Simple question. Should bears be kept in zoos? yes or no? Someone recently made a comment that all bears were unsuitable for captivity regardless of how good the enclosure or enrichment programme. I (and other members) struggle to see how bears should have this "taboo" because there are plenty of brilliant enclosures and enrichment programmes across the globe. EDIT: here is the original debate; http://www.zoochat.com/218/spider-monkey-enclosure-92129/ Some examples: http://www.zoochat.com/562/arctic-ring-life-detroit-zoo-42034/ http://www.zoochat.com/562/arctic-ring-life-detroit-zoo-42008/ http://www.zoochat.com/39/san-diego-zoo-polar-bear-plunge-40272/ http://www.zoochat.com/612/national-zoo-giant-panda-habitat-43498/ http://www.zoochat.com/612/national-zoo-sloth-bear-exhibit-43487/ http://www.zoochat.com/612/national-zoo-andean-bear-habitat-43681/ http://www.zoochat.com/622/grizzly-bear-exhibit-89347/ http://www.zoochat.com/622/grizzly-bear-exhibit-89346/ http://www.zoochat.com/218/bear-enclosure-92096/ http://www.zoochat.com/216/brown-bear-enclosure-36718/ http://www.zoochat.com/56/andean-spectacled-bears-jersey-zoo-7-a-59822/ http://www.zoochat.com/56/spectacled-bear-37957/?highlight=bear http://www.zoochat.com/42/bears-cloud-forest-photos-89082/ http://www.zoochat.com/42/chester-zoos-bear-exhibit-35919/ http://www.zoochat.com/42/spectacled-bear-enclosure-chester-35892/ http://www.zoochat.com/476/spectacled-bear-exhibit-zurich-35452/ http://www.zoochat.com/144/kamchatkan-bear-enclosure-zoom-11-05-a-81796/ http://www.zoochat.com/144/kodiak-bear-enclosure-zoom-11-05-a-81793/ http://www.zoochat.com/144/polar-bear-enclosure-zoom-erlebniswelt-33402/ http://www.zoochat.com/43/mappin-terrace-2007-a-36278/ http://www.zoochat.com/36/polar-bear-enclosure-rotterdam-10-05-a-81636/ http://www.zoochat.com/443/sloth-bear-exhibit-61546/ http://www.zoochat.com/424/scandinavian-wildlife-park-bear-park-58167/ http://www.zoochat.com/424/scandinavian-wildlife-park-polar-bear-park-47457/ Bildarkiv Obviously there are poor enclosures, but can anyone name a species which doesn't live in an example of a poor enclosure somewhere in the world
As I made clear on the original discussion of this, I'm entirely with you Jimmy. I've seen good and bad bear enclosures as with any group of animals, and, as with other animals, over time the average quality of exhibit is improving. There's no reason that any of the bear species cannot be kept in a spacious, stimulating enclosure very successfully in my opinion.
I think bears make great exhibits and seem happy in zoos. Spectacled Bears and Brown Bears make great exhibits. Woburn has even proved that bears can be kept in Safari Parks. However Polar Bears seem very difficult to keep as it is impossible to replicate their natural environment in places where it is too hot. All polar bear exhibits I have seen in person (Lincoln park, Edinburgh and the old Flamingo Land one) were inadequate. I do not think they should be kept in zoos other than those in their native area.
Can't speak for Lincoln Park but Flamingoland's old Polar enclosure was awful. Edinburgh's is OK but the new Highland one should be much better. There are good Polar Bear exhibits out there - if you ever get the chance to go to ZOOM (Gelsenkirchen) or Nuremberg I strongly recommend it.
