Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

Neil chace said:
Looking at enrichment as "toys" is also a very simplistic, or simply inaccurate way of looking at things. Toys are one type of enrichment, but is not the only kind. I don't know much about anenomes, so can't comment on enrichment for them, but there is certainly plenty of enrichment that works for reptiles, including some of the things I will list below. Enrichment, in addition to toys, can include:
- puzzle feeders. Animals need to work for their food in the wild, making it natural to simulate this is a zoo setting with puzzle feeders to get food.
- diet scatters/placing food in different locations of enclosure- again, very natural, and very easy for keepers to do, while keeping things novel for the animals.
- novel food item, especially with animals that don't have very specialized diets, providing novel food items/providing variation in what is being fed is enrichment.
- novel scents- many animals are scent-driven, so it can be enriching to introduce animals to a novel scent, whether that be from a different animal (ex. giving zebra fur to cheetahs), or whether it be cinnamon, a spice, perfume, etc.
- adding new plants, rocks, etc., to the exhibits, whether new permanent inclusions or temporary (such as the many zoos you see giving pumpkins to animals in October/November.
- habitat re-design/moving around fixtures in the enclosure- this is a good one for things like reptiles living in terrariums. Moving hides, dishes, plants, etc. to other parts of the enclosure can provide a good, novel experience.
- new substrates, especially good if its a different substrate than the animals are used to.
- as @Echobeast mentioned, training can be good enrichment, especially for animals like sea lions that tend to be rather smart/training-oriented, but can be used for a wide array of taxa- including some reptiles (monitor lizards especially)
- time outside of the enclosure, of course not safe/possible with all taxa, but when it is possible, taking animals on supervised walks/time in new areas can be very enriching. This one can work with everything from tortoises to porcupines to miniature donkeys to penguins, and can provide some great enrichment.

These are just some of the types I can think of off-hand, based on my experience/taxa I've worked with. I'm sure there are plenty of other types of enrichment as well, but enrichment does not just mean a toy, although toys are (usually not particularly good) enrichment.
Click to expand...

I'm very well aware of the many various ways of enrichment, I wrote a literature research about mammal enrichment. In my post I kept it simple as so far the discussion has only been fairly simple.

Echobeast said:
Don’t take this the wrong way but as an animal professional, this is a very simplistic way of viewing animal welfare and enrichment. Modern keeping 100% sees enrichment as a necessary part of animal welfare and it doesn’t matter if the enrichment is a permanent fixture in the environment or not. Regardless if the animal has the most well designed and largest habitat you could think of, it cannot completely replicate a natural environment which is where enrichment provided by keepers (through training, physical enrichment, etc.) becomes necessary in order to maximize welfare.
Click to expand...

I do think enrichment is good, I'm not saying it isn't.

I do believe however that a exhibit should aim to enrich a species as much as possible so there is as little enrichment in the forms of toys necessary.

To me there is a big difference between macaw toy-like enrichment or ''naturalistic'' enrichment in the shape of scents, food items (or feeding locations) and the like.
The latter being very good, if not done routinely in same matters I reckon.


However my initial post starting this mainly wants to bring into attention that if a exhibit size or lay-out doesn't try to stimulate the animal on its own, then is that exhibit good? Even if there is a large enrichment program.
 
Ursus said:
Why should we give say an otter toys? It's not natural for a small-clawed otter to have a squeeky rubber toy, neither a ball.
Click to expand...
Nor is it "natural" (what does that really mean????) for a small-clawed otter to be limited to the same 200 sq m for its entire life. Do not confuse zoos with natural habitats. Zoos consist of human constructed enclosures of limited size. Added enrichment makes 200 sq m have the potential to be experienced as 2000 sq m

Ursus said:
However my initial post starting this mainly wants to bring into attention that if a exhibit size or lay-out doesn't try to stimulate the animal on its own, then is that exhibit good? Even if there is a large enrichment program.
Click to expand...
Short answer, very probably
 
Zooplantman said:
Nor is it "natural" (what does that really mean????) for a small-clawed otter to be limited to the same 200 sq m for its entire life. Do not confuse zoos with natural habitats. Zoos consist of human constructed enclosures of limited size. Added enrichment makes 200 sq m have the potential to be experienced as 2000 sq m
Click to expand...

