Oké ,I'm sorry. I never said I don't like the answer given or that I'm afraid of discussion. That's merely interpretation. I just did not like the way you were speaking, as to me it came over to be rude and personal. I might not have been intented that way. Maybe I do went out on a limb. I have been wrong, and my apologies. I will now - Iwon't have a choice - discuss if needed, but I won't go beyond what I consider a reasonable border. Debate is not beyond. Look, I like the smaller, rare and less popular species more. I spent most time watching birds ,antelopes ,and such. I also like reptiles (well, not snakes, but the rest I do) a great lot. I have never said I actually want these species to dissapear. I do want some to dissapear. This species are cetaceans and no others. The others can be continued to be kept. The fact that I generally don't like the charismatic mega fauna much ,doesn't mean I want rid of them. That wouldn't be a good idea if I wanted to ensure the future of zoos, would it. Besides that ,I don't believe a zoo without these animals would be 'bare'. I've seen zoos without any of the big species, that still were very interesting and that I liked.
Actually, with apes being so human-like, I am not sure if being in the rain forest is better to them. Humans prefer urban life to that of hunter-gatherer. Chimpanzees at least learn and like many conveniences of civilized life. Refrigerator, TV set and all. Several decades ago, circus chimps were brought to Africa and shown a forest to re-wild them. Chimps hated it.
I know. Many animals that have gotten used to captivity do not like the wild anymore or can no longer survive. Isn't this a form of domestication, I wonder, or is it a form of adaptation by these animals ? I do not know. Btw, I'm not sure - and cannot know - if apes like to watched all day. I'm not very comfortable on learning them to use what we humans use. If kept, they should at least be in an environment as natural as possible. Including trees ,that means.
I disapprove the "special treatment" demanded for cetaceans. A bottlenose dolphin deserves the same proper, species-adequate husbandry as a Berber toad, a Walking Leaf or a Green Jay-but it certainly doesn't deserve privileges due to personal favouritism, no matter how much the New Age Wave has tried to portray dolphins as the always smiling "Ãœber"-creatures. There are many of the cetaceans that can't, shouldn't and won't be kept in captivity, as it would be technologically impossible and way too expensive to do so-like in the case of the baleen whales (think of JJ), the sperm whale, Beaked whales etc. There are cetacean species that don't do well in captivity due to various, sometimes unknown reasons; there are species that could be kept but there are indications that the current husbandry isn't optimal and probably won't be in the future (fins of male orcas), making it questionable whether to keep on keeping them is OK or not; and then there are species that seem to do pretty fine in human captivity, like f.e. Commerson's dolphins, beluga and the ever-popular bottlenose dolphins. Is it therefore that easy to generalize and forbid keeping all of them due to rather ambiguous, mainly emotional reasons? What if I wake up next morning, saying: "I can't stand the thought of koalas kept in a zoo! They have all to disappear magically! And presto-gone they are"-would that make any sense? Certainly not; it depends on the individual case. While the husbandry of Orcas in "exhibitionistic" husbandries like in SW or the Loro Parque or dolphin shows in hotel complexes and amusement parks surely aren't something many zoo fans can relate to easily, the husbandry of dolphins at Harderwijk f.e. doesn't seem to trigger many negative feelings; like I said, it depends on the individual case, species & circumstances. Frankly, I think that some cetaceans do qualify for professional animal husbandry and that some highly endangered species could benefit from projects in "Harderwijk style", like the vaquita or various river dolphins. Additionally, I also think that the knowledge derived from the experiences in captivity can be useful in helping wild populations; think f.e. in terms of veterinary knowledge (where to take blood from, common diseases, medication, dose etc.). And the "ambassador" role of the captive cetaceans on people should not be neglected, either. However, this doesn't mean that current husbandry conditions should not be optimized if needed-but this is also true for ALL species kept in human custody. Just wishing them to disappear because one has a personal grudge or rather indifference torwards their husbandry, sometimes based on a lack of better knowledge of the subject, isn't a valid point and won't be taken seriously in the (pro) zoo world. All in all: No special treatment for dolphins, apes, elephants etc. Why didn't Brown Bears reproduce a lot in European collections during the last years? The answer is simple: decades before, the zoos had way too many cubs and didn't know where to put them-which resulted in quite strong pulic reactions (see Leipzig Bear "funeral"). Therefore, the zoos introduced birth control measurements and thus avoided unwanted pregnancies. Now the Brown Bears in European collections are dying off and are too old to reproduce...which will result in Brown Bears brought in from other countries or the replacement with other bear species (which wouldn't be a bad thing). Apes + trees = escapes, hurt staff/visitors and frustrated zoo gardeners; a possible solution-see Seattle Zoo. A good exhibits offers animals the possibility to hide if needed-and half of the day (at night) nhardly anyone watches them, anyway. Even You personally prefer small critters, @Xerxes-do You think that most visitors share this attitude? If so, why are they all flocking to the apes etc. and leave You marvelling at Your favourites in solitude? Why do the zoos not consist solely of the animals You prefer? And why not also let all snakes "disappear magically" as You stated not to like them either...? The answers to these and other similar questions can be found in various threads in this forum. Yet be told that You can't measure everything just based on Your personal point of view; sometimes, being objective can be way more helpful.
"Natural" is category from human viewpoint and I don't like pushing your idea "where ape should be" on an ape. Apes do like human conveniences. If they like it - let them do it. BTW - it is perfectly possible to communicate with ape directly and figure out what even other animals want or don't want. You certainly don't need to assume that chimps don't like toys and blankets, gorillas like lush grass (they don't) etc.
Well said, I agree to a great extent. My thoughts are that so far even bottlenoses and others are not doing very well in captivity. Many young die ,many adults die to early. Lots of disease as well. Not strangely, this occurs in the showbassins and the smaller bassins. I haven't been in Harderwijk for at least 7 years ,and I'm not planning on going back, but I've spoken about it with a girl I know who is a dolphin freak; she told me how great the laguna is and how well the dolphins do. Maybe I should reconsider. Sadly, it's not possible to house all dolphins in facilities this style. Btw, considering Harderwijk: it does trigger negative reactions in the Netherlands from - well ,you know who. I agree their keeping and husbrandy should be optimalized; maybe in that case, they have a future in zoos. But I do not really believe in it. Look, I don't think you want to hear some of my argumentation. I've read a lot on websites made by activists. Not that I am one or even like them. Quite the opposite, in fact. But I do agree on some points - this considers many species though. The main argument is the bad state of health and husbandry in many dolphins and the short lifespan (which also does for orcas, btw). This is a serious point. I am not wishing to dissapear, but if it cannot be done to improve this points to a high extent and to stop using them in shows, I'm afraid they better do dissapear. Look, Sun ,I do not want to get into a long time conflict with you, but things like these are, even if meant constructive, in my opinion not very helping towards a discussion. There is a thin line between criticizing and offending (which you are not crossing though). I know very well I shouldn't have named some species maybe, I'm not that knowledgable on all. I do have studied the keeping and husbrandry of some, which so far in the case of cetaceans supported my believe they shouldn't be kept. Look, I'm not ,and I'll say it again, a great liker of the popular species. It's a grudge, I know. I'm not indifferent though. If I was, would I enjoy watching lion and tiger cubs ,baby elephants and more? Look, again. Maybe opposition to the keeping is a strong word. I just have very strong second thoughts on it. I will keep on criticizing what I do not like. I've seen very good things for almost any species. I know my point hasn't been made valid or argumented. You've made it all to clear, and it doesn't need to be said all over again. There is a line between debating and getting personal. Look, I'm only just here; I do not want conflicts with members as of yet. Depends on what you mean... every speciesn needs a special treatment matching up to the specific needs. Could you elaborate on the term 'special treatment'? Well, I cannot speak about decades ago, as I'm only visiting zoos for about a single decade. I know about the age of many brown bears, but my belief is it also might have to do with inadequacy of some facilities. Also ,many go into hibernation and then give birth. I do not know of hibernating brown bears in zoos, actually. It's pretty sad they aren't breeding, but maybe others species are. Not a bad thing to make space. I wasn't saying - on the apes - they should be able to actually get up in the trees. I know zoos where they have them ,and are kept out of most (especially near the edge). This for example was done at Arnhem zoo (not in a very good-looking way though ; the electrified iron wires are all too visible, even from great distance). Even if one so ,though apes can still get over or out. It has happened in Arnhem in the past (they used sticks and cooperated to get on a roof ,I believe). Maybe trees isn't the very best solution, but I do not know what Seattle zoo has done. My main point is that in my opinion the currently common climbing structures aren't always sufficient. Of course, a good environment can be made without real trees. Of course; I wholehartedly agree. Many new exhibits keep this in mind, which is only good. For example, in the Belgian zoo law it is clearly stated (I have a print) that animals need hiding places. Too bad that in my opinion the regulations for stables and inner enclosures are still weak; I do not have a problem with it when they sleep. But if they are separated for longtime, I do. Separated animals ,even when not being watched ,need to have their needs met. To me , the fact no-one watches them at night is not a reason to make the night cages very small. But I agree if it's not visible, it's probably not interesting to think about. Of course most do not share this attitude. I have done enough zoo visits to know clearly which animals are popular. I understand this, and thus think that the popular species are needed. I don't pay as much attention to them as most, but I still watch them. Even the ones I don't like so much, can be pretty nice. I'm interested in most animals ,but I believe most here have their favourites. So do I. This does not mean the other animals should not be present. Search a good balance, I'd say. Maybe someone should let me get to know the popular and charismatic animals better and let me appreciate them ever more. A challenge ,you say ? Really, you're taking this a bit far now. That I stated I do not like some species or have less interest in them (which might be a strong term, though) is not a reason to let them dissapear. I do not want to see snakes go. The reason for me not liking them is I was dead scared as a child. The same as I still have nowadays, but towards mice and rats. Favourite prey of many snakes, btw. I will read and watch through the other topics. It will be very interesting. You've made your point clear, and I understand. You do not need to state it time and time again.
