There is no reason (unless you want to rake in the greenbacks) in keeping marine mammals in captivity—especially if they’re not endangered—and using them as entertainment. Doing so is, of course, a perennial source of money for places like Sea World or Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium. But these animals are intelligent, have evolved to range widely over the open sea, and are not happy in small tanks where they sometimes have to do tricks.
A common rationale is that “we learn more about these animals by studying them in captivity,” and that will help us save them. The problem is that many such species are not endangered, nor do aquaria publish the results of their “studies” (if those studies even exist). As Mencken wrote in his hilarious essay “The Zoo” (1918):
But zoos, it is argued, are of scientific value. They enable learned men to study this or that. Again the facts blast the theory. No scientific discovery of any value whatsoever, even to the animals themselves, has ever come out of a zoo. The zoo scientist is the old woman of zoology, and his alleged wisdom is usually exhibited, not in the groves of actual learning, but in the yellow journals. He is to biology what the late Camille Flammarion was to astronomy, which is to say, its court jester and reductio ad absurdum. When he leaps into public notice with some new pearl of knowledge, it commonly turns out to be no more than the news that Marie Bashkirtseff, the Russian lady walrus, has had her teeth plugged with zinc and is expecting twins. Or that Pishposh, the man-eating alligator, is down with locomotor ataxia. Or that Damon, the grizzly, has just finished his brother Pythias in the tenth round, chewing off his tail, nose and remaining ear.
. . . Least of all do zoos produce any new knowledge about animal behavior. Such knowledge must be got, not from animals penned up and tortured, but from animals in a state of nature. A college professor studying the habits of the giraffe, for example, and confining his observations to specimens in zoos, would inevitably come to the conclusion that the giraffe is a sedentary and melancholy beast, standing immovable for hours at a time and employing an Italian to feed him hay and cabbages. As well proceed to a study of the psychology of a jurisconsult by first immersing him in Sing Sing, or of a juggler by first cutting off his hands. Knowledge so gained is inaccurate and imbecile knowledge. Not even a college professor, if sober, would give it any faith and credit.
The remark about the giraffe always makes me laugh out loud! But there’s at least as much truth as humor in that.
And here’s one byproduct of this form of animal capitalism: a kid getting bit by a dolphin at feeding time. No doubt the parents paid handsomely for their kids to have this opportunity.
The caption:
November 21, 2012
Our daughter was bitten by a dolphin at SeaWorld Orlando. We wanted to share this video so others can make an informed decision about whether or not the risks to yourself or your child are worth the experience.
I’m sorry the little girl was bitten, but that’s only the human side of the equation. What about the sufferings (yes, I think they suffer) of animals like dolphins, sea otters, and beluga whales forced to endlessly swim in circles in small tanks? (I once was moved almost to tears by watching an otter do this at the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago. I filed a complaint with a person in charge, but they completely ignored me.) As a biologist, this outrages me.
Let us make no mistake here: this is not about conservation, and only pretends to be about education. In the end, it’s all about money.
h/t: Matt
Totally agree when it comes to large animals that normally roam widely, or predators.
However, rather different for small prey species.
If I was a lemming I’d love to be in a zoo.
I must say that the passionate posts below have made me think a lot harder about the pros and cons of zoos and aquaria than I would have otherwise. And this sort of thing happens often enough to make this an especially worthy website-not-blog.
On a much lighter note: as a person with 100% Sicilian ancestry, my FIRST response was to wonder why Mencken’s giraffe decided to hire an Italian. Non lo so.
In general I am in agreement on the matter of enslaved mammals in zoos. I will differ on one item, however. Zoo animals do provide most modern humans, particularly children, to see what a non-domesticated animal actually looks like. There is precious little opportunity for most of humanity to do that.
Whether this is worth the price of enslavement to the animals is another matter.
Now that there’s YouTube, which actually shows animals in the wild, there’s no need for such enslavement. Children can see the animals on video.
In-person observation and YouTube videos are not really equivalent. It is kind of like substituting videos about anatomy for dissection in biology labs.
Again… whether this is worth the enslavement is a different question.
irrelevant. experiencing an animal at the zoo is not the same as experiencing it in the wild. this is obvious, of course. however, your argument seems to imply that anyone unlucky enough not to be born in an area where said animal habitates should be able to have that chance for the sake of their own knowledge. i would argue that a documentary/book produced by any of numerous scholars is much more beneficial than viewing the animal at the zoo.
I agree with this. I think it is ultimately more mind-expanding, inspiring and educational to sit back and watch Attenborough’s Frozen Planet than it would be to stare at a depressed polar bear in captivity.
It was not irrelevant. It was a direct response to the suggestion, one step upstream, that seeing animals on video is a substitute for seeing them “in person”.
And my comment (not an argument) does not imply what you claim it implies. It states simply that these two kinds of experiences are different, that one is not a substitute for the other.
And let me introduce you to the shift key. It facilitates clear communication.
let me introduce you to some manners. i’m sorry i offended your delicate sensibilities.
and, just in the sake of fairness/clarity, i clearly pointed out that it “seemed” as if you were implying that. i assumed the use of that word would allow me to be incorrect, in the event that i was (thank you for clarifying).
Perhaps I over-reacted. No offense intended. You *seemed* to be intentionally misunderstanding what I thought was clear.
I have to agree with gbjames. YouTube and television are in no way a substitute for seeing an animal in person.
As the parent of an animal-obsessed toddler, whose daily routine centers heavily on reading natural history books, playing with plastic animal figures, and watching snippets of Attenborough, I have to say that our occasional visits to zoos represent one of the highlights of his life so far, something he still talks about several months later and certainly one of the things that drives his passion for learning about the natural world.
That said, I fully agree with the main point of the post, marine mammals (and many other species) should simply not be kept in captivity for entertainment purposes, and there certainly isn’t anything remotely educational about watching dolphins or sea lions perform tricks. Not all zoos are like that, however. Hasn’t the trend among better zoos in recent decades been one of keeping fewer animals and improving their living conditions by providing them with more space for example?
Thank you, Alektorophile, for saying my thoughts a bit more clearly than I did.
It has been many years since visiting zoos (Milwaukee County Zoo, Shedd Aquarium, others) with my now-adult children. I can attest from personal experience, having spent countless hours watching Nature, etc., on PBS with our kids. These shows are great. But they are not the same as “hands-on” encounters with real animals. It is simply false to suggest that they are.
As to the question of whether real science happens at zoos, my direct experience is rather old. But back when I was in graduate school in the 70’s I had several student colleagues who got PhD degrees studying primates at the zoo.
“Now that there’s YouTube, which actually shows animals in the wild, there’s no need for such enslavement. Children can see the animals on video.”
Never mind YouTube: that’s been true since the invention of television.
+1
Brilliant post. All animals deserve to live a free and natural life.
By some definitions of “free” and “natural”.
Not sure all animals can live a free and natural life. If my chickens were to acquire freedom, they would enjoy a very short natural life thanks to Mr.Fox, Mr.Badger, Mr.Weasel and all their friends who live in my neighbourhood.