That is true, however my understanding of zoos is that they try to push for natural behaviours and showcase this. Not display a otter on a playfield with rubber balls.
 
Ursus said:
That is true, however my understanding of zoos is that they try to push for natural behaviours and showcase this. Not display a otter on a playfield with rubber balls.
Click to expand...
I agree,
but the issue is not whether there is introduced enrichment items as much as what those items look like. It is a failure, in my opinion, of zoos that they get enrichment items from pet suppliers rather than design suitable ones for zoo exhibits or creatively re-purpose natural items
 
There is a much stronger focus now on zoo enrichment being goal- and behavior-based rather than object based. A soccer ball for otters, while certainly better than nothing, is fairly lazy. Some of the enrichment programs that I've seen lately (I'm especially thinking of a colleague of mine who works with bears) are amazingly complex, with multiple components linked over several days to try to recreate specific natural chains of behavior. One of the key challenges for future zoo exhibit design will be building exhibits that can facilitate such enrichment opportunities.
 
Things like rubber toys, while not as appealing to the eye, are much safer than whatever they're similar to from the wild. They won't splinter or break or injure the animal, they don't have a bunch of insects or microorganisms on them that could make the animal ill. They have known durability and breaking points, so keepers know what animals the objects are safe for.

You can stick a dog in a wooded yard with a bunch of natural features and it's still going to get bored without change and other enrichment.
 
TinoPup said:
They have known durability and breaking points, so keepers know what animals the objects are safe for.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point, and while I agree in theory, it's important to consider that the animal's ability to break something isn't always known. There's a story I was told from a zookeeper that occurred probably 20 years ago now, in which to replicate using a termite mound/using their tongue to get food, the zoo's sloth bears were once given a bowling ball with peanut butter and other treats stuffed into the holes to be licked out. Instead of using their tongues however, one of the sloth bears proceeded to rip open the bowling ball, something that was certainly unexpected by the keepers, but is a story still being told at the zoo by educators when discussing the sloth bears' adaptations and how strong their claws are.
 
Neil chace said:
This is an interesting point, and while I agree in theory, it's important to consider that the animal's ability to break something isn't always known. There's a story I was told from a zookeeper that occurred probably 20 years ago now, in which to replicate using a termite mound/using their tongue to get food, the zoo's sloth bears were once given a bowling ball with peanut butter and other treats stuffed into the holes to be licked out. Instead of using their tongues however, one of the sloth bears proceeded to rip open the bowling ball, something that was certainly unexpected by the keepers, but is a story still being told at the zoo by educators when discussing the sloth bears' adaptations and how strong their claws are.
Click to expand...

Definitely something to keep in mind, and to pay attention to when first giving an object! My old dog, who had horrible teeth that resulted in multiple dental operations and tooth removals, could tear open a regular red kong in a day or two. I had to start buying the black ones, which would last about a month if I didn't remove them after putting food in them for play. He didn't eat them, at least - Kong makes dark blue ones for that, where the material will show up on an xray - but they're fairly expensive to replace. I've never had any other dog, including younger ones with much stronger jaws, put a dent in a kong.
 
Hot take:

I really detest how the focus on some conservation programs are on the cute, charismatic animals even if there are other higher priority species that require more urgent action to help in their conservation.

Don't get me wrong, pandas are one of my faves but what do they really do for the ecosystem?
 
Corangurilla said:
This but unironically. Giant Pandas are the unofficial face of conservation. Willingly letting them go extinct would unite the world in anger.
(Also, calling pandas/koalas “useless” is not cool).
Click to expand...
They are functionally extinct, but they have taken on the role of being "umbrella species". In that context, panda and koala exhibits are vital.
 
