How can we improve Zoos and Aquariums?

I think we need bigger, better exhibits and more effort put into housing creatures that could never be housed before like the whole gamut of fish, reptiles, mammals, birds, amphibians, and even the invertebrates. Hopefully one day we'll be able to witness all of the world's diversity in captivity.

Conservation is also very important, we should really try to make room for some of the less charismatic endangered species like beetles or corals.

 

Like a zootycoon but in the real world, right ?

I would rather that we didn't have to view the world's diversity in captivity actually.

I would much rather it was in the wild and ecologically functional and that primarily the species that require ex-situ captivity were being held.

I agree with beetles and corals but I'm not just talking of inverts but also reptiles, amphibians, birds and small mammals.

 

Yes, but that was what I was implying with the example of the re-use of the old bear enclosure at Nurnberg zoo for fishing cats.

From what you've told me the Planckendael zoo seem to have quite an interesting set-up but I would hope that most of the birds being held are of conservation concern.

 

I was not addressing the conservation arguments nor did the portion of the quote I used mention that argument. It was purely addressing the economic claims.

Yes. Elephants cost a lot of money but your study here only lists how much it costs to keep a herd of elephants. It doesn’t address what that cost compares to if elephants were replaced on the same space of land. I have no reason to think the cost would go down because we would be increasing the number of species and individual animals which was the point of my reply.

My point is: when you take into account the amount of species, individuals, buildings, same amount of land space, etc. there is very little economic difference between keeping larger species and smaller species. I have not addresses nor do I feel like I needed to address the conservation argument as you bring up good points and back that argument up.

 

I would have to look into that as it is an interesting one. I do still believe that the economic cost would be much lower than maintaining larger megafauna but I would have to read up on it more.

The truth is and I would have to conceed this point that even with the smaller taxa there is an economic cost whether it be black lion tamarins, Bali starlings, Deserta's wolf spiders, golden poison dart frog or white clawed crayfish.

Thank you by the way, much appreciated.

 

But what's the net income gained from having elephants? Popular animals, including megafauna, are recognizable species usable in advertisement. Whilst smaller mammals are a way to prolong the visit and spice it up, they aren't huge draws and most of them never will be. Species that use large spaces like elephants, rhinos, lions, bears but also camels, bovids and deer are also cheaper per unit of space they fill in then most smaller species, and those large spaces are without doubt something very important in drawing people in. I think exhibit overload is a nice term for what people would get if you would replace the Whipsnade elephant paddock with small mammals, it's just too much exhibits for visitors. That's the exact same reason why the larger the aquarium or reptile house, the larger the tanks generally are.

 

I imagine that there is a benefit in terms of net income gained from elephants but can that ever justify the fact that these animals just do not adapt well in captivity, do not breed well and ultimately are far better conserved in-situ ?

I don't think that charismatic megafauna should be eliminated entirely from zoos just that they should be kept sparingly and those that are kept should be compatible and of conservation concern. Again, as I've mentioned, the model I would point to would be Jersey zoo with their spectacled bears, orangutangs and gorillas and the former site of Bristol zoo with its gorillas.

I don't think it would need to be a case of exhibit overload and of lots of enclosures. There could be a few choice species kept and a long-term commitment to the species through ex-situ and in-situ conservation.

I would actually much rather that zoos kept far fewer animals, as I've said before on this forum I wouldn't particularly care if zoos kept below 50 species. Just as long as those kept were the subjects of long-term commitment to ex-situ / in-situ conservation.

 

Now you've lost me, Asian elephants are quite well adapted to captivity, they breed well and zoos do contribute to in-situ conservation through their ex-situ populations. African elephants is a whole other matter, and in Europe at least a species I believe should be phased out so that the focus can solely lie on Asian elephants.

And I disagree, in small zoos you could keep small species but in some large zoos that people like myself like to visit because they are good for walking you'd get a real exhibit overload if you started replacing large mammals with loads of small species. Does that mean that they couldn't fit an extra small species in here and there, surely not. But if you in Planckendael wanted to replace the elephants, rhino and giraffe with smaller species you take away what makes the park what it is and so popular with young and old. It's the large, open exhibits that are so characteristic of the park, same as it is with Whipsnade and San Diego wild animal park.

