SD zoo is a facility that boasts about the rare species it keeps even having some of them harnessed like a pet as "ambassadors" while being in a state that does not even allow its tax-paying citizens to keep ferrets and gerbils. If I worked at SD zoo (or any other facility that keeps exotic mammals in CA) I wouldn't be able to sleep well. *Moderator note: topic split from this thread: San Diego Zoo - Platypus...
I don’t see how that’s hypocritical. The state finds that keeping those animals as pets as potentially dangerous. But a zoological institution with professional experts will be seen as able to handle them. No reason to not go to San Diego Zoo. They still provide for dozens of conservation projects even if you don’t agree with the state government.
Okay, so according to your logic; SDZ should only keep species that a Californian citizen could keep without permit. Guess what, 21 states have banned the keeping of "dangerous animals" (including big cats, wolves, primates, bears etc...) and that includes California so if we follow your logic, every Zoo in California should stop keeping those species which bring a huge amount of visitors and basically are some of the only way to keep some smaller collections rolling and that is just an exemple of how flawed your logic is. Or are those not exotic mammals for you?
Correct me if I’m wrong in understanding of what you said but according to you, zoos should not keep animals as educational ambassadors if the state has laws on what animals can be kept as a pet. Aren’t ambassador animals and pets different. Ambassador animals are animals that are trained to walk around or be held for a period of time where as pets are just domestic animals. Ambassador animals are cared for by experts in the field like @Echobeast said. Most pets are cared for by average people. In the case of ferrets, the logic is that if the species where to escape human care like Burmese pythons in Florida, they will cause huge issues in the ecosystem. San Diego is not being hypocritical, its offering more ways for people and children to understand the natural world. How the facility and any other in CA is being hypocritical is beyond my understanding.
Me, too, find the San Diego practice of taming various exotic species disturbing. The main objection is that so-called 'ambassador' has the same unnatural life of diminished quality as any exotic pet or a circus animal: it is isolated from its conspecifics and tuned to regular human contact. Outside the show, it lives alone (or at best with another pet) in accomodation which is close to the bare acceptable minimum for the species. During the presentation it has little choice over interacting - not interacting with humans. Compare to ethical arguments why zoos cease practice of pulling cubs for hand-rearing or reduce animal contact with the public. All they apply even more strongly to making so-called ambassadors. In some cases there are animals which have to be hand-reared and can be shown to people before they grow up and join their conspecifics. Sometimes there are former exotic pets given to the zoo which are permanently abnormal behaviorally and consider people as their own species. They can be shown to the public. But the zoo apparently purposefully raises animals this way. I know it is very popular to have a serval or a binturong relaxing on a grass lawn for visitors. But is is disturbingly like white tigers in Las Vegas or circus lite.
I work with ambassador animals for my job and I can tell you that your view of them is misguided and flat out wrong in some cases. We train our animals to voluntarily crate or come out for presentations. If they don’t choose to participate, that’s fine. We can use a different animal that chooses to participate. The accomidations are not the bare minimums and animals in ambassador programs regularly live passed their life expectancies. Comparing ambassadors to white tigers who probably have no choice in where they go is also misguided. If you have any questions about animal ambassadors in AZA facilities, feel free to ask here or pm me.
Anyone that works with exotics should be able to tell you that those animals are NOT tamed! I've taken my share of bites, scratches, and aggression in my time. Not so at all. Most ambassador animals are kept in much better care than exotic pets or circus animals. And they do not necessarily live alone. Many animals such as owls, hawks, most cats, snakes, and others would often be found alone in the wild, and have no issues being kept alone. Some youngsters need an extra hand, or they wouldn't make it. And there are exotic pets that have become imprints. The zoo does not intentionally raise animals this way, look at their California Condor breeding program. They are accustomed to people, but not tame. Nor are the white tigers. But the zoo animals undoubtedly live better lives. The zoo does not force the animals to come out for programs, I've been to many presentations at various facilities that animals chose not to make an appearance that day, and left alone.
