Thank you, I wasn't know this fact(some of animals returned to humans), I'm ready to apologise. The reason of my post was the following case: Budapest Zoo's silverback male gorilla makes stereotypical movings(he goes round and round in a small circle, he eats his ****, he retreats to a corner and turns his back) and I thought about it a bit. Otherwise I wrote in my previous comment: zoos are good for many animals.
When I was doing my degree, I did 2 courses in Animal Behaviour (one in Psychology and one in Zoology). While I accept that some books about animal behaviour can be anthropomorphic, some animals can value concepts that are not impractical. The gap between humans and other animals isn't as wide as some people would want it to be.
... and a good many humans display what would be classed as stereotypic behaviour if it is was being displayed by a wild animal. In domestic animals is is often seen as either unavoidable or amusing, and you can get £250 from a TV show for your clip...
You don't need to apologize for your opinion. Your example of the silverback gorilla illustrates that zoos can only be good for the individual animal if they can meet its requirements. If not and the animal in question suffers, then the difference between a good and a bad zoo is whether and what is undertaken to improve the situation.
Quite; certainly the automatic repetitive motions which an Aspie such as myself sometimes displays when stressed (the practice known as "stimming") would be deemed a gross stereopathy in a captive animal
As Batto said, "freedom/liberty" (and happiness, love, being good/bad) are human concepts and what is important to me: [even for humans] they could mean something different in varied communities and times. Probably even we, Zoochatters, have a little bit different definitions of these. And to me it's important to remember that if we want to discuss these abstract concepts.
Most gorillas don't stereotype. It is likely something went wrong in this one's early life. Wild gorillas are known to re-ingest their own faeces. Like many herbivores (and they are largely herbivorous) their digestive system is not totally efficient, so some of it goes round again. I've worked with some very cheerful, happy gorillas.
Good to hear a zookeeper's opinion about gorillas'behavior. I try to investigate what happened with Golo, the silverback in his childhood.
Everyone else has pretty much summed up my thoughts but I'll just say what I usually tell people when they see stereotypy in any animal (pacing, elephant head bobbing/swaying, etc.): Stereotypy is not necessarily caused because of stress or uncomfortably. It is a very complex subject and it is disingenuous to say it is caused by stress and unhappiness. As others have said, most people have stereotypical behaviors (nail biting, leg shaking, repetitive movements such as immediately opening ZooChat on their phone after closing it on their computers) but you can't say that the person or animal is stressed or unhappy just because you see these behaviors. You need to learn the context and history of what causes the behavior to occur. Even then, these behaviors are not necessarily harmful. A great example is Billy the Asian elephant at LA Zoo. He exhibits a stereotypical head bob but if you look at the context, he exhibits this behavior when he hears his keepers coming, or when it is close to normal feeding, training, and enrichment times. It's more anticipatory than stress induced. You see the same cause with big cats pacing in front of shift doors.
Well, the question will be allowed: why should elephants, dolphins and great apes be aware of their captivity, bears, pigs, parrots, other primates (all very clever animals) or generally not all other animals? Are they all too "stupid" to realize that they are locked up? The thread topic is at least as good as "Should Elephants..Cetaceans ... Apes" be kept in "Captivity?" Well, as usual, I can only comment on this with a slight penchant for sarcasm, but this doesn't make me a Devil's Advocate. Well, anyone who takes the view that "intelligent" animals such as elephants, dolphins and apes are aware of their captivity ", and captivity is always negative ( who wants to live in a prison ?) should ask themselves whether they continue to support such animal cruelty with their entrance fee.
Yes, a lot of apes in zoos are wild caught, as like as elephants, ceteceans, walrusses, birds, reptiles, fishes...to name just a few examples.
Correction, a lot of the founding populations for apes and elephants in captivity are wild-caught. With these being longer lived animals, the older wild-born founders are around here and there. Most apes and elephants in zoos nowadays are captive bred. ~Thylo
By now, you should have realized that your sarcasm usually gets lost in translation... And no, your last post fits the very definition of a devil's advocate, to the point of people falling for it (again). As for paying customers: I guess the chance that anyone participating on ZC is rabidly against zoo husbandry is rather slim these days.