“We are not going to show it to anybody”
Afterwards they post the video on Youtube anyway. It always annoys me when parents force their child to do something they clearly do not want to do.
i scoffed at that, too.
Scumbag parents
You can always reconsider, but for a good reason. To show the wound and at the same time hurt your child even more by the betrayal, is worse.
If they had gotten the later consent of their child they would have mentioned, or even youtubed, that.
Seriously irresponsible parents, seeing how they put their child in danger in the first place (whether naively or not).
That came out incoherent. What I wanted to say was that there was no good reason to show the wound especially. So that made betraying your child a bad thing on the balance.
This is an astoundingly ill informed cacophony of pot shots for such a more typically intelligent blog. While zoos (and aquaria) do exhibit a plethora of problems and ethical dilemmas, so do all other forms of institutionalized incarceration, from public school to civil service. Zoos and aquaria should certainly be held accountable for the claim that they exist to promote conservation- whether through public education or other means- and do research, but I think you’ll be disappointed in the abundance of instances in which the claims prove to be true and meritorious. On this one point, you display an uncommon ignorance.
For example, the Wildlife Conservation Society fields more than a hundred (haven’t checked the number lately) extremely talented field scientists and conservationists who have had enormous impact on the well-being of species in the wild and the habitats that nurture them- and all other cohabiting species along with them. WCS is the field arm of the old New York Zoological Society, now known as the World Conservation Society. Many of my most productive scientific colleagues are employed by WCS and thus enabled in their work. Some portion of their job security is attributable to the New York system of zoos, particularly at WCS headquarters in the Bronx. The same could be said more generally of the membership of the AZA, the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums.
Before unleashing a blanket attack on every manner of zoo, check your facts and consider this: do or do not zoos play an important role in effecting conservation of species and habitats in the wild? If you can demonstrate that they do not, or that their role is insignificant, then play on. But I doubt that you can.
For many years I worked full time with The New England Aquarium. NEAq stopped exhibiting Tursiops (bottlenose dolphins) because their legal fees were too high. Organizations like PETA have succeeded in putting the exhibition of cetaceans out of the financial range of precisely the least circus-like of animal parks. This isn’t just about cramped marine mammals, or giraffes with crimped necks, or lions pacing pathetically in enclosures. Institutions like NEAq for whom conservation is truly central to the mission draw their lifeblood from the existence of a home front where people who otherwise wouldn’t can see and experience fellow animals in the flesh- albeit a captive flesh. They do their best, which can never equal people knowing life where it is most alive- in the wild. This exposure is nonetheless important, keeping at least the more charismatic species and their plights in peoples’ minds (and pocketbooks). It’s a point worth arguing, but completely aside from this animal prison side of things, without these institutions, a substantial chunk of the professional conservation community would be without jobs. Much of the annual effort in conservation- both through work in the field and in public awareness- would not occur. Extinction would creep closer and faster to the door.
Exhibit One: Sharon Matola and The Belize Zoo.
Come up with a better plan before you trash this one.
a. Your comment is rude in tone and defensive. Try making your points in a less insulting manner in the future.
b. More important, nearly everything you say has nothing to do with what I said, which was not a blanket attack on zoos, but on the keeping of large marine mammals in captivity for entertainment purposes. I grant that some zoos do have a conservation mission, but making dolphins eat out of the hands of kids, or jump through hoops,is not part of that. You are defending things I have not attacked. Moreover, you don’t address my criticism, unless you’re trying to say this: “Too bad: confining sea otters, belugas, and dolphins in tanks and making them do tricks is the price we pay to conserve animals.” I am sorry, but things like Sea World are not about conservation, they’re about making profits. And many of the animals are neurotic from their captivity.
c. I decry the highlighting of “charismatic species”, as though those are the ones we need to display to save nature. It doesn’t work that way.
d. Getting money for conservation by enslaving large and intelligent wild animals, and driving them insane, is not my cup of tea. There are better ways. Buying up habitat, like Dan Janzen has, is one.
I’ve gotta jump to this bloke’s defence here jerry. First off, though his comment is ‘forceful’ I don’t think it’s particularly rude, more a passionate defence out of frustration. It sounds to me like he’s worked closely with zoos and their employees and knows they (WCS ones in particular – and I can vouch for their work in Belize at least) carry out sincere work that leads to excellent conservation programmes. These guys deserve credit and they’re getting tarnished here. Second, he isn’t criticising your post, he’s responding to the commenters’ blanket condemnation of zoos, and I for one agree with him. This type of discussion always seems to descend into this black and white when it rarely is. Sharon Matola’s Zoo is evidence enough. (I’ve been there behind the scenes, I can vouch for the importance of that zoo existing in that country).
I also think we need to be realistic about the display of “charismatic species”. Like it or not, if you think displaying animals can help save endangered species, the charismatic ones pay for the zoos to stay open and provide the less charismatic ones with a platform to educate people about their plight. Without lions, the amphibians don’t get a platform. (In zoos – note the caveat here!)
I concur. Moreover, it seems rather hypocritical of Jerry to complain about the tone of Les’s post when Jerry uses such obviously loaded words like “enslaved”. It’s a complex ethical topic, and Jerry insults anyone who takes it seriously by stooping to such rhetoric.
I didn’t insult anyone, much less the host of this website. Thanks for your characterization of hypocrisy, which counts as further insulting discourse.
One of the rules is that you don’t diss the host here. His ideas are okay, not his personality.
Who, exactly, did I insult by saying that animals are “enslaved?”
“Second, he isn’t criticising your post, he’s responding to the commenters’ blanket condemnation of zoos, and I for one agree with him.”
That is unclear, I think:
“This is an astoundingly ill informed cacophony of pot shots for such a more typically intelligent blog. While zoos (and aquaria) do exhibit a plethora of problems and ethical dilemmas, so do all other forms of institutionalized incarceration, from public school to civil service. Zoos and aquaria should certainly be held accountable for the claim that they exist to promote conservation- whether through public education or other means- and do research, but I think you’ll be disappointed in the abundance of instances in which the claims prove to be true and meritorious. On this one point, you display an uncommon ignorance. …
Come up with a better plan before you trash this one.”
It can be read both ways, but it is more likely referring to Jerry as many of us others aren’t biologists and didn’t provide the original (mistaken) “blanket attack” and “trashing”.
Actually Jerry, your inclusion of that section of Mencken’s essay & apparent agreement with it does give the feeling that your ire is aimed at zoos as well as aquaria, even if on careful reading it’s clear that you don’t actually level that criticism yourself.
FWIW, I too was appalled on visiting the Shedd Aquarium, awful place.
No, I think this post actually shows unusual compassion for marine mammals. Spectators feed dolphins and watch them jump through hoops and believe the dolphins are happy, and I think this is the more ignorant position. It really is all about the money. I’m from Maryland, and at the National Aquarium in Baltimore they offer for a price: a dolphin show, a dolphin sleepover, a dolphin training session where the trainers “share their secrets,” and a dolphin encounter where you can train and play with the dolphins.
