I'd kind of argue the same? I feel like Dallas definitely has A LOT of small enclosures with minimal areas for privacy (the dwarf caiman enclosure was horrendously small), but it is also quite cool how they utilize space, even though A LOT of the exhibits need expansion or work done. Fort Worth on the other hand should be considered a top US zoo, and is one of the best I've been too quite honestly. Once they get their Texas predators situation under control of course.
Honestly it depends on the species. I think belugas and bottlenose dolphins do fine in captivity but things like orcas, pilot whales and false killer whales should stay in the wild. There are quite a few animals that IMO can’t be held in captivity ethically.
Wild-animal and endangered species puritanism is not really a hot take amongst zoo nerds
) I'm not keen in keeping canines in small spaces/households unless taken outdoors/walking regularly.
: TES > PAWS
Wish I wrote my takes while this thread was trending but I now have the courage to share my takes which might not be too crazy aside from my non-zoo (still zoological specific) takes. So here I go in no specific order, please go easy on me!
Here are non-zoo but still zoological related hot takes which I feel are very controversial
- I actually like the C-Section exhibits at the LA Zoo= I find them pretty unique and like the structure. For sure I don't think animals such as most felines, medium-sized primates, and birds of prey feel suitable, but for smaller animals I think they can work. I personally like the ones with the Radiated Tortoises and those with small birds. And because of their size, some do try to look more naturalistic and I'm guessing they are slightly more easier to manage. Also if they want to phase out an animal, they can add another small species that might fit the bill (maybe some Pygmy Marmosets?). I also enjoy how majority of these is holding something different in each exhibit (A binturong on one exhibit and a hornbill at the other!). I also think it can be a showcase on how these exhibits were used during hard budgeting times. I of course think the fore-mentioned species I explained might not fit should be given their own bigger exhibits (especially the Sea Eagles!)
- I don't have much issue keeping any species in captivity (yes that includes cetaceans)= I feel like if an animal wasn't meant to be in captivity, then they wouldn't breed and died long ago. Obviously species like great white sharks, baleen whales, vaquita, sailfish, mountain gorillas, etc. have been proven impossible to keep in the long-run or breed. I believe that the husbandry for captive animals including the controversial ones such as elephants, cetaceans, great apes, bears and big cats have evolved allowing it possible to provide quality of life for these animals. If anything (I know hypocritically
- I support/enjoy SeaWorld (cold take I know!) BUT (this is a huge but!) I find their fish collection (excluding sharks and rays) somewhat lacking. I visit the San Diego park and maybe its just me living under a rock and missing areas during my visits. I do find their sea turtles, mammal and bird collection outstanding but as someone who enjoys looking at tropical and ornamental fish, I don't have luck seeing them there aside from Turtle Reef and Shark Encounter and I feel like as an aquarium (though I guess also the theme park combination takes the toll) they would have various tanks or exhibits of them. Hoping the park someday opens a Great Barrier Reef or Hawaiian ocean exhibit. If you want to see the more bigger and charismatic animals (penguins, marine mammals) I for sure go to SeaWorld, but if your interesting in tropical fish I'd visit the Birch Aquarium further ahead and even my local Aquarium of the Pacific @ Long Beach.
- I love the common Zoo animals= I know a lot of us are sick of meerkats, otters, lemurs, penguins, etc. But I can't lie, I find these animals enjoyable to watch. Obviously penguins are my favorite animals and I never get tired of them. I find fore-mentioned animals interesting (they tend to be active and give many memory and photography opportunities) and as my last hot take I do enjoy me some clownfish (or Nemos!) and blue tang (Dory!). Admittedly my appreciation for these animals might come from films such as Finding Nemo, Madagscar, and Lion King. Before ZooChat, I admit never really cared much about rarer animals such as asiatic ungulates or subspecies, but I nowadays appreciate a lot of wildlife and always on the lookout for rare species not seen in most zoos.
- I don't mind Pandas= I feel like pandas in this site have been somewhat controversial with the way they are acquired and tend to affect zoo finances and collections. But I don't blame people for enjoying pandas, they are charismatic and any panda fan deserves the opportunity to see pandas at their local zoo. I'm not too knowledgeable about the shady panda democracy but I mean we shouldn't want pandas ban when they are beloved by the general public especially when it can be a child's favorite animal.
