Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

RandomZooVisitorYT said:
Hot Take: Ambassador Animals (Animals in children's zoos or behind the scenes displayed for keeper talks or shows) should not be a thing. Animals such as small cats, tamunduas, and others deserve actual spaces. Zoos like Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and Columbus Zoo do give their ambassador animals displays but they are atrocious. CMZ literally keeps a lone prairie dog in a large glass terrarium. CZ has really small, unnaturalistic exhibits in their Adventure Cove section.
Click to expand...

I can’t help but agree with this. I have been vocal about my feelings about animal ambassador shows before. While I don’t disagree with the idea of using animals for shows, I found it hypocritical for both accredited zoos and private traveling zoos showing off seemingly tame animals on stage while emphasizing that these animals (which are not running away, hiding or attacking their handlers) are wild and should not be pets (inb4 but they are professionals, yeah professionals that used to be amateurs at one point in life). As time passed on I have also come up with the conclusion that animal ambassador shows could even be a weak spot of zoos that could be targeted by animal rights organizations.

To use animals animals in shows looks like either:
1) the zoo touting man’s dominion over wildlife (a really big no no in conservation circles) or…
2) a normal conventional exhibit doesn’t work well enough for educate the public or appreciate the respective species for what they are which in the end undermines the any statement of how a good zoo enclosure can educate the public.

Animosity is a big word but by the point I saw the AZA try to have cheetahs and clouded leopards get exempt from the big cat public safety act in order to use them as ambassadors and Nashville Zoo’s fanaloka cub updates (with the animal being displayed in the most “domestic” setup) I just can’t help but cringe at the thought of animal ambassador shows taking place at western zoos.

birdsandbats said:
I strongly disagree that animal ambassadors need to be removed from zoos.

One of the biggest challenges facing conservation today is that people just don't care. An increasing amount of people live in urban centers with few opportunities to be out in nature or interact with animals, and thus no chance to even begin to care about something they view as distant and irrelevant to them.

Animal ambassadors exist as a way to show people animals, up close and personal, often at a very young age. If fact, I would argue they are some of the most important animals in the entire collection.
Click to expand...
Society not caring about animals is an issue that is probably deeply rooted which novel animal shows have little to no effect on changing. Sure they might win a few hearts for animals but on a greater scale it’s just not efficient.

And not to toot my own horn but it is possible to have an appreciation without getting “up close and personal” with non domestic species. You see, animal ambassador shows definitely weren’t a thing in Turkey but yet I still think and care about animals. I got my appreciation for animals from television shows*, picture books, toys, and my mother endorsing my interests long before I visited my first good zoo. By the time I saw an animal get used as an “ambassador” for the first time I already was enamored with animals, so the animal ambassadors I saw in the camp best serve as novelty, which is unfortunately what animal ambassador shows (or animals for that matter) are in the subconscious of the general public.

*=I will be honest and say that Zoboomafoo, which could be considered as a twenty minute animal ambassador show, did play a huge role in my childhood. However, that show was from an era when many utilizations of animals, that are now deemed unacceptable, were accepted. That, and why set up a stage and animals go through shows their entire lives when you can just show people a recording of a show or documentary?
 
RandomZooVisitorYT said:
Hot Take: Ambassador Animals (Animals in children's zoos or behind the scenes displayed for keeper talks or shows) should not be a thing. Animals such as small cats, tamunduas, and others deserve actual spaces. Zoos like Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and Columbus Zoo do give their ambassador animals displays but they are atrocious. CMZ literally keeps a lone prairie dog in a large glass terrarium. CZ has really small, unnaturalistic exhibits in their Adventure Cove section.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. Same with birds in bird shows.

In regards to domestic species, I have mixed feelings. Those are good for kids so they can interact with animals and city kids really don't get to see livestock either. However, spending a small fortune on a farm exhibit does make me die a little inside.
 
The only animal ambassador demonstrations I have seen have largely been reptiles - like passing around a box turtle or holding a degu - and arthropods, such as letting guests pet a madagascar hissing cockroach. Most of these animals had the same equivalent exhibits used by non-ambassador species. I think these demonstrations were positive for guests involved and did not have any of the negative connotations described by other users here. There's very little harm in letting people pet small turtles.