I think the 1918 Mencken zoo quote may have been the source of some of the anger here and elsewhere. I think Mencken would be pleased and proud that his essays keep both stinging and amusing.
You say, “As a biologist, this outrages me.”
Can you provide a warrant for your moral outrage? I may well agree with you, but I wonder on what basis you believe your outrage to be anything more than a physiological or psychological reaction on your part.
Isn’t what is provided in the article enough? “The problem is that many such species are not endangered, nor do aquaria publish the results of their “studies” (if those studies even exist).” et cetera.
Some perhaps naive questions:
1) We keep dogs in captivity, as well as cats and other animals. One could argue that their life in captivity is an improvement over the wild; life expectancy is longer, they have access to health care, they are being cared for, they spend mentally stimulating and rewarding time with trainers (in the case of dogs, their owners), and they basically guarantee avoiding a violent, painful, brutish death. Is their life in captivity all that bad (obviously there is variability here)?
2) One could argue that these kinds of things give kids a chance to be exposed to these animals. Perhaps it stimulates an interest in animals and biology. Perhaps it makes them more concerned with nature, having seen an animal first hand. Of course, this same appreciation could be fostered in other ways though. There is a literature of humanizing vs. dehumanizing animals and when and why people do it. Perhaps there are answers there. I could see things going either way. Seeing whales and dolphins in person might foster an interest in the animals and their wellbeing, but it could also lead children to dehumanize them.
Actually, my cats keep me in captivity.
You do know that cats and dogs are domesticated ?
In the case of dogs it is speculated that wolves attracted to refuse at human campsites would have passed the trait to tolerate closer proximity to humans to their offspring and what we see today could be a form of coevolution.
So in a sense the relationship is voluntary as neither species was coerced to enter into it.
Cats are domesticated? News to me. I should probably inform my cat. 🙂
Depends on whether you ask a cat or a human.
Neither of them would claim that humans are domesticated.
I wonder if zoos can change to get rid of the circus aspects and focus more on the wildlife conservation, educational part. I think you visited Faunia in Madrid? A step in the right direction?
jerry, this is a pretty good article on the polar bear debacle that was Knut, and some interesting comments on the roles zoos play. i thought this quote was pretty good:
“Rather than raising awareness, zoos might be hindering us from recognising the reality. We humans are not the Ark; we are the flood”
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/stephen-cave-zoos-conservation/
I don’t believe that it’s possible to say that absolutely no useful information has come from studying animals in zoos.
I do, however, believe that any such information could have been gathered from some other source and with considerably less pain and suffering.
Incidently I had seen this clip before and I was amazed by how quickly the dolphin lets go of the girls arm and in the end how little damage there was.
Mike
Do doubt, Mike. That dolphin could have done real damage to the girl’s hand. An olde friend of mine was a life guard in Florida and her response to people claiming that dolphins save drowning people was “that’s because you never hear from the ones they drag to sea”.
Here’s a few facts to debunk the myths I’m seeing here in the comments:
Myth 1: Zoo animals educate children and adults about wildlife.
FACT: No study has ever demonstrated this, and in fact some hypothesize that zoos teach people that animals are helpless, that nature is “cruel” and animals are better off in captivity. To wit:
Myth 2: Wildlife are better off in captivity.
FACT: Yes, they might have a longer life span. We might too if we were kept in a cage and fed only what is scientifically good for us. But these animals coevolved for millions of years with their ecosystems, and that’s where they are best off.
Myth 3: Zoos save species.
FACT: Bullcrap. All they do is spend millions to pump out more animals and (once in a blue moon) release them into habitat that’s been shown to not support the species. That money should be spent on habitat protection. Otherwise, zoos keep the captive bred so we can stare at them. It’s obscene.
Superb post, Jerry. Loved the giraffe post.
FACT: No study has ever demonstrated this
you know, I can sympathize with the attitude that zoos are not the best way to educate, but really, what you said there is simply untrue.
there are in fact DOZENS of studies on the efficacy of zoos regarding education.
here’s a few:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00958964.1994.9941960
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ725564&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ725564
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00222521?LI=true#page-1
you might want to vet your other claims a bit more carefully as well.
[my original response had too many links; I guess the limit is only 2 now.]
FACT: No study has ever demonstrated this
you know, I can sympathize with the attitude that zoos are not the best way to educate, but really, what you said there is simply untrue.
there are in fact DOZENS of studies on the efficacy of zoos regarding education.
here’s a couple:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00958964.1994.9941960
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00222521?LI=true#page-1
i’d put a dozen more, but the limit seems to be 2 for comments these days.
you might want to vet your other claims a bit more carefully as well.
Oh, please. Spitting out memorized answers hardly qualifies as a significant understanding of conservation. Visitors hear the spiel of the zoo and “change” their attitude but it’s based on the zoo’s targeted, contrived propaganda.
If you can point to answers within the study people gave, which demonstrates a real understanding of conservation, please be my guest.
admit what you posted was not, in fact, FACT.
all you’re doing now is trying to covering up a lot of ignorance.
Oh, then please set me straight, with references this time instead of with a hissy fit.
I DID provide you references.
point of fact.
something you seem to have problems with I’m noting.
you’re also very defensive.
What I’m asking for, Icyhyic, is sections from your studies that demonstrate your point. Anyone can copy and paste an abstract from Google Scholar. That doesn’t prove your point until you paste in specific sections that demonstrate your argument.
If you promise to read and comment on them, I will post some too in order to provide evidence for any of my arguments with which you have an issue. I will do so tomorrow as I might not have time tonight.
Please feel free to list them.
try reading the abstracts, rather than just denying that they even exist, which is what you did with your first post.
seriously, admit this if you want me to take you seriously at all:
saying that there are no studies about the efficacy of zoos and education is NOT a “fact”.
you’re simply wrong there, but you won’t even admit this.
It makes me worried for you, and unwilling to even bother to continue conversing with you on this issue.
In other words, no you won’t copy and paste from the studies because you haven’t read them. I asked you specific questions about your evidence, and you seem to be trying your hardest to distract so you won’t have to give an answer.
“Populations in the hundreds”…..?
Have you heard the term viable population?
you’re very intellectually dishonest amelie.
you like to use red herrings and goalpost shifting.
you refuse to even acknowledge your own mistakes.
I’ve WORKED with zoos many times in my research, and have indeed seen first hand how zoos work to educate people. It’s certainly not the BEST way to educate people, but a lot of the time, in many areas, it’s the ONLY way.
you really have no clue what you’re talking about. All you’re doing is projecting your own emotional issues onto zoos and generalizing them.
sorry, you’re not helping.
I feel like I’m wasting my time talking with you, Ichthyic. If you don’t care to address issues with sections of those studies that prove your point, this conversation is sort of at a dead end. Best of luck to you.
it’s our time YOU’RE wasting, but nice projection.
Amelie wrote; ” No study has ever demonstrated this, and in fact some hypothesize that zoos teach people that animals are helpless, that nature is “cruel” and animals are better off in captivity.”