- We should help poor zoos improve not strive to shut them down= Probably my most controversial take but I do believe depending on the staff and zoo's positive motivation, they deserve their support. I obviously don't qualify zoos only caring for quick profit or staff just in it for money but I do believe there are staff in these poor zoos that truly are dedicated and adore the animals they care for and these zoos are still attacked by activists. It is complex because of course the animals at these roadsides do deserve better quality, but unfortunately it is difficult for their zoo to provide and doesn't help they get a negative press by animal rights organization so donations and support can be scarce! I believe that before jumping into conclusions and thinking this zoo should be shut down, we should understand the zoo's situation and if they wish to improve help them at that.
Anyways that concludes this. I really wanted to share this with everyone. And I am sorry for this long post (especially the sanctuary one which I feel I might have not executed well and I apologize if I sound disrespectful), but I do want to hear your guys opinions on these takes! So please don't hesitate to share your thoughts!
- I don't mind exotic pet ownership and recently been more open to animal attractions such as circuses= This somewhat relates back to my previous take, I used to be against all circuses and animal attractions (stuff like elephant rides) basically thinking they were always physically abusive, but going through a pro-zoo blog I do agree and believe now that there are some circuses and animal attractions who do love their animals and provide adequate care for them, as long as the animal is not getting hurt and receiving positive reinforcement I see no problem (I recommend the video sent by @ZooApollo in this thread recently). As for exotic pet ownership, this is admittedly complicated. I and maybe most here are okay with birds, reptiles, and fish under human care not at zoos but oppose to owning wild cats, foxes, otters, primates, etc. If someone is able to provide the right care and environment for these exotics, I think they deserve to keep their animals that they're caring for. I know that is difficult to find someone with promising care (trust me I'm not keen of those mesh fence yards you see at "Tiger King" or BCR) and I personally prefer someone dedicating a room or area attempting to resemble a zoo exhibit that would be adequate for that animal (ex. a sand room for Fennec foxes with some rockwork and enrichment). And of course there is the ethnicity of obtaining these animals, I don't agree with stuff like removing infant animals right away from their mothers for those attach to their mothers at birth like chimps and big cats, but a rescue (orphan) can be an option but there is no animal adoption shelter for exotics like those. In general, if that individual has done their research, can afford veterinary care, create a suitable habitat, reduce stress, provide enrichment, and quality care for their animal/s, I don't think its problematic (I watch otter videos and they seem to be doing well and are provided various enrichment). There's also the issue with the animal as an individual, for example someone might call for a solo chimp, lemur, otter, fox, penguin, or elephant etc. to be sent to a sanctuary or zoo for they can be with their kind, but the thing is, those animals have more likely never seen another of their kind and would more likely struggle to integrate with others and instead seek comfort with their owners and their family and friends (ex. I disagree how TES kidnapped Nosey the elephant from her family, the only people she knew and is comfortable with)
- I find sanctuaries OVERRATED= this has to be my biggest controversial take but I stand by this. I blame the abundance of praise given by animal rights organizations such as PETA, The Whale Sanctuary Project, IDA, Voices For Animals, Born Free, etc. who have manipulated the public into believing this the only acceptable form of animal captivity. Oh no that's not it, people believe that animals are FREE in sanctuaries! Nope they are still in captivity. I find it unfair that people compare zoos to sanctuaries in terms of space, zoos are limited to the space they can provide (I'm sure they wish to create elephant exhibits like TES) due to their city government and the fact that unlike sanctuaries who tend to focus on just an handful of species, zoos need to consider space for various species of animals from terrestrial to some aquatic! Sanctuaries then follow the belief animals should not breed which is a natural behavior many animals favor, so bull elephants are deprived from mating and females can't experience motherhood. And sanctuaries like Big Cat Rescue have horrible exhibits that wouldn't fly at a AZA zoo. I wanted to write this because of the current situation with the LA Zoo elephants, already people are unhappy that Billy and Tina are heading to another Zoo because they want them at a sanctuary, I remind you that they were planning to be sent to Tulsa Zoo which opened a brand new and state of the art elephant exhibit! Even when Cincinnati built their new