I knowYou win. This is probably the most outrageous claim anyone here could make!
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
ChIkEn NuGrEt
Well-Known Member
I’ll add on to this.
Any and all animals have the ability to become boring if their enclosure is not captivating. By a captivating enclosure I mean an enclosure that would be interesting without any animals.
But that kind of enclosure can take away from the animal.
Any animal can be boring if it isn't active in front of visitors (except pandas for some reason, but that's a different issue). An enclosure should encourage a species to be out and about during visitor hours. Any animal can become interesting this way. I've seen visitors engaged with watching everything from mice to lizards if they are active. A bad enclosure is one that just causes the animal to sit around all day, or to hide away from visitor view.
Hmm? Not sure about this. Don't know about you but if I saw a Thylacine, even in a stinky cardboard box, I would be pretty interested
. In all seriousness, however, I don't think this is true. If you take the example of a zoo with only nondescript exhibits yet a fascinating collection, I would visit any day...
As for TNT's explosive post (pun intended), I will not take the bait either, though I know that some here do agree with you ('Some bird' ~ Giant Eland, 2020')
I agree here. There's a reason meerkats and otters are some of the most popular animals in zoos- they are almost always active. I honestly don't find Exhibits very interesting on their own, and am a big fan of functional exhibits that adequately keep the residents to the highest husbandry available while still allowing good viewing opportunities for the visitors. The one exception I have to this is that I'm a huge fan of indoor rainforests and believe these Exhibits are really interesting to walk around in, even if very few animals are seen.
I would agree with that 100%. I need my invert buddies!
ChIkEn NuGrEt
Well-Known Member
This is really what I meant, the enclosures have to be pretty and entertaining for the animals.
But that's nothing like what you said.
ChIkEn NuGrEt
Well-Known Member
Yeah I know, I just woke up and I acknowledge that that was badly worded.
I wouldn't call meerkats as adorable as other mongoose, but I do think they are quite fascinating animals, not just an animal taking up space at a zoo that people seem to find annoying.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't SD also have a very big marketing team unlike WCS
Here's my hot take. I don't get the hype on subspecies or lookalike species nor how it is a blasphemy to hybridize indistinguishable ones.
I prefer not to compare. Yesterday a group of individuals was digging, with one up high being look out. Any time it gave a chirp, the others would stop digging in case there was danger. It was so interesting to watch, and all of the visitors around me caught on to what was happening.
I do agree an active group of meerkats (or mongoose, although no zoo near me keeps mongoose) can be a very fascinating animal to watch. The zoo I volunteer at has a group of 11 (I think, might be 10 now) meerkats, and when they are active it can be a really cool Exhibit for everyone- volunteers, frequent visitors, firstime visitors, etc. When the meerkats are all snuggled up napping in their box, most people don't give them a second glance. Something that I've never gotten is why people complain about meerkats as being too common in zoos. There are plenty of zoos without meerkats, and their exhibits tend to be so small they don't really take a sizeable amount of room from other animals. I will most certainly complain about Ring-tailed lemurs and to a lesser extent North american river otters being too common in zoos, but I'm not one to complain about the meerkats.
You're probably right- I've never really looked into what zoos do for marketing, but that would not surprise me based on what I know about the two institutions.
SeaWorld does not belong in the AZA.
I have seen with both of my eyes the care that happens behind the scenes at SeaWorld San Diego and I can say for sure that they have some of the most dedicated people on the planet and some of the best care in the world. But the actions that their higher-ups (CEOs, presidents, etc) do not represent what an AZA aquarium should be.
They are for-profit meaning they make money off of the shows and animals. Instead of building better exhibits for their animals and dedicating themselves to animal care after BlackFish, they built more rides to bring back attendance. They have shown that they care more about money than conservation for years now by opening rides instead of renovating terrible exhibits.
They build terrible exhibits. Their Commersons Dolphin pool was so small it killed an animal and forced the company to move them to a larger exhibit in Florida. Those who have been to any SeaWorld park understand that they have small exhibits with a general lack of natural substrate and many of their exhibits severely lack in education.
They have set many industry standards because of their great care but that also means that some of the terrible things they do like build terrible exhibits and constantly use shows also become part of the industry standard. I can't think of one aquarium that only exhibits dolphins and doesn't also have shows. The AZA needs to set their own standards and aquariums need to stop following SeaWorld and build better exhibits and stop constantly using shows.
Also, one small note, no for-profit zoos or aquariums should be allowed in the AZA.
I have seen with both of my eyes the care that happens behind the scenes at SeaWorld San Diego and I can say for sure that they have some of the most dedicated people on the planet and some of the best care in the world. But the actions that their higher-ups (CEOs, presidents, etc) do not represent what an AZA aquarium should be.
They are for-profit meaning they make money off of the shows and animals. Instead of building better exhibits for their animals and dedicating themselves to animal care after BlackFish, they built more rides to bring back attendance. They have shown that they care more about money than conservation for years now by opening rides instead of renovating terrible exhibits.
They build terrible exhibits. Their Commersons Dolphin pool was so small it killed an animal and forced the company to move them to a larger exhibit in Florida. Those who have been to any SeaWorld park understand that they have small exhibits with a general lack of natural substrate and many of their exhibits severely lack in education.
They have set many industry standards because of their great care but that also means that some of the terrible things they do like build terrible exhibits and constantly use shows also become part of the industry standard. I can't think of one aquarium that only exhibits dolphins and doesn't also have shows. The AZA needs to set their own standards and aquariums need to stop following SeaWorld and build better exhibits and stop constantly using shows.
Also, one small note, no for-profit zoos or aquariums should be allowed in the AZA.
This sounds quite contradictory to me.