And as with Jersey, whilst some zoos might be able to work this way this doesn't work everywhere. Jersey lies on an island as the sole zoo, and thus fits in a special niche. Comparing it to mainland zoos simply doesn't work, as there you have competition.

 

Or maybe let me rephrase it, like with a lot of species species when managed well (Europe with other words) Asian elephants are quite easy to keep in captivity. They breed very well here in Europe, unlike in the US. There are also rudimental plans of beginning to send back elephants (mostly males) to Asia for reintroduction. And just as with small species, I don't think they have any less right to be represented in captivity. Especially as the sole representative of their mammal group that can be kept well.

And because of their economical benefit in larger zoos that loads of smaller species simply can't bring, they can generate money to keep those smaller species. A win-win situation.

 

I think there are several issues that make keeping Asian elephants in captivity an uphill challenge: EEHV virus, difficulties with breeding, husbandry challenges with ensuring sufficient mental and physical health and the enormous economic costs.

I am by no means an expert on elephants and in fact I am not particularly interested in them. But from what I've read on elephants in general, whether African or Asian, these are far better conserved in-situ than in zoos.

Once again, let me be clear I am not suggesting that they should not be kept in zoos or that they be banned but I think there does need to be a serious conversation on the utility of this.

Rather what I am questioning is whether a discussion needs to be had on whether they need to be there or if it is better to conserve these in-situ and I believe that zoos need to ask themselves honestly whether it is worth continuing to keep these animals.

 

- EEHV has also been noted in wild populations
- In Europe breeding is going almost too well
- The new generation actually displays barely any stereotypical behaviors, their natural behavior (foraging time and herd-structure) make them more easy to keep from a welfare point of view then many of the smaller mammals you advocate zoos to keep
- As said before, this economic cost is not higher compared to replacing them with smaller species for the same space.

People love to see elephants, elephants bring in money in many cases (the smaller the elephant habitat the lesser the benefit I'd estimate) and their husbandry is getting solved more and more with only the bull-welfare still a work in progress in Europe. So yes, it's worth to exhibit them for many zoos without doubt. Charismatic species also make people connect with conservation, way more then many small species do on average. That last thing is not only something present in zoos, but in general wildlife and nature conservation. If you say "protect Kruger for the red duiker" you won't get much response, if you say "protect kruger for the elephants" without doubt you will be able to collect many donations.

 

Ok, but citation needed for that first point please.

Second point, I think that is open for debate, perhaps many of the smaller mammals (that I wouldn't actually advocate keeping in zoos) such as tarsiers and pink fairy armadillo for example would be under that category but what are the other small mammal species that are more challenging to keep than elephants ?

Again just as with the first point, where are the figures for economic costs being higher for replacing them with smaller species on the same space?

 

True, people love to see elephants and I have no doubt that they are a significant draw for the public who visit zoos.

However, would people still donate money or take ecotourist holidays to see wild elephants in Africa or Asia if elephants stopped being kept by zoos ?

Personally I think donations would not stop and neither would general support for their conservation in the wild.

What about the smaller endangered species which also have that charismatic "rockstar" appeal ?

Because you have the golden lion tamarin, for example, which is probably the ultimate poster child of zoos conservation efforts. Moreover, it is arguably more rightfully cited as an example of the benefits of zoos if we consider what has been achieved than any of the charismatic megafauna.

 

Actually the burden of proof lies with you in this case, as you are saying there is a problem. I've yet to experience such problems in the herds I've visited at Blijdorp and Planckendael. The studies I've come across highlighting welfare problems all showcase individuals of the older generations which were hand-raised/ripped away from their maternal herd, fed wrong diets, kept in subpar enclosures for decades, circus history,.... Decent elephant welfare is something fairly recent (last 20 years or so), so most of the older elephants still have behavioral problems that will never go away.

Most nocturnal solitary animals, so nearly all small predators that is. In general solitary species are more difficult to keep in a good mental condition then a species like elephants. Tarsiers are a great example too, but loris is another one.

Yes, but the donations from zoos would decrease for sure. As long as elephants are a net gain for zoos that they can invest either in in-situ conservation or in ex-situ conservation of other species removing elephants from zoos does not benefit conservation. Even if it would be a net zero balance, keeping them doesn't hurt conservation.

