What species would you ban from zoos?

Just given me a very good idea for a thread topic. Thanks @Dassie rat !

 

Good point that status of wild animals changes so fast, that many species went from 'least concern' to 'endangered' within the time of setting up a collection plan, or indeed, within a lifetime of one individual animal in a zoo. Zoos need to plan also for this risk.

For majority of intelligent animals, the main source of simulation is their social group. So the biggest factor in welfare should be keeping large, suitable groups. That is why chimps or monkeys thrive in relatively small exhibits if kept in a group. An individual monkey or a chimp is virtually impossible to keep without severe abnormal behavior. Here naive animal lovers often make situation worse, when they separate one or two primates, cetaceans or elephants in a 'sanctuary'. They are probably anthromorphising, that many humans live as single and are uncomfortable to live other than one family in one house.

 

Indeed. Chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos should always be kept with several of their kind, ideally in groups of at least 10. In the wild, their groups can number in the hundreds. The inverse is also true, though, especially for many of the cats. Tigers, snow leopards, jaguars, etc. are solitary animals, so having a breeding pair is very tricky. Many zoos keep them in separate habitats, or alternate their outdoor/indoor schedule times so that they’re never together (except when the female is in estrus).

 

Another point for keeping “least concern” animals in zoos is the fact that many zoos act as homes for non releasable native wildlife which for the Western world is a lot of species that do not have a threatened status. These least concern animals DO serve conservation value just by them being on exhibit. They teach people about the wonderful forms of life that may not be threatened as of yet. Just something to think about.

 

Sorry but that is not really what the current knowledge about these species says.

Orangs are semi-social, and keeping them in large groups goes against their natural situation. A fission-fusion situation of smaller groups and individual dominant males is advised. Male gorilla's may also be solitary or live in quite small bachelor groups, something reflected in zoos. For the western gorilla the groups are also quite small, often less then 10 members. The eastern gorilla's have bigger groups on average, but still not groups into the 100's. The only apes that do live in groups of 100+ are bonobos and chimpanzees, but they can also live in communities of less than 20 and those huge groups don't reflect you average group size.

That does not mean current ape-group size is always ideal. I believe exhibits capable of housing at least 30 chimps or bonobos should become the standard. On the other hand zoos with orangs should in my opinion go towards smaller subgroups in a fission-fussion system, this can also greatly benefit reproduction success.

When it comes to big cats, a study about pacing in tigers actually found that the ideal configuration was pairs, not single nor larger groups.

 

I was mostly referring to chimps and bonobos with the 100+ number, but you’re right, there is much nuance in ape social structures.

As for tigers, I do not know what study you read, but they live solitary lives in the wild. All of them, with the exception of a mother and her cubs. They are reclusive, shy, and never found in pairs or groups, and any AZA facility that knows what it’s doing is going to try and reflect that. Pacing is an issue, sure, but all the animal behaviorists I have ever talked to have stressed the importance of maintaining the social structure an animal naturally exhibits in its native habitat. For tigers, that is unambiguous.

 

It depends on the personalities of the individuals involved - there are many exceptions.

At Hamilton Zoo, an aging tigress was housed with an unrelated male until his death this year. They were successfully introduced years after she had been speyed and genuinely enjoyed each other’s company. Their introduction meant neither had to be confined to the dens while the other was on exhibit and I never saw either of them pacing on my visits over the years.

I can also recall numerous examples of males tigers being introduced to their cubs (without incident); despite the assumption by most people that they’d kill them at the first chance they’d get.

 

People.

 

All the hybrids which are pretty much useless for conservation at long term (or at least they shouldn't be bred)

 

I agree that hybrids are useless as regards reintroduction programmes, although I quite liked seeing the zeedonks at Colchester Zoo.

I wonder if domestic animals should be kept in zoos, rather than on farms. When I visited Basel Zoo, the farm area seemed to take up a high proportion of the zoo.

 

Concerning tigers: field observations in India until the 1980s reported that tigers were often semi-social. Over 10 tigers could visit one kill and feed in peace. Only adult males did not tolerate each other. This ended when poaching brought tigers to very low density. It makes sense when one thinks how close tigers are to social lions.

In zoos, related tigers (like two sisters or mother-sister pair) can usually be kept together in the adult life.

 

Male tigers do occasionally run into their own cubs in the wild, although they take no part in parenting them. And they seem to instinctively know that they’re theirs, because they won’t kill any cubs that they’ve fathered, but will kill the rest.

 

Don't like that example? Then how about elephants, wildebeest, zebras, Monarchs, and the many species of migratory birds that are kept in captivity just fine?

 

That's under the false assumptions that natural always means better for the animal and that everything we know about nature is a reflection of how things are. Take cougars for example, they were always stated as a solitary species. Recently however we have discovered that they do have a social system, with much more contact and tolerance than we thought. It's also important to understand that many social structures arise from circumstances. Striped hyena's for example are more solitary where big predators are found whilst they live more often in pairs in other regions. Another factor is food, higher food availability often increases the social tolerance of species as competition is lower.

The study is the following one: https://www.researchgate.net/public...he_behavior_of_captive_tigers_Panthera_tigris

 

American Black Bears are also now known to be social animals.

 

SL Zoo as well as Gladys Porter Zoo (who were among the first to breed them in captivity) are the only two established American zoos that I know of that breed king cobras more or less regularly, except for specialized smaller reptile zoos. I can't think of any European zoo that breeds them regularly, though.

 

White and other not natural colored bengal tigers

 

Actually hybrid tigers in the vast majority of cases.

 

White and golden Tigers both occur in the wild.

 

There is certainly nuance involved, and each animal is different. But I push back on the assumption that tigers can do well in captivity with other tigers, even if things like regular feedings and ample space make that more or less true, because it gives credence to the roadside Tiger King zoos that put twelve of them together in a 20x20 ft cage, and that kind of treatment of an animal as regal as the tiger infuriates me so much.