Can Any Animal be Held in Captivity?

This is a topic I thought would have a interesting discussion. Now I've always wondered, under favorable conditions can any and every species be held in a captive situation? Take narwhals for example. They have not been known to thrive in captivity, but if they hypothetically had a 100 acre pools with a chilled water cooler and anything else that they need in the wild, would it be possible?

 

Hypothetically if we could provide the proper conditions I see no reason why it wouldn't work, but I'm also no scientist. You'd have to look at the individual species and determine if there's anything they need from their environment that we couldn't replicate. I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find something though.

 

This is a topic that I find interesting also, @pachyderm pro. I myself created a similar thread recently: To Zoo or Not to Zoo: What to Do About Husbandry-Challenged Species?

I would say that, hypothetically, one could keep most or all species in captivity. I do, however, think that it is too difficult or too labor-intensive for some species to be worth it. Take your example of narwhals: for what reason would a person build a 100-acre pool? I'm not sure a pool of that size would even be feasible from an engineering point of view. Obviously, it wouldn't need to be that large, but I think the resources you would expend trying to keep narwhals alive and well in captivity isn't worth the reward of having narwhals in captivity.

 

Well theoretically perhaps yes, but realistically no. Certainly huge animals like blue whales are out of the question. And some animals are so sensitive that the only way to maintain them is to have them completely out of public view, which defeats the purpose. I mean you could set up a camera and have a live view monitor for the public, but who would go for that?

 

Not really contributing to the question here, but I think it's interesting that you used narwhals as an example considering cetaceans are kind of notorious for some species doing pretty well in zoos (bottlenose, orcas, pilots, white sided dolphins, belugas, etc) while others seem to perish instantly (spinners is a weird one. I don't know of any spinners currently in captivity but I know many had been rescued and died during rehab? Which might just be why they don't seem to last...they're already sick or dying when taken in usually.) I'm surprised common dolphins are not more popular with aquariums. Does anyone know if they've ever tried to house any of these "difiicult" species for display before?

 

Another example of species which are ( almost ? ) unkeepeble are deepsea-fishes. It already start with catching these fishes - when a fish from say 3000 meter deep is brought up without very special equpment, it will explode before brought to the surface !
When one has however managed it anyway, then you have to have a tank in which the presure of the water has to be the same as at that deep !
Also from 99 % of the species ( maybe even more ) nothing is know about their life-history, so keeping them alive would also be quite challengly !
I know there are a few species of "deepsea-fish" are kept in captivity ( for example Pineapple fish and Splitfin flashing fish ) but these are not "real' deepsea-species .

 

Hypothetically, perhaps. But a lot of animals would require such expensive conditions that they wouldn't be practical. Your narwhal suggestion, maybe they'd do well in those conditions, but such a large enclosure would be extremely expensive to build and maintain, no place would do it. It would only be feasible if building and maintenance costs got a LOT cheaper.

 

During the 60's and 70's, zoological and military facilities in the US (I can't speak for other places) experimented with a variety of cetacean species. It's pretty interesting to see all of the species they tried, (both an aquarium and the US military attempted to keep Dall's porpoise. SeaWorld San Diego captured a gray whale and released her after a year, as she was getting too big) but most didn't do very well. I think popularity may have been one factor, display facilities may have put more resources into maintaining the popular, show-suited species over others, especially after captures were outlawed. (I know bottlenose dolphins turned out to be the best suited for military work, so I imagine they have the kind of personality that makes them suited for training and shows than other species) I do wonder what factors make some species do better than others. I know coastal ones tend to do better than open/deep water ones, but beyond that, I'm not sure.

 

With the proper investment of time and money and a suitable supply of individuals to allow for losses in the early stages of those not previously kept in captivity (since some might die as a result of lack of proper understanding); there is no reason that any species could not be kept within a good standard of living in captivity.

Of course as raised above, the costs of putting some into suitable habitats within a captive environment might be very prohibitive. The kind of thing that an oil barren could do with vast resources as a money sink; but which an enterprise looking to profit from display and study might well founder and fail to raise sufficient funds to cover running costs let alone cover investment costs.

Of course alongside that you've got a key factor to consider which is the quality of life. Many animals already in zoos are in enclosures too small for them and lack suitable range and stimulation which results in unhealthy conditions. So you'd have to decide by how much a quality of life you'd consider healthy for a species to consider their captivity a success.


So you've got finances and the practicality of managing an animal against what one considers suitable living conditions and quality of life.



I suspect for some species you might well be well on the way to a national park instead of a typical zoo enclosure to reach good levels of living conditions.

 

See this thread To Zoo or Not to Zoo: What to Do About Husbandry-Challenged Species?

 

This is completely unrealistic and infeasible. You would be setting up for failure with this set up.

Many cetacean species can be housed successfully in captivity, and as others have noted back in the 60's-80's many species were tried. The main issue is that cetacean captivity in "western" countries really only started to become competent in the late 90's, and at this point wild captures were largely stopped, so we were left with what remained, the most durable species.

Anyway, back to Narwhal. They have only been attempted once, in 1970 at the Vancouver Aquarium, all dying within 4 months. A rescue calf was taken to the New York Aquarium in 1969, but it died fairly quickly as well. These where the times when pools were small and shallow, capture methods were stressful and husbandry practices were extremely poor, as cetaceans as display animals had only been around majorly for 10 years.

I'm certain that is it was attempted now, with our current knowledge and habitats, if Narwhals were attempted again we would find much more success. For example Vancouver's current beluga habitat would be ideal.

Also to note on Spinners, there are some captive. A facility in the Philippines houses a couple of rescued females, and they've had them for almost 3 years now. Commons, there are none known to be captive currently, however there are 4 common x bottlenose hybrids kicking around. The pure animals do OK, but they require a gentle hand and are very sensitive something that was largely not catered to back in the 60's and 70's when Common Dolphin captivity was at its peak.

 

@Hyak_II, besides bottlenose dolphins, what are some other "durable" cetacean species? I'm guessing beluga, harbor porpoise, maybe Commerson's?

 

@Coelacanth18 (Sorry, I know you didn't ask me) I'd say pacific white sided dolphins and killer whales are on that list too. They both live relatively similar lifespans and breed well in zoos.

 

As been said, theoretically yes, but realistically no!

And i've mixed views of cetaceans in captivity, specially killer whales. Zoo should have decent habitats (size and mental stimulation) which I find hard for killer whales and even perphas other cetaceans.

At the present time I see no good coming out of keeping those in bare small tanks and possibly it would be unrealistic to built a tank big enough and "stimulous enough" for those cetaceans.

I've been lucky enough to see animals in the wild (both big cats and hoofstock) and I usually see no major diference between those Vs decent zoo habitats. Yet, I've been also lucky to see many cetaceans in the wild and those conditions - IMHO - are too hard to be simulated in captivity/zoos.

So, untill i'm proven wrong, I would say no to certain cetaceans due to the simple fact that Zoos are just not able to give them good living conditions. And believe, I'm a big advocate of captivity breeding.

 

What about pilot whales?

@Hyak_II
Personally, I think that trying narwhals again is a bad idea. If a zoo/aquarium took in narwhals, it would create and high risk, medium reward.

Reward - the zoo/aquarium has the only captive narwhals in the world which could boost visitor attendance.

Risk - they all die and animal rights activists go off on the faucility, there for, giving the faucility a bad reputation similar to sea world.

 

In that case, maybe SeaWorld should do it

 

I kid you not. Before I read this I thought to my self this exact same thing . I mean their reputation is already tarnished thanks to PETA and Blackfish.

 

See, the only problem with this thinking though is that there's no evidence that killer whales in accredited facilities aren't having their needs met. Killer whales actually fair extremely well in the last two decades if you look at the data. Any assumption otherwise is really just based on conjecture. Bottlenose dolphins do even better. The fact that they're in a barren tank doesn't mean a thing if it doesn't have an effect on their wellbeing. It's just our preference. Since the animals are so social it's probably more important that they are able to interact than it is to have a rock or some kelp in the tank (captive orcas are often given kelp as an EED anyway.) Much of what happens in their lives happens above water, as well. As many have said before, I'd agree that it simply a vastly different life, not better or worse, than being in the ocean.

Captive orcas mate and socialize, rear their young, are physically fit and and I think you'd be hard pressed to find reputable evidence of any behavioural problems that are more severe than any other zoo animal.

Of course this is based only on what I know and have read. I'm here to learn, mainly, so to hear someone's thoughts on this who has a different opinion would be useful and I welcome it. I was once strongly opposed to cetacean captivity, so I've been both on each side, and on the fence before.

 

@littlewallaby: captive cetaceans is a well-entertained topic on this site. I'm glad that you are open to other views and opinions! There are several people on this site that are well-versed in the details and could either validate what you stated or offer information to the contrary.

I don't know much about the actual statistics myself, and have never felt strongly about the topic one way or another. I do have issues with SeaWorld, but they are about other things unrelated to keeping whales and dolphins in tanks. Pachy is certainly right about PETA and Blackfish tarnishing their reputation; they have been seriously struggling with dropping attendance numbers since the documentary came out.

 

I think finless porpoises have been known to do okay, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.