phenomenal elephant complex, people and IDA are b*tching because the elephants are not at a sanctuary! Anyways my blood boiled finding this at Google news tab "Free Billy and Tina! Los Angeles Zoo Elephants Deserve Sanctuary, Not Another Zoo" by World Animal News, these idiots are making it sound like Tulsa as this horrible place like what have they even see the new complex, do they know the shady stuff behind elephant sanctuaries?! And of course there is the false "FREE" aspect again, no the Billy and Tina won't be free at a sanctuary, they will perish. Elephant Sanctuaries like PAWS and TES have TB outbreaks (which I not only find unethical to the elephants but also the staff risking their lives, again this would not be acceptable at a AZA Zoo!). I know that TES is AZA accredited but I I do feel they still have their anti-zoo stance happily accepting collabing with zoos to snag up their elephants. I apologize for being stubborn here, I have not look to deep into TES (I do envy their elephant complex and sure they have improved) but we shouldn't forget their shady stuff and anti-zoo philosophy that admittedly might be toned down a bit since AZA accreditation. Then you have this douche (I think a director of PAWS) when they got Toronto's elephants saying they saved them from abuse, like wtf, the zoo staff absolutely acred for their elephants and had more experience than those that bozzo with them, so disgusting and beyond disrespectful to the zoo! In my opinion, space≠quality of life. Zoos do their best to care for their elephants, and are loved by keepers and staff who know them individually (most since birth) such as their likes and preferences, something sanctuaries tend to not acknowledge it seems. I am not saying sanctuaries should be ban, no, like zoos I do acknowledge there are good sanctuaries and TES has been warming up to me a bit (only hate bone rose over the f*cking LA controversy, I really don't want Billy and Tina to be sent to a sanctuary because it just fuels the false sanctuary being paradise and worse a big victory for activits) and I cannot deny that they to have staff dedicated to their animals. Sanctuaries like zoos are important, they act as homes for former pets, surplus, or elderly animals. I just wish that both zoos and sanctuaries were equally respected. I want sanctuaries too to be criticized. It is unfair that zoos get the most hate whereas sanctuaries are beloved and can get away with anything. I'm unsure what are people stances on sanctuaries are here on this site, so please share. I guess like it is like who some are not keen of SeaWorld, I'm not too keen of sanctuaries but still have respect to the good they do.
I agree on pretty much every point you make. Unfortunately, there are so many people out there who choose to always judge something before they visit. I always lived with the motto of, "Don't take anybody's word until you see it for yourself." I wish more people aligned with that view, and fortunately, it seems most ZooChatter's agree with that same statement.
I do & don't understand why people hate SeaWorld. Orcas are a very controversial topic among people, as well as the zoo community. I personally don't feel it's fully right to keep an animal that large in a tank a bit smaller than a football field, especially if it's "wrong" to keep Baleen Whales. But what I do know is that the care for those orcas, as well as all their cetaceans, is top-notch. But I do support dolphins in captivity, and I have never seen a dolphin pool that didn't give them a good quality of life, and that wasn't suitable for them. Nobody pays any attention, though, to the 30,000+ animals SeaWorld has rescued & rehabilitated.
At least I'm not the only one who thinks this as well. The zoos, as you said that are only for a profit, are probably not very good for the animals' well-being, but the ones that do care I would say are the majority of the ones that are targeted. Sometimes, things may not look as nice on the outside, but we are so quick to judge; we don't realize why these places may look "run down." Some of the zoos I've been to that were known to be "run down" just happened to be old, but the enclosures were suitable for their animals, and the animals all seemed happy. I've even had the chance to speak with some owners who were struggling with keeping up their facilities, but truly care about their animals.
Again, I completely agree with you. With Circuses, back 50 years ago, most circuses were probably using methods that I and probably most people would consider "cruel." And I agree that circuses that mistreat their animals need to be stopped, or have their ways changed. Now that Circuses with animals don't seem to exist much anymore, the ones that do, especially in the US, do care for their animals, and I have seen it firsthand, too. I spoke with a former circus & movie elephant trainer, who still owns an Asian Elephant to this day. I saw the way they worked with their elephant. and the bond they truly have. I'll also attach these helpful videos: This one about the training of elephants at Carson & Barnes Circus, and the Rosaire Circus family's training method, which I believe shows circuses that truly care.
