Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

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...
This right here is why I find animal ambassadors irritating. It’s also another reason why I will just stand back and watch zoos get heckled by Animal Rights organizations when the low hanging fruit is dealt with.

NNM. said:
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.
Click to expand...
The thing is, responsible exotic pet owners do in fact exist. Many anti exotic pet people cannot or refuse to accept this. The reason why they are not as acknowledged is because the media only cares to pick the eccentric people to make a spectacle off of which ends up being material for Animal Rights organizations to utilize.
 
You might call this a ZooChat hot takes rather than a zoo one...

I don't ascribe to the notion that it's automatically desirable to go to as many facilities as possible, just to say you've been to XXX many facilities. There are some places I won't cross the street to go to, because I don't want to support them and give them money. It's not an AZA vs. non-AZA thing (I've been to some non-AZA collections I've enjoyed very much), and I can generally distinguish between a place that could have better facilities and enclosures if only they got the money, and places which absolutely do not care/are happy the way things are. If a place has animal welfare practices that I can't get behind, I want no part of them.

Yes, they may have some rare, obscure creature I want to see, or maybe I could convince myself that there's some educational value in seeing a very poorly run facility, but at the end of the day, such places are only in business because they get money, and paying to go (no matter your reasoning) only supports them. I try to do my research, but I've still paid a few admission prices in my life that I regretted.
 
I desperately want to love Busch Gardens, but the questionable ethics regarding the bizarre theme park-animal park mashup that it is really muddies the whole situation. It sucks because I genuinely really like most of the enclosures, but that almost doesn't matter when you consider where they are. I can see why roller coaster people would like it, I am not one of those people. And this is the only reason I can understand when people say they like it better than Disney's Animal Kingdom (although maybe I'm biased because DAK is my favorite zoological facility).

Also, there's the fact that it's attached to SeaWorld, and I've learned things about SeaWorld.
 
Aardwolf said:
You might call this a ZooChat hot takes rather than a zoo one...

I don't ascribe to the notion that it's automatically desirable to go to as many facilities as possible, just to say you've been to XXX many facilities. There are some places I won't cross the street to go to, because I don't want to support them and give them money. It's not an AZA vs. non-AZA thing (I've been to some non-AZA collections I've enjoyed very much), and I can generally distinguish between a place that could have better facilities and enclosures if only they got the money, and places which absolutely do not care/are happy the way things are. If a place has animal welfare practices that I can't get behind, I want no part of them.

Yes, they may have some rare, obscure creature I want to see, or maybe I could convince myself that there's some educational value in seeing a very poorly run facility, but at the end of the day, such places are only in business because they get money, and paying to go (no matter your reasoning) only supports them. I try to do my research, but I've still paid a few admission prices in my life that I regretted.
Click to expand...
I respect this mindset a lot, even if I don't necessarily share it. As long as you don't use it to shame others who have visited these types of facilities, as I have seen others do.
 
Aardwolf said:
You might call this a ZooChat hot takes rather than a zoo one...

I don't ascribe to the notion that it's automatically desirable to go to as many facilities as possible, just to say you've been to XXX many facilities. There are some places I won't cross the street to go to, because I don't want to support them and give them money. It's not an AZA vs. non-AZA thing (I've been to some non-AZA collections I've enjoyed very much), and I can generally distinguish between a place that could have better facilities and enclosures if only they got the money, and places which absolutely do not care/are happy the way things are. If a place has animal welfare practices that I can't get behind, I want no part of them.

Yes, they may have some rare, obscure creature I want to see, or maybe I could convince myself that there's some educational value in seeing a very poorly run facility, but at the end of the day, such places are only in business because they get money, and paying to go (no matter your reasoning) only supports them. I try to do my research, but I've still paid a few admission prices in my life that I regretted.
Click to expand...
1,000% agree. I've visited a *very* small number of roadside zoos and could never again. It's one thing for someone to visit a poorly documented facility that nobody really knows much about, but when I hear of zoochatters visiting roadside facilities that have been well documented on here for how awful they are, but say they go because they happen to have a particular rare species, I have to say that I lose some respect for them as a result.
 