Thanks Echobeat and Great Argus for your explanations, I stand corrected that presentation animals are free not to go for demonstrations. I disagree with your definition that their off-show accomodation is good. I saw some of these places, and could compare them with breeding exhibits of the same species in the same zoo. And they were relatively small and bare. Your issue over 'not tame' is purely rhetorical. They are tame compared to other zoo animals of this species. That they can scratch or bite - many dogs, cats and horses do the same. The main core of my criticism is they are isolated from other individuals of the species and cannot behave fully normally (even if many species are solitary and meet only occassionally - they still don't reproduce by budding). So my criticism still stands. I also think it is better call them presentation animals, and not to use the word animal ambassador, because it is marketing euphemism. A tame serval did not attend a diplomacy school, does not wear suit and tie and is not knowledgeable in international politics. Neither is a beautiful cactus in Safari Park called an ambassador cactus, although it shows exotic plant life to Californians. Call spade a spade, and call a serval used for presentations a presentation animal. Actually, a zoo 40 years ago had no need of special so-called presentation animals or animal presentations. Later zoos fould that animals live better if they can keep distance from people and breed better if they are not disturbed or humanized too much. This led to a zoo of 20 years ago, with large exhibits where animals cannot be seen closely, are free to rest, and people can no longer interact with them. This in turn led to producing a subset of animals which are forced to interact with people and are presentation animals. Then perhaps, it is time to swing a pendulum back a little, and have the same set of rules what is good welfare for a presentation animal and a breeding animal.
If you compare the amount of space an animal ambassador occupies over the course of a week, the different places it goes and the various spaces it is brought to makes its total “accommodations” much greater in area and enriching opportunities than any other animals at the zoo. Think of all the places and spaces that hypothetical serval occupies. Most days, it may only spend the night in the holding areas. Similar to other cats in traditional exhibits that spend the day on exhibit and the night in the stalls but the serval has the opportunity to leave those stalls and explore various areas of the zoo or outside zoo grounds. Social animals are kept in social groups, solitary animals are kept alone. Nothing different than how other zoo animals are managed. And they behave fully normally even without reproductive opportunities. Many animals live full lives without ever encountering a member of the opposite sex. Reproduction can also cause undue stress on an animal as it is energetically and physically taxing. Why breed an animal that doesn’t need to breed? If they took that cactus off zoo grounds and showed it to a group of people as an interpretive model of an exotic ecosystem, they might call it an ambassador. It’s a bit more descriptive of what they do than “presentation animals” as their jobs isn’t only to go out and look cool. They are used as educative models for their counterparts in the wild. I feel zoos started having ambassadors as they changed from being local manageries to regional education facilities. The zoo can further its message about conservation better when its able to take the animals to places and people that would never experience them.
First of all, it doesn't matter how you call them. I think we all know what animals are meant when we say either "presentation animal" or "Ambassador animals", though I personally prefer the former. Second, there is a wide range of enclosure or enrichment quality for these animals. I know there are terrible ones and very good ones. There are presentation animals (often smaller ones like corn snakes, stick insects or tenrecs) that don't have intensive contact with their keepers outside the presentation. As long as the animals have proper enclosures and careful interaction I don't mind this form. However, there are animals that have more intensive contact with humans, although the boundaries can be vague. Servals, parrots and skunks are good examples. In theory there's little wrong with using these as long as they're not valuable breeding programme animals. They are often in smaller enclosures but attention from the keepers ("playing" and training) can give them the necessary amount of exercise and enrichment, as they are more oriented towards humans. In practice however many keepers have a very busy schedule so they often have little time to give attention to these animals. And the enclosures are sometimes ridiculously small and bare. Visitors don't see them so the zoo management doesn't care as much as it does about other enclosures. Birds-of-prey are a tricky in-between type, they often don't like physical contact but they still require a lot attention. In summary, in theory there's nothing wrong with the use of presentation animals. In practice it takes up a lot of time and effort from the keepers and zoos don't always provide that. If the right conditions are met though, it can be a powerful education tool.
I do not see animal ambassadors as an issue. I find it to be another way to display, engage and educate the public about wild animals. Close-up encounters are those the visitors will remember. I let people handle snakes, lizards and cockroaches to hopefully cure or improve their phobias against these animals. I also do belive that some of the other animals enjoy being out of their enclosure and meeting new people with new smells.
The argument that zoo animals are more content if left in large areas and kept away from people is the exact opposite of what research shows. Years ago the Minnesota Zoo did a study (measuring hormones I believe) of their two Siberian (Amur) tiger populations. One set lived in a massive (several acre) enclosure with minimal keeper interaction. Another set lived in minimal indoor enclosures with regular keeper interaction. Study showed the latter group had lower stress levels. Recently San Diego Safari Park did a study of their Sumatran tigers' use of their exhibit space in the massive old (several acre) exhibit and the new smaller (but more varied) Tiger Trail. They found in the old exhibit tigers would to to one spot and stay there where in the new exhibit they utilize the entire space.