Now, about Animal Experiences. Obviously, since this is a hot topic, it's not very well respected in the animal community, as well as some of the zoo community. I agree with you again on your point. Like I said before, animal training methods have changed drastically. Most animals either like the interaction with humans, or don't really care at all, and deal with it since they know a positive reward will head their way. The method of "breaking their spirit" has almost been abolished in most modern countries, and if any still use that method, it's quite a few people. Training now consists of what you said, positive reinforcement, as well as "negative" reinforcement, instead of punishment as done in the past. The animals I've seen at zoos & other facilities that offer encounters, all their animals seemed happy, and well cared for, from what I've seen. Elephant rides are also a controversial topic, but as I'll say in a bit, you can't judge all based on one. I went over the training differences, as now most animals are trained with positive reinforcement, but the other issue people have with riding is the elephants' spinal structure. I'm no vet, but first, elephants (of both species) have been ridden & tamed by humans for thousands of years. You could almost say they are domesticated, but that may be an overstatement. And if you look at a picture of an elephant, along with a horse's skeletal system, they are very similar. It's also not very common for elephants to develop back problems, and riding provides an enrichment and bonding experience for them, as well as the rider or mahout.
Exotic animal ownership is tricky, but I agree with your point. Somebody who doesn't know what they are doing around exotic wildlife should not own exotic wildlife. BUT, if you do know what to do, and if you can give the animal a good quality of life, you should be able to. Animals don't think like people, and they don't have the concept of "wild" or "freedom." Many animals do live longer and happier lives in captivity, and if you can give them that life, you should be able to.
You're not alone on this. I see absolutely no difference between a sanctuary and a zoo. They are rarely larger than zoo enclosures, except for maybe TES or TWAS. Even if they are larger, animals still mostly stick to one area of their enclosure. Contrary to what AR extremists say, zoo animals are also known to get the same amount of exercise as animals. The Oregon Zoo had done a study with their Asian Elephants, and they determined that they walked around the same number of miles as their wild cousins do. Sanctuaries in my opinion, are just glorified zoos, by AR extremists, and people who don't seem to truly know about the good zoos do.
A step ahead: At zoo, elephants are walking more than ever
April 9, 2018, 3:26 p.m.
Scientist uses 'elephant Fitbits' to monitor activity at state-of-the-art Elephant Lands
A local conservation biologist has confirmed what millions of Oregon Zoo visitors have already seen: Elephant Lands, the visionary new home for this community's beloved pachyderm family, has stepped up the game when it comes to elephant welfare.
"The elephants are taking more steps, in more places, than ever before," said Sharon Glaeser, an elephant researcher at Portland State University.
Over the past six years, the zoo's elephants have been logging their steps by wearing motion-measuring anklets. Like human Fitbits, but much more sturdy and robust, the anklets use GPS data loggers to tally the elephants' daily movement.
The anklets were originally part of national study measuring outdoor walking distances of 56 elephants in 30 different zoos. Conducted in 2012, and published in the scientific journal PLOS ONE, the study found that zoo elephants walked 3.2 miles per day on average, comparable to the daily distances covered by wild elephants. The Oregon Zoo's Sung-Surin was one of the study's participants, walking an average of 4.7 miles per day.
"At the time of that original study, the Oregon Zoo was still building Elephant Lands," Glaeser said. "So we wanted to continue the research and find out how things might have changed with the new habitat."
Elephant Lands, four times larger than the previous elephant area, opened in 2015, extending around most of the zoo's eastern border — a wide, hilly swath that runs from south of the zoo's central lawn northward almost to the veterinary medical center and Family Farm.
The new habitat was designed to promote activity and choice, with a variety of feeding methods that mimic the grazing habits of wild elephants: timed feeders, overhead feeders that prompt the elephants to stretch and sometimes climb on logs, and puzzles that require manipulation to acquire food. These snacking opportunities are spread throughout three outdoor habitats, so the elephants forage and explore for up to 16 hours a day.