Neil chace said:
1,000% agree. I've visited a *very* small number of roadside zoos and could never again. It's one thing for someone to visit a poorly documented facility that nobody really knows much about, but when I hear of zoochatters visiting roadside facilities that have been well documented on here for how awful they are, but say they go because they happen to have a particular rare species, I have to say that I lose some respect for them as a result.
Click to expand...
I was hemming and hawing about this one for a while, because on the one hand, I wouldn't want to police and tell other people how to enjoy their hobby. On the other hand, I sometimes feel like folks get so wrapped up in making their lists of how many places they've been or how many taxa they've seen, or what weird mixed species combo they've seen that it almost seems that they loose track of the fact that... these are real animals here. Actual, sentient creatures. Not movie props, or boxes to check on a list. I've spent part of my career working in places that I'm not terribly proud of, especially when I was breaking into zookeeping straight out of school. Your ticket and admission signify your approval of a place.
 
NNM. said:
I desperately want to love Busch Gardens, but the questionable ethics regarding the bizarre theme park-animal park mashup that it is really muddies the whole situation. It sucks because I genuinely really like most of the enclosures, but that almost doesn't matter when you consider where they are. I can see why roller coaster people would like it, I am not one of those people. And this is the only reason I can understand when people say they like it better than Disney's Animal Kingdom (although maybe I'm biased because DAK is my favorite zoological facility).

Also, there's the fact that it's attached to SeaWorld, and I've learned things about SeaWorld.
Click to expand...
You've commented more than once about your feelings about Busch and roller coasters. Have you considered the possibility that the rides aren't the stressor that you seem to think that they are? I can certainly understand why, at a glance, you might feel that they are - it seems obvious, loud noise, vicinity of wild animals, not a great combo, right? But are they actually bothered? Do they cause stress to the animals, do the animals react negatively to them, do they behave differently when the rides are or are not in operation? Is there a difference between animals that are long-term residents of the park, which could have become habituated to them, versus newcomers, for whom it would be novel stimulus?

A few years back, AZA started mandating that all zoos perform routine welfare assessments of all of the animals in their collections. The goal was to actual give us data to back up our answers to questions - there were a lot of assumptions being made about questions about animal care. "Is this enclosure large enough to meet the needs of the animals?" "Yes" "Ok... but what makes you say that? How do you KNOW?" From my experience at my facility, I've seen that these assessments have not only identified some problems in animal welfare that we didn't even realize were problems at the time, but some things that we'd assumed were causing stress or anxiety... weren't really issues at all.

As far as noises go (because one of the questions we ask is about the appropriateness of the sound environment), a take away I've noticed is that animals don't seem too bothered by noises if they are usual and predictable. Which makes sense to me - in Africa I've seen giraffes browsing literally at the perimeter of airports, unbothered by the take off and landing of jets. What does bother animals is things that are irregular and unexpected. I would suspect you'd find more stress caused by, say, a loud evening special event that happens once a year versus a roller coaster, which the animals would come to regard as background noise.

For the record, not a roller coaster enthusiast.
 
Aardwolf said:
You might call this a ZooChat hot takes rather than a zoo one...

I don't ascribe to the notion that it's automatically desirable to go to as many facilities as possible, just to say you've been to XXX many facilities. There are some places I won't cross the street to go to, because I don't want to support them and give them money. It's not an AZA vs. non-AZA thing (I've been to some non-AZA collections I've enjoyed very much), and I can generally distinguish between a place that could have better facilities and enclosures if only they got the money, and places which absolutely do not care/are happy the way things are. If a place has animal welfare practices that I can't get behind, I want no part of them.

Yes, they may have some rare, obscure creature I want to see, or maybe I could convince myself that there's some educational value in seeing a very poorly run facility, but at the end of the day, such places are only in business because they get money, and paying to go (no matter your reasoning) only supports them. I try to do my research, but I've still paid a few admission prices in my life that I regretted.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more about this statement. Also like you said about non-AZA zoos you enjoyed, there have been some AZA zoos I have been to that weren't the greatest of zoos and for some bad exhibits, I thought "How in the world is this place AZA-accredited with a terrible exhibit like this for *animal species*?".
 
Neil chace said:
1,000% agree. I've visited a *very* small number of roadside zoos and could never again. It's one thing for someone to visit a poorly documented facility that nobody really knows much about, but when I hear of zoochatters visiting roadside facilities that have been well documented on here for how awful they are, but say they go because they happen to have a particular rare species, I have to say that I lose some respect for them as a result.
Click to expand...
Even if it is done for the sake of recording, it’s tough to not feel any regret after visiting places that are best described as “stinky doo doo”. I remember feeling irritated and sick when I went to Karatay Zoo, Park of Istanbul, and Aslan Park. I really did feel like my profile pic after those visits, except with a frown filled with blues instead of a sinister vampiric grin.
 
