RE: What Happens When An Animal Dies At A Zoo/Aquarium?
Thanks for that interesting insight on that aspect of zoos. It is a difficult subject, that gets complicated by the emotional aspects involved.
On one side there is the emotional attachment of the visitors and also the caretakers to the animals, on the other side the economical neccessaties that also zoos have to observe. This can result in situations, that - although totally reasonable in essence - are perceived as not appropriate by the public.
As a example: is it acceptable to use a dead Zebra (that died from a accident, not from disease) as food for Lions?
Many zoo visitors would striktly object to that idea, but in nature its a totally normal occurance. And for the zoo it saves a lot of money, not having to buy meat (which comes from formerly living animals too, btw) and not having to pay for the disposal of the dead body.
As a result, such things are done in zoos, they just dont like to talk about it.
Further more, zoos even breed certain animals only to use them as food, like mice, rats and various insects. I'm sure you - as a herpetologist - know that, and that it is inevitable for keeping certain snakes and lizzards.
Ok, the emotional attachment to rats and mice and grasshoppers is limited for most people, but in essence this is no different than the Zebra/Lion relation.
So, if we agree with the concept of having zoos at all (and I believe we will need them more and more, to preserve at least a few animals of certain species), we must learn to be realistic in such matters as well.
It's true. Everyone wants to see life as a happy Disney movie, but life is scary, ugly, beautiful, gross, etc. We try to show the happy, pretty, and cute side of life in zoos, but some animals just can't survive without the darker aspects of life (like my previous article about documentaries mentioned). I think zoos today are reaching a nice medium where we can appeal to the general public, while also ensuring the animals have access to all the necessities they require.
I guess zoos are in a difficult position. Their purpose is to educate people about animals, but people are more willing to pay for cuteness and emotional experiences. And most zoos depend on the money thats coming from the visitors, and that has led to - at least some - intolerable decisions. I just only mention the zoos holding Dolphins or even Orcas in captivity.
The only solution would be, if zoos are publicly funded and operate strictly scientificly. And if this is not showing enough cuteness and the people stay away, then so be it. The animals wont miss them, I assume.
I'm glad you bring up orcas especially. I'm doing a post about Sea World in the near future that I hope is enlightening and touches on the subject.
But I agree and this is a battle that I face everyday. Keepers are concerned with animal care practices and we often butt heads with the administration. They look at things from the guest experience point of view (because of money) and often ask us to do things that run counter to welfare practices in order to appease guests. It's understandable seeing as how management doesn't have the biology experience the keepers do, but it is aggravating just the same.
Yeah, I can well imagine that. Thare is a lot of weird stuff going on in that respect.
For example, lately it was announced, that a zoo in Germany is getting a Panda bear from China. It is strictly forbidden to export Pandas from China, though. So what the chinese government does, is running a "rent a Panda" business. The zoo has to pay close to a million dollars rent per year to the Chinese to get the Panda, and they have to return it if they dont pay.
It clearly shows that the zoo is expecting to make more than the million per year on additional ticket sales, based on the cuteness factor of the Panda for the visitors. This kind of deal is unacceptable in my opinion. Even if the Panda is having a good life in the zoo.
Orcas and Dolphins definately dont have good lifes in zoos, however. So I´ll be looking forward to your post covering that issue.
I'll have to look into the panda deal. On the surface, it is definitely questionable, but I do know that some zoos do "rent" or receive them on loan for breeding purposes. If the zoo already has a female for example, they may want a male for a short period to attempt to breed, hopefully helping the species survival plan, then they send the male back or onto another zoo. They loan or "rent" the pandas because it cuts down on poaching; you can't just buy a panda from China, but you can request to house one that technically belongs to the Chinese government (oh how I love when politics get into the animal business rolls eyes). But we actually do something similar with red wolves; our wolves belong to the federal government (they are extinct in the wild), but we house and care for them in their stead to protect the species.
This could be advantageous for the zoo, China, and the animals if carried out right. The zoo gets increased business because pandas are a crowd pleaser, the Chinese government is paid AND helping with breeding efforts of a native endangered species, and the pandas get an opportunity to mate and help replenish their numbers in a (hopefully) quality facility (although it usually has to be a top-notch place to be permitted for pandas!).
I'm sorry, I don't remember which zoo it was, but definately one of the big names. I also don't know if they had other Pandas already.
I do agree that it is in the interest of preserving the Panda species to run breeding programs. However, the enormous sum of 1 mio per year only for renting one makes it smell much like a money making scheme rather than a serious preservation effort. If zoos make the effort (and I´m sure thats not cheap as well) to provide a adequate habitat for the Pandas and participate in the breeding project, that should be enough to receive a Panda. At the end of the day, its the Chinese's fault that the Panda is endangered in the first place.
Its like when you are drowning, and someone comes to pull you out of the water, you say he has to pay you $100 first.
Agreed. Once the government gets involved, things get suspicious in more ways than one, but especially financially. Hopefully, at least a little good can come from it.