What you also do seem to forget often, is that a zoo is not only a place of direct conservation. It's a place where people connect with wildlife, and megafauna are simply great at doing that. This educates and motivates people to think more about their impact on the environment, and indirectly pushes them towards being more involved in conservation. As said before elephants are able to inspire people in a way a red duiker or an aardwolf can't. And besides the conservational benefit there is also the economical one, many least concern species like flamingoes and plains zebra are just economically interesting species. The money those species bring in allows zoos to conserve economically non-viable endangered species, so saying those species shouldn't be kept because they don't contribute to conservation simply doesn't add up, they just do that in a different indirect way. Elephants are no exception.

 

Yes, they work too but not if every zoo relies on those. The reason some zoos can rely on those is because others rely on big megafauna. There is not one big zoo niche to fill in, but many different niches ranging from large collections with megafauna to small collections without large animals, wildlife parks and specialist parks (reptile zoos, bird zoos, aquaria). The reason why all those collections coexist alongside each other is just because they cannot fully replace each other.

 

So the loris is an interesting one because yes they are challenging to keep in captivity but this is because of the paucity of baseline data conducted on them in both the wild and captivity that could inform better management / husbandry of them ex-situ.

One could argue that one of the reasons for that paucity of baseline data / lack of research is precisely because of the predominate focus on charismatic megafauna within zoos and research. Statistically it has been shown that an inordinate amount of research both within zoos and in-situ conservation situations is carried out on megafauna and to the detriment of smaller taxa, this is a big problem within conservation research.

Thankfully there is now research being carried out on the loris by the Nocturnal Primate Research Group at Oxford Brookes and this data is beginning to change how these animals are managed in captivity and to improve their wellbeing.

Tarsiers indeed are another matter entirely and these are animals that I would agree should not be kept ex-situ within zoo environments but within private captive breeding facilities and within the range country.

 

Actually I did found something. As the EAZA husbandry manual states, in UK elephants stereotypical behavior ranged from 0 to 60% of the time. Without doubt people living near other elephant herds and keepers on this forum can tell you more about their specific herds.

For example in the Planckendael herd, there is Yu-Yu-jin who came from a circus and displays "dancing" behavior on the regular. On the other hand I've never seen kai-mook and may-tagu display any stereotypical behaviors, two captive-bred elephants that grew up with their mother (and in the case of kai-mook with her older half-sister).

 

Even with all data present loris still wouldn't become a mayor display species, I love their behavior but they are still not easy to keep due to their low tolerance for stress.

The reason why megafauna also gets much more research is because people for some subjective reason do question their welfare a lot more, just as you are hesitant to believe that elephants can be kept in good welfare. And because those species are so important to the working of zoos, they need to counter those. By questioning the keeping of megafauna time and time again the focus is actually shifted away from the small mammals that you advocate. Instead of questioning wether zoos should decrease their amount of megafauna it would be way more productive to ask the question wether they can optimize the amount of non-megafauna they keep.

 

I know that they wouldn't and I wouldn't want lorises to become a major display species actually.

But the point of low tolerance of stress surely applies to elephants, big cats and great apes too doesn't it ?

In which case we have numerous species which are largely ill suited to captivity and far more so than much of the smaller taxa.

That is an interesting point that you raise about optimizing the amount of megafauna but I believe that I covered that in previous comments.

For example, I said that I think zoos should question whether it is necessary to keep as much megafauna as they currently do and whether it would not be better to keep a few select examples and focus the rest of space and resources on smaller taxa.

 

Asian elephants, gorillas and lions actually adapt greatly to captivity when it comes to behavior, it depends from species to species and you can hardly single out a taxonomical group. I'm also not saying that every species that is difficult to keep (wether it is a lori, hornbill, leopard or monitor) shouldn't be kept. I'm just saying that some of the megafauna people believe to be complex to keep simply isn't. Both for small and large animals there are species that are easy and difficult to keep, size is a very bad indicator for welfare issues. Large animals often require more space, but small animals are in general more prone to stresses from public presence.

Then you are again talking about a reduction in megafauna, whilst I'd rather say we need an increase in smaller animals. Those small zoos without megafauna have a hard time surviving, so reducing the amount of megafauna as Bristol has done is a dangerous business. As much as we all love these specialist collections with all these rare species, that's simply not how the real zoo landscape works. In the end it's what the public wants what shapes the zoo landscape.