Well, I'm not responsible if people don't understand sarcasm these days, which is clearly recognizable in my posting. It has nothing to do with the translation, it is more a result of the development of this society. I find it particularly successful the poll of this thread if zoos are good or bad for animals. Imagine the members of the NRA (National Rifle association) voting at their annual general meeting on whether firearms should be banned .... Anyway, a completely successful thread in a pro zoo forum, isn't it?
I'm sure there are still more free born elephants in CAPTIVTY than zoo born, especially in North America. And ALL zoo animals come originally from the wild-even the animals that humans eat. Oh, I think, the Javan rhinos are doing fine in their prison, it's bit more natural than a zoo-prison, and there are so less of them, so I guess, enough of space is left for any of them-much more than in any zoo. Wouldn't you agree ?
Well, it's not the first time that your true intention aka "irony", "sarcasm" etc. has not been interpreted as originally envisioned (by yourself, mind you). Translation does play a role in that (given your frequent inclination for literal translations of German idioms, in particular when agitated), yet shifting the main blame on the perceived intellectual, linguistic or moral deterioration of your dialogue partners is a bit lazy on your part, isn't it, Bib? Or should we garland you with another new nickname and address you as "Cato the Elder" from now on? Yet instead of lamenting "O tempora, o mores" [I'm well aware that this dictum has been attributed to Cicero, not Cato ^^] or making jokes about the declining population of Javan rhinos (that are far more bitter than funny), you might consider adopting your spelling style and humor to the audience you have, and not to the one you wish to have. And maybe cut down on the frequently misleading emojis. Yes, the nature of the poll is silly. But there are more efficient, mature and last but not least entertaining ways to deal with this than merely mocking its lack of complexity. One could have been to ignore it in the first place.
1.) ...yet shifting the main blame on the perceived intellectual, linguistic or moral deterioration of your dialogue partners is a bit lazy on your part, isn't it, Bib?.. Please make the effort to read my post correctly, because I didn't do that at all - I just made a comment about the general development of today's society. 2. ...or making jokes about the declining population of Javan rhinos (that are far more bitter than funny),# The Population of Javan rhinos is GROWING, my friend. Ever heard of satire? Or does that fall under a translation error again? There are even supposed to be people and films that make fun of the Third Reich. But that doesn't mean that these people feel the Third Reich as something good, does it? This is called satire. If you don't get it wrong, I can't change it, but it's neither my problem nor my task, or I try again to hide only my true intentions? What is that supposed to be ? I admit that I am striving for world domination, but given the fact that there is not so much to do with this society, I will let it go. Of course I am aware that it is better not to joke about animals in a pro zoo forum - least of all about animals that are on the verge of extinction, right? But why not? Jokes about dinosaurs or Tasmanian tigers are allowed? Don't worry - it's just a question, not sarcasm. If it sounds like sarcasm, it's only the fault of the translation. 3.) ....you might consider adopting your spelling style and humor to the audience you have, and not to the one you wish to have. And maybe cut down on the frequently misleading emojis. Maybe, I already did ? What did you have against the emojis? They are great. Misleading? So should I used the emojis in a misleading way, it happened accidentally on my part, not with my intention. 4.).. One could have been to ignore it in the first place.... Yes, I know. In most cases I do, but in this particular case it was difficult for me. And think about it, maybe there is a very specific intention behind my sarcasm on my part, which is just hidden behind the translation? Believe me, it has nothing to do with the translation. 5.) ...Yes, the nature of the poll is silly. Thank you for seeing that. As an exception, we agree on one point. But it is not so silly to discuss it in the topic here? Seriously? Just a reference to Heidger's literature should be enough, to end this silly discussion. Do I really have to seriously discuss in a pro-zoo forum whether or not keeping elephants, apes etc. in zoos? This is really silly.
It's stagnant actually. The park isn't large enough for the population to grow above ~60 animals. ~Thylo
