Side note - according to ZTL, seems like most if not all cloudies in the US are Indochinese. Good to know!
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
This is why I don't have a beef with white tigers necessarily.
Breeding white tigers with each other obviously wasn't in the animals' best interest, but the trait itself isn't actually degenerative.
I agree, another "hot take" is that I actually really enjoy seeing white tigers. Also, they leave a true impression on people more than orange tigers do that impacts their desire to help wild tigers.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
Well, the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg has a lot of those...
Genuine subspecies are important because they are on their way to separating as species. It's a big part of evolution. The main issue, though, is scientifically we're in a super awkward period of deciding what subspecies *are*. There is usually some geographic isolation at play, maybe physical differences, behavior differences. But none of those is definitive. Genetically aging a species is a very new science that doesn't really have formal boundaries yet. If a population has been isolated for a tremendous amount of time, but looks and acts the same and can only be told apart genetically, should it be considered a subspecies? How about if something looks and acts slightly differently, but genetically is indistinguishable? I'm not asking these questions of the group, these are things scientists are trying to figure out. We do know a lot of subspecies from the last couple of hundred years are invalid; some are color morphs, some were considered ssp so that a new animal could be named after someone important, things like that. We're also learning that a lot of animals that were considered the same species are actually separate. African elephants would be one of the most prominent for that, what's going on with red pandas and king cobras, and so on. The distinctions vary a lot among classes, as well, and in what scientists are working on the species/family/etc, what institution or organization they're with, and all sorts of other things that play into our natural biases.
Even with something as commonly studied and worked with as domestic animals, there's no definitive answer for any of them as to whether they're species or subspecies, or even at that level. Beyond that, breed doesn't mean the same thing in every domestic. In dogs, you have to have so many generations breeding true, a written standard, etc (otherwise it's a type/landrace, or a hybrid/mutt/mixed breed). In livestock, in general, the animal can be mixed, as long as it's a certain % of the named breed.
Even with something as commonly studied and worked with as domestic animals, there's no definitive answer for any of them as to whether they're species or subspecies, or even at that level. Beyond that, breed doesn't mean the same thing in every domestic. In dogs, you have to have so many generations breeding true, a written standard, etc (otherwise it's a type/landrace, or a hybrid/mutt/mixed breed). In livestock, in general, the animal can be mixed, as long as it's a certain % of the named breed.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
I actually like that AZA zoos breed subspecies like Sumatran and Siberian tigers; different subspecies work better for different climates.
However, Tino is right. What is a valid subspecies or species now is constantly in flux with the latest science, and that will have an influence on how those taxon are conserved in situ.
However, Tino is right. What is a valid subspecies or species now is constantly in flux with the latest science, and that will have an influence on how those taxon are conserved in situ.
New hot take for this thread: US zoos should be more willing, in some circumstances, to use euthanasia as a management strategy. This is NOT me saying that preventing breeding through contraception and/or social means isn't preferable, but in some circumstances euthanasia could be the better option:
- For social species that don't have a reversable contraception available, where the adults would have to be separated part of the year to prevent breeding, continuing to manage a natural social grouping for the entire year could be in the best welfare interest of the adult animals. I've known zoos that have had to manage giraffes, river otters, callimicos, and more in these ways of social management, and if zoos were more open to the idea of euthanizing offspring instead of social separation then the welfare of the potential parents could be improved.
- For species where a skewed sex ratio is ideal (e.g., harem-living species like many ungulates, gorillas, howler monkeys, lions, etc.,), or species where the population has a demographically unhealthy sex ratio (e.g., okapi, pale-faced sakis, etc.), the need for additional individuals of one sex, paired with limited total space available, may warrant increased breeding, with the euthanasia of overrepresented individuals of the undesired sex. In some bird species (e.g., Humboldt penguins), zoos have started sexing eggs to prioritize keeping one sex or the other depending on what's demographically needed. For mammals, the best way to achieve this would unfortunately be through euthanasia.
- From a welfare perspective, a short but high-quality life could debatably be better than a long life in inferior conditions. While there are many excellent zoos outside of the AZA, and I'm not saying no animals should be transferred out of the SSP population, euthanasia could easily be argued as a better alternative than moving individuals to subpar facilities.
- In egg-laying animals, a certain number of eggs could be kept depending on the needs of the population. For example, a pair of (insert bird species here) could be recommended to produce one chick, and the remaining eggs from a clutch wouldn't be allowed to be incubated. For mammal species that have highly variable litter sizes, the populations could be easier to manage if euthanasia was considered for some individuals from large litters. This could potentially limit the "boom and bust" cycles that impact many populations due to the unpredictability of births.
