What happened to the other two?
I'm assuming you are excluding Europe and Antarctica here?
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
I'm assuming you are excluding Europe and Antarctica here?
The five continets. Americas, eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Cold Land.
The 'five continent' model usually ignores uninhabited Antarctica and lumps the Americas - this is how we end up with five Olympic rings, for example.
Of course, the Europe/Asia split is basically artificial and definitely outranked by the split between the Americas, joined by only a narrow isthmus, but them's the breaks. The cultural gap over the Urals and across the steppes keeps that divide alive in people's minds.
Really, I think geographically six is where it's at, but culturally five or seven are much more commonly used. Certainly schools in the UK teach 7 now.
I'm not mad at executives for not knowing how to care for an animal never held in captivity, what I'm saying is that it was the aquarists who learned how to care for baleen whales, they innovated so don't give executives credit for what aquarists did.
They could revamp Wild Arctic (bring back Polar Bears), Aquaria World of Fishes, pinniped point, and Shark Encounter. All of those exhibits I just mentioned currently have size issues or are detiorating and could use a facelift. They could add new Aquariums on the Nautilus Theater site, in the 3D theater, or in the are between Cirque and Manta. The park does need a physical aquarium with some sort of theme. They could add a freshwater or Amazon Gallery. They could add an Australian or Indonesian exhibit. They could have a Californian area with kelp forests Sea Lions and Sea Otters.
Exactly they had no choice of what to do with the Orcas so don't praise executives for keeping them. They had no decision on wether they could keep Orcas or not.
No I do not have SeaWorlds official autopsy for the many Commersons Dolphins that died in their care. The only animal there is an official public consensus for is Betsy who died due after being moved from San Diego to Aquatica Orlando.
Here are some of the times I can find of penguins jumping out
2013:
As for the dolphins, it still isn't deep enough of a pool. You use yourself as a source saying you have seen dolphins chase prey onto the beach. I have seen them do that as well but every time I go to the beach I see dolphins and they always hang out from 20-40 feet at least. Even today I went to the beach and saw Dolphins swimming in their normal semi-deep area. They only hunt in very shallow waters for a small amount of time after that they go into deeper areas and they have the physical ability to go deeper so that should be encouraged in one way or another.
Here is my source for the Rescues Operating Costs (go to the bottom): All About the Animal Rescue & Rehabilitation Program - Results of Rescue Program | SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment.
Here is my source for annual Income: SeaWorld Entertainment Revenue 2011-2020 | SEAS
They fought to keep the Orcas because Orcas bring people to the parks to buy tickets, go watch a show, buy things like blankets and Hot Cocoa (which is wildly overpriced). The Orcas generate revenue, Orcas that do tricks create revenue which is why the entire SeaWorld Orca family tree is based on the original trainable Orca Shamu (don't ask me for a source because I got that one straight from the trainers). One other thing about the rescue center don't forget they tried to capitalize on that too with the SeaWorld rescue TV show. And they did not start they continue to fund it for good PR.
Yes. I am talking about the five continents frequently featured in American Zoos- Africa, Asia, Oceania/Australia, South America, and North America. I know that there are seven (or six depending on who you talk to) continents, yet Europe and Antarctica seldom get dedicated zones in American zoos.
Because European animals are either too similar to North American animals, protected in their home range, or not as interesting as animals from other continents.
Yes, I am aware of these reasons and do believe it is justified for zoos to "ignore" European wildlife. My original opinion was that I'd rather see zoos focus on making geographical exhibits more representative of an area as opposed to having more areas that have a less diverse collection for each reason.
Honestly, I would really like to see new takes on grottos. The idea is somewhat simple so there's room for improvement and innovation in the design. This is in no way me calling it a bad design or unfit to hold animals, I would just like to see a modernization of the design.
OK - here's one developed from these:
Many attempted immersion-style exhibits (particularly the ubiquitous 'dry river bed' ones) are grottos, just wonky ones with bushes in front.
There's nothing inherently wrong with a grotto layout if it's furnished properly so the animal isn't overly forced into view and has soft substrate as needed. It's not like a pit, where the viewing solely from above is undesirable for more than one reason and the animals don't have a view out to their surroundings. Honestly, a rebrand to a name that doesn't suggest a cave of solid rock (or sound like 'grotty'!) and they'd be much more embraced.
Brookfield Zoo's Great Bear Wilderness features bear exhibits that have been described as modern day grottos. They feature modern elements like underwater viewing, grass and live trees but still feature a grotto set up with a moat and surrounding walls.
Consider the most common arguments against keeping cetaceans in captivity, and you can apply most of them to one or more of these 3 as well.
"They have the whole ocean- no enclosure could be big enough."
I disagree with the premise, but by the same logic, birds have the whole sky, and elephants have the whole continent, so why isn't it cruel to keep them?
"They're too intelligent to ever be satisfied in captivity"
Elephants and great apes are all in the same rough intelligence ballpark as cetacean species. Corvids and some parrot species are also known to be highly intelligent. What criteria specifically displayed by cetaceans, yet not displayed by elephants or great apes, prohibits them from being able to be kept in captivity?
"They're kept in unnatural social groupings"
This one can apply to pretty much any species in zoos and can vary wildly from place to place, but to use two specific examples, the San Diego Zoo keeps African and Asian elephants in an entirely post-reproductive group of 3, and the Los Angeles Zoo keeps 3 post-reproductive females and one male in a group.
"They don't live as long as they would in the wild"
According to a quick google search, the median lifespan for African Elephants in captivity is 17 years old, and the median lifespan for Asian Elephants in captivity is 19 years old, well under the respective 56 and 41 year medians in the wild. If one considers that elephants have been kept in captivity for literally hundreds of years longer than cetaceans, why are we not giving up the ghost (so to speak) on elephants as well?
Your elephant data is outdated, due to the lack of elephant deaths in recent years and the relatively high infant mortality and stillbirths.
How Zoos Kill Elephants
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
By which you mean....?
Unless captive elephants now exceed wild elephants in terms of lifespan, this is irrelevant to my overall point.
Strix
Well-Known Member
Your point about birds and elephants having large areas is very flawed because they don’t use these areas to the extent that many cetaceans use their environments. Sure, elephants travel over large territories and some birds migrate very long distances, but with birds such a wide range of animals can’t be defined with such simple terms. After all, the space an arctic tern needs is surely very different than that of a quail.
Cetaceans are constantly moving, unlike birds and elephants which have the luxury of staying still. Cetaceans also have another dimension in their environment, being depth. Most cetacean exhibits I have heard of don’t go nearly as deep as the areas of the ocean that cetaceans live in in the wild.
Well elephants are now living equally long, if not longer, in captivity than in the wild. The data just skews to them dying earlier because of infant mortality and a small sample pool, since very few elephants have died in zoos during recent years.
By which I mean that seeing variations or new takes on the old design would be very interesting. It's not an opinion if that's what you mean it's more of a side note on to the opinion @Neil chace gave.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
But it brings up questions:
- What do we mean exactly by a "grotto" exhibit?
- Why are they what they are? (What functions are they fulfilling?)
- How else might those requirements be met? (After all, it ain't cheap)
1. A grotto exhibit is any exhibit of the traditional pit style in which people look at animals from a distance, usually over a moat or ditch.
2. The nice thing about grottos is that there isn't a visible barrier between visitors and animals, such as glass or mesh. This provides better Viewing opportunities. In the 21st century, grotto exhibits should be larger than the traditional size and should include a natural substrate and enrichment opportunities.
3. The requirements can be met with any modern Exhibit. I am just a personal fan of grotto Exhibits because there isn't that visible barrier and allows good viewing opportunities.