Citation(s) please (for the ones that “hypothesize that zoos teach people that animals are helpless, that nature is “cruel” and animals are better off in captivity.”)
“Myth 3: Zoos save species.
FACT: Bullcrap. All they do is spend millions to pump out more animals and (once in a blue moon) release them into habitat that’s been shown to not support the species.”
Tell me, Amelie, how many tigers are left in the wild and how many are found in captivity?
Overall I agree with Dr. Coyne, but the febrile anti-zoo sentiment in the comments here? Not so much.
Well, Mecwordpress, I don’t know how much you understand about science but it wouldn’t be just a hypothesis if it were a published study, now would it?
That said I’ll try to get in touch with my grad school cohort who was studying this issue with seals.
How many tigers are in captivity? I don’t know, how many tigers are being kept as pets? What on earth is your point?
@Mecwordpress I find most discouraging of all your attitude that saving tigers for us to stare at in the future is what is most important. It’s precisely this kind of piss poor selfishness that got us into this mess in the first place.
Surely you don’t advocate the position of NOT saving them? Or is saving them good only if the proper motive is involved?
If by saving you mean breeding dolphins so they can live in a swimming pool, then my answer is hell no.
If a species is extinct in the wild, it is extinct. It doesn’t matter how many babies we subsequently pump out. If the ecosystem can’t support the population, it’s extinct.
“If a species is extinct in the wild, it is extinct.”
There are a number of domesticated animals that would disagree with this statement.
You have a non-standard definition of the word “extinct”.
I think the point was that if the reestablishment in the habitat isn’t successful, the population as it was then is extinct, gone forever.
The captured population is then in effect a new species, not a “domesticated” species but can possibly become one.
Really? Which species domesticated animals are also found in the wild?
We don’t have to define extinct. It’s extraneous; all we need to understand is that a wild animal is no longer wild if the only place it can be found is a zoo.
Reintroductions by and large do not work. Animals that were shot, lost their habitat, died of illness or were hit by cars will end up being reintroduced animals who are shot, die of illness or are hit by cars.
You can’t release more animals and expect them to survive situations not survived by the original population.
Even worse is the reintroduced population doesn’t have immunity from the mother’s colostrum from building it up in the real life situation.
That was in reply to GB James.
…except for the ones that do.
Really what?
You said species were extinct if they no longer existed in the wild. That is a bogus use of the word “extinction”. It would mean that domesticates, both animal and plant, were extinct species. Obviously not true. My complaint is with over-simplified use of ideas.
Extinction, as they say, is forever. Re-introduction may or may not work in particular situations. They may not be introduced into the same situations in which the original population died out. There are numerous examples of feral invasive species so I see no reason for your absolutist position.
None of this should be taken as an argument against protection of wild species and native habitats. It isn’t. I’m just objecting to what seems to be the denigration of last-minute attempts to save species from actual extinction, as is being done with various species of frogs.
“You can’t release more animals and expect them to survive situations not survived by the original population.”
California Sea otters: reduced to less than a dozen population in early 1900s, preserved, restored, now populations in the hundreds, populations spread to areas hundreds of miles south of original population, and some introduced to offshore islands doing well.
West Coast Elephant Seal; nearly the same story.
California Condor…
http://cacondorconservation.org/programs/
I’m not sure I get what you meant, GB James. The IUCN has 2 designations: E for extinct, and EW for extinct in the wild. Domestic animals don’t represent any currently wild species.
“Extinct in the wild” does not necessarily mean “extinct in the wild forever”. Nor do I remember seeing anything above that limited our conversation to “in the wild”. Unless I missed it you did not add “in the wild” to the word in previous use.
Not trying to be pedantic here but domestic animals may go feral. And “in the wild” can be further expanded to “in the wild in place A” vs. “in the wild in place B”.
“Domestic animals don’t represent any currently wild species”
Not clear what this means. Consider the Arabian Camel (Dromedary); the IUCN has not assessed this species, but it seems to be generally agreed that it does not exist in the wild state anywhere in its original range. So it could reasonably be considered ‘Extinct in the Wild’.
In Australia, by one recent estimate, there are 700,000 wild (feral) camels. So, Not Extinct in the Wild. Also, the same species is both domestic and wild, but definitely not extinct. This example is hardly unique.
Amelie
Thanks for your response. As a scientist (immunologist) with 27 years experience, I do understand what a hypothesis is. I was asking you for some published documentation on your claim. You cannot provide any, that’s ok. I rather suspected it. It’s why I asked. Icthyic, on the other hand, provided two (and he/she is right there are many more) that directly contradict your initial claim.
The reason I made the point about tigers (and they are not the only such example) is that for some species there is little hope of a future wild existence. Captivity provides a means to “save species”. But to you that is bull crap. I understand that you think this is so, but to claim that zoos or other forms of captivity cannot “save species” is facile nonsense.
Now before you jump at me, I think that relying on zoos or other forms of captivity to save certain species from extinction is a stupid and idiotic way to do it. But if there is no good alternative it makes little sense to allow animals, like tigers, or plants to go extinct simply because zoos make us feel squidgey.
Well, no. It’s not because of how I feel about zoos, it’s because of sound science. Really, there is no reason to keep animals in captivity except for ourselves. Unless we can ensure that the habitat will go forwards, not backwards in viability, there is no justification for keeping the wild stock that as time goes on lose its ability to learn something it never experienced (how to survive in that ecosystem).
And if you don’t know, that is can’t “ensure” at the moment, you shouldn’t bother trying?
To me your position is simply one of hopelessness. What is the actual point of giving up like that? All it does is position you for a sickening “oh.. I didn’t realize we could have made a difference” moment in the future.
And why is this just “for ourselves”. You are making an error in confusing extinction-in-some-place with actual extinction.
GB James will be offline for a while, but I have some relevant links if you’re still interested. Maybe tomorrow, iPad is a pain for that stuff.
Re: saving specimens I would say wildlife rehab centers would be as gooorifice not better to keep viable individuals, who are often there from human caused disabilities and could breed if the habitat was ever restored.
“Good if not better”. See? iPad.
Ha – good one! Although believe it or not, it still relates to my central point: how do we define vitality? If thriving to people here means numbers, or a long life, ta da! Zoos will give you that.
Much harder to measure are ideal conditions. I don’t mean “suffering”. That’s for the activists to figure out. What I’m talking about is wild animals displaying the behaviors and physiological processes that they evolved to, with their ecosystems.
If we’re discussing zoo animals, it’s nearly impossible to argue that they could display those normal behaviors apart from their ecosystems.
You keep changing the goal posts. I’m not making claims about relative “thriviness” (to coin a word in honor of Stephen Colbert). And I’m not making claims about the undesirability of protecting habitat. And I’m not denying the catastrophic affects of human overpopulation.
