I was a zookeeper at National Zoo. AMA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last time I visited the National Zoo (a long time ago) there was a pigmy rhino walked in a figure 8 pattern in his concrete pen. He had walked this path so long he had worn a track in the concrete. And the pen was littered with feces.

Is that proper care? Serious question, because it depressed the heck out of me. Main reason I now avoid zoos.

That’s common with zoo animals. It’s called stereotypic behavior. Basically, they don’t get to carry out natural behaviors like walking for long distances, but those behaviors need an outlet, so they develop these repetitive patterns. An example is walruses - they suck the meat out of clams in the wild, and if they don’t have an opportunity to suck in captivity, they start sucking on their flippers. Or apes - they need to chew for long periods of time (most of the day of a wild ape is spent chewing plants). Since they don’t chew as much in captivity, they vomit up their food and re-eat it over and over. Animals that need to move long distances develop those repetitive walking patterns.

It’s a tough situation. Most of the big zoo animals people love to see really require huge amounts of land, plants to tear up and destroy, ways to obtain food naturally, etc. But if an exhibit is large enough for a tiger or rhino, guests can’t see them. Trees that are destroyed cost money to replace. You can’t ethically put a live goat in with a tiger.

Reptiles are another animal that aren’t well suited for captivity. Most snakes aren’t able to stretch out their full length in a cage. Imagine being compressed in a space so small that your torso was always folded over. That’s what we do to snakes.

An option is to stop displaying the animals that do poorly in captivity. But the elephants, bears, and tigers are what bring in visitors and their money. Most visitors don’t really care about birds or rodents.

Also, sometimes I think animal “welfare” sets things back. Back in the 70s, keepers would bring out large animals like elephants after hours. I’ve met older keepers from back then who would walk the elephants to nearby forests and meadows. At Sea World, they would take the walruses and seals to a nearby lake to swim. People took animals home, so they lived more enriched lives. You can’t do that now because of “animal welfare”.

[Anonymous]

Thank you - this is a very eye opening thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the gender balance of zookeepers? How about racial diversity?

Keepers are mostly female, upper management is mostly male. Almost everyone is white. Yea, it’s a problem.

It’s basically impossible to do with kids, so women leave after having children. And to get in, you need to spend years volunteering and doing internships. So you need to come from a family that can support you financially.

Why is this a problem? Do the animals care?

[Anonymous]

Zoos are so cringe.
At least make it more of a sanctuary with wildlife that are injured or orphaned beyond the chance of release.

I hope the tide turns and they go down the same path as the circus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the gender balance of zookeepers? How about racial diversity?

Keepers are mostly female, upper management is mostly male. Almost everyone is white. Yea, it’s a problem.

It’s basically impossible to do with kids, so women leave after having children. And to get in, you need to spend years volunteering and doing internships. So you need to come from a family that can support you financially.

Why is this a problem? Do the animals care?

If I have to explain why it’s a problem that upper management is primarily white men, you’re not going to accept any answer I give you. You’re just looking for a fight.

[Anonymous]

What job would you recommend to a young person who wants to work with animals, but understands that zoos and aquariums have ethical problems?

[Anonymous]

Why can’t you ethically put in a live goat with a tiger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What job would you recommend to a young person who wants to work with animals, but understands that zoos and aquariums have ethical problems?

I *really* wish I had gone to veterinary school and become a wildlife vet. That seems like the perfect balance - decent money, helping actual wildlife, and if needed you can always become an veterinarian for pets.

There’s lots of jobs like dog shelters, wildlife rehabilitation, park ranger, etc. Problem is most don’t pay very much.

Research used to be lucrative but I know people with PhDs who make minimum wage.

A lot of people leave and get their animal fix in other ways. I work a regular job, but we have a lot of pets and sometimes I do volunteer work. I knew a curator who left, became an executive at Amazon, and raises exotic birds on his own. My H did wildlife rehab (caring for injured and orphaned wildlife), he now does environment science but does what he can with wildlife in his spare time.

The best thing is to try out a bunch of different things by volunteering, and see what sticks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t you ethically put in a live goat with a tiger?

It causes a lot of pain and distress for the prey. It can take awhile for a prey animal to die, and often it’s vicious. Know how your dog loves to play tug? That’s how wolves and painted dogs kill prey - everyone grabs a mouthful and pulls until the animal is ripped apart. Often they eat it while it’s still alive.

Keepers and zoo visitors love animals. They don’t want to see an animal suffer.

Plus there is potential for things to go wrong. Prey animals fight back and could injure or kill the zoo animal. The prey animal could be maimed but not killed or eaten, and now you have this injured animal laying around dying for hours or days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t you ethically put in a live goat with a tiger?

It causes a lot of pain and distress for the prey. It can take awhile for a prey animal to die, and often it’s vicious. Know how your dog loves to play tug? That’s how wolves and painted dogs kill prey - everyone grabs a mouthful and pulls until the animal is ripped apart. Often they eat it while it’s still alive.