Largely because the public does not like to hear of animals being euthanized without good cause, especially babies. It would not be a good look for zoos.
In many instances the extra individuals provide exhibit animals, eg okapi. Also many of the species this would potentially be used for are already unstable.
This is already widely done, and is much less contentious than euthaninzing newborn mammals.
Interesting points!
Prenatal blood testing can be used in many uniparous mammals to identify the gender of the infant in utero from early on in the gestation. This potentially offers an opportunity to terminate the pregnancy (as an alternative to euthanising otherwise viable offspring post-partum).
Though not widely publicised for obvious reasons, many zoos choose to euthanise rejected offspring of species whose social development would be impaired by not being mother-raised. Especially for long-lived species such as great apes, I can understand why they want to avoid leaving others to deal with a legacy of 50-60 years of caring for potentially anti-social/socially maladapted individuals. It’s also a welfare issue if a social species is unable to live with its own kind.
I am aware, sorry it wasn't quite as clear as I was intending. What I meant is that bird populations benefit because of the control over how many eggs hatch. It could make management of populations easier if the size of mammal litters were also able to be controlled through euthanasia.
Okapi may not have been the best example for this. However, there are populations where surplus individuals of one sex (usually males) is undeniably a challenge, and one that euthanasia is one possible solution for. There's also, of course, the added benefit with ungulates, where male surplus is commonly an issue, that this strategy can provide great enrichment for large carnivores.
Yeah, this is the one downside of this. However, I think if presented in the right manner, and emphasizing how this could improve the welfare of the adult animals, then the benefits of this approach do outweigh the cons.
Out of curiosity, has termination of pregnancies been practiced in any non-human animals? I simply haven't heard of it happening before, and don't know if the veterinary medicine exists to make this a safe, readily accessible practice for zoos. I'd imagine for species like great apes, where human birth control has sometimes been used, the medications for this could be the same too, but I'm not sure for other species whether or not the procedures are safe and available.
fethaniel123
New Member
I am a big fan of aquariums only when they are done humanely, what do you guys think of touch tanks because I personally am not a fan?
As long as the animal isn't harmed and the people aren't harmed, I don't think it's a big deal. Certainly, it's a fun and engaging experience for visitors. We often take for granted how much people enjoy that kind of things. And some animals clearly enjoy it almost as much as the visitors do.
I think the bigger issue is that its not something very public because of the nature of it and thats why it seams like "it could be used more". in the same vein as live/carcass feeding.
I work at an aquarium and i think you can do it well as long as there is someone to monitor guests and the tanks are rotated throughout the day to prevent over-exposure. its always really fun for the people willing, especially kids and its a great way to teach about the ocean and i always use it to talk about the local marine park outside the aquarium and other conservation things
Touch tanks are truly engaging for people, especially children. I have no issue with the (generally cold water) touch tanks with sea stars, abalone, anemones, and such like creatures. I don't see how those animals are being harmed in any way by one or two finger gentle touches. That's not to say that all of those touch tanks are done well, but by and large they are easier animals to manage for touch.
I am mixed on stingray touch tanks, however. They can be done well where the rays have enough places to get away and the water is deep enough that they can avoid if they wish, some places also do timed opening so the animals get rest. Ray touch tanks can also be really bad with shallow water and nowhere to escape.
Florida Aquarium has a moon jelly touch tank, they manage it really well with staff and limited entry so it does not get over crowded.
Maybe it's a Great Lakes states thing, but I've seen almost as many sturgeon touch tanks as I've seen stingray touch tanks.
Ha, maybe. The only sturgeon touch tank I can recall seeing is at OdySea in Arizona.
Stingray tanks are all over the south/west. Here in the Tampa area we have them at Florida Aquarium, ZooTampa (opening again next month or so), Clearwater Marine Aquarium, and even the Tampa Bay Rays at Tropicana Field.
Phoenix Metro has sting rays touch tanks at OdySea, Wildlife World, and Butterfly Wonderland.
Last edited:
This is really the key. If animals have choice and control in the touch tank environment (and to go more broadly: this applies to farms and other human-animal interactions too), then it can be a really great exhibit. However, having the opportunity to willingly opt in or out of the touching parts is really important for these animals' welfare.
The other thing in touch tanks is to make sure they are really careful in ensuring everyone using the touch tank washed their hands immediately before using it- as this is the best way to mitigate potentially harmful chemicals entering the water.
Interesting, I didn't realize these were common and thought it was really neat seeing one for the first time at Toledo.
It is done in dogs, but the likelihood of her being able to get pregnant again is extremely low, and a spay is usually done at the same time.
Almost certainly a great lakes thing. Stingray touch tanks are everywhere.
There is also the new one at the Phoenix zoo.
Last edited: