Animals who get the short end of the stick

Even today, many guenons are still kept in pairs, with one or two of their offspring, as they were in the Monkey Houses of most zoos 50 years ago. They are the Cinderellas among the primates.

 

I would like to add in that most most common hippos also get the short end of the stick, not just their smaller relatives. Most of their exhibits are either small in land or water space, and they are usually kept only in pairs, at least in america.

And some, not all, raptors can be justified having smaller space since many native raptors in zoos are rescued and have issues preventing their release to the wild, which is the case for every bald eagle in captivity in the United States.

 

Most ungulates in general in the U.S. seem to be in pairs rather than herds. Lions are often this way as well. I had thought about that case with hippos. Some of them are in some not so nice enclosures. Raptors that are unable to fly and are in small spaces are one thing, as they so,etimes are used in demonstrations. However, vultures sitting in savanna exhibits are a little more unpalatable.

 

I recall the monkey houses of the 1960s and 1970s when many zoos had collections of monkeys, typically kept in pairs, or on their own in small cages. Many showed behavioural problems. Thankfully we have moved away from this approach and we are now trying to keep most primates in social groups. Although we can, as Alan suggests, improve the management of many species. We have failed to progress as well with the captive care of parrots and we greatly underestimate the captive requirements of the larger parrots and cockatoos, and most captive management is woefully inadequate.

 

Some individual parrots won't get along with others depending on if they were hand-raised and/or weren't as exposed to other birds at a young age.

Also, mandrills and baboons (in America at least) seem to be kept in pairs or small groups, while in the wild troops can be very large

 

Some already have (correctly) mentioned reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates.

I would also add most bats as well as Old World porcupines and to a certain extent raccoons and coatis. Whenever an old cage or grotto that used to house big cats, bears etc. is empty, any of those three is kept in there - and not always well.

 

Some thoughts on the bird subjects.

Parrots
Parrots in zoos are aften kept in non-breeding situations and very often in pairs or small groups, and are regularly wing-clipped. This seems not ideal, but in reality there are other factors that matter. Still a lot of parrots in zoos originate as unwanted pets, especially in the case of smaller zoos and more common species. Zoos still take them in as they are relatively easy and crowd-pleasing birds. These birds are often difficult to introduce to one another, hence the situations were they are kept in pairs (if a working match can be found). Furthermore, many have underdeveloped wing muscles and thus they can hardly fly. A larger, open enclosure with more branches and ropes to climb can be the best possible solution for these particular animals. It should however, never be the norm for parrots without a history like this.

Raptors
The subject of poined waterfowl, pelicans, cranes, storks and flamingos is quite difficult. It is not difficult for raptors, ibisses and parrots, they simply should never be poined by zoos. It becomes a little more complex when it involves rescued birds (like the parrots I mentioned above). A high percentage of vultures in European zoos are rescued animals from southern Europe (Spain, Portugal), that can't be released as they can't fly. I believe that many American zoos keep bald eagles in the same situation. The subject about flying space is more complex, as I know several zoos that did give their raptors lots of space, and they still hardly fly. Many wild birds-of-prey are often quite inactive when they are not searching for a meal or migrating. A buzzard in a zoo doesn't need to circle for hours to get prey, so they remain relatively inactive for most of the day. There are exceptions, in my experience kites and falcons remain quite active. This of course, doesn't justify situations were they are kept in inadequate enclosures, but is does show that the situation is more complex that one might think.

Waterfowl
Even more complex is the waterfowl, flamingo and pelican situation. For cranes and storks it's easier, they often have trouble mating if poined, so they should be kept in some sort of aviary, if we want to keep on displaying them in the long run. Same goes for the smaller flamingo species. The others I mentioned (the Phoenicopterus-flamingos, pelicans and Anatidae*) can thrive in poined situations. There are again a couple of exceptions, and I agree it is better to keep them full-winged, if all other factors stay the same. But that's often not the case. Poined waterfowl can occupy huge ponds and a decent amount of land space. It is often expensive or difficult to build ponds that size in an aviary. I really think the pelicans in Walsrode, where they live on huge ponds, have a better life than ones kept in small aviaries. The thing is, most zoo people know that these birds should not be poined or wing-clipped in an ideal situation, but reality is usually not ideal. It often ends up in a choice between a bigger pond and more land space, or the ability to fly. Which is better really depends on the situation at hand.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone, and I agree that the husbandry of the species mentioned often needs improving. Many zoos are actually slowly moving into the right direction (more aviaries, less poining/wing-clipping). I only tried to give some insight in why these difficult choices are made by zoos.

* I've too little experience with other Anseriformes to judge.

 

Cephalopods

Cephalopods are a whole class of molluscs, so it is hard to make generalizations about such a diverse taxonomic group, but in general I don't think their needs are currently being addressed well in captivity.
Basic husbandry of cephalopods is challenging. They're predatory animals and have difficulty accepting dead food. Their feeding habits and their habit of secreting ink when threatened require complex filtration systems. They can become damaged easily on the pointed edges of tanks or exhibit features. With such a diversity of cephalopod species, we are still learning about the environmental parameters species require to survive.
Just keeping cephalopods alive isn't enough though. Some cephalopod species are highly intelligent, have well-developed senses, and exhibit complex behavior. These species require stimulation from their environment to thrive.

