What species would you ban from zoos?

Mainly invasive species in certain areas. So Cane Toads in the Southern U.S. being a big example (I also would ban them from being owned privately).

Also while not a ban, I really hope aquariums don't try to keep certain pelagic sharks in captivity like Great White Shark, especially since they generally don't do well in captivity.

 

I’m not going to wade into a debate on whether cetaceans should be kept in captivity or not as lord knows I’ve had enough debates on that topic to last a life time (I’m personally not against in the majority of cases), but if you want to talk about not having species that presently have a large percentage of wildborn animals in their captive population you might want to also kick out elephants, pangolins, various smaller bird species, the vast majority of saltwater fish, a few bat species, a ton of amphibian species, all species kept in collections like the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum....

 

Ah, but zoos that show these species have a wonderful opportunity to educate visitors about invasive species.


As for the invasive species in private collections debate, I personally think that it is fine to keep a species where they are already established, because:

A. If a few more get out, it won't really worsen the situation more than it already is, and

B. Then wild-caught animals can be kept by nature centers and private individuals, which would allow some of said invasive animals to be removed from the wild.


As for invasive species that are not established but could become so, banning them from private collections is far but I think zoos should be able to keep them if they want.

 

Invasive species do present an opportunity sometimes for education. I agree with that, yet you have to weigh that against the risk. Largely because I trust the AZA-accredited zoos of this country, to take safeguards against escape. You know what I don't trust. Many of the 95% of institutions that keep animals that are not accredited. These institutions almost never use invasive species for education purposes, and from my experience spread disinformation.

When you allow hundreds of people to just keep the species and buy them at pet shows, you create many sources of new individuals. These individuals may improve the genetics of that established or establishing population, as many invasive species descend from a small genepool. You also allow the species to cause local havoc on the ecosystem and increase the chance of local extinctions. Just because for example Cane Toads live in Southern Florida, does not mean there are not plenty of areas that have yet to be colonized. Also catching individuals of most invasive species will have little impact to no on the population. Maybe a few can be used for education and some kept as pets, yet these animals are in many cases vectors for disease.

 

This kind of attitude towards invasive species is not helpful and part of the reason why invasive species are so common and destructive towards local wildlife.

 

While I see your point, and I know this is an unpopular opinion, I think that zoos and aquariums shouldn't keep wild-caught animals unless they would not survive in the wild. And Lolita's situation may not represent the quality of life of most captive orcas. But that doesn't change the fact that in the wild, orcas would have tens of thousands of the amount of space they can be given in any enclosure. And I didn't realize it would like you to the Youtube video, I was just looking for a picture of Lolita's tank.

There are some situations where orcas do need to be housed in captivity. But breeding them to live in these small tanks, I think is unethical. And while I understand what a lot of people are saying here about how then they will start to ban elephants and stuff like that, I personally believe that orcas should not be kept in captivity. I am open to opinions, so please feel free to reply to try and change my mind!

 

I'm talking about where invasive species are already VERY common (ex. Cane Toads in Florida or Australia). If they are only in small numbers in the area (Asian Giant Hornets in the Pacific Northwest) I agree it should not be kept.

I have in the past kept wild-caught invasive species that I caught and kept them for myself. I think banning and/or severely limiting the sale of invasive species in some cases can help, but banning keeping them altogether is a bit extreme, and there have been more than a few cases of sale for the pet trade reducing the numbers of invasive species (like Tokay Geckos and Cuban Tree Frogs in the southeastern US and Monk Parakeets in Texas).

 

But Cane Toads in all of Florida are not very common. They are still establishing in most places, and we also don't have too much data. Which is a common occurrence with invasive species, hence why it's sometimes better to err on the side of caution.

Hence why I used it as an example. And I don't think its a bit extreme to ban invasive species being kept as pets. In fact, its been done many places around the world and the country. Does that eliminate the whole trade no? Yet the complacency of many especially in the herp community (don't get me wrong I have several reptiles and go to reptile shows regularly), is frightening. You can buy most highly invasive species online, with no limitations. Invasive species such as Cuban Tree Frog don't become invasive by a slow population growth and reproductive rate, that's just not how most invasives work. So while technically you may be right, and removing a bunch of tree frogs from the wild does reduce the numbers it almost certainly does nothing to reduce the growth of the population over that same time. And you are just giving that species a chance to move to a new area, due to irresponsible owners.

 

Does a clerk who works home office is less happy than a truck driver who drives 200 miles daily for work?

But why you want to treat killer whales like cattle, which are allowed or not allowed to breed by humans?

For welfare of social animals like killer whales, dolphins and elephants, they should live in social groups, and be free to perform normal social behaviors like courting, mating and raising young. Which is their main occupation. Elephant and killer whale matriachs care for children and grandchildren all their life, even after senescence. Unfortunately, some mistaken activists harm animals by moving them randomly and isolating, and preventing forming large social groups with multiple generations. All this for arbitrary human concepts which animals don't understand, like 'dying out for good of the species'. Activists might live childless for live, but should not force killer whales or elephants.

Here is currently a case of northern raccoon and muntjac in Europe, which are popular zoo animals. Not keeping them in zoos does nothing to already existing invasive populations. And also nothing to private pet industry keeping and possibly releasing them.

 

Same as every other species currently in captivity.

Orcas need that space in the wild because their food is spread out in the ocean. In a facility like SeaWorld they do not need to travel that far for food as it’s provided to them through training and enrichment. Elephants are similar and there have been studies that show when keepers provide enrichment and different opportunities throughout the day such as shifting yards or training, the elephants have higher welfare and will travel similar distances to those in the wild. So they don’t need the giant acres of space. Same could be safely applied to cetaceans. Dolphins have recently been shown to have higher lifespans in human care than wild dolphins as a result of increasing welfare in the past ~30 years. So it’s safe to say that orcas in human care have never had it better and many are better off than much of their wild counterparts.