Species which shouldn't be kept in captivity: (a) critically endangered species for which little scientific data exists, and which has either never been kept in captivity or has never bred in captivity before (eg Yangzte river dolphin - which is probably extinct anyway). (b) species which are so numerous that captive populations hold no purpose whatsoever (the aforementioned vermin, although lines become blurred when one man's vermin is another man's exotic!) (c) species for which it would be impossible (in the real world) to provide adequate facilities in enough locations to keep sufficient numbers required for a sustainable captive population. The larger cetaceans would surely fall into this category. (d) species which are known to carry diseases (especially contagious/airborne diseases) harmful to man. This would be restricted to certain invertebrates, I suppose. I also think captive populations on small islands are a special case: in this instance, the likely effect of an escaped invasive species on endemic flora and fauna should be taken into account.
I agree, but I have to make something clear. Obviously ,vermins ,various athropods and other invertebrates carry disease and should by all means by kept out of zoos and if present rigorously controlled or exterminated. But, also various other animals can be carriers of disease. For example ,some fowl contain Salmonella ,a bacteria causing food intoxication. This is usually only dangerous when you eat the meat uncoocked or not well coocked. But salmonella is also carried by reptiles, aspecially tortoises. Not that it's not avoidable ,very well with thorough handwashing. Also other animals of various kinds may carry possibly dangerous parasites and diseases. My opinion is though that contamination by contact can be avoided with handwashing and protective clothing if necessary. This is of course needed. Btw, you're speaking about dangerous animals, chris. I was wondering ,any thoughts on venomous animals ? I think it's oké if they're locked up very well ,including extra safety ,if they can be separated from keepers during cleaning and if serum (antidote) is present.
Actually (d) refers to a loooot of species; even and especially our beloved pets and domestic animals would fall into that category. There is always the danger of zoonosis transmission in every case of animal contact; this is surely not limited on invertebrates. (b) would mean that equally a lot of very popular species would have to go. I'm wondering whether zoos would let go of their meerkats, Common squirrel monkey, peacocks or flamingos that easily... @Xerxes: Many of the "data" available about "diseases", deaths, short life-span of cetacea, "high" infancy rate is either outdated or sometimes even made up (in some lists institutions were listed that had never kept dolphins etc., specimen were double-listed etc.); especially in terms of veterinary medicine, there has been a progress in regard of cetacean. You should be cautious when reading activists' information material as the investigations if undertaken are often sloppy, unprofessional, misinterpreteing and overly anthropomorphising. The criticism also has a good effect: a lot of the bad old dolphinaria in Europe have faded away, and the still existing ones are closing one after another. Still, I think a total ban on cetacea husbandry is "insert vulgar explicit devaluation". One last remark: don't have a chip on Your shoulder all the time. I'm not interested in snubbing or personally offending You; just get rid of that impression. I'm just mildly (!)correcting some of Your statements if I don't agree on them and try to put certain aspects in perspective. Got me?