Corangurilla said:
Isn’t the “functionally extinct” bit false?
Click to expand...
Yeah, giant pandas are most certainly not functionally extinct. Functionally extinct means that the population is so small there is absolutely no way that the species does not go extinct. A textbook example of functional extinction would be the Northern White Rhinos, where there are only the two females left and that's it. I will concur it's definitely interesting how much outsized resources go into giant pandas now, as in 2016 the IUCN Red List re-classified them as Vulnerable, meaning there are plenty of places the money going to giant pandas could go to instead. While I understand the need for a "poster child" for raising funds, it may be time to shift the burden of the "poster child" away from pandas, and choose tigers or something else endangered that fills a more important ecological niche.

I will also note- the role a species plays in an ecosystem is often never fully realized until the species is no longer present in that ecosystem. Hence, it's valuable to preserve all the species possible from an ecosystem, as you don't want to let one go extinct as "not ecologically important" to find down the extinction has a trickle-down effect on everything else in the ecosystem. When wolves returned to Yellowstone, they changed the route of the rivers going through the park. Adding or removing a species from an ecosystem, as such, can have so drastic of an effect that it's not worth risking any extinction. One analogy I like to use is that an ecosystem is like a jigsaw puzzle. Every species of plant, animal, fungi, protist, or bacteria, along with abiotic factors, is a single piece of the puzzle. If one piece of the puzzle is missing, you are never going to be able to fill in the entire puzzle, even if you can get a rather good idea of what the picture is supposed to be.
 
Neil chace said:
Yeah, giant pandas are most certainly not functionally extinct. Functionally extinct means that the population is so small there is absolutely no way that the species does not go extinct. A textbook example of functional extinction would be the Northern White Rhinos, where there are only the two females left and that's it. I will concur it's definitely interesting how much outsized resources go into giant pandas now, as in 2016 the IUCN Red List re-classified them as Vulnerable, meaning there are plenty of places the money going to giant pandas could go to instead. While I understand the need for a "poster child" for raising funds, it may be time to shift the burden of the "poster child" away from pandas, and choose tigers or something else endangered that fills a more important ecological niche.

I will also note- the role a species plays in an ecosystem is often never fully realized until the species is no longer present in that ecosystem. Hence, it's valuable to preserve all the species possible from an ecosystem, as you don't want to let one go extinct as "not ecologically important" to find down the extinction has a trickle-down effect on everything else in the ecosystem. When wolves returned to Yellowstone, they changed the route of the rivers going through the park. Adding or removing a species from an ecosystem, as such, can have so drastic of an effect that it's not worth risking any extinction. One analogy I like to use is that an ecosystem is like a jigsaw puzzle. Every species of plant, animal, fungi, protist, or bacteria, along with abiotic factors, is a single piece of the puzzle. If one piece of the puzzle is missing, you are never going to be able to fill in the entire puzzle, even if you can get a rather good idea of what the picture is supposed to be.
Click to expand...
Well said!
The “functionally extinct” bit was used for koalas, actually, but regardless, I think people misinterpreted it as “useless” and it spread like a jar of Jif. People started saying it around the height of the koala copypasta, so I guess dunking on koalas was the cool thing to do at the time.
 
StoppableSan said:
This is a joke video with some valid points brought up, I think you might get a kick outta this.
Click to expand...
Note that saying that accidentally crushing their babies is unique to pandas is untrue. A sizeable number of human babies are killed each year also because a parent accidentally suffocates it while sleeping together... What is co-sleeping and why is it dangerous?
 
Neil chace said:
Note that saying that accidentally crushing their babies is unique to pandas is untrue. A sizeable number of human babies are killed each year also because a parent accidentally suffocates it while sleeping together... What is co-sleeping and why is it dangerous?
Click to expand...
And it’s not like other bears are winning “mom of the year awards”, either. Remember that Sloth Bear in DC who ate 2 of her own cubs?
 
Kristin Rodrigo said:
Hot take:

I really detest how the focus on some conservation programs are on the cute, charismatic animals even if there are other higher priority species that require more urgent action to help in their conservation.

Don't get me wrong, pandas are one of my faves but what do they really do for the ecosystem?
Click to expand...
unfortunately most of the time, cute animal= more people care about= more funds= more working being done
of course a lot animal are more endangered than pandas, and more important to the biosphere. But it's harder to gain people attention from a lot of the more "uncharacteristic" species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top