Keepers and zoo visitors love animals. They don’t want to see an animal suffer.

Plus there is potential for things to go wrong. Prey animals fight back and could injure or kill the zoo animal. The prey animal could be maimed but not killed or eaten, and now you have this injured animal laying around dying for hours or days.

As if zoo officials wouldn't step in and not allow a maimed goat to lie around for days.

And presumably a tiger would eat the whole thing solo seeing the zoo hates to keep naturally social animals together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time I visited the National Zoo (a long time ago) there was a pigmy rhino walked in a figure 8 pattern in his concrete pen. He had walked this path so long he had worn a track in the concrete. And the pen was littered with feces.

Is that proper care? Serious question, because it depressed the heck out of me. Main reason I now avoid zoos.

That’s common with zoo animals. It’s called stereotypic behavior. Basically, they don’t get to carry out natural behaviors like walking for long distances, but those behaviors need an outlet, so they develop these repetitive patterns. An example is walruses - they suck the meat out of clams in the wild, and if they don’t have an opportunity to suck in captivity, they start sucking on their flippers. Or apes - they need to chew for long periods of time (most of the day of a wild ape is spent chewing plants). Since they don’t chew as much in captivity, they vomit up their food and re-eat it over and over. Animals that need to move long distances develop those repetitive walking patterns.

It’s a tough situation. Most of the big zoo animals people love to see really require huge amounts of land, plants to tear up and destroy, ways to obtain food naturally, etc. But if an exhibit is large enough for a tiger or rhino, guests can’t see them. Trees that are destroyed cost money to replace. You can’t ethically put a live goat in with a tiger.

Reptiles are another animal that aren’t well suited for captivity. Most snakes aren’t able to stretch out their full length in a cage. Imagine being compressed in a space so small that your torso was always folded over. That’s what we do to snakes.

An option is to stop displaying the animals that do poorly in captivity. But the elephants, bears, and tigers are what bring in visitors and their money. Most visitors don’t really care about birds or rodents.

Also, sometimes I think animal “welfare” sets things back. Back in the 70s, keepers would bring out large animals like elephants after hours. I’ve met older keepers from back then who would walk the elephants to nearby forests and meadows. At Sea World, they would take the walruses and seals to a nearby lake to swim. People took animals home, so they lived more enriched lives. You can’t do that now because of “animal welfare”.

This is very interesting! I've always found zoos a little uncomfortable -- I feel best seeing wild animals when I don't see 75% of them because they're choosing to/able to hide or leave the places humans are at will. But I also do know that zoos can be important for conservation (not in terms of actually sending animals back into the wild but getting the public to care about actually funding the research and land protections necessary for actual conservation) so I don't want to boycott them exactly.

For small animals like snakes, why don't we give them larger habitats? I feel we should be able to give them enough space to stretch and move but with enough glass walls that visitors can actually see them a few times a day. But maybe it would be too expensive space-wise even for small animals? And maybe people wouldn't want to come to the zoo if you only were likely to be able to find 1 out 100 of the snakes on a given day?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time I visited the National Zoo (a long time ago) there was a pigmy rhino walked in a figure 8 pattern in his concrete pen. He had walked this path so long he had worn a track in the concrete. And the pen was littered with feces.

Is that proper care? Serious question, because it depressed the heck out of me. Main reason I now avoid zoos.

That’s common with zoo animals. It’s called stereotypic behavior. Basically, they don’t get to carry out natural behaviors like walking for long distances, but those behaviors need an outlet, so they develop these repetitive patterns. An example is walruses - they suck the meat out of clams in the wild, and if they don’t have an opportunity to suck in captivity, they start sucking on their flippers. Or apes - they need to chew for long periods of time (most of the day of a wild ape is spent chewing plants). Since they don’t chew as much in captivity, they vomit up their food and re-eat it over and over. Animals that need to move long distances develop those repetitive walking patterns.

It’s a tough situation. Most of the big zoo animals people love to see really require huge amounts of land, plants to tear up and destroy, ways to obtain food naturally, etc. But if an exhibit is large enough for a tiger or rhino, guests can’t see them. Trees that are destroyed cost money to replace. You can’t ethically put a live goat in with a tiger.

Reptiles are another animal that aren’t well suited for captivity. Most snakes aren’t able to stretch out their full length in a cage. Imagine being compressed in a space so small that your torso was always folded over. That’s what we do to snakes.

An option is to stop displaying the animals that do poorly in captivity. But the elephants, bears, and tigers are what bring in visitors and their money. Most visitors don’t really care about birds or rodents.

Also, sometimes I think animal “welfare” sets things back. Back in the 70s, keepers would bring out large animals like elephants after hours. I’ve met older keepers from back then who would walk the elephants to nearby forests and meadows. At Sea World, they would take the walruses and seals to a nearby lake to swim. People took animals home, so they lived more enriched lives. You can’t do that now because of “animal welfare”.