The results of the latest walking study, while not surprising, were gratifying, Glaeser said. GPS mapping from the new habitat showed the elephants are walking farther than before, moving throughout the entire habitat and all around its 1.3-mile perimeter. Sung-Surin doubled her average from the previous study and now walks an average of 9.6 miles a day.
"They're actually walking even more than that," Glaeser said. "At Elephant Lands, they can choose to go indoors if they want, and the GPS units can only reliably measure the elephants' movement when they're outdoors."
Glaeser's Oregon Zoo work is part of a larger effort aimed at determining objective indicators of well-being for elephants both in zoos and in their native range countries.
The Oregon Zoo is recognized worldwide for its Asian elephant program, which has spanned more than 60 years. Considered highly endangered in their range countries, Asian elephants are threatened by habitat loss, conflict with humans and disease. It is estimated that just 40,000 to 50,000 elephants remain in fragmented populations from India to Borneo. The zoo supports a broad range of efforts to help wild elephants, and has established a $1 million endowment fund supporting Asian elephant conservation.
I guess I'll add my hot take as well. It's been discussed on this forum before, and it has a mix of opinions here on ZooChat. If there are any points I forget to explain, let me know as I'll explain it.
I believe free contact training is beneficial to an elephant's health and well-being. Free contact is a very controversial topic now in the elephant world, as well as in some of the zoo world. Yes, abuse can occur during free contact, but within the last 20-30 years, as free contact was being phased out for the most part, ways to make it humane and beneficial started to come around. One example is the Pittsburgh Zoo, which notably left the AZA over the free contact mandate, which I'll put my take on that later. A news report came out, with their African Elephant manager, Willie Theison. He realized that a change from the old ways of "brutality" and "force" needed to be changed more to a system of love, trust, and respect where the animal gets a choice too. A horse trainer was brought in to teach the "Parelli Method." One of the most common and humane ways to train a horse. The response from the elephants was so much better than when using the "cruel" methods of training.
Another key point is that elephants get much more enrichment and exercise in free contact. Most elephants can interact & bond more closely with their keepers, as well as explore more than their enclosure. For example, both the Indianapolis Zoo as well as the Oregon Zoo used to take their elephants on walks throughout the zoo. Probably the most important issue is the safety of the keepers. I noticed that the majority of attacks mostly come from poor training methods. If zoos require keepers to use a more positive method, it most likely will greatly lessen the attacks. Another way zoos can prevent attacks could be to determine each elephant's individual needs, and see which will benefit and enjoy a free contact setting the most, and which won't. Just to clarify, these are just ideas of mine, and I am no expert in the elephant field. I also have no problem with protected contact. It is relatively safer and provides elephants who may be either too dangerous or may not enjoy a free contact setting, with a chance of enrichment as well as an opportunity to bond with their keepers. My only issue comes with abolishing free contact altogether. I don't agree with what the AZA has done, since many elephants relied and thrived on free contact, and suddenly, a switch had to be made. I do agree with how the WAZA is implementing its mandate. Even though it still is a mandate, it's giving zoos the chance to work with their elephants, and to get them comfortable with a different training setting, as well as giving zoos a chance to figure out ways to provide the same amount of enrichment as in a free contact setting. Last but not least comes the Bullhook. The Bullhook is supposed to be used as a guide to reinforce the behavior of an elephant. It is not meant to be used as a weapon or as a tool to force a behavior. Unfortunately, it's been commonly used that way, especially in the past. But now, I believe most places that currently use the bullhook use it properly. One example is Wuppertal Zoo. They explain how the Bullhook is supposed to be used and how, when used properly, it is a good training tool. There are also alternatives to the Bullhook, like when Perth Zoo formerly housed elephants, they used wooden canes, similar to the Bullhook, but not with any of the "points."
If free contact is done the correct way, to me, it's a great way to improve the well-being of an elephant.
There are plenty of good non-AZA zoos: Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center, Gulfarium Marine Park, Iguanaland, Metro Richmond Zoo, Natural Bridge Wildlife Ranch, Santa Ana Zoo, Sylvan Heights Bird Park, etc.
Just checked all of these and that is unreasonable awesome…