While many zoos advertise mammals as ambassador species, I have only once witnessed a brief demonstration involving a bat. I have seen video of servals, cheetah and so forth on leashes, photographs of tamandua on keeper's shoulders in public spaces, but I've never seen these ambassadors used for demonstrations in the real world. I think there is a valid place to argue that using mammals, especially larger mammals, in this manner could/would be or is a step too far, but I don't think using reptiles or insects in this manner is on the same level or as problematic as would seem implied.

I am aware that hand-reared birds often remain attached to people by nature, and I think in situations like this, using them as ambassadors may be making the best of a complicated situation, as the animals' social need may benefit from this. I have not witnessed a bird demonstration aside from once in childhood so I don't know if I should speak too much of it, but I do find bird shows preferable to some other bird-related zoo practices such as pinioning.

I am largely trying to suggest that I think rather than saying 'all animal ambassador programs should end immediately' we should maybe instead be looking at which species are better or worse suited for this kind of program. I definitely don't think clouded leopards are a good choice but I don't have a problem with box turtles.

PossumRoach said:
And not to toot my own horn but it is possible to have an appreciation without getting “up close and personal” with non domestic species. You see, animal ambassador shows definitely weren’t a thing in Turkey but yet I still think and care about animals. I got my appreciation for animals from television shows*, picture books, toys, and my mother endorsing my interests long before I visited my first good zoo. By the time I saw an animal get used as an “ambassador” for the first time I already was enamored with animals, so the animal ambassadors I saw in the camp best serve as novelty, which is unfortunately what animal ambassador shows (or animals for that matter) are in the subconscious of the general public.
Click to expand...
This reads to suggest because you formed an existing appreciation with animals before you saw an ambassador program, they aren't necessary and can't engage the general public, but I think this misunderstands their intent. I believe animal ambassador programs are designed largely to engage with casual visitors who might not have a per-existing sense of connection or empathy towards animals, and are used to foster that sense of connection by creating an individual, personal experience for someone who cannot feel empathy for an animal based on a television program.

Brayden Delashmutt said:
Yes, however the current farm area could be used for lots of things. South America, Australia, etc
Click to expand...
The Small Mammal-Reptile House, interestingly enough, has previously had an Australian and later South American rainforest theme. I've always found it very unfortunate that many Australian species (echidna, koala, wallaby, etc.) were phased out of the building and never reintroduced to the space. I'm skeptical about such investment partly due to this history but also that so few Australian species seem genuinely widespread in US zoos.

If we assume Camel-Zebra Area is still slated to become an Asia exhibit, I think South America is the only use of the space that could take full advantage of the total land area and introduce new anchor species at the same time. If both developments took place, many Primate House species could be moved and that building could be ripe for new development. such as an Australia exhibit, with the loss of the lemurs and three remaining African monkey species.

RandomZooVisitorYT said:
You're not wrong, but how can we appreciate these animals natural spaces when the animals in question do not have anything of the sort
Click to expand...
This is actually one of the more interesting sub-topics in this thread. I know there are many on zoochat who feel presenting an animal in a close replication of their natural environment is necessary for guests to appreciate and understand animals and justify it as an educational goal. I had often looked at or heard it previously from a strict welfare perspective - that the need for a natural environment is mostly for the sake of the animal's comfort and to facilitate natural behaviors. There are some articles by zoo professionals that have argued the environmental aspects are more for guests than animals though. I think it's a fascinating topic in general.
 
JVM said:
This is actually one of the more interesting sub-topics in this thread. I know there are many on zoochat who feel presenting an animal in a close replication of their natural environment is necessary for guests to appreciate and understand animals and justify it as an educational goal. I had often looked at or heard it previously from a strict welfare perspective - that the need for a natural environment is mostly for the sake of the animal's comfort and to facilitate natural behaviors. There are some articles by zoo professionals that have argued the environmental aspects are more for guests than animals though. I think it's a fascinating topic in general.
Click to expand...
I think a guest is more likely to be invested in an animal and spend more time looking at that animal (therefore spending more time at the zoo, which brings home the bacon) in a naturalistic enclosure with rocks and trees and generally a nice, clean look than a area of grass with concrete walls. A natural enviorment is also more educational for the guests as it shows where they live.
 