Moebelle said:
To me, this makes it sound like you know some exclusive information that the rest of don't? Care to share?
Click to expand...
Oh, no. That's not what I meant. I was just referring to what is already known. I didn't mean to mislead you.
 
Aardwolf said:
You might call this a ZooChat hot takes rather than a zoo one...

I don't ascribe to the notion that it's automatically desirable to go to as many facilities as possible, just to say you've been to XXX many facilities. There are some places I won't cross the street to go to, because I don't want to support them and give them money. It's not an AZA vs. non-AZA thing (I've been to some non-AZA collections I've enjoyed very much), and I can generally distinguish between a place that could have better facilities and enclosures if only they got the money, and places which absolutely do not care/are happy the way things are. If a place has animal welfare practices that I can't get behind, I want no part of them.

Yes, they may have some rare, obscure creature I want to see, or maybe I could convince myself that there's some educational value in seeing a very poorly run facility, but at the end of the day, such places are only in business because they get money, and paying to go (no matter your reasoning) only supports them. I try to do my research, but I've still paid a few admission prices in my life that I regretted.
Click to expand...
Aardwolf said:
I was hemming and hawing about this one for a while, because on the one hand, I wouldn't want to police and tell other people how to enjoy their hobby. On the other hand, I sometimes feel like folks get so wrapped up in making their lists of how many places they've been or how many taxa they've seen, or what weird mixed species combo they've seen that it almost seems that they loose track of the fact that... these are real animals here. Actual, sentient creatures. Not movie props, or boxes to check on a list. I've spent part of my career working in places that I'm not terribly proud of, especially when I was breaking into zookeeping straight out of school. Your ticket and admission signify your approval of a place.
Click to expand...
This is certainly a ZooChat hot take, and it is one that I share! This is something that I have discussed with friends that share this hobby and frequent this site as well, and I could not agree more with your points -- especially as someone who works in the industry. I have been to 67 zoological facilities across 15 states and South Africa in my lifetime, and I would have likely had the opportunity to visit at least a dozen more (especially while living in Texas), but I cannot bring myself to visit just any facility for a couple of new species or to add another institution to my life list. I cannot consciously, monetarily support organizations I do not believe are providing the proper welfare to the best of their abilities for their animals, or are not acting with the interest of the animals at heart when that is exactly what I have dedicated my life to do. I have visited a number of poorer zoos over the years, but it is so often evident that these facilities are doing the best with what they have for their animals (Baton Rouge, Hattiesburg, Orange County, etc.), but there is a difference between not being able to provide more for their animals and actively not prioritizing it. I have broken this moral code only twice - once to visit a former animal I cared for that moved to Aggieland Safari and once to see the enigma that is Wildlife World Zoo, Aquarium, and Safari for myself, and both times I regretted it. I would not revisit either facility. Sure, it was nice to see one of my old animals again, and it was incredible to see a herd of beisa oryx for the first time, but at the end of the day, neither of those things counteracted the fact that both facilities have the ability to provide better for their animals and are not doing so.

I also would not want to police how others enjoy their hobby (or "yuck" someone else's "yum", as the youth might say :p), as is why I do not tend to share opinions such as these, publicly; however, my friends and I have also discussed at length that it does appear that a line can sometimes be crossed, where the genuine appreciation for the animal kingdom and its diversity and of the great variety of zoological collections that exist in our world is lost in a competition to see the most, no matter the cost. Where these very much living things are now looked on upon as nothing more names to cross of a list... And that can be disheartening to someone who has dedicated their life and sacrificed so much to care for these creatures.
 
Last edited:
NNM. said:
I desperately want to love Busch Gardens, but the questionable ethics regarding the bizarre theme park-animal park mashup that it is really muddies the whole situation. It sucks because I genuinely really like most of the enclosures, but that almost doesn't matter when you consider where they are. I can see why roller coaster people would like it, I am not one of those people. And this is the only reason I can understand when people say they like it better than Disney's Animal Kingdom (although maybe I'm biased because DAK is my favorite zoological facility).