I don't see why bears can't/shouldn't be kept in zoos. To me (and I'm uneducated about this sort of thing, I admit ), they're like any other animal, in that, given space and enrichment, a pool, rocks to climb and places to hide, etc, they should theoretically thrive. Yes, there are good and bad bear enclosures, but can't that be said of every other animal? There are good and bad tiger exibits, good and bad primate exibits, good and bad rhino exibits-I've not seen many of either, but I've seen photos. Just because some zoos insist on keeping their bears in pits doesn't mean all zoos should stop keeping them. However, the one that does get me-keeping arctic animals, like polar bears, in tropical zoos, or vice versa. That doesn't seem right to me
Inevitably there are some appalling bear exhibits in some zoos; conversely there are also many superb bear exhibits too. It is illogical to conclude that, because some zoos keep bears in poor accommodation, no bears should ever be kept in zoos. Keeping any species of animal in unsuitable accommodation cannot be justified. Provided that bears are housed suitably, there is no reason why they should not be kept in zoos.
I don't see any valid reason that raises bears above other animals and makes it so that they should not be kept in zoos. Who has one? I'd love to hear it...
Some claim they're too smart, wide ranging etc. I disagree, I think they can be kept well if looked after correctly and given a good enclosure.
I think that bears SHOULD be kept in zoos, but it is important to realize that they are an extremely tricky species to keep occupied, alert, healthy and contained. The number of outdated bear grottoes and pits that are still in zoos is a shame, but Jimmy has posted a list of truly excellent bear exhibits that show a trend away from awful, barren concrete dungeons. We should praise the great zoos with fabulous bear habitats and criticize the zoos that continue to have bears in dilapidated, ancient pits. I'll look at one single bear species: the polar bear Here is a depressing statement that might create some discussion. ISIS lists 75 zoos in the world with having polar bears, but how many of those 75 enclosures are world-class? Maybe 5 or less? What about the other 70 exhibits? What defines world-class? How many of those enclosures are truly adequate for the inhabitants? Of the 75 zoos that ISIS lists with polar bears, 33 are in North America. I have personally visited 19 of those zoos and only 1 has a world-class polar bear exhibit (Detroit). One out of 19 is pretty sad. But I'll ease up a little and suggest that 4 out of 19 are adequate for polar bears (Detroit, San Diego, Toledo, Memphis) while the other 15 range from the average concrete/mock rock enclosure that offers nothing more than a so-so environment for a complex species, to downright hideous (Bronx, Lincoln Park, Omaha). Some people will praise the most basic grotto or substandard pit that affects the quality of life of a bear, but to me the great polar bear exhibits of the world are truly an endangered species in themselves. I could go on all day looking at Canadian and American zoos, as there are only maybe 2-3 excellent sloth bear exhibits (National Zoo has a brilliant one) in all of North America, only 2-3 excellent sun bear exhibits (Columbus, San Diego, etc) and it proves my point that bears are often the recipient of the worst enclosures in a zoo. Often grizzlies and American black bears fare the best in the United States and Canada simply because there are some large, naturalistic exhibits for them in vast North American zones within zoos. Many primates, pachyderms, reptiles and hoofstock have fantastic exhibits in zoos on the continent of North America, but bears are often overlooked and many still live in outdated enclosures.
Snowleopard, I see what you're saying about the world class EXHIBITS, and that is probably correct, but I assume you mean an exhibit like the arctic ring of life (e.g. Immersion)? In that case those statistics are possibly true, but I would imagine there are more suitable ENCLOSURES that exist that are adequate for the bears (e.g. Nuremberg (decent enclosure but no immersion or what not)).
When it comes down to it, I think we're all aware that there is always a 'pop' animal in zoo culture. Presently, it is elephants and the need to create 'great' elephant exhibits for the creatures. It is slowly shifting to polar bears now but it will still probably be a good many years before any US polar bears get even anything adequate. Perhaps I'm not as harsh on polar bear exhibits as you as I would add Cincinnati and the Central Park Zoo to livable polar bear exhibits. However, just as you said, both zoos are right near bear grottos (Cincinnati having three of it's own and CPZ not being far from the Bronx Polar Bear hell). I think you're right to point out that native US bears tend to do better in the US. I think part of that is because people feel it's 'easy' to build them an exhibit by using what is already here. However, that's not always the case as animals need more than just nature to be happy.