 

Indeed. Don’t forget that, before the argument is made about depth, that cetaceans also mainly dive to escape threats or to.....hunt for food! So whilst it’s good to give them a deep pool so they have more space, it’s also not worth making a comparison here between wild and captive requirements.

 

It is not better for Orcas to be in captivity as their lifespans are dramatically shortened.Female Orcas in captivity only live around 29 years while female orcas in the wild are expected to live up to 50 with some reports even exceeding this.Male orcas are supposed to have a similar expectancy but in captivity they rarely live longer than 15 years.Yes, an Orca lived to be 52 but that was just one.All these others live incredibly short lifespans.It is wrong to say they have never had it better because they certainly have.Your claim that they have higher lifespans in captivity nowadays is correct but there has still only been one case of it exceeding the average in the wild and no cases of it exceeding the maximum in the wild of 80 years.

As far as depth goes the pools are deep but they are nowhere near as deep as they should be meaning in the wild they had it much better when there were almost unlimited depths to go hunting.They do not go too far but they go much deeper than they possibly could in captivity.

If we are going to keep Orcas in captivity we must stop doing the shows because while it does provide exercise it is also performing against their own will.There are very few if any zoos with orcas that do not encourage them to perform in captivity.

Also there are many signs that they do not enjoy it such as some of the sounds they make when being taken from the wild, the fact which most captive orcas have a lop-sided dorsal fin and the blunt teeth that they get from chewing the glass panels.

Maybe it is ‘okay’ to keep orcas in captivity but it is almost certainly not preferable for the animals.And it is worth making a comparison as it well shows how bad it is for orcas in captivity.

 

I would like to reduce the captive populations of large animals that are not part of a reintroduction programme. Some zoos spend millions of pounds on new large enclosures, while reducing the number of smaller species they keep. I went to Wildwood a few years ago. The zoo breeds many water voles and release some into the wild, keeping the captive population relatively.
Compare this with species that are not part of a reintroduction programme. The zoos breed them and then try to find other zoos to take some of the progeny, leading to more space occupied by a few species, supposedly in the name of conservation. With such species, it would be better to concentrate on in-situ conservation to protect those species and others.
There are many species that have been kept in zoos, but are now extinct, sometimes due to lack of interest. Surely small, endangered species have more right to exist than large ABC species kept in hundreds of zoos.

 

Against their own will? How do you possibly know that?

I have no issue if it demonstrates natural behaviour or simulates their natural behaviour to the benefit of their health.

 

If it is not against their own will then why have the only incidents of Orcas killing people occurred in captivity during the shows?The simple answer is they did not like these trainers standing on their noses or luring them randomly onto land encouraging them to splash their flukes.This is not natural behaviour for an Orca!Aggression, paranoia and severe stress has been shown by captive orcas and the main difference between captivity and the wild that could have caused this is the fact that every day in captivity they must perform in an unnatural manner.

Except it does not do any of those things.If it was demonstrating natural behaviour then it should have them in a spacious pool hunting and vocalising, nobody standing in their noses and throwing food at them, no random swimming on land and splashing their fluke as they will starve otherwise.If it was simulating it they would have to at least hunt and do more movement in a larger pool than what has been provided.It is not for the benefit of their own health either.It has resulted in strange behaviour and lop-sided dorsal fins, neither of which are natural.

As far as I am concerned there is no simulation, no demonstration and no health benefits.

 

Not all have occurred during shows actually. Also Orca experts have said that the behaviour that led them to killing people could be described as playful, so not aggression towards human keepers. So not sure that proves it because Orcas are killing humans.

Actually Ocras have been filmed beaching onto ice flows (correct term?) and then wiggling order to push themselves further in the hunt for prey. Very much similar to them beaching on to a stage, which is more a husbandry technique in order to help ensure the animal is fit and healthy, which most animals in captivity are trained in some way. Also I said if shows demonstrate natural behaviour, so please don't use elements of it (keepers in the water being pushed into the air) that I have not said I agreed with as some form of counter agreement (but it could also said this demonstrates some of their hunting behaviour when hunting penguins and the fact Orcas have been filmed playing with food in similar way. However I agree they should not be in the pool with them).

So have the lop-sided dorsal fin been proved as an issue with their behaviour, last I read on the issue they had not decided 100% what causes it?

Please elaborate on this strange behaviour, quoting some your source please, always eager to read and learn more.

 

Many of your opinions are very simplistic, be they on this topic or a wide variety of others, from the welfare of bush-dogs to what constitutes a 'good' enclosure...
Many new members on here seem to 'crash and burn', so I would suggest that you back up your own thoughts with either proof of experience, or make sure your cite some other supporting opinion.

 

Was there ever even a sufficient number of river dolphins in captivity so we can safely determinate that they "don't breed well"? Also my understanding is that they'd been kept in bad exhibits that weren't adjusted to their needs and behavior, so that is something that can be adjusted now when we know what was wrong.

 

Last I heard the lop-sided dorsal fin was a hereditary trait.

 

I am far from a supporter of the anti-cap/PETA crowd, quite the opposite actually. The issue that I have a really hard time with is the longevity of captive orcas. If you look at a list of all captive orcas the vast majority die very young, and they also have an incredibly high infant mortality rate. Pretty much every other species has a longer captive lifespan than their wild counterparts, why is the opposite true of orcas?