Species you oppose to the holding off

14-01-2008

@Xerxes: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you say in your first post that you are against keeping apes in zoos, because you can't find an interest in them, and because they are to "human". Why should that be a reason not to keep them? I may have misunderstood what you meant though, so could you please explain?

__________________
I am Toddy, the zoo-enthusiast from Denmark!
Different zoos visited: 77
Favourite animals: Aardvarks and manatees.
Website: www.zoos.dk

14-01-2008

The non-interest is not actually a reason ; I was only seeing - I should have been clearer, maybe - that I indeed don't mind them much and sometimes find them a waste of space.
Of course, it's not a reason for them not to be kept.

About them being human. They're definately highly intelligent and close relatives to us; I've seen much abnormal social and other behaviour in different ape species.
I've seen some very good groups and behaviours and exhibits too, but still.
But the fact they are so close to us, makes me feel uncomfortable about seeing them in a zoo.
Their behaviour is highly complex and very interesting, but still I have a double feeling over seeing them in captivity.

My major problem is these apes need massive spaces and a massive amount of enrichment in order to keep them somewhat good.
I have by the years grown into doubt it's actually possible to keep them adequatly.

Maybe it's emotion more then reason, or personal negative experience more than serious thinking.

Is this enough ?

14-01-2008

just read your first post Xerxes. regarding the great apes you say that you have hardly watched a group for more than a few minutes. is this enough time to guage the adequacy of the enclosure and level of social cohesion within the group? in my opinion great apes are ideal candidates for captivity, given the right conditions. their status in the wild underpins the importance of what are, for all 4 species highly succesful international programs.
im also all for rhinos being in captivity. here in Australian zoos we have 3 species, and the standards of the exhibits for all 3 species are exceptional across the region. once again, global breeding programs are becoming more and more succesful with the rhino species and rhinos as a whole benefit from insurance programs. they are also a group of animals which could be reintroduced from zoo breeding programs in the future or at least benifit immensely from the assisted reproduction work zoos are conducting.
when it comes to elephants i think there is ALOT of room for optimism. in North America the African Elephant SSP is reaching its targets and despite the setbacks the Asian Elephant program is improving. A vigoruos roll out of enclosure redevlopments, constantly revised husbandary and other strategy's including retirement sanctuaries should see the SSP in that region executed sustainably long term. again, I have no problem with elephants being kept 'well' by zoos. in Europe much has been made of recent Asian Elephant births. German, Dutch, UK and Irish zoos all experiencing success of late. these represent big and quick steps towards a better future for this species. considering just a few years ago the IZN reported this species risked zoo extinction its a positive reversal. hopefully soon the Australasian zoo community will add to the international network of zoos keeping elephants well and breeding them.
when it comes to whales and dolphins in captivity my opinions are a little mixed. in the case of Sea World on the Gold Coast, Australia, where third generation calves are being born, i think keeping dolphins is ok. but in general marine parks, particularly those close to the coastline should do more to provide these animals with better environemnts, ie mesh sided exhibits and sea walls jutting out to create enclosures within the sea. in Western Australia such a facility was in place for dolphins at an aquarium called AQWA and i cant help but feel it was a good idea.
bears................there is plenty of scope for improvement with bears but as a whole this is one group of animals which pretty much need zoo help. i have never seen a bear pit, and imagine it wouldnt be too good, but I must say that here in Australia most of the zoo bear exhibits are of a good standard. there have been problems with stereotypic behaviours in the Sun Bears at some zoos but this is probably a reflection of their 'rescue origins' more than any fault in enclosure design. Polar Shores in Queensland, the Sun Bear exhibit at Perth and Kodiak Bear Canyon of Taronga Zoo are all good exhibits. in Europe good bear exhibit include Rome Zoo and Emmen. there are probably many more. the situation where bears are kept socially seems to afflict brown bears particularly. I cant help but think this is a reflection of the early stages of the EEP/ management strategy for this species combined with their longeivity and of course the cost to upgrade bear exhibits. perhaps in the future these issues will be ironed out.
finally, birds of prey. i cannot see a problem with birds of prey in captivity. in some cases zoo breeding programs have, as pointed out, saved species. having worked for a week behind the scenes in Sydney with the bird department which conducts the presentations I can tell you that there at least the raptors are not tethered and instead live off show in very large aviaires. they are trained by positive reinforcement, their weight monitored twice a day. they are well cared for, breed well and do well.
so overall i do disagree with your list. sorry, but i just think that as Western zoos improve exhibits, link CBP with in-situ conservation strategies etc these species have a place in GOOD zoos.