@ashley: I'm referring to enclosures AND exhibits. I'm also quite critical, as you are well aware of, but I've seen my fair share of grottoes and pits for bears over the years. Heaven forbid I ever go on a tour of central and eastern European zoos, as the number of bear pits in the ZooChat gallery is rather alarming. Japan is also famous for having the world's worst polar bear enclosures, and there is a huge thread on the atrocious bear exhibits in that country. @tigertiger: each to their own opinion, but you mentioned both Central Park and Cincinnati has having polar bear exhibits that are "livable". I'd agree with you, and both enclosures are adequate and average but lack anything remotely remarkable. Cincinnati just stuck two ancient bear grottoes together, while Central Park's enclosure was probably spectacular when it opened over 20 years ago but now is surely average at best.
Only if they're being kept in a suitable enclosure with proper enrichment. Toronto Zoo's new polar bear exhibit looks very promising.
@snowleopard Unfortunately, that's a lot of the problem. Most subpar exhibits I have seen aren't even as much as livable.
I think it is absolutely great to keep bears in zoos but it is important that the ones who are living in outdated grottos get new homes in the next few years. Here in Cleveland we have 6 species of bear all living in grottos that are probably 2000 square feet or less yet no where in the upcoming plans are any of the bears getting new exhibits. After African Elephant Crossing opens Cleveland wants to build a new primate area. Every time I go up to the bear grottos the bears are all pacing their lives away. Exhibits like Arctic Ring of Life and Northern Trail prove that bears can be kept in spectacular habitats. I don't think every bear enclosure needs to be a spectacular as them, but at least a decent living space like Polar Bear Plunge or even Columbus' North American exhibits are perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
The Cleveland Zoo bear grottoes look horrible from photos, and it is puzzling that the zoo will spend millions of dollars on new exhibits and at the same time the bear pits will be unchanged. The Detroit Zoo has opened probably 50 new exhibits since their 1928 grottoes were built, and over 80 years later there are still pacing and bored bears sleeping in pits. There are probably over a hundred zoos around the world that are consistently opening up African Savannas, Australian walkabouts, Asian rainforests, immense tropical jungles, etc,...and for decades upon decades the bear pits look exactly the same. Occasionally an extra dead log or tree stump will be tossed in, but bears continue to get shafted in many zoos. There are indeed many wonderful bear exhibits, but in general they are perhaps the # 1 most underappreciated zoo animal when it comes to exhibitry.
I agree Scott. Cleveland has opened an indoor rain forest, a wolf wilderness lodge, an australian walkabout, did a major renovation to the african savanna, renovated the giraffe barn, completely redid the zoo hospital, now building a 25 million dollar elephant area, and planning a primate area all while the bears keep pacing their lives away in crappy grottos.
Grading things as world class is an easy way of creating a negative leaning argument towards all others in that group. World class to me means truely exceptional. However much progress is made there can only be a small number of world class exhibits/enclosures at anyone time. Its just as progress is made the standards required to be judged as world class continue to rise. With regards to judging standards look at sport, you only ever get a few world class performers in their choosen sport Woods, Federer, Schumacher, Bolt, Rossi, Armstrong etc, it doesnt mean the rest are poor. Great eras in a sport usually occur on the RARE occasions that a number of world class performers emerge at the same time. With regards to progress if size is a basic measure of requirement think of how the average m2 per bear over the past decades has increased for zoo bears or any animal for that matter.
Who exactly came up with this silly question in the first place? Why should there be special treatment for bears? Much ado about nothing... Anyway, I agree with @mark77's point of view above. And how is the ratio of "world class" exhibits of not so popular, "non-Polar bear" species? I'm thinking of various species of lesser known hoofstock, smaller mammals, but especially birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish here. In many zoo species, one will have difficulties to name just a single so-called "world class" exhibit at all...