Also, there's the fact that it's attached to SeaWorld, and I've learned things about SeaWorld.
Click to expand...
Yeah but to be honest, I really have to agree with @Aardwolf on this one and will add some information about my opinions on Busch Gardens Tampa being a zoo-amusement park hybrid place. First off, it is safe to say that the noise of the rides do NOT cause much, if not any stress to. any to the animals. Seeing how there has never been much controversy over how the animals feel, they seem to be just fine, and as he states in the post, all the animals expect and are used to the noise and aren't really that harmed by it. And if animals that have lived there for multiple decades with no health problems, then they clearly must not mind the noise. Sure maybe when they first arrive, new animals may feel a little sensitive by the sound, but after maybe a few weeks or so, then they will get used to it and accept the loud noise. I also think that if they closed all of the theme park rides, then the animals (particularly the ones who have been there the longest) would feel very confused and that can possibly cause stress for them. Also, Busch Gardens is literally themed around roller coasters and other amusement rides, many of which are dedicated to the animals the park keeps. For the reasons for visiting I (and probably most ZooChatters) are there specifically for the animals and not the rides, but for some other people, it is the other way around and the vast majority of people visit Busch Gardens for both of them. If you ask me, I really think it is an amazing privilege to basically get two neat and very different experiences combined into one at the exact same place. For someone who loves amusement parks AND zoos, visiting BGT would probably make it one of the best days of their life. I personally don't like roller coasters, but that doesn't change the fact that so many people do like them. Now for the park essentially being two places, most of the animals are on the east side of the park and most of the roller coasters are on the west side (based off of looking at the park map), so it is almost like they are separate. Overall, I will say that Busch Gardens being a zoo-amusement park hybrid place is actually a good thing and is a fun experience for many.
 
NNM. said:
I desperately want to love Busch Gardens, but the questionable ethics regarding the bizarre theme park-animal park mashup that it is really muddies the whole situation. It sucks because I genuinely really like most of the enclosures, but that almost doesn't matter when you consider where they are. I can see why roller coaster people would like it, I am not one of those people. And this is the only reason I can understand when people say they like it better than Disney's Animal Kingdom (although maybe I'm biased because DAK is my favorite zoological facility).

Also, there's the fact that it's attached to SeaWorld, and I've learned things about SeaWorld.
Click to expand...

Aardwolf said:
You've commented more than once about your feelings about Busch and roller coasters. Have you considered the possibility that the rides aren't the stressor that you seem to think that they are? I can certainly understand why, at a glance, you might feel that they are - it seems obvious, loud noise, vicinity of wild animals, not a great combo, right? But are they actually bothered? Do they cause stress to the animals, do the animals react negatively to them, do they behave differently when the rides are or are not in operation? Is there a difference between animals that are long-term residents of the park, which could have become habituated to them, versus newcomers, for whom it would be novel stimulus?

A few years back, AZA started mandating that all zoos perform routine welfare assessments of all of the animals in their collections. The goal was to actual give us data to back up our answers to questions - there were a lot of assumptions being made about questions about animal care. "Is this enclosure large enough to meet the needs of the animals?" "Yes" "Ok... but what makes you say that? How do you KNOW?" From my experience at my facility, I've seen that these assessments have not only identified some problems in animal welfare that we didn't even realize were problems at the time, but some things that we'd assumed were causing stress or anxiety... weren't really issues at all.

As far as noises go (because one of the questions we ask is about the appropriateness of the sound environment), a take away I've noticed is that animals don't seem too bothered by noises if they are usual and predictable. Which makes sense to me - in Africa I've seen giraffes browsing literally at the perimeter of airports, unbothered by the take off and landing of jets. What does bother animals is things that are irregular and unexpected. I would suspect you'd find more stress caused by, say, a loud evening special event that happens once a year versus a roller coaster, which the animals would come to regard as background noise.

For the record, not a roller coaster enthusiast.
Click to expand...