14-01-2008

I said I rarely watch great apes for a long time. I usually do not have the time when at the zoo ; usually these exhibits are also overcrowded, and if I hate one thing, it's busy and overcrowded viewing areas.
On topic ; I usually pay more attention to the exhibits then to the apes themselves. I may have so far been a bit neglectant about them, that's true.
I have seen enough exhibits for them and I believe I have seen some good ones and some bad ones. I spent enough time to judge these.
Considering the groups : I've clearly seen very unusual behaviour, including getting into contact with visitors and such. That's my biggest problem : the simplicity of them getting into close contact. Many zoos happily forbid this contact or prevent it from happening.
I've also read a few ethological studies about primates in capitvity and the wild.
This convinces me their social behaviour and intelligence might be to complex and elevated to provide them a suitable environment.
I'm aware of the state of primates in the wild ; which might underline the need for captive breeding, however I believe always in-situ research and protection is needed in the first place.
Breeding for all for is usually quite easily done (as in ,in some here they've had to give their apes birth control) ; maybe captive breeding is an option.
I was gesturing to the fact that many groups may have unnatural numbers or gender-ratio's. Not a problem an sich, but it may become.
I was gesturing more to the lack of space ,climbing structures and enrichment in many exhibits I've seen.
Look, I'm - besides cetaceans - not very much really against the keeping of certain species. I'm only tired of seeing these species being kept in environments that are not suitable.

I understand the argument of the breeding programs, but their use is often debated, sadly. I do believe in the use of breeding programs.
I've seen high standard exhibits as well for rhinos.
I understand the need of breeding ; maybe I choose a wrong title. Some of these species I am against, others I have some troubles or second thoughts with.
But my greatest complaint is many still do not understand everything about keeping them. It disturbs me often stables are far too small; many zoos that have for example the indian - solitary - species do not have acceptable seperation pens or multiple exhibits.
Also, often the solitary ones are kept together. I've only seen the white rhino besides that; I believe this species is acceptable and doing pretty well.
Considering rhinos, I think they're a species that can be continued to be kept; just a few major changes are needed.

I think there is some room for optimism when it comes to elephants, but my main thought is that a lot of change and thinkin is necessary.
Vigorous rethinking of exhibiting ,care and breeding are very much necessary, as well as more studies on actually what elephants need in captivity and wether they are suitable is needed.
It comes to be that I remember how dangerous they are. Look, in fact protected handling or hands-on is needed in elephants to provide health monitoring and care. This is also a very dangerous job; keepers are still getting killed by elephants on an all to regular basis.
I'm not sure, but I think that if a species is a danger to keepers, some serious considering is needed.
I'm not saying they cannot be kept well. I've seen a few pretty good enclosure, e.g. for african elephant in Hilvarenbeek and Wuppertal and for asian elephant a huge and very well made enclosure at Emmen.
My great complaints are the inner housing (which is necessary in many areas) and the lack of space in almost any elephant exhibit.
I'm rather unsure whether it's possible for many zoos to provide them the space and care they need.
Some are doing an excellent job though ,Emmen and Keulen for instance.
I heard about the breeding - I've seen some of the babies myself.
They have made big steps, though breeding still is not going easy. There's still too much stillbirths and deaths of young.
also far too common are deaths of adult elephants, which I believe to be partially due to inadequate keeping or care.
Big steps have been made already, but I'm convinced more steps are needed.
It's not for nothing some are aiming for elephant-free zoos. They do not exactly thrive in captvity so far (or at least, that's my thought).
I believe a positive reversal in elephant keeping is possible, but there's a long way to go.
And even then, I still have some issues with them, e.g. the fact they even in large exhibits sometimes still show stereotypes (I've seen it) and are animals in great need of space and movement.
I believe some zoos can do it well, but some others better do not continue elephant keeping.
I'm not saying all should get rid of elephants, but some zoos should.