JVM said:
This reads to suggest because you formed an existing appreciation with animals before you saw an ambassador program, they aren't necessary and can't engage the general public, but I think this misunderstands their intent. I believe animal ambassador programs are designed largely to engage with casual visitors who might not have a per-existing sense of connection or empathy towards animals, and are used to foster that sense of connection by creating an individual, personal experience for someone who cannot feel empathy for an animal based on a television program.
Click to expand...
Sure visitors will be mesmerized. But the show and the animals are at best a novelty from the zoo visit (which itself unfortunately is also a novelty in the eyes of a normie). The day after seeing the show, the casual visitor will continue to be preoccupied with other topics (not counting the essentials such as jobs, school, and rent) like ball games, gossips, and whatever slop kids are exposed on youtube these days. As I said on my previous post, the apathy and disinterest towards animals is likely to be a deep rooted issue, and an animal show will have minimal effect on it.
 
JVM said:
The only animal ambassador demonstrations I have seen have largely been reptiles - like passing around a box turtle or holding a degu - and arthropods, such as letting guests pet a madagascar hissing cockroach. Most of these animals had the same equivalent exhibits used by non-ambassador species. I think these demonstrations were positive for guests involved and did not have any of the negative connotations described by other users here. There's very little harm in letting people pet small turtles.

While many zoos advertise mammals as ambassador species, I have only once witnessed a brief demonstration involving a bat. I have seen video of servals, cheetah and so forth on leashes, photographs of tamandua on keeper's shoulders in public spaces, but I've never seen these ambassadors used for demonstrations in the real world. I think there is a valid place to argue that using mammals, especially larger mammals, in this manner could/would be or is a step too far, but I don't think using reptiles or insects in this manner is on the same level or as problematic as would seem implied.


Out of curiosity which Zoo's presentations have you been to. There are a lot of reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods. In the zoos I've seen them use porcupines, tamunduas, servals, even an emu in one show. I do agree with you on the reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods that there shouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...
 
PossumRoach said:
I can’t help but agree with this. I have been vocal about my feelings about animal ambassador shows before. While I don’t disagree with the idea of using animals for shows, I found it hypocritical for both accredited zoos and private traveling zoos showing off seemingly tame animals on stage while emphasizing that these animals (which are not running away, hiding or attacking their handlers) are wild and should not be pets (inb4 but they are professionals, yeah professionals that used to be amateurs at one point in life). As time passed on I have also come up with the conclusion that animal ambassador shows could even be a weak spot of zoos that could be targeted by animal rights organizations.

To use animals animals in shows looks like either:
1) the zoo touting man’s dominion over wildlife (a really big no no in conservation circles) or…
2) a normal conventional exhibit doesn’t work well enough for educate the public or appreciate the respective species for what they are which in the end undermines the any statement of how a good zoo enclosure can educate the public.

Animosity is a big word but by the point I saw the AZA try to have cheetahs and clouded leopards get exempt from the big cat public safety act in order to use them as ambassadors and Nashville Zoo’s fanaloka cub updates (with the animal being displayed in the most “domestic” setup) I just can’t help but cringe at the thought of animal ambassador shows taking place at western zoos.


Society not caring about animals is an issue that is probably deeply rooted which novel animal shows have little to no effect on changing. Sure they might win a few hearts for animals but on a greater scale it’s just not efficient.

And not to toot my own horn but it is possible to have an appreciation without getting “up close and personal” with non domestic species. You see, animal ambassador shows definitely weren’t a thing in Turkey but yet I still think and care about animals. I got my appreciation for animals from television shows*, picture books, toys, and my mother endorsing my interests long before I visited my first good zoo. By the time I saw an animal get used as an “ambassador” for the first time I already was enamored with animals, so the animal ambassadors I saw in the camp best serve as novelty, which is unfortunately what animal ambassador shows (or animals for that matter) are in the subconscious of the general public.

*=I will be honest and say that Zoboomafoo, which could be considered as a twenty minute animal ambassador show, did play a huge role in my childhood. However, that show was from an era when many utilizations of animals, that are now deemed unacceptable, were accepted. That, and why set up a stage and animals go through shows their entire lives when you can just show people a recording of a show or documentary?
Click to expand...

I don’t think we have animal ambassadors in quite the same way in the U.K. though there are animals shown in talks or bird shows but I would point out that one of the things you raise against having them (that engagement with animals can be achieved with full effectiveness via television, documentary or film) is an argument used by some people not to have animals in zoos at all as there is no need for captive animals to promote being bothered about them.

It’s not a view I subscribe to but I think it’s something to be careful of when considering how to engage children or adults in conservation and appreciation of exotic animals as by extension of removing all displays, any handling, all feeding etc (as none of that is necessary to have an appreciation, by the logic being used) you’re removing revenue streams and indeed opportunity for engagement.