All I’m claiming is that hating on zoos because they aren’t perfect is bogus. Equating extinction with “extinct in the wild” is unhelpful. It seems to be a classic case of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Liking the thriviness. 😉
I guess I didn’t make myself clear: I’m not changing any goal post; I’m simply asking each commenter to define their parameters.
For your part, how do you define success in the interaction of a wild animal within its wild or zoo habitat? You must agree that our conversation goes in circles without that.
How do we define success in breeding programs? Is it all about numbers? Do we say to heck with the danger to the original population, who now have competition?
As for zoos, I’m not saying they’re imperfect. I’m saying they’re downright horrid. It is a generalization, yes. But not only is there a good deal of hypothetical evidence that wildlife should stay in the wild; there is also the issue of all that natural area that is paved over for bigger enclosures.
Incidentally I did not make up the Extinct in the Wild designation. That is an IUCN category and I think it holds merit. Extinct just means that they cannot be found in the wild; may “extinct” species can be found again.
But as I keep saying, what about habitat?
Well, no. It’s not because of how I feel about zoos,
yes, yes it is. that much is very clear.
I fail to see how this constitutes a valid rebuttal. While it is true that zoo animals coevolved for millions of years with their ecosystems, so did we. Yet most humans would rather live in a warm house than a dank cave beside a river. If we prefer living in safe location that meets our basic needs of survival to living in “the wild,” why would other animals be any different? Are you basing your argument on personal intuition or something more?
You have the standard anthropomorphic zoo visitor attitude that “if I need it, a wild animal must need it too”.
Coevolving with an ecosystem means an animal is most healthy and vibrant in that region with those resources.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020101
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/applan/article/S0168-1591(06)00200-0/abstract
Presuming to know my attitude doesn’t bolster your argument in any way.
Which has nothing to do with whether a wild animal will thrive in human captivity. Some do, some don’t. You still haven’t substantiated the blanket claim that all animals are better off in the wild.
I agree with you, my personal opinion of your attitude has little to do with the topic at hand. 🙂
I merely meant to point out that we cannot impose our health and habitat needs onto wild species.
We should define “better off”. If you mean they live longer and have fewer challenges, sure. I agree. Just like you and I would have in jail.
But if you mean live as they evolved and adapted to for millions of years, a zoo is not it.
And I would agree. Animals are not people. We should tailor heath and habitat needs to the specific species under our care.
Why are you assuming animals animals experience confinement the same way humans do? After admonishing me against anthropomorphic assumptions, you seem to be committing one yourself.
Again, we evolved and adapted over millions of years and yet we live in habitats that don’t at all resemble a natural ecosystem. So I don’t see it as obvious that all animals are necessarily less happy/fulfilled/healthy/whatever when living in artificial habitats.
Did you read the studies I posted for you? Both demonstrate that the species studied showed abnormal, unhealthy activities in captivity.
Allow me to point out the differences between human “captivity” and wildlife captivity
1. Wild animals travel long distances and have huge home ranges compared to that of most large wild animals. They cannot practice this vital behavior in captivity.
2. Domestic animals like cats were not cooped up when they were first domesticated. They were tolerated in grain stores for a long time before they we’re brought indoors.
3.Most domestic animals have been gradually made captive over thousands of years. Zoo animals were not bred until recently. The most adaptation the average zoo animal has had may be 100 years or so. And it was not gradual.
5. We as humans chose our habitats. Unwilling captivity is more equilvellent to jail.
Again, read the studies I offered.
Correction:
1. Should have said “compared to humans”.
I did look at the studies you posted (at least their abstracts). One was specific to chimps and the second undercut your argument immediately. It states some species thrive in captivity, which is the very thing you are denying. I have no doubt that confinement is detrimental to the health of some wild animals, but that’s something which will vary on a case to case basis. The evidence doesn’t support your assertion that captivity negatively impacts all wild species as a rule.
Feel free to post links to studies that show examples of species that thrive in captivity. From the article I posted or elsewhere. I’d be interested to see them. I provided evidence that some studied species (among the few that have been studied for wellness) do poorly in captivity. Now it’s your turn to post some evidence.
“Feel free to post links to studies that show examples of species that thrive in captivity.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila
Yes. I know. Not a mammal. To which I respond: This issue is so subject to differences between how species respond to a huge variety of environmental conditions, that framing it in terms of “zoos are bad” is neigh unto comical.
well, you could add mice to your list then.
they do quite well in captivity.
I could not agree more completely. I went to Seaworld once in my early 20s and I was sickened. I also feel this way about zoos, to the point that I won’t visit one. The misery of the animals is palpable to me.
I am largely against keeping marine mammals in captivity – and particularly against keeping them strictly for entertainment.
However, I can vouch that legitimate research on these animals does happen. I know of physiologists who rely on trained captive sea lions to study, for example, their oxygen consumption during dives. As for Jerry’s statement that “nor do aquaria publish the results of their “studies” (if those studies even exist)”, it’s not necessarily the aquaria themselves who publish the research, but rather researchers at partner universities. Here are two somewhat random examples (not by anyone I know personally): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs003600050042?LI=true#page-1
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/212/6/823.short
There is value in doing this sort of research to provide baselines for studies on wild animals and to develop techniques on more common species that could be applied to rarer ones as well. That said, I think it should be conducted with the goal of ultimately phasing out any need for keeping captive marine mammals, with possible exceptions for injured wild animals that can’t be released back into the wild.
Human nature. One can see photos of paintings but that doesn’t stop us from wanting to go and see the original at the museum. A photo or a movie is not the same as the «real thing.» I’m ok with zoos as long as their exhibition area is only for species which adapt well to captivity and they avoid being a «circus» with animal shows.
Whale watching makes me cringe more than aquaria. People are pursuing the animals in their own environment just for a quick thrill, and involves way more animals than the few imprisoned in aquaria. Same thing with safaris, I can’t find a valid reason to go and disturb a lion or gorilla just for the fun of it. «Eco-tourism» can be incredibly disruptive, but it’s something people clearly want to do, and it’s very hard to convince people they are at fault, in particular since the dollars from those tourists are probably the reason wildlife still exists in some areas.
I fully agree, particularly on the whale watching. Several years back I went on such an excursion in Iceland: an utterly pointless experience, an afternoon spent on a motorized pursuit of an elusive Minke whale from one side of the fjord to the other. A good pair of binoculars and a few hours sitting by the sea sipping brennivín would have been more rewarding, and much less stressful for the whale. But of course whale watching as a potential tourist attraction is often used as an incentive when trying to persuade locals to preserve whales rather than serve them on a plate.
No doubt, places like the Galapagos and the Virunga park in the Congo should ideally be off limits to tourists if not everybody. In the Galapagos case, it is after all eco-tourism that drives the local economy and incentivizes more and more people to move to the islands from the mainland for work, with all the problems that entails.