Carefullness is always needed with animals and their excrements. Many or even most species can be carriers of disease and even very harmfull diseases. For example ,parrots can carry (and get ill of it themselves) ornithosis ,which is also very dangerous to humans. This would mean a great deal of species would have to go.... (btw, flamingos are common ,but do not breed very well yet, sadly). Of course progress will have been made, I do believe it has. I know some of the data were false. Some of what I've read I know cannot possibly be true. Of course these "researches" are not always trustable. I though have read a few very interesting ones. I certainly agree they should do their research more thorough. I am carefull with read information. As I've said ,I mostly hate these activists. I'm also in to reading opposite information. If you have any, please, I'm open to it. But it stays what I have seen is to me convincing. I'm happy many of the bad ones are gone, but shows are still being kept with dolphins ,and some bad still exist. I don't think they need to dissapear out of zoos completely as of yet. Another chance has to be given, but a lot of change is needed. I respect your point; I hope you do mine. No need for calling others' opinion that what I think you mean in the last sentence I'm sorry, my bad. I might be a bit overstressed lately. I accept and respect you ,your opinion and your corrections, though I resent some of the choosen ways of explanation in a certain way. Of course, it's your right to disagree and give extra information. I've learned some very interesting things here. Maybe I might change opinions on some things (eg bears, apes and such). That's what a forum is for. Though ,some of my opinions rest. Let's leave it to this : very most species can be kept if suitable. And now , please no more conflicts. @ sun : if you need to say anything more or elaborate on anything ,you can pm me.
Easy, dude-relax; read what I wrote before and chill . That was a general statement about banning cetacea husbandry, once again not aimed personally at You. And about zoonosis, You're talking with the right guy there... Faeces is just one of many, many ways of transmission. And as stupid as it may sound: You can't get ornithosis from parrots. Huh? Yes, that's correct, yet only nitpicking. If You get the disease via a parrot or two and if the disease breaks out in parrots, it's psittacosis; if it breaks out in all the roughly 400 bird species the agent has been found in, it's ornithosis. And nevertheless it's in both cases the same agent-Chlamydophila psittaci, a mean little intracellularly parasitising bacterium. special treatment (in terms of dolphins, apes etc) =privileges = "positive discrimination" "special" generally-see examples of toad, insect, bird-> species-appropriate & animal-appropriate husbandry
Sun Wukong - sorry to out-nitpick you but parrots are birds (as I'm sure you are aware) and therefore it is perfectly permissible and correct (although less specific) to refer to a human disease picked up from them as ornithosis To get back to the original post: I would object to the keeping of whale sharks which can currently be seen in two institutions, because we know virtually nothing of their biology and behaviour; there is little or no experience of keeping them or similar animals in captivity (I appreciate the circularity of this point); they are endangered; they are huge and require huge and expensive accommodation which I am not sure is currently on offer (I haven't visited Georgia or Okinawa aquaria however); there have already been deaths and replacements of these animals in a fairly short time. The conservation message coming from these two places regarding this species seems even more hollow than the usual zoo message of "helping to save the species".
There is indeed a risk of transmission through zoonosis (and not forgetting reverse zoonosis). I was thinking more in terms of the diseases we Europeans need to be inoculated against whenever we travel to the tropics, some of which are carried by animals, often invertebrates. Yes, it's unlikely that zoos would go to the trouble of exhibiting malarial mosquitoes in a walkthrough exhibit , so I suppose it's more of a hypothetical point. No, I'm quite sure they wouldn't. But, they could be replaced by similar but more endangered species of much higher conservation value which zoos would be more justified in keeping and breeding. Unless, that is, they fall into my category (a)
@Pygathrix: sorry dude, but You're wrong; I'm not making the veterinary guideline rules. The seperation I mentioned above is quite common in governmental epizootic control programs, f.e. in Germany. According to them, an outbreak of Chlamydophila psittaci in parrots (=psittacosis) is of greater importance than one in other birds (=ornithosis) and thus has a higher safety status, resulting in state-run veterinary control measurements (by executive veterinarians). This has two reasons: a) Parrots usually are the kind of birds people have the closest relation to (pet parrots nibbling at Your face) and thus the risk of transmission is higher. b) In former times, ps. and o. were considered two different illnesses, with p. leading to more fatal results due to a) (f.e. sailors). And about the whale shark: all sound and fine-but how should more knowledge and experience about their husbandry be won if they are not kept? Same situation with Great White Sharks in Monterey Bay Aquarium; everyone told them it's a bad idea, and