I remember seeing a nice marine park years ago. it was dolfinarium Harderwijk in the Netherlands, I'm sure.
They've got I think about 30 dolphins these days ; some are kept in a large laguna and are thriving.
At that time ,I might myself think it's oké. But then, I can only accept it that way.
Look, I'm not keen on these dolphin shows. I don't like to see these animals do unnatural tricks to get a public cheering and having fun.
Almost always ,these animals are in barren, concrete and glass bassins. I've only seen a few dolphin exhibits so far, but I've read some reports and some websites indicating it might not at all be a good idea.
Many dolphin babies die and many adults die to early.
In some facilities, the dolphins are stressed out and pushed to the limit.
Dolphins don't exactly thrive in most facilities. I think that if being kept, it would not be right or doing them well to keep them in these show exhibits.
Look ,I'd love to visit Harderwijk again, as I loved the lake back then.
But the shows with dolphins in another facility disturb me, so I'm not going there (it's too expensive anyways).
I do not feel right about the keeping of dolphins in barren enclosures (plus, some say their sonars and echolocation might cause them great troubles in these enclosures).
If kept in the future ,they should be in facilities like the one at Harderwijk. The shows that are nowadays the use, I believe do not have a very high educative or other value but mere amusement and money-catching.
If kept in the future, dolphin keeping should have some rigorous re-considering.
I'd rather see cetaceans phased out. Especially orcas. This is a species that just does not belong in captivity. Maybe dolphins can be made something of, but I'm still against.

I've seen some great bear exhibits. I do not like the one in Emmen too much, but I love the ones at Ouwehands (bear forest, rescueing of bears as well) and Zoom Erlebniswelt.
Huge spaces giving the bears the opportunity to roam free in a natural environment and to display their behaviour to the best possibility.
Look ,the main thing is bears are great migrators and need large spaces in order not to start walking around stereotypically. I've even seen this in large spaces.
The bear pits are these days happily dissapearing in most facilities (for instance, I only know of a few in western europe still having them and have only seen a small amount of bear pits over the last 5 years).
The main issue is that breeding is not working out. In polar bears, some births in recent years have convinced me this species to be a species for the future.
I don't have the same feeling about brown bears.
I still think the husbandry is a problem ,especially in brown bears, as I don't have even a single account of them breeding in recent years.
Maybe I've missed it.
Look ,bear keeping has still got many issues that need to be solved.
If this can be done, I think they have a future in zoos. But I'm unsure.

Look, if programs save species, than nothing against. My own local zoo breeds Eurasian black vultures (a wonderfull animal ,by the way) and have already released at least 5 and probably more in I believe the Cevenne in France, where they seem to so far have survived.
I'm not very well up with the news though, and not much about it is being released.
I haven't said I'm having problem with the keeping an sich. I must say maybe I should have made the title "having seconds thoughts on..." or "having problems with...". I have problems with any species being kept in inadequate housing. All too often, raptors are still.
Maybe falconry is better where you live; I've seen the tethering ,chaining and more in different facilities. However, I've also seen some great facilities.
What surprises me as well, is how these trainers take care of these birds.
They are certainly very much involved with the birds. And I do not mean this in a bad way.
Look, I'm not a falconer, so I'm unknowing on the methods of training in raptors. I've seen some people caring a lot and threating them well, but I've also seen different things.
I think the presentation ought to get some rigorous revisitation. As to letting the birds fly low over the public ,sit on people's heads ,handlers between the public and such, I think these ought to dissapear from the presentations.
If kept further, they should be based on natural behaviour and be educative.
I've seen a few very good tries already.
I know it's possible to establish a future for many raptors in zoos.
Just, some are still troubling me. Maybe's it's emotion in some.