I’m not a professional in any of the fields related to this topic, but I have to say my experience of zoos is mixed. The most recent zoo I visited was Columbus Zoo, on a few occasions while visiting the city. It was painful to watch some of the larger animals in relatively confined enclosures, but I can’t tell to what extent I was anthropomorphising empathy for animals that for all I know might have been quite content. But then I found the Bonobos a good experience; but by the same token I couldn’t tell to what extent I was transferring my experience onto them. They seems happy enough playing, and seem to interact with the public with some interest. The long and short of it is I find it hard to tell what real harm is being done, where there is no obvious physical or mental cruelty. But I would say I got something extra from the experience, both good and bad, than I would from videos – but is that little extra worth what harm it might be doing to the animals?
I guess starting from now we might not have permitted zoos had they not existed. So the question is really about what we should do about existing zoos.
If we had never had zoos would we still want to make captive breeding conservation for some of the endangered species. Not so difficult to answers for small animals maybe, but what about larger mammals. What about artificial breeding conservation in the wild, or in parks and reserves? Should we actively conserve at all?
There seem to be lots of places where the local economy would continue to expand and wipe out habitats altogether, along with the species in there. Does tourism genuinely help fund the development and maintenance of wild parks and reserves at all? Does it contribute to local education to the extent that it helps. Some of the struggling African states, politics and economics make it difficult for the people to survive let alone wild animals.
This is about making money. Children should not be petting nor feeding these animals, no sane parent would allow that nor encourage this cruel treatment of animals by paying the entrance fee.
I’ll have to disagree with Jerry regarding zoos (large marine animals or not), and youtube videos. They are qualitatively different experiences. Ask anyone whether they would rather go back to a zoo to see a given animal, or just watch the videos they took last time they were there. Most people would prefer the physical experience, particularly if (as many zoos offer) there is an interactive component. (Our family fed the dolphins at Seaworld, and really enjoyed the experience. I won’t guess at the dolphin’s perspective, but at least they seemed to like the fish.)
Another perspective that zoos have an impact on is public perspective. People tend to care more about things they have experienced. So seeing an Orca, dolphin, etc. might make someone more inclined to get involved in environmental efforts that affect those animals (eg. pollution, drift nets, etc.), whether by donation or action.
As a high school science teacher I make a point of having life forms in my class. As someone who grew up catching (and releasing) frogs, butterflies, fish, snakes, and turtles I am disturbed by how few of my students have had much interaction with nature (some have never left the city). In that sense, I consider it important to have that component of zoos (bigger animals = bigger impact). I suspect it will be quite a while before we have holographic zoos (with few actual animals), or Star Trek-like holodecks so that the animals don’t know they are captive…
Just on your first para, I don’t think comparing one’s own videos of a trip to the zoo with one’s actual visit is the point. I agree that there is something extra that you get from seeing a live animal; but some of the film of animals in the wild is far more informative. Can you really compare feeding time in a zoo with watching a cheetah chase down prey?
At the local Marineland in Niagra Falls, Ontario there have been allegations made by former employees of animal abuse due to poor water quality and staffing shortages.
Seals, walruses, beluga whales, orcas and dolphins are apparently kept in unhealthy water conditions resulting in blindness, infections and debilitating skin conditions.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1241961–marineland-animals-suffering-former-staffers-say
Ugh, every time their adds come up on TV I cringe. My parents took the family there many years ago and all involved regretted it; it was truly upsetting to see how they treated their animals. (e.g. keeping an orca in a pool not much larger than it was as punishment because it wasn’t cooperating.)
It’s sad that a kid was bitten by a dolphin at SeaWorld Orlando. It just shouldn’t happen – humans shouldn’t be playing with dolphins. Yet the persistent propaganda is that they’re lovely animals and safe around humans – although humans are bitten and otherwise attacked by dolphins in the wild, I don’t recall ever seeing it in the news. Wild squirrels are nice too until they have a bad hair day and then you’d wish you never played with the beasts.
I wonder if captive dolphins tend to be more aggressive to humans than wild ones.
Ha, I heard a wild squirrel anecdote on that theme just earlier today.
Cat owner hears panicked shrieks from bush, dives in and find cat pinning terrified but unhurt squirrel. Shows cat away, finds out that larger human makes squirrel even more panicky than large cat. So squirrel lock jaws over a finger.
The solution is to wring squirrels neck.
Well, at least it was a less painful death than play-by-kitteh. And the poor thing was diseased (scabies), which is why the cat got hold of it in the first place.
Hi everybody. This is the “bloke” again.
Jerry, I should clarify a few things.
I am not an advocate of the exhibition of marine mammals in captivity. If that’s all you were talking about, the discussion might be over. I’m also not interested in disputing your more offhand remarks point by point- I suspect that we agree on fundamentals.
The discussion has undergone the usual bifurcation between concern about individual animal welfare, and the survival of the living world. It may not be what you were after, but it is very worthwhile to ask how zoos fit into the global strategy to arrest the current mass extinction. Today’s zoos and aquariums suffer the conundrum of playing a major role in conservation in the wild (Jerry, you must stand corrected here) while also, in many instances, functioning as amusement parks, including in some ways that are repulsive to many people, not just you. The options are (1) for this situation to continue on the grounds that zoos are an important way for conservation to happen, (2) for there to be a transition strategy in which AZA-type institutions pursue a new model (which must still be financially viable), or (3) for all historic zoos to cease to exist, in which case there will be a gap in human resources and mechanisms for conservation that must be filled in some other way.
What is your big picture view of the best ways to make global conservation happen? Looking at it this way population control, gender equality, education, poverty alleviation, and improved quality of life without exponential economic growth are all more important than the issue of captive marine mammals…with the caveat that this is your blog and you can get pissed about whatever strikes you that day.
Still, you of all people can do better than a blind rail.
“Thank God it didn’t pull her into the water?” And then… what would it do? The old alligator roll? C’mon, they are in a concrete pool, it shouldn’t be that hard…
“Thank doG it didn’t pull her in the water”
Yeah, too bad they can’t thank their doG that it didn’t bite her. IDiots! Or if it pull her into the water; “Thank doG that it didn’t drowned her” or if she did drowned; “Thank doG it didn’t eat her, at least we have her body to bury” or if it did eat her; “Thank doG it gobble her down in one bite so that she didn’t suffer much”.
Stupid christians!
Notice at 0:43 the mother convinces the girl to show her wound to the camera by telling her, “I’m not gonna show it to anybody.” No, I’m just gonna post it on YouTube.
Thank god for lying.
I have volunteered for several years at a not-for-profit AZA zoo/aquarium facility — currently in the aquarium area, although I spent some time volunteering in marine mammals.
Our facility does publish research, and the list of publications is available on the website… although, unfortunately, not very prominently. (The average zoo guest isn’t much interested.)
Many of our animals were placed with us from professional rehab facilities who were not able to release those animals back into the wild. Some have injuries that make them unsuitable for re-release. Others were found orphaned or abandoned as youngsters, and don’t have the skills to survive on their own. A facility like ours is the alternative to euthanization. Rehab facilities are not equipped (and don’t have the financial resources) for long-term or permanent care.
