Why aren’t fish more popular?

[PossumRoach]

think most people find interest in things that are more active, if that makes sense... All one can really do when looking at fish is watching them swim around and around.

This sort of sounds contradictory.

Whereas if you were looking at a caracal or something, you can see them interact with other caracals more expressively.

I don’t know about that. With cats and most other carnivores I’ve personally seen sleeping and repetitive pacing more than “expressive interactions”.

 

[amur leopard]

I think what @spelunker1994 was trying to say was that fish have a fairly limited range of behaviour that can plausibly be seen within an aquarium. Large mammals typically have a much larger range of possible observable behaviours in zoos and aquaria and hence are more likely to attract interest from visitors (along with other factors of course).

 

[Swampy]

It's not really about range of behaviours though, it's about people relating to those behaviours. People see those caracals stretching, playing, sleeping etc, and immediately link it to their cats at home doing those same actions.

No matter what behaviours people observe- cichlids moving substrate to build a nest, corydoras running to the surface to gulp air, bubblenesting gourami, etc. etc., these behaviours have no such reference point to them, unless they keep fish at home, and thus engage fewer people.

It's about being able to equate the unfamiliar with the familiar, which is where signage and interpretation can make all the difference, if done well.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

I usually don't keep track of fish because there are too many species is a single exhibit and signage is poor, so oftentimes I have no idea what I'm looking at, and when I do there's just too many species to keep track of.

Same here. And even when there are signs, they usually lack information besides species name and maybe native region.

 

[Van Beal]

I usually don't keep track of fish because there are too many species is a single exhibit and signage is poor, so oftentimes I have no idea what I'm looking at, and when I do there's just too many species to keep track of.

This is a circumstance I’ve found with the Lake Malawi cichlids at Toronto. No signage to tell me what species are held, making identification near impossible.

 

[Dassie rat]

This is a circumstance I’ve found with the Lake Malawi cichlids at Toronto. No signage to tell me what species are held, making identification near impossible.

I agree. I can understand why zoos put related species in the same tank, but it is difficult to tell very similar species apart. I'm sure many visitors would prefer to see tanks containing species that have the same needs but are easy to tell apart.

 

[Great Argus]

This is a circumstance I’ve found with the Lake Malawi cichlids at Toronto. No signage to tell me what species are held, making identification near impossible.

With those type of mixed rift lake situations (e.g. hippo pools, filler tanks, etc) I'm often not sure if even the zoo has a full idea of what species they hold. The rift lake cichlids are extremely variable and taxonomy is constantly changing. "Mixed Africans" is not an uncommon label in aquarium stores, where it's fish they're not entirely sure what they are.

 

[Zoovolunteer]

With those type of mixed rift lake situations (e.g. hippo pools, filler tanks, etc) I'm often not sure if even the zoo has a full idea of what species they hold. The rift lake cichlids are extremely variable and taxonomy is constantly changing. "Mixed Africans" is not an uncommon label in aquarium stores, where it's fish they're not entirely sure what they are.

There is also the issue that many species of Malawi and other cichlids will hybrisise in a captive situation, so even if they new at the start what was put in the tank the mixture a year or two later would be unidentifiable.

 

[Enzo]

I feel like fish are too boring for the average zoo visitor. The vast majority of species which are very popular with the public are either very colorful or commonly portrayed in the media. Hence, why clownfish, mandarin fish, barracuda, and sharks receive so much attention, while groupers don't.

 

[CMTM]

Personally, I think it largely comes down to presentation in many (but not all) cases.

Visitors will enjoy a school of tiny cardinal tetras, a tidepool sculpin, a cloud of sardines, or a shy stickleback if the exhibitor can showcase the animal in an engaging way. Just to have the fish in a tank where it is easily visible is not always enough.

Herps are very similar in this regard. Milksnake in an enclosure? Kind of boring with minimal visitor "hangtime". Milksnake in an educator's hand? Exciting with a far greater average "hangtime".

 

[DaLilFishie]

I think most people find interest in things that are more active, if that makes sense... All one can really do when looking at fish is watching them swim around and around. Whereas if you were looking at a caracal or something, you can see them interact with other caracals more expressively. In my personal belief fish are cool and they totally need better representation. Maybe that will help spark interest. Finding Nemo (2003) was clearly not enough.

I beg to differ with this - there is often a lot of interesting behaviour displayed by fish, but not a lot of people recognise it. Take a tank of damselfish or cichlide, it's often quite entertaining to watch them defending their individual little territories, or surgeonfish methodically grazing. Breeding behaviour is often especially interesting (but often rare in captivity), be it nest preparation, nest/young defense or mouthbrooding.

 

[DaLilFishie]

It is still a bit weird that there isn't more interest in fish, it probably has to with the general cultural trend of not relating to fish much that even zoo people fall victim too.... fish are incredibly, incredibly interesting, and they deserve appreciation... but they're also not exhibited in a way that facilitates really getting to know them, which is fair enough.

Yeah, I think this has a lot to do with it. People find it hard to relate to fish, or view them more as resources to be exploited rather than as animals.

 

[Aardwolf]

I'm not an enormous fish person (to my marine-bio-studying father's everlasting shame and disapproval), but my take is that, with the exception of a few flagship species like sharks and seahorses, most people view tanks in aquariums like they would view gardens. They aren't really seeing the individual animals as much as they are all of the fish, at once, in one collective impression of color and motion (I think this is how many zoo visitors view mixed-species aviaries as well). Similarly, many folks who are not botanically-inclined will appreciate the holistic beauty of a garden without really stopping to observe and notice the individual flowers and plants. This is probably in part because most tanks in aquariums have so many species in them that it's harder for a visitor to really focus on one individual or species unless it truly stands out to them through size, shape, color, or activity. Instead, they process it as a coral reef, or a kelp forest, or a mangrove. Zoo exhibits for mammals, on the other hand, tend to be much more clearly focused on showing off individual specimens. The average visitor goes to the zoo and sees a lion. They go to the aquarium and they see a coral reef tank.

 

[DaLilFishie]

I'm not an enormous fish person (to my marine-bio-studying father's everlasting shame and disapproval), but my take is that, with the exception of a few flagship species like sharks and seahorses, most people view tanks in aquariums like they would view gardens. They aren't really seeing the individual animals as much as they are all of the fish, at once, in one collective impression of color and motion (I think this is how many zoo visitors view mixed-species aviaries as well). Similarly, many folks who are not botanically-inclined will appreciate the holistic beauty of a garden without really stopping to observe and notice the individual flowers and plants. This is probably in part because most tanks in aquariums have so many species in them that it's harder for a visitor to really focus on one individual or species unless it truly stands out to them through size, shape, color, or activity. Instead, they process it as a coral reef, or a kelp forest, or a mangrove. Zoo exhibits for mammals, on the other hand, tend to be much more clearly focused on showing off individual specimens. The average visitor goes to the zoo and sees a lion. They go to the aquarium and they see a coral reef tank.

I hadn't even considered this, but I think it certainly has a lot to do with it. Well said.