You are obviously allowed to disagree, and no need to be sorry.
I agree to a great hight that improvement , in-situ conservation ,CBP and more are needed and usefull.
I am only convinced a lot more change is needed in zoos and in their relation to public and outside world.
There still is far too much too criticize. But good zoos do exist, even with species on my list. I mean, my favourite has most of them besides elephants and cetaceans.
I believe most species can have a place, other than cetaceans. But this needs a lot of work.

14-01-2008

@Xerxes: "Rude"? "Personal"? Eh? Certainly not; I just impressed the personal (sic!) opinion You asked for. And Newzooboy is totally correct: why ask for our opinions on this controversial subject in the first place if You're afraid of a discussion and don't like the answers given?
Maybe You went out on a limb, mate...

Judging from Your posts, You'd be happy if all the charismatic megafauna and other popular species disappeared from zoos. Oh my, what a bare zoo world that would be!

14-01-2008

Oké ,I'm sorry.
I never said I don't like the answer given or that I'm afraid of discussion. That's merely interpretation.
I just did not like the way you were speaking, as to me it came over to be rude and personal. I might not have been intented that way.
Maybe I do went out on a limb. I have been wrong, and my apologies.
I will now - Iwon't have a choice - discuss if needed, but I won't go beyond what I consider a reasonable border.
Debate is not beyond.

Look, I like the smaller, rare and less popular species more. I spent most time watching birds ,antelopes ,and such. I also like reptiles (well, not snakes, but the rest I do) a great lot.
I have never said I actually want these species to dissapear.
I do want some to dissapear. This species are cetaceans and no others. The others can be continued to be kept.
The fact that I generally don't like the charismatic mega fauna much ,doesn't mean I want rid of them.
That wouldn't be a good idea if I wanted to ensure the future of zoos, would it.
Besides that ,I don't believe a zoo without these animals would be 'bare'.
I've seen zoos without any of the big species, that still were very interesting and that I liked.

14-01-2008

Actually, with apes being so human-like, I am not sure if being in the rain forest is better to them. Humans prefer urban life to that of hunter-gatherer.

Chimpanzees at least learn and like many conveniences of civilized life. Refrigerator, TV set and all. Several decades ago, circus chimps were brought to Africa and shown a forest to re-wild them. Chimps hated it.

14-01-2008

I know. Many animals that have gotten used to captivity do not like the wild anymore or can no longer survive.

Isn't this a form of domestication, I wonder, or is it a form of adaptation by these animals ?
I do not know.

Btw, I'm not sure - and cannot know - if apes like to watched all day. I'm not very comfortable on learning them to use what we humans use.
If kept, they should at least be in an environment as natural as possible.
Including trees ,that means.

15-01-2008

I disapprove the "special treatment" demanded for cetaceans. A bottlenose dolphin deserves the same proper, species-adequate husbandry as a Berber toad, a Walking Leaf or a Green Jay-but it certainly doesn't deserve privileges due to personal favouritism, no matter how much the New Age Wave has tried to portray dolphins as the always smiling "Ãœber"-creatures.
There are many of the cetaceans that can't, shouldn't and won't be kept in captivity, as it would be technologically impossible and way too expensive to do so-like in the case of the baleen whales (think of JJ), the sperm whale, Beaked whales etc. There are cetacean species that don't do well in captivity due to various, sometimes unknown reasons; there are species that could be kept but there are indications that the current husbandry isn't optimal and probably won't be in the future (fins of male orcas), making it questionable whether to keep on keeping them is OK or not; and then there are species that seem to do pretty fine in human captivity, like f.e. Commerson's dolphins, beluga and the ever-popular bottlenose dolphins. Is it therefore that easy to generalize and forbid keeping all of them due to rather ambiguous, mainly emotional reasons? What if I wake up next morning, saying: "I can't stand the thought of koalas kept in a zoo! They have all to disappear magically! And presto-gone they are"-would that make any sense? Certainly not; it depends on the individual case. While the husbandry of Orcas in "exhibitionistic" husbandries like in SW or the Loro Parque or dolphin shows in hotel complexes and amusement parks surely aren't something many zoo fans can relate to easily, the husbandry of dolphins at Harderwijk f.e. doesn't seem to trigger many negative feelings; like I said, it depends on the individual case, species & circumstances.
Frankly, I think that some cetaceans do qualify for professional animal husbandry and that some highly endangered species could benefit from projects in "Harderwijk style", like the vaquita or various river dolphins. Additionally, I also think that the knowledge derived from the experiences in captivity can be useful in helping wild populations; think f.e. in terms of veterinary knowledge (where to take blood from, common diseases, medication, dose etc.). And the "ambassador" role of the captive cetaceans on people should not be neglected, either. However, this doesn't mean that current husbandry conditions should not be optimized if needed-but this is also true for ALL species kept in human custody. Just wishing them to disappear because one has a personal grudge or rather indifference torwards their husbandry, sometimes based on a lack of better knowledge of the subject, isn't a valid point and won't be taken seriously in the (pro) zoo world.