We do offer short educational “shows” or talks during the summer months (not anywhere on the scale of Sea World). Participation by the animals is always voluntary. Most people also don’t realize that most of the behaviors on display at our talks are behaviors the staff teaches them for husbandry/veterinary purposes. For example, rolling over onto the back with flippers in the air is taught for ultrasounds.
I don’t want to get too specific here, because I’m only a volunteer and and not authorized to speak on behalf of the facility. But please, don’t lump every facility with marine mammals with the large for-profit enterprises. And don’t assume that every animal you see is a healthy “enslaved” animal who was captured for entertainment purposes. Ours are not.
Reblogged this on Sarvodaya.
Anyone who has kids knows precisely the effect places like Sea World has on their curiosity and sense of amazement. (sorry, I don’t have a list of peer reviewed studies proving that;-)).
So even if claims about research and conservation done are overblown, such places are an invaluable adjunct to books and documentaries on wildlife. No one is for needless cruelty. Almost everyone who visits these places would wish for higher standards of humane treatment of animals.
I’m sure the categorical tone of this post struck many as a tad eccentric. What’s the scale of the cruelty that one is screaming murder about? What percentage of the world’s dolphins and Orcas are “enslaved” at Sea World? In comparison any idea how cows, pigs and chickens are raised in this country? Do you know how many there are? Ever had pork for barbeque? Any idea how intelligent and sentient a pig is? Just try and put things into context. How would one quantify in a side to side comparison the misery wrought on animals by global warming. Last I heard it would obliterate countless species to their last member. Railing against animal cruelty is admirable. It’s just that the scruples in this case are risibly insignificant in the broader scheme of animal cruelty taking place daily.
I agree with you Tumara. I think the entire concern over marine mammals in captivity being used for entertainment is “much ado about nothing.” This (the concern) is a moral opinion. I totally respect Jerry’s right to express any opinion he likes and I appreciate that he allows some of us to come on this site and disagree with him. I seriously doubt there is wholesale cruelty going on at Seaworld or other such facilities. I would be more concerned if I thought there were.
Can we assume these animals really don’t like captivity? Look at the benefits: plenty to eat, no harassment by predators, the opportunity to interact with humans and entertain them. How do we know that dolphins and other animals don’t enjoy being entertainers? My feeling is that many animals (especially more intelligent ones) try to adapt to the circumstances in which they find themselves. I doubt they necessarily “want” to be free. Just my opinion.
I concur completely with the above poster.* Given the number of mammals and non-mammals which are kept in captivity (in fact, bred for the very purpose of being kept in captivity and later killed), mostly in far more inhumane conditions than any zoo would, I do find it rather strange that zoos are to be singled out as a bastion of cruelty against animals.
* Being a native Hindi speaker, I am finding it a bit, er, hard, to actually write out his/her moniker, which translates to ‘Your Dad’.
Reblogged this on Mark Solock Blog.
Marine mammals are excellent entertainment. In the sea.Where they belong. On their terms.And if they don’t like you and they choose to go away, they do exactly that.
Yes, that does mean that you have to learn various techniques – learn to swim at the absolute minimum, maybe learn to SCUBA dive – to fully indulge yourself in the pleasure. So do it. And then you have to be sufficiently attractive to the animal(s) in question. Fortunately, some dolphins and seals have a neoprene fetish, just like some humans.
I might add what I said to GB James and drawing on someone else’s comment that zoos, had the idea arisen today, might not even be permitted.
The new thinking, at least among progressive biologists, is that wildlife rescue and rehab facilities have their hands full with wild animals hit by cars, injured by boats, etc.
Some of these animals cannot be released into the wild and are otherwise genetically sound. Zoos have one hell of a lot of money and the resources to better care for these animals better than a struggling rehabber. Why don’t the zoos take them in? (A few already are – Buttonwood Park Zoo being one of them).
Also if it came down to it, these animals are otherwise genetically sound and could be used for breeding if ever came a day when the actual core problems (habitat, climate change etc) were completely solved and augmentation, to which I do not object, is realistic).
Relatively few of these individuals are taken by zoos because the space in zoos is filled first by individuals of high value to species survival programs. However, where rehab cases are valuable for educational purposes, they are generally preferred to wild-caught individuals.
Zoos are diverse, but there is an overall shift in their mission toward pro-active conservation and education outreach. Zoo-based research is increasingly field-oriented with less and less focused entirely on the captive population, and that directed largely toward endangered species and conservation issues.
I am familiar with and for several years ran the research programs for the New England Aquarium. These include a long-standing field research program on the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and other cetaceans, a project that was on the biology of large pelagics focusing on the bluefin tuna, conservation research on market structure and fisheries for species targeted in the seafood and aquarium industries, aquaculture research, ocean health, marine ecosystem services, coral reef ecology, and so forth. When I was full time there we led the Lake Victoria Research Team, conducing field research in East Africa on mass extinction and limnology in the great lakes, with a focus on Lake Victoria. We also held NIH grants for basic research on the physiology of fish bone as a model for aging humans, and on the comparative neurobiology of cichlid fishes.
The NEAq has a large and very active Conservation Program with work that parallels the research program, but on the policy side. The NEAq is also active in climate change-related issues.
Highly commercialized facilities such as Sea World are very controversial in the zoo and aquarium professional world, although there are many of them and more over time, especially in Asia and the Middle East. Many of these also have legitimate research programs, often on topics that would not typically be pursued in a University setting because they are too applied.
Those sound like some very cool areas of research. None of which, I might add, require captive animals. I hope “zoos” continue to move toward field research, although I might point out most of those are in conjunction with non-zoo personell.
I interned at a zoo that took in quite a few rehabbed individuals. One could argue that those are also wild-caught, however they will be released if they can recover. If not, it’s captivity or death.
Species survival programs, again, are not really legitimate. The captive individuals haven’t had the benefit of time to evolve with their respective ecosystems, and at best they have to wait until the habitat is restored which may never happen; at worst (and this is very common) they are released and die from the same causes as the original population.
So if you’re talking numbers game, sure. We can pump out as many individuals as we like and continue tossing them into the degraded ecosystem. But that seems to be short sighted.
I’ve worked on a reintroduction program (a relatively successful one) and as a rehabber I can tell you it’s pretty tense, trying to force species to go from captivity to a habitat still facing destruction.
you really have no idea what you’re talking about.
seriously.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium has had a very successful program for rehabilitating sea otters and returning them to the wild. I believe they’ve rescued over 500 otters in the 25 years they’ve been operation.
Their captive exhibit otters play a integral role in rehabilitating abandoned pups, acting as surrogate mothers to the pups.
Monterey Bay is cool. I’ve always admired their efforts. Now they should continue to rehab animals, treat the nonreleaseables to those million dollar enclosures and allow the other zoo captives to die off naturally.
See, I’m having trouble resolving statements like:
“Monterey Bay is cool.”
with statements like:
“As for zoos, I’m not saying they’re imperfect. I’m saying they’re downright horrid.”
Fair enough, I should have been more specific. I love the field work done by Monterey. I love their educational campaigns. I very much disapprove of their standard aquarium practices.