Not eveyone learns the same way either so just because someone can learn to appreciate animals on the TV someone else may not.

Zoos have an important educational role to play and while I don’t agree with big cats on leads at all, there is a role for engaging the public more closely. Keepers showing snakes (of course handling correctly) can get people engaged with them as fascinating animals for example and bird shows demonstrate the wonder of birds in flight and highlight their condition in the wild (it is impactful to learn about the threat to vultures when one is flying over your head in my opinion).

Of course it’s great you and others got engaged via TV and documentaries - I’d just say having many routes of engagement offers the best chance to capture peoples imagination.

I’d agree with JVM that the right level of engagement and the right ‘use’ of the animal with their welfare the highest priority is the top consideration vs all animal ambassador sort of things being totally bad or good.
 
I don't think there's really been an area of zoo management where I've seen as significant of a change over the course of my career as animal ambassadors. Historically, we had one rule to determine if an animal was a good ambassador - if you could pick it up and handle it in front of visitors without it biting you or getting away from you. Never mind if the animal actually *wanted* anything to do with the ambassador role. Cages were usually relatively small and barren, which was justified under the logic that, unlike exhibit animals, they got to go out and about and had more space and enrichment that way, so it evened out. As for as breeding programs were concerned, these individual animals also might as well have been deceased, as they were completely removed from the SSP populations.

Today, there is (at least in good zoos) a much stronger emphasis on choice and voluntary participation among animal ambassadors, and I've seen several instances of zoos opting to retire out individual animals because their personality and temperament didn't seem well suited to that role (I see animals posted on the listserv, for example, with a note that specifies that they were former ambassadors but would do best in exhibit roles). Enclosure space has greatly improved in many cases, with more space and better furnishings, even with animals that are not double-functioning as exhibit animals as well. And there is often more emphasis on having ambassadors in social groups and even breeding situations, especially for some of the more highly sought after mammal species, such as PT porcupines and armadillos.

Ambassador care and management is still very different from exhibit animal management - there are several questions in the AZA accreditation application that are specific to how ambassadors are managed and housed to make sure that standards of care are appropriate (as well as the ambassador animal care guidelines which are being published for individual species, sort of mini-husbandry manuals specific to their situations). But there have been some pretty dramatic changes in how we work with these animals.
 
@Aardwolf did a great job discussing the welfare aspects of animal ambassadors, but I have some thoughts from the educational side of things based on the discussion so far:

  • I would agree that there are certain species, which under no circumstances, should be animal ambassadors. For example, AZA policy prohibits using primates as ambassadors, and given the popularity of pet primates and the connection to the illegal pet trade, I can certainly see why the perception of a primate ambassador would be problematic. Similarly, lions and tigers are moving in that direction too, something which I think is for the best. For cheetahs, while I don't think using them on leashes or involving touch opportunities is appropriate, some zoos use them in "cheetah run" demonstrations, allowing visitors to see them reach top speeds, which is certainly a more appropriate use of cheetahs (and one with educational and welfare benefits!)
  • The framing of an ambassador program matters a lot. On one extreme, I've heard a story once from someone who saw an ambassador presentation at a roadside zoo, where a wolf was brought into the room on a leash, in which the presenter asked all the kids to howl at the wolf. That is a program I think all of us can agree is a bad use of animal ambassadors. On the other extreme, I've seen ambassador demonstrations in which a tarantula or scorpion is presented inside a glass box furnished with soil, a hide, etc. The educational aspects of each of these extremes, as well as the welfare implications, are obviously very different, and I don't think it makes sense to lump both of these together into just one category.
  • I would agree with the notion that using mammals on leashes is probably a bad use of ambassadors, as this can have the "pet" connotation. That said, I've seen many ambassador programs in which mammals aren't on leashes, and instead either placed on a table or inside a small fenced area, in which they are able to express natural behaviors, possibly including some simple training demonstrations. Again, this comes down to how the program is framed, as the same species can be used in appropriate and inappropriate framings.
  • One thing that hasn't come up yet is that animal ambassadors can be an excellent part of outreach programs. For a number of children, they may never step foot into a zoo, but are able to see live animals in person through outreach programs in which a zoo educator brings some ambassadors to a school. These are the sorts of educational programs where ambassadors are to best be used, as they reach an entirely different demographic than regular zoo visitors.
 