All in all: No special treatment for dolphins, apes, elephants etc.


Why didn't Brown Bears reproduce a lot in European collections during the last years? The answer is simple: decades before, the zoos had way too many cubs and didn't know where to put them-which resulted in quite strong pulic reactions (see Leipzig Bear "funeral"). Therefore, the zoos introduced birth control measurements and thus avoided unwanted pregnancies. Now the Brown Bears in European collections are dying off and are too old to reproduce...which will result in Brown Bears brought in from other countries or the replacement with other bear species (which wouldn't be a bad thing).
Apes + trees = escapes, hurt staff/visitors and frustrated zoo gardeners; a possible solution-see Seattle Zoo. A good exhibits offers animals the possibility to hide if needed-and half of the day (at night) nhardly anyone watches them, anyway.
Even You personally prefer small critters, @Xerxes-do You think that most visitors share this attitude? If so, why are they all flocking to the apes etc. and leave You marvelling at Your favourites in solitude? Why do the zoos not consist solely of the animals You prefer? And why not also let all snakes "disappear magically" as You stated not to like them either...? The answers to these and other similar questions can be found in various threads in this forum. Yet be told that You can't measure everything just based on Your personal point of view; sometimes, being objective can be way more helpful.

15-01-2008

"Natural" is category from human viewpoint and I don't like pushing your idea "where ape should be" on an ape.

Apes do like human conveniences. If they like it - let them do it.

BTW - it is perfectly possible to communicate with ape directly and figure out what even other animals want or don't want. You certainly don't need to assume that chimps don't like toys and blankets, gorillas like lush grass (they don't) etc.

15-01-2008

Well said, I agree to a great extent.
My thoughts are that so far even bottlenoses and others are not doing very well in captivity. Many young die ,many adults die to early. Lots of disease as well.
Not strangely, this occurs in the showbassins and the smaller bassins.
I haven't been in Harderwijk for at least 7 years ,and I'm not planning on going back, but I've spoken about it with a girl I know who is a dolphin freak; she told me how great the laguna is and how well the dolphins do.
Maybe I should reconsider. Sadly, it's not possible to house all dolphins in facilities this style.
Btw, considering Harderwijk: it does trigger negative reactions in the Netherlands from - well ,you know who.
I agree their keeping and husbrandy should be optimalized; maybe in that case, they have a future in zoos.
But I do not really believe in it.
Look, I don't think you want to hear some of my argumentation. I've read a lot on websites made by activists. Not that I am one or even like them.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
But I do agree on some points - this considers many species though.
The main argument is the bad state of health and husbandry in many dolphins and the short lifespan (which also does for orcas, btw).
This is a serious point. I am not wishing to dissapear, but if it cannot be done to improve this points to a high extent and to stop using them in shows, I'm afraid they better do dissapear.