Nile Hippo Expert said:
Yeah but to be honest, I really have to agree with @Aardwolf on this one and will add some information about my opinions on Busch Gardens Tampa being a zoo-amusement park hybrid place. First off, it is safe to say that the noise of the rides do NOT cause much, if not any stress to. any to the animals. Seeing how there has never been much controversy over how the animals feel, they seem to be just fine, and as he states in the post, all the animals expect and are used to the noise and aren't really that harmed by it. And if animals that have lived there for multiple decades with no health problems, then they clearly must not mind the noise. Sure maybe when they first arrive, new animals may feel a little sensitive by the sound, but after maybe a few weeks or so, then they will get used to it and accept the loud noise. I also think that if they closed all of the theme park rides, then the animals (particularly the ones who have been there the longest) would feel very confused and that can possibly cause stress for them. Also, Busch Gardens is literally themed around roller coasters and other amusement rides, many of which are dedicated to the animals the park keeps. For the reasons for visiting I (and probably most ZooChatters) are there specifically for the animals and not the rides, but for some other people, it is the other way around and the vast majority of people visit Busch Gardens for both of them. If you ask me, I really think it is an amazing privilege to basically get two neat and very different experiences combined into one at the exact same place. For someone who loves amusement parks AND zoos, visiting BGT would probably make it one of the best days of their life. I personally don't like roller coasters, but that doesn't change the fact that so many people do like them. Now for the park essentially being two places, most of the animals are on the east side of the park and most of the roller coasters are on the west side (based off of looking at the park map), so it is almost like they are separate. Overall, I will say that Busch Gardens being a zoo-amusement park hybrid place is actually a good thing and is a fun experience for many.
Click to expand...

To add onto this, it's a phenomena in animal behavior we'd call habituation, where overtime an animal gets used to a stimuli to the point they ignore it. It's the same principle behind something like whitenoise- as since it's a constant noise you habituate to it to the point it isn't even noticeable, same process occurs in non-human animals too. Likewise, anyone who has ever lived in a city/near traffic can likely attest to habituating to that noise, to the point it no longer is noticeable despite it being omnipresent.
 
Aardwolf said:
You might call this a ZooChat hot takes rather than a zoo one...
Click to expand...
Kudu21 said:
This is certainly a ZooChat hot take, and it is one that I share!
Click to expand...
I don't know if it really is a "Zoochat hot take" - of these two quotes, Aardwolf's post currently has 18 likes and Kudu21's has 11 likes, so it seems it is quite a popular take.

I think there might be a bit of an American side to the general thought behind it being a "hot take", because of how many awful zoos there are in the USA (whereas a European could probably visit hundreds of zoos without any of them being like American roadside zoos). Even the posts themselves were specifying AZA and non-AZA zoos. I know that if I was visiting the USA I wouldn't be going to all that many zoos - even some of the AZA zoos look pretty depressing. A third-world zoo in a first-world country is not enticing.


Neil chace said:
...when I hear of zoochatters visiting roadside facilities that have been well documented on here for how awful they are, but say they go because they happen to have a particular rare species, I have to say that I lose some respect for them as a result.
Click to expand...
In a similar vein I am baffled when people actively choose to visit collections known to be involved in smuggling. There are places I wouldn't set foot in because I actually care about conservation, but for some people the "need" to see some rare smuggled species over-rides anything else.
 
Chlidonias said:
In a similar vein I am baffled when people actively choose to visit collections known to be involved in smuggling. There are places I wouldn't set foot in because I actually care about conservation, but for some people the "need" to see some rare smuggled species over-rides anything else.
Click to expand...

Just curious, what are the major facilities that are known to be involved in smuggling?
 
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...

You would be forgiven for thinking The Loft is minimalistic.
I think there is something to be said about presenting zoo animals (ie servals, sloths) to the public in a pet-like manner, too.

But be prepared to say goodbye forever to feeding lorikeets, stingray petting pools, etc. or even butterfly houses if you really feel that way about ambassador animals: that is what ambassador animals' jobs are.
 
Chlidonias said:
I don't know if it really is a "Zoochat hot take" - of these two quotes, Aardwolf's post currently has 18 likes and Kudu21's has 11 likes, so it seems it is quite a popular take.

I think there might be a bit of an American side to the general thought behind it being a "hot take", because of how many awful zoos there are in the USA (whereas a European could probably visit hundreds of zoos without any of them being like American roadside zoos). Even the posts themselves were specifying AZA and non-AZA zoos. I know that if I was visiting the USA I wouldn't be going to all that many zoos - even some of the AZA zoos look pretty depressing. A third-world zoo in a first-world country is not enticing.
Click to expand...
It's not a "hot take" for an American either. I would certainly say the individuals who maintain species counts and facility counts on the level being referred to seem exceptional to me in my experience here. I can only think of a couple people who sing praise for Wildlife World Zoo on this board (example as it is one of the facilities explicitly referenced) and I don't think most awful facilities are scoring any better.

I'll say when I was planning my UK visit, one of the individuals who kindly offered me advice did explicitly compare a facility there discussed to American roadsides, which caught me off-guard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top