But GB, I don’t look at practices in a vacuum. The fact that they’re forward thinking on conservation gives me hope that they might someday move forward and transition their exhibits to rehabbed species. I am not standing idly by on this; I’ve written them a letter stating as such.
Then less incendiary blanket statements would suit you better. Others, with more direct experience than I have, have offered quite a few examples of zoos doing exactly the kind of thing you advocate.
When our kids were young, we took them to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. One of the most profound experiences of my daughter’s life, and one that gave her enormous grounding regarding the natural world, was the pool in which rays and other critters (sea stars, sea cucumbers, etc.) could be touched. It had the kind of effect that no collection of books or videos could hope to. The special exhibit of jellyfish was also profoundly moving. I saw little harm to the critters and great benefit to the education of a kid.
I’m doing what I call hit-and-run (yes, blanket) statements because I’m on the computer doing other science-ey things. I would be much more specific; however between time constraints and not pissing off Jerry, I’m trying to wind down my comments and wish I could meet you all for a good conversation over beer.
I’m glad your kids enjoyed seeing the rays. Not enough research on this; I’d love to ask kids what they thought of rays life history after experiencing the tank, then (if possible) having them snorkel and see rays in the wild and asking the same question.
I nearly did this as a thesis for grad school (mammals) but decided on something else ultimately. Also knew some folks who worked with psychology depts. who were doing somewhat similar ideas.
You don’t see the harm to animals because it’s not visible. Just because it isn’t studied doesn’t mean it’s not there. Some of the exhibits are pretty high tech; others like ray and jellyfish exhibits are cheap and even assuming their health is not sub-optimal, there is just no way they can exhibit their natural behaviors in a damned tub the way they would in an open ocean.
Also in open tanks (where they probably spend at least some of their day) they’re far more crowded among other species.
You miss the point. I did not say that my kids “enjoyed” it (although they did). I said they were profoundly moved by the experience.
And offering snorkeling expeditions as an alternative is simply unrealistic for all but a lucky few. (In our case, the Monterey Bay experience in fact led to my daughter learning to scuba dive when she got older.)
The alternative to not having a place like the MBA is having nothing at all for 99.9% of kids.
I guess I wasn’t clear, I meant I would like to see how kids react to a captive species then compare it to how they react seeing the same species in the wild.
I don’t know how far north rays are found, but most kids in the Southeast could snorkel cheap, and funding for train trips could be gotten by grants. Anyway thermis no way a kid’s “need” to see a specific animal should ever be put above the well being of an animal.
The problem, as some people have pointed out upthread, is that seeing animals in the wild can be much more disruptive to a species than seeing a few captive animals in a zoo or an aquarium.
Take sea otters, for example. You can easily see them in the wild–just rent a kayak and go up Elkhorn Slough. That’s where the greatest concentration of otters in the Monterey Bay area is. The problem is that literally hundreds of people do just that every weekend. Although the sea otters are now very used to people’s presence, they still startle or flee when people get too close, wasting valuable energy. Which is a problem when you are a sea otter that has to eat a terrific amount just to stay warm.
Or take scuba diving or snorkeling. The destruction that divers or snorkelers can do to a reef is enormous. In my diving days, I saw many a careless flipper destroy coral formations or take a bite out of barrel sponges. Far better for the reefs and the critters who live in them if people view the pretty fish from behind aquarium glass.
Or take birding. I like to bird, but there is no question that I end up disturbing or flushing a certain percentage of birds. I try to be sensitive to this, but it unavoidable.
In other words, “just go see them in wild” brings in a whole new set of problems.
Come back to earth, amalie. You are describing a fantasy.
That’s rich, GB James, coming from someone who has not provided a single shred of evidence or a single published study.
If you really would like I’ll flood you with published studies to prove my point. But only if you promise to read and comment on each one of them.
I have a graduate degree in environmental studies so if you want a real debate, let’s have one. Not without evidence this time.
This is normally the part where the trolls disappear……
Look up the definition of “troll”. Neither one of us fits that. So stop the name-calling, eh?
I do not think our dispute is going to be settled by published studies. Of what exactly? That it is reasonable to think that millions of kids from Chattanooga, Atlanta, and Huntsville are going to get grants to travel to the Keys and snorkel?
And pointing at the degree on your wall isn’t really a winning point. There are many of us here who can match your graduate degree. And raise you, for that matter. That’s a ridiculous way to argue.
@John Scanlon, FCD well I suppose we could argue about the definition of domestic; however based on the discussion I’ve seen here I assume we’re talking about the standard dog / cat / horse / cattle. Wild horses can be feral, and sheep can be naturalized. But that doesn’t make them a wild species.
So you don’t care to comment on how the camel situation invalidates your generalization, but raise the possibility that its a quibble about (unstated) definitions?
Doesn’t seem very honest. See you another time, maybe.
D’oh not really a compelling argument; you’re speaking as though we “must” see wild animals in person. We musn’t.
If all the zoos closed tomorrow, there’s no law that says people would suddenly rush out and flood the wild lands. In fact most zoo goers are geographically closer to the movie theatres and malls than the woods.
And trust me, those folks rushing to kayak would not simply head to the zoo if their activity was restricted. Most kayakers would choose some other wild location.
Disturbing wildlife is not an issue if it is done on moderation and only becomes a severe problem when the real crises (deforestation, climate change, pollution) have destroyed ecosystems.
People can stay home and read about animals if they really want to avoid interfering. It is not abusive to children to take them somewhere else besides a zoo, despite popular opinion.
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0921-noaa.html
This is an article about the rescue from the wild of eight dolphins whose aquarium home was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
There are real problems with successful introduction of captive reared animals into the wild. This article gives you a little feel for it.
Thanks for letting me comment Jerry. I’ll shut my piehole now, maybe some day you can write a post on the captive breeding-reintroduction issue, I have some superb links on both sides of the issue just FYI.
Okay, both of you stop posting on this thread, get it? You have dominated the conversation, which is something that I do not like. And it’s degenerated to name-calling.
Both of you: on the next thread you post on, keep it to less than 10% of the total posts. This is a warning.
Mum’s the word.
A few days late on this thread but I’ll make a belated post anyway in hopes that it will at least enter into the conceptualization of keeping marine mammals in captivity at all.
What about their ecolocation? How is that affected by living in a tank? Particularly Orcas and Dolphins?
Being unable to imagine what ‘seeing’ the world through echolocation is like, it is even harder to imagine what it would be like inside a container instead of the open sea. But what I can imagine is not pleasant.
What’s Taking place i’m new to this, I stumbled upon
this I have discovered It absolutely useful and it has aided
me out loads. I hope to give a contribution & aid other customers like its helped
me. Good job.
I’m so sorry that the little girl was bitten. I’m sure that was terrible for her. Although, I don’t think that the attraction should be closed due to that incident. I do not understand why they are kept in captivity though. I understand and feel that if they are in danger or sick that they are to be taken in for observation then let go back in their own environment so that maybe this don’t happen again. But we won’t ever know or understand why people do the things they do.