What species would you ban from zoos?

Narwhals are very popular with children at the moment, mainly due to the unicorn connection. I'd love to see one, but not in a small tank.

 

It is interesting to note that, in the article “Gorillas, Past and Present” (Bulletin of the New York Zoological Society; 1915), William T. Hornaday wrote:

“There is not the slightest reason to hope that an adult gorilla, male or female, ever will be seen living in a zoological park or garden”.

 

The following isn't a case of banning species, rather of managing them.

If the purpose of zoos is to preserve endangered species ex situ as part of a reintroduction programme, I can understand several zoos having a species that can be kept safely until individuals can be reintroduced to the wild with a high chance of survival.

If this is the case, zoos should be careful about the number of species of 'Least Concern', which often constitute a large percentage of their collection. Some of these species occupy space that could be used by endangered species. Zoos should cooperate with nearby collections, where they can decide that one zoo can keep some species, while another zoo keeps other species. There is no good reason for both zoos to keep the same 'Least Concern' species, which can be seen nearby.

The same can be said about species that cannot be reintroduced into the wild. These should be conserved in situ. This does not mean that some can't be kept in captivity. It means that zoos should be careful about deciding to reduce their collections in order to build new, expensive, large enclosures for ABC species that are abundant in captivity. Some of these species should perhaps be phase-out species in some areas, rather than some less popular endangered species that are currently kept in few collections

 

One practical case against banning killer whales is that since they are supposedly phased off there is little interest in building larger exhibits. Therefore the current killer whales will live for several decades in small pools.

During this time, many similar-sized tanks in new oceanaria or public swimming pools were built within 3-4 years, and in just 2 decades several tens of zoos in Europe build the whole set of facilities which transformed how elephants are bred. Seaworld and similar could also build larger pools, but were locked in an endless quarrel.

Improving facilities is much faster than phasing off the species.

Second argument is that activists protesting against killer whales ultimately want their own publicity and their ideology against the welfare of the said whales. Talking about bans inflames the pointless debate.

 

The issue with barring “Least Concern” taxa from zoo spaces is that every day, more and more “Least Concern” species become “Vulnerable” species, and then “Endangered,” and so on. There are very, very few species aside from human beings that are in no danger now, nor will be within the next 100 years. For example, the king cobra was a LC species 15 years ago, but zoos kept them anyway because they’re very popular amongst the zoogoing public. But they were uplisted to Vulnerable in 2009 because of habitat destruction, so now zoos serve as genetic reservoirs and ex situ conservation sites for them, which fortunately was helped by already having many of them prior to their IUCN status change. This is true of many other species, as well.

 

I’ve heard this, too. Malaysian kings are very different from ones found in Thailand and in India. Most notably coloration and scale patterns but also maximum size and venom yield. I’m not sure how many zoos currently segregate their kings by location of origin, and how many have interbred them into hybridization hell.

 

With a few exceptions, I only know of very few zoos that breed king cobras. The main ex-situ breeding (although still in little numbers in comparison to other elapids) is done by private owners. Some of them separate their specimens according to locality, others don't.

 

I'm sorry if there has been some confusion, Imaginarius

I accept that various species have become more endangered during the years and zoos should reflect this.

I also feel that there is no conservation value in many zoos keeping the same 'Least Concern' species at the expense of endangered species that could be part of a reintroduction programme.

I find it a nonsense that only 2 Australian zoos seem to keep numbats, while many zoos keep meerkats.

 

I’ll have to ask one of the herp keepers how they manage them the next time I go to my zoo (Saint Louis). I know they breed them on-site, I took a behind-the-scenes tour a few years back and they have 3-4 rooms filled with hundreds of snake species kept off-show that they use to maintain their collection. They said they had a good deal of success breeding their kings.

 

Problem is you need to keep popular animals in order help protect the un-popular animals, its a nice sentiment but it doesn't pull the visitors in and therefore reduces the amount of money into collections.

Yes zoos need to do more and you can see they are doing so, Chester zoo with off-show breeding of Scottish wild cats, Highland wildlife park doing the same with Leopards for reintroduction.

 

Totally agree @Dassie rat and well said !

 

It is my belief that the vast majority of animals can live very well-adjusted and enriching lives in modern zoos, including great apes and elephants, and that zoo animals today in the best zoo facilities with all their needs attended are probably happier than most wild animals, but I am opposed to orca captivity. No tank will ever approach the richness of the ocean or the natural lives of absolutely enormous wide-ranging animals with mental capacities approaching our own. I can't envision any future husbandry changes that will make keeping them personally acceptable to me, because their natural world is one so very unlike anything we can reproduce. It is one thing to replicate a forest setting for orangutans and provide novel enriching ways to get food and abundant high climbing structures... but for an orca, enrichment is primarily coming from their large social groups and space on an unfathomably large scale. Animals that swim 75 miles per day in a full three dimensional world with no boundaries just don't belong in a tank. I think sea pens would be more acceptable for the current captives which cannot be easily released, though there are some old wild-caught whales that probably could return to their pods still and re-adjust. I am glad that some facilities have stopped breeding the species.

While I am sure an enriching exhibit can be made, I have never seen a captive polar bear without significant stereotyped stress behaviors and feel if this species is to be maintained, it needs to be in more appropriate conditions and probably in a larger yard than any zoo currently provides. I have read an open, raised exhibit with a wide view is highly beneficial to avoid severe pacing, does any zoo currently utilize this approach?

 

Sorry, Taun

Please note that I never said that zoos should ban all the popular animals. I said there should be fewer zoos keeping certain 'Least Concern' species and species that are not part of a reintroduction programme. I think this is especially important where several zoos have the same species, even though they are a relatively short distance from each other.

Within the London area, the following mammals appear more than once:
4 collections: Ring-tailed lemur
3 collections: Bearded emperor tamarin, lesser hedgehog tenrec, meerkat, red-necked wallaby, South American coati
2 collections: Asian small-clawed otter, Azara's agouti, Bolivian squirrel monkey, common fallow deer, dwarf mongoose, Patagonian mara, Siberian chipmunk

 

Orcas travel such long distances in the wild primarily to find food, they don't need to do that in captivity so they therefore need less space than in the wild.

 

Okay, I'll be content with a 35 mile wide tank.

 

I don't really have an opinion on Orcas in captivity one way or another, but I do think that "they travel 75 miles in one day" argument in dumb. There are lots of animals that travel large distances in the wild but do not need anywhere near that space in captivity - just look at Polar Bears!

 

See my above - this is another species I have issues with. I suppose I am also against keeping many large birds, particularly soaring species.

 

It is indeed not proven that long-distance traveling animals necessarily suffer from not doing this in captivity. It's true that there are some indications that these animals on average are more prone to have welfare issues in captivity, but this is no certainty (just look at elephants).

When it comes to polar bears, I must say I also have my reservations but I haven't been able to visit any of the upper-class exhibits in Europe.