Not sure if this really qualifies, but the placement of the Galago exhibit at the Turtle Back Zoo has to be one of the most bird-brained things I've ever seen an AZA zoo do. This is an animal that is that is nocturnal (and thus has large and sensitive eyes) as well as large ears.

So where do they put the exhibit? In the Penguin house (which is guaranteed to be very noisy just by virtue of how popular the animals are) AND right next to the exit, so the exhibit is bathed in light every time someone opens the door. And given that a lot of people bring strollers and wagons, you can be assured that door will remain open for extended periods of time.

That doesn't sound like it would be good for the animal, right?
 
Hot take: When zoos take a stance against the keeping of exotic pets, they are being hypocritical. Zoos that do this (usually AZA zoos, some privates zoos do this too) will say that these are wild animals and that they do not do well under human care, despite the fact that the very existence of their zoo claims the opposite. They also rarely acknowledge the fact that many of their animals were probably sources from the exotic pet trade.

Instead of blanket condoning the keeping of exotic pets altogether, they should say that exotic pets can be more difficult to care for and you should really think about if you are able to keep the species in question properly and legally before you consider adopting one.
 
birdsandbats said:
Hot take: When zoos take a stance against the keeping of exotic pets, they are being hypocritical. Zoos that do this (usually AZA zoos, some privates zoos do this too) will say that these are wild animals and that they do not do well under human care, despite the fact that the very existence of their zoo claims the opposite. They also rarely acknowledge the fact that many of their animals were probably sources from the exotic pet trade.

Instead of blanket condoning the keeping of exotic pets altogether, they should say that exotic pets can be more difficult to care for and you should really think about if you are able to keep the species in question properly and legally before you consider adopting one.
Click to expand...

I think this is fair, but I believe that most zoos that say things like this come from a solid line of reasoning. It's important to keep in mind that zoo employees typically make up a large community of researchers, scientists, as well as trained and educated employees. In a zoological facility, everyone works together. The network system of zoos makes it so that all staff need to rely on the help of another and nobody is taking care of these exotic animals alone, whereas the case is more likely than not the opposite with an individual who is looking to randomly buy a monkey just because they can and they want to. Most of them probably do not know what they are getting into. I'm not saying all exotic buyers fit that description, but for a majority of them, it is likely true.

I believe the communal mindset of zoo staff often alienates the idea that people are capable of taking care of exotic animals alone (and exotic owners definitely get a bad wrap considering how popularized they are on TikTok now thanks to Tiger King and stuff), so they think something is wrong with housing an exotic pet on your own.

I personally would never have an exotic pet, but I understand the zoos reasoning and agree with your approach.
 
birdsandbats said:
Hot take: When zoos take a stance against the keeping of exotic pets, they are being hypocritical. Zoos that do this (usually AZA zoos, some privates zoos do this too) will say that these are wild animals and that they do not do well under human care, despite the fact that the very existence of their zoo claims the opposite. They also rarely acknowledge the fact that many of their animals were probably sources from the exotic pet trade.

Instead of blanket condoning the keeping of exotic pets altogether, they should say that exotic pets can be more difficult to care for and you should really think about if you are able to keep the species in question properly and legally before you consider adopting one.
Click to expand...

I feel as if it's a strategy to ensure that people do not consider adopting exotic animals at all. Although there is some irony in the Topeka Zoo saying something like that with their Tigers with their dreadful exhibit
 
Sphenisciologist said:
I think this is fair, but I believe that most zoos that say things like this come from a solid line of reasoning. It's important to keep in mind that zoo employees typically make up a large community of researchers, scientists, as well as trained and educated employees. In a zoological facility, everyone works together. The network system of zoos makes it so that all staff need to rely on the help of another and nobody is taking care of these exotic animals alone, whereas the case is more likely than not the opposite with an individual who is looking to randomly buy a monkey just because they can and they want to. Most of them probably do not know what they are getting into. I'm not saying all exotic buyers fit that description, but for a majority of them, it is likely true.

I believe the communal mindset of zoo staff often alienates the idea that people are capable of taking care of exotic animals alone (and exotic owners definitely get a bad wrap considering how popularized they are on TikTok now thanks to Tiger King and stuff), so they think something is wrong with housing an exotic pet on your own.

I personally would never have an exotic pet, but I understand the zoos reasoning and agree with your approach.
Click to expand...
I think another thing to keep in mind is that a zoo can usually be able to provide a home for the animal that meets its needs while a normal person on their own likely can’t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top