Look, Sun ,I do not want to get into a long time conflict with you, but things like these are, even if meant constructive, in my opinion not very helping towards a discussion.
There is a thin line between criticizing and offending (which you are not crossing though).
I know very well I shouldn't have named some species maybe, I'm not that knowledgable on all.
I do have studied the keeping and husbrandry of some, which so far in the case of cetaceans supported my believe they shouldn't be kept.
Look, I'm not ,and I'll say it again, a great liker of the popular species. It's a grudge, I know. I'm not indifferent though. If I was, would I enjoy watching lion and tiger cubs ,baby elephants and more?
Look, again. Maybe opposition to the keeping is a strong word. I just have very strong second thoughts on it. I will keep on criticizing what I do not like.
I've seen very good things for almost any species.
I know my point hasn't been made valid or argumented. You've made it all to clear, and it doesn't need to be said all over again.
There is a line between debating and getting personal.
Look, I'm only just here; I do not want conflicts with members as of yet.

Depends on what you mean... every speciesn needs a special treatment matching up to the specific needs.
Could you elaborate on the term 'special treatment'?

Well, I cannot speak about decades ago, as I'm only visiting zoos for about a single decade.
I know about the age of many brown bears, but my belief is it also might have to do with inadequacy of some facilities. Also ,many go into hibernation and then give birth. I do not know of hibernating brown bears in zoos, actually.
It's pretty sad they aren't breeding, but maybe others species are. Not a bad thing to make space.

I wasn't saying - on the apes - they should be able to actually get up in the trees. I know zoos where they have them ,and are kept out of most (especially near the edge).
This for example was done at Arnhem zoo (not in a very good-looking way though ; the electrified iron wires are all too visible, even from great distance).
Even if one so ,though apes can still get over or out. It has happened in Arnhem in the past (they used sticks and cooperated to get on a roof ,I believe).
Maybe trees isn't the very best solution, but I do not know what Seattle zoo has done.
My main point is that in my opinion the currently common climbing structures aren't always sufficient.
Of course, a good environment can be made without real trees.

Of course; I wholehartedly agree.
Many new exhibits keep this in mind, which is only good. For example, in the Belgian zoo law it is clearly stated (I have a print) that animals need hiding places.
Too bad that in my opinion the regulations for stables and inner enclosures are still weak; I do not have a problem with it when they sleep. But if they are separated for longtime, I do. Separated animals ,even when not being watched ,need to have their needs met.
To me , the fact no-one watches them at night is not a reason to make the night cages very small.
But I agree if it's not visible, it's probably not interesting to think about.

Of course most do not share this attitude.
I have done enough zoo visits to know clearly which animals are popular.
I understand this, and thus think that the popular species are needed. I don't pay as much attention to them as most, but I still watch them.
Even the ones I don't like so much, can be pretty nice.
I'm interested in most animals ,but I believe most here have their favourites. So do I.
This does not mean the other animals should not be present. Search a good balance, I'd say.
Maybe someone should let me get to know the popular and charismatic animals better and let me appreciate them ever more. A challenge ,you say ?

Really, you're taking this a bit far now. That I stated I do not like some species or have less interest in them (which might be a strong term, though) is not a reason to let them dissapear.
I do not want to see snakes go. The reason for me not liking them is I was dead scared as a child.
The same as I still have nowadays, but towards mice and rats. Favourite prey of many snakes, btw.
I will read and watch through the other topics. It will be very interesting.

You've made your point clear, and I understand.
You do not need to state it time and time again.

15-01-2008

Species which shouldn't be kept in captivity:

(a) critically endangered species for which little scientific data exists, and which has either never been kept in captivity or has never bred in captivity before (eg Yangzte river dolphin - which is probably extinct anyway).

(b) species which are so numerous that captive populations hold no purpose whatsoever (the aforementioned vermin, although lines become blurred when one man's vermin is another man's exotic!)

(c) species for which it would be impossible (in the real world) to provide adequate facilities in enough locations to keep sufficient numbers required for a sustainable captive population. The larger cetaceans would surely fall into this category.