Those are the challenges of keeping cephalopods in captivity, but the question in this thread was what we can do to enhance the welfare of those challenging species. I think the solution should start with having a better scientific understanding of the needs of particular species and providing the right environmental parameters. Cephalopod species need to have more complex, stimulating environments too. In addition, an enrichment program should be developed for most cepahalopods in zoos and aquariums to challenge them and make their environment more dynamic.

 

I like the idea of enrichment protocols for cephalopods. It seems to me that most aquatic species are also neglected when it comes to enrichment in general, especially some of the larger marine species like sharks and triggerfish. Many of these larger reef species have complex food-finding behaviours and social structures, but because they are fish they are not considered intelligent enough to worry about.

 

I guess in a Chinese zoo everyone but the pandas

 

This isn't a leading question, honestly: how many Chinese Zoos have you visited?

 

SOME chinese zoo is indeed very bad, but there are also some good one. Don't be so over-generalization.
Of course I have see cage with zero-enrichment, but I also see them in big and lush enclosure occasionally.

 

Well, some of the guenons are supposed to be kept like that, aren´t they? For example de Brazza´s monkeys should be kept (as I´ve been told) in groups of 4 animals at max. (Breeding pair + 2 offsprings)

 

Guenons typically live in larger groups in the wild, although it is probably unwise to generalise about such a large number of species. Certainly larger groups make much better displays in zoos than the traditional pairings recommended to you. I have seen successful De Brazza groups with at least two females at Port Lympne, Twycross and Blackpool. Twycross also have a similar group of Diana guenons and I expect other zoo do too. I would love to see large groups of other species such as crowned, spot-nosed or mona guenons, to name but a few. I imagine that it would be best to build up such a group by keeping a mother and daughter together and introducing a new male. I don't know whether bachelor groups of non-breeding males would work too, but they have been reported in the wild for some species.

 

There's a group of Dianas in one of the East European Zoos that's at least a dozen or even more living together- just like wild troop. They look great. In the UK we have nothing like that number of Guenons in a single group anywhere though the De Brazza groups at PL and Twycross(and I think Blackpool) are over the half-dozen mark. Some years ago both Chessington and Newquay each had successful groups of six Dianas too but these have both folded since then. I'd like to see these groups expand even further.

The problem with many of the Guenons are there simpy aren't enough around to establish bigger groups easily. And where they are breeding the SB steps in and either removes young to prevent inbreeding and start new groups, or even breaks up breeding pairs if they have had 'too many' young. This happened with Paignton's previous successful breeding pair of Dianas- after the pair had had three offspring, the male was sent away to Sweden and for several years since they've had problems introducing a new male, let alone re-starting breeding. Guenons do not seem to take kindly to new partners and you are right, matrilineal lines of related females seem to work best also.

 

There's a Parrot Rescue Centre in Lincolnshire( its expanded to other species recently) that houses their birds in big communual aviaries but seperated according to species so that they can flock with their own kind. There are photos in the Gallery of the Macaw cage, holding about 30+ Blue/gold and Greenwinged Macaws, presumably all rescued birds in some way, mostly expets one assumes. It looks a pretty good way of keeping them.

Otherwise I think the Macaws in Birdshows etc have the best option- with free flight at least at intervals in the day. Otherwise free-flying Macaws seem to have largely disappeared from most zoos nowadays.

 

That must be an artificial studbook recommendation for zoo management perhaps?- it doesn't reflect the wild where they live in much bigger groups than that.

 

Its true, Parrot Management in zoos has not been on a parallel with the improvements and advances in (most) Primate management in zoos, yet as you say, they are really the Avian equivalent.

 

I can't say anything about this specific collection, but in my experience rescued (especially hand-reared) macaws and other parrots are difficult to introduce to one another. I'm impressed they succeeded in creating a flock of 30+ birds. Maybe because of the large number, it is less likely that one or a couple of birds terrorize the others (as I experienced with amazon parrots). Do you know anything about aggression between the birds in Lincolnshire?

True, but there is some improvement. Avifauna in the Netherlands recently rebuilded it's old macaw and cockatoo exhibits. They have huge aviaries now, and during the presentation the birds are allowed to fly free. Then there's Aralandia in Wuppertal, and the parrot exhibits in the renovated Welt der Vögel in Berlin are of high quality, even though they lack some flying space.

Just like with cranes, flamingos and raptors, there's some general improvement. But as the general public is mostly concerned with mammals, improvements for any other species, reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds and inverts, are applied much slower. As much as I hate to say it, but in general mammals seem to have priority.

 

I'm aware expets can be difficult to re-establish among their their own and regarding aggression in that Lincolnshire group, no, I've only seen a photo in the Gallery and roughly counted the number of Macaws in it. They are probably not a true cohesive flock either (they don't look like it), more likely a lot of individuals and some pairs living together. But at least they have a wide choice from which to choose partners and establish bonds with others, at least those that aren't too humanised to achieve that.