nevertheless their program seems to work after all. @Chris79: Why shouldn't zoos not be "justified" to breed and keep "common" species instead of rare relatives? Take the African branch of the Colobinae as an example: no zoo has so far succeeded in keeping red or olive colobus monkeys alive for a longer period of time, while f.e. the Eastern Black-and-white Colobus is doing pretty fine. Why not rather concentrate on in-situ projects for red and olive colobus monkeys and keep the hardier Guereza as an "ambassador" species in the zoos, instead of keeping red's and olives in zoos? Same is true for meerkats & Liberian Mongoose, Blue & Sansibar Duiker, Giant & common Sable antelope, East Lowland & Mountain gorilla etc. In most cases, the conservation value of the above scenario (popular common species as ambassador in zoo, endangered & less popular species rather taken care of in in-situ projects "behind the scenes") is much higher than what You suggest. And don't forget how soon a "common" species can become endangered-f.e. the river hippopotamus. About zoonoses: some of the mysterious tropical "diseases" You're inoculated against (IF You can be vaccinated against them at all....) before doing the Great Jungle Adventure do belong to that category-at least partly; yet it depends on the scenario & the illness whether invertebrates are involved (like in the case of an arbovirus or a trypanosoma infection) or not. However, so called "tropical diseases" play only a very small role in the zoo world, at least in western zoos; it's rather other epizootics, supported and spread by the productive livestock market that are of interest here. The term "zoonosis" btw. automatically includes "zooanthroponosis" as well as ""anthropozoonosis (aka "reverse zoonosis"-a quite rarely used term and nowadays in Europe of interest in the case of TBC).
@Pygathrix: good point about the whale sharks. Maybe we should throw that question out there...has anyone on ZooBeat actually been to either Georgia or Okinawa Aquarium? Hopefully someone can shed some light on the living arrangements of these magnificent creatures. I know that Georgia also has about 5 beluga whales, and they are another contentious animal for any-captivity activists. The Vancouver Aquarium has 4 belugas and it has been a bit of a battle over the years to keep them at bay from activists.
Sun - ok I concede that the veterinary distinction may be there, but from the human medical point of view it is pointless as it leads to the same illness. The same as if you are a human ill with salmonellosis, the same disease will be manifest in the same manner whether you caught it from undercooked chicken or playing with your pet terrapin. Re whale sharks: field studies should be the first stage in acquiring basic information about an enigmatic animal. This creature is rare and zoos will contribute to its rarity if they exhibit them. Monterey seem to be involved with mostly field studies of GWS and keep small injured sharks for short periods before returning them to the sea. They have no plans or facilities to keep adults or to breed them. This is not the case with the whale sharks at the other two aquaria. They may make a spectacular exhibit but it will be short-lived, all we will learn is that they do not thrive in captivity, and the conservation value will be zero. Basically the situation orcas were in 40 years ago, which is approximately the situation they are in today.
Haven't studies shown that bears tend to do better in captivity in pairs/small groups? And what is this Leipzig Bear "funeral"? Don't sound pretty lol
New Orleans Insectarium is going to have a mosquito exhibit-yet they have to build it on purpose (in opposite to Singapure...) There is actually a debate about how many whale sharks exist at all; nevertheless, the pressure on their population due to fin-fishing is there and shouldn't be broadened by the aquarium trade (though I doubt that many private fish keepers have a tank that big...). However, I do remain to my statement that You should first gather knowledge and husbandry experience before judging whether the species is compatible to human husbandry or not. I'm also aware that this can't work in the case of a highly endangered species, though, where each individual is of importance. About Chlamydophila psittaci: yes, the outcome in a human is pretty much the same-yet the differentiation is important for You as a bird-keeper in the case of an outbreak, as not reporting the outbreak of psittacosis in f.e. Germany is chargeable. And about the salmonellosis: sorry to correct You again, but also this scenario of Yours is not that explicit as You think-the individual serovar/ phage type can differ according to the "source" and thus the outcome of symptoms and its therapy (think of multi-resistant phage types like DT104) can vary. In the case of the chicken, Salmonella enterica spp. enterica as well as gallinarum, pullorum etc. is possible; in the case of the little terrapin, there are more possibilities...
@ashley-h : There are some speculations (like SAMBRAUS: Zoo animal husbandry) that groups in zoos can have positive effects in terms of positive social interaction in usually solitary species like bears or Orang-utans. In the 1990s the Leipzig Zoo sold some of its surplus brown bears; some ended in a restaurant. The local media heard of this and started to make a hoopla, which resulted even in a church service for the "murdered" (sic!) bears, attended by quite a bunch of Leipzig residents.
