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