This was interesting and informative. Thanks for the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t you ethically put in a live goat with a tiger?

It causes a lot of pain and distress for the prey. It can take awhile for a prey animal to die, and often it’s vicious. Know how your dog loves to play tug? That’s how wolves and painted dogs kill prey - everyone grabs a mouthful and pulls until the animal is ripped apart. Often they eat it while it’s still alive.

Keepers and zoo visitors love animals. They don’t want to see an animal suffer.

Plus there is potential for things to go wrong. Prey animals fight back and could injure or kill the zoo animal. The prey animal could be maimed but not killed or eaten, and now you have this injured animal laying around dying for hours or days.

As if zoo officials wouldn't step in and not allow a maimed goat to lie around for days.

And presumably a tiger would eat the whole thing solo seeing the zoo hates to keep naturally social animals together.

They may not be able to remove it.

All animals have the main exhibit, plus an area called “holding” off exhibit. They’re called into holding so that keepers can go in and clean the exhibit, and they’re rewarded with food for going into holding.

But if there’s a food source (injured goat) in the exhibit, the tiger has a lot less incentive to go inside. Why would it, when food is readily available?

Tigers are also generally solitary. But that’s a whole other issue - even social animals sometimes can’t be kept together.

At one zoo I worked at, we had two elephants who hated each other and would try to kill each other. So each had to be kept alone (since we only had the two). When we got new lions, it would take up to 2 years to introduce a new lion into the group. Orcas are social, but will kill each other in captivity.

This one is kind of cute - if you separate one meerkat away from the group (like to go to the vet), if you put it back in, the other meerkats will think it’s an intruder and kill it. So, you capture all the meerkats, put them into individual crates, keep them separate from each other for a few hours. Then put them together, spray a bunch of lavender around to calm them down, then open all the crate doors at the same time. They all think they’re the “new” meerkat and don’t try to kill each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last time I visited the National Zoo (a long time ago) there was a pigmy rhino walked in a figure 8 pattern in his concrete pen. He had walked this path so long he had worn a track in the concrete. And the pen was littered with feces.

Is that proper care? Serious question, because it depressed the heck out of me. Main reason I now avoid zoos.

That’s common with zoo animals. It’s called stereotypic behavior. Basically, they don’t get to carry out natural behaviors like walking for long distances, but those behaviors need an outlet, so they develop these repetitive patterns. An example is walruses - they suck the meat out of clams in the wild, and if they don’t have an opportunity to suck in captivity, they start sucking on their flippers. Or apes - they need to chew for long periods of time (most of the day of a wild ape is spent chewing plants). Since they don’t chew as much in captivity, they vomit up their food and re-eat it over and over. Animals that need to move long distances develop those repetitive walking patterns.

It’s a tough situation. Most of the big zoo animals people love to see really require huge amounts of land, plants to tear up and destroy, ways to obtain food naturally, etc. But if an exhibit is large enough for a tiger or rhino, guests can’t see them. Trees that are destroyed cost money to replace. You can’t ethically put a live goat in with a tiger.

Reptiles are another animal that aren’t well suited for captivity. Most snakes aren’t able to stretch out their full length in a cage. Imagine being compressed in a space so small that your torso was always folded over. That’s what we do to snakes.

An option is to stop displaying the animals that do poorly in captivity. But the elephants, bears, and tigers are what bring in visitors and their money. Most visitors don’t really care about birds or rodents.

Also, sometimes I think animal “welfare” sets things back. Back in the 70s, keepers would bring out large animals like elephants after hours. I’ve met older keepers from back then who would walk the elephants to nearby forests and meadows. At Sea World, they would take the walruses and seals to a nearby lake to swim. People took animals home, so they lived more enriched lives. You can’t do that now because of “animal welfare”.

This is very interesting! I've always found zoos a little uncomfortable -- I feel best seeing wild animals when I don't see 75% of them because they're choosing to/able to hide or leave the places humans are at will. But I also do know that zoos can be important for conservation (not in terms of actually sending animals back into the wild but getting the public to care about actually funding the research and land protections necessary for actual conservation) so I don't want to boycott them exactly.

For small animals like snakes, why don't we give them larger habitats? I feel we should be able to give them enough space to stretch and move but with enough glass walls that visitors can actually see them a few times a day. But maybe it would be too expensive space-wise even for small animals? And maybe people wouldn't want to come to the zoo if you only were likely to be able to find 1 out 100 of the snakes on a given day?

Bingo. People get very angry if they don’t see animals in exhibits. At a zoo I worked at where people had to pay admission, we’d get tons of requests for refunds on days animals couldn’t be seen.

That being said, I honestly think we could get rid of reptiles and people wouldn’t care. A study found people spend an average of 6 seconds in front of each reptile enclosure.

[Anonymous]

Have guests' behaviors gotten worse in recent years? In which ways?