: awww, I wanna pet it!
A two-foot snake with literally no way of killing you: I want to kill it.
Wasn’t the original point of zoos (and I do mean original) to display “ferocious beasts” for people to gawk at? Now here we are, wanting to cuddle those same beasts while acting helpless in front of common backyard snakes.
Phoenicopterus
Member
I don't think the current trend in American zoos of taking young animals away from their mums to hand-rear so they have a friendly animal to walk around on a lead and calling them an "ambassador animal" helps at all.
I doubt many people would perceive a tamandua or porcupine as particularly dangerous either way, but I do see where you're coming from. I think ambassador animal programs might be better at the opposite problem- reputation rehabilitation for less cute-and-cuddly species that most people respond to with something between "ew" and "kill it with fire". Snakes and tarantulas come to mind, especially as someone living in a place where a) those species are common and b) people persecute them relentlessly.
I've been asked "Doesn't the porcupine try to quill you?" more times than I care to remember, believe it or not. All the way up to, "You're gonna get shot with quills" once or twice. Ah cartoon logic..
Phoenicopterus
Member
I've been asked "Doesn't the porcupine try to quill you?" more times than I care to remember, believe it or not. All the way up to, "You're gonna get shot with quills" once or twice. Ah cartoon logic..
Yeah I've heard that plenty. I think most people here mainly associate them with their dogs getting a face full of quills, more of a nuisance than a threat. I like to show anyone who stops by a shed quill, kids really get a kick out of that... just have to supervise closely!
Mainly the inexperienced idiots!!
Clearly you've not seen the damage that a tamandua or porcupine can do!
But I fear you miss my point. The public get to interact with these animals being walked around on a lead and want to get more wild experiences or more and more exotic pets....leading to the ever worsening pet problem in the US.Added to this, why is it deemed acceptable over there to take away these babies for this purpose?
Phoenicopterus
Member
Well, I do agree that walking exotic species on a lead during visitor hours can send mixed messages about exotic pets. I've seen it on a few zoo documentaries and it strikes me pretty strange. But I'm only aware of a handful of US zoos that do that, and most ambassador animal programs just involve a keeper or educator handling a trained education animal during a presentation, maybe letting people touch it with two fingers- do UK zoos not do anything like that? Or are you specifically referring to the walks during visitor hours?
As far them being removed from parental care, I can't speak to it either way. I'm not aware of any such cases but I can't say it doesn't happen at other places. My understanding is that ZAA is much more lax in its rules regarding that sort of thing than AZA- I believe a ZAA-accredited facility known for doing that with big cats was involved in the situation that caused Columbus Zoo to lose AZA accreditation.
I don't think so - though I have heard that for some time the small size of London's [other zoos'?] former elephant compound was partially excused by the fact the elephants would be led around the zoo's perimeter daily. For what it is worth though, this practice [alongside free contact with elephants at all] seems to be dying out in the UK from what I can see, aside from Woburn, which still continues this practice [though their elephant yard as it is is considerably large].
But as far as the whole 'ambassador-on-a-lead' thing goes, I don't think any major zoo in the UK really carries out such a thing outside of arranged experiences/shows etc.
Part of the problem are zoos and wildlife documentaries. They try to idealize nature, showing only its beautiful or gentle side. E.g. BBC wildlife films since over a decade show predators with all killing and blood deleted. Perhaps they try to make a positive image and make people more interested in conservation. So people start to treat wild animals like big living plush toys.
Animals are fascinating and have been fascinating people for centuries as they really are - good and bad side of them. There is no need to present them different than they are.
Animals are fascinating and have been fascinating people for centuries as they really are - good and bad side of them. There is no need to present them different than they are.
Corangurilla
Well-Known Member
I think there’s a different problem on the other side of the pond: nature documentaries sensationalizing the gory/gruesome side of nature and making predators look like monsters. I’m talking epic chase music, narrators that sound like WWE announcers, the works.
And don’t even get me started on Animal Face Off. I could make a whole post on the damage that show has done, and maybe I will, someday.
Pleistocene891
Well-Known Member
Wait that show did damage to the public? Everyone I know that knows about that show knows it’s quite silly.
Corangurilla
Well-Known Member
Maybe I’m exaggerating, but there’s a book series called Who Would Win? that’s more or less Animal Face-off for kids. It features some dumb matchups, like Wolverine vs Tasmanian Devil (why would they even fight? They live nowhere near each other. Two similar animals can exist without fighting to the death).
They also gave the gorilla plot armor in its episode and now people think gorillas can take on grizzly bears and other animals that would wipe the floor with them.
Animal Face-off was also likely inspiration for Rooster Teeth’s Death Battle series, so we can blame this show for the whole “Goku vs Superman” debate.
When I have the time, I’ll make a post and rank every fight in Animal Face-off from most fair/realistic to least fair/realistic.
It sounds like you could do with a good dose of Attenborough! But we're not letting him go...you'll never have him!!!
I agree with quite a few on this site that some animals are underestimated and some are exaggerated. I remember a group of teenage girls squeeing at the though of taking a baby mandrill home with them... Completely ignoring the group's patriarch huge eye-teeth as he yawned. But then some school teachers, trying to keep their unruly pupils in line in the reptile house, told them that if they didn't march in a straight line, the crocodiles would "leap out and kill them"... Yes, nothing is more educational than fear-mongering.
What are eye teeth?
Canine teeth in the upper jaw.
Yeah, exactly. Fangs, if you will.