(d) species which are known to carry diseases (especially contagious/airborne diseases) harmful to man. This would be restricted to certain invertebrates, I suppose.

I also think captive populations on small islands are a special case: in this instance, the likely effect of an escaped invasive species on endemic flora and fauna should be taken into account.

15-01-2008

I agree, but I have to make something clear.
Obviously ,vermins ,various athropods and other invertebrates carry disease and should by all means by kept out of zoos and if present rigorously controlled or exterminated.
But, also various other animals can be carriers of disease. For example ,some fowl contain Salmonella ,a bacteria causing food intoxication. This is usually only dangerous when you eat the meat uncoocked or not well coocked.
But salmonella is also carried by reptiles, aspecially tortoises.
Not that it's not avoidable ,very well with thorough handwashing.
Also other animals of various kinds may carry possibly dangerous parasites and diseases.
My opinion is though that contamination by contact can be avoided with handwashing and protective clothing if necessary.
This is of course needed.

Btw, you're speaking about dangerous animals, chris. I was wondering ,any thoughts on venomous animals ?
I think it's oké if they're locked up very well ,including extra safety ,if they can be separated from keepers during cleaning and if serum (antidote) is present.

15-01-2008

Actually (d) refers to a loooot of species; even and especially our beloved pets and domestic animals would fall into that category. There is always the danger of zoonosis transmission in every case of animal contact; this is surely not limited on invertebrates.

(b) would mean that equally a lot of very popular species would have to go. I'm wondering whether zoos would let go of their meerkats, Common squirrel monkey, peacocks or flamingos that easily...

@Xerxes: Many of the "data" available about "diseases", deaths, short life-span of cetacea, "high" infancy rate is either outdated or sometimes even made up (in some lists institutions were listed that had never kept dolphins etc., specimen were double-listed etc.); especially in terms of veterinary medicine, there has been a progress in regard of cetacean. You should be cautious when reading activists' information material as the investigations if undertaken are often sloppy, unprofessional, misinterpreteing and overly anthropomorphising. The criticism also has a good effect: a lot of the bad old dolphinaria in Europe have faded away, and the still existing ones are closing one after another. Still, I think a total ban on cetacea husbandry is "insert vulgar explicit devaluation".

One last remark: don't have a chip on Your shoulder all the time. I'm not interested in snubbing or personally offending You; just get rid of that impression. I'm just mildly (!)correcting some of Your statements if I don't agree on them and try to put certain aspects in perspective. Got me?

15-01-2008

Carefullness is always needed with animals and their excrements. Many or even most species can be carriers of disease and even very harmfull diseases.
For example ,parrots can carry (and get ill of it themselves) ornithosis ,which is also very dangerous to humans.

This would mean a great deal of species would have to go....
(btw, flamingos are common ,but do not breed very well yet, sadly).

Of course progress will have been made, I do believe it has.
I know some of the data were false. Some of what I've read I know cannot possibly be true.

Of course these "researches" are not always trustable. I though have read a few very interesting ones.
I certainly agree they should do their research more thorough. I am carefull with read information.
As I've said ,I mostly hate these activists. I'm also in to reading opposite information. If you have any, please, I'm open to it.
But it stays what I have seen is to me convincing.
I'm happy many of the bad ones are gone, but shows are still being kept with dolphins ,and some bad still exist.
I don't think they need to dissapear out of zoos completely as of yet. Another chance has to be given, but a lot of change is needed.
I respect your point; I hope you do mine.
No need for calling others' opinion that what I think you mean in the last sentence

I'm sorry, my bad. I might be a bit overstressed lately.
I accept and respect you ,your opinion and your corrections, though I resent some of the choosen ways of explanation in a certain way.
Of course, it's your right to disagree and give extra information.
I've learned some very interesting things here. Maybe I might change opinions on some things (eg bears, apes and such). That's what a forum is for.
Though ,some of my opinions rest.
Let's leave it to this : very most species can be kept if suitable.
And now , please no more conflicts.

@ sun : if you need to say anything more or elaborate on anything ,you can pm me.