MagiStream

There is a lot of controversy behind keeping captive exotic animals. A lot of people say we shouldn't keep them in zoos or Aquariums or any place where they are kept.

My view on captive exotic animals is this, To release zoo animals into wild would basically be a death sentence to such animals. These zoo animals have absolutely no where to go. People talk about Africa like it is a vast wilderness but in reality many of those places like Kruger national park are managed by government. Why is this so? It is because there is absolutely no true wilderness in Africa left.

There are groups out there who would have people believe or currently believing that we must free all animals including the ones at Seaworld. But the facts are and my views are that they will die if we release them. These captive animals do not know how to survive without humans or how to hunt. There is also no land for them to return too if they are land bound African animals.

So you tell me what do you think about the idea of keeping these animals or releasing them. Is it wrong to keep them in captivity when there is no other alternative?

You make valid points. You could argue that it would be most humane to stop breeding programs for captive animals, and let them die out, that way naturally emptying the zoos and aquaria. That way all remaining populations would be wild, free, etc.

Assuming they still have viable populations in the wild or in wildlife reserves, that is.

As someone who works in a zoo... yeah, no. The fact of the matter is that human expansion is preventing all but some animals from retaining any sort of territories in the wild, not to mention being killed for food or sport, and it's only because of other humans intervening that any of them are surviving. AZA accredited zoos, like mine, have very strict breeding programs for endangered and threatened animals, with only certain lines being bred to certain others, consistent trading between zoos to keep the gene pool strong, so on and so forth.

Many of these animals can have captive lives just fine, especially as understanding of their dietary and space needs grow. There are also just as many animals that zoos <i>won't</i> keep because they're too delicate, too hard to feed, or prohibitively expensive for one reason or another(usually because of food or space requirements). We do what we can, as much as we can, and that's all.

Funny thing, me and my partner were discussing this exact same topic last week. Over here in the Netherlands people have become much more vocal, protesting against zoos and other parks that keep exotic animals. It kind of ticked me off because some of these people do not look beyond 'it is sad, they should be released/go into the wilds'.

I fully agree that some species are only kept alive through breeding programs and that their natural habitats are all but gone. I think it is therefore very important to try and keep them as close to nature as we can. Many zoos here have already adapted exhibits so the animals get an as close to possible experience to what would be their natural environment.
H
owever you look at it, it's all very sad. With so many species we will never have the real experience of an animal in its natural environment, only a half-domesticated zoo-born version of one in what is essentially, a theme-park.

It's a pretty tough decision; do we continue captive breeding and potentially keep a species alive or do we let nature run its course (if you see the human race as natural as we are the major contributors to the problem)?

I think this is a very complicated topic, and it doesn't have a black or white answer.

A lot of animal species are endangered, or even on the brink of extinction (until further strides are made in DNA research, extinct animals aren't relevant to this discussion. If and when we'll reach that point, we will have to face different moral questions). If we decide that we want to preserve these species (something not everyone agrees on, unfortunately), zoos, reservations, breeding programs etc. are a necessity. "Wild" spaces are continuously being diminished, if they don't disappear completely. We could designate "safe spaces", spaces that are left only to the animals, and it is being done, but as human numbers continue to grow, this will probably face further opposition. Even if we could manage to preserve these spaces and prevent humans from encroaching on them, we have no guarantee that global warming, pollution and other outside phenomena will not have a negative and even lethal impact on them. Sad to say, in the long run human-made shelters are the only secure way to preserve these species, in my opinion. Breeding and releasing into the wild will perhaps stave off extinction on the short term, but unless humanity changes as a whole and becomes a lot more conscious about its effects on nature those programs aren't a permanent solution, they're a temporary one.

I think the morality of these discussions should focus on the terms of captivity rather than on the existence of captivity itself. That is, how the animals are treated and kept, what are their man-made environments like and so on. A lot of zoos focus on the costumers, that is the humans, instead of on the animals. The focus should be first and foremost on the animals - ideally, zoos should be preservation centers and not entertainment centers.

I agree with many of the points made here. It absolutely infuriates me how people are slowly taking down genuinely helpful businesses such as Seaworld and zoo's. They may be businesses, and I believe it is good that Seaworld has been pressured into taking the orcas out of performances and increasing the quality of the orca encloses, but asking them to close down and/or release their wildlife is absurd. Seaworld is a major marine wildlife rehabilitator business, if we lose them, we lose a major asset in the world of wildlife rehabilitation. The animals they keep permanently are there for a reason, they can't be rehabilitated, otherwise Seaworld would've already released them! There was even a very, very expensive attempt made by Seaworld to rehabilitate and release a captive born Orca into the wild. You know what happened to him? He starved to death. Captive born orca's simply cannot survive out in the wild for a number of reasons, with the main reason being they need to be in a tight knit pod to live outside of zoo walls. As for zoo's go, yeah there are a lot of bad zoos who do need to be shut down, but like what other people here have said, accredited zoos who actually care about their animals are absolutely vital. These zoos are the ones who're responsible for saving and/or delaying the extinction of countless species in the wild. It's both sad and incredible how many animals we've driven to extinction due to our agricultural and housing needs, only for zoo's to come and save the day because they still have genetically viable breeding groups who can have offspring that can be successfully released back into the wild.

On another note, when I first read the title of this post, I assumed this was about individual's owning exotic animals. That's a bit more of a sticky subject, as essentially anything other than a cat, dog, or livestock can be considered exotic. I for one have many "exotic" animals, though these animals do extremely well in captivity and have been captive for countless generations. Things that are intellectually complex and/or have extensive needs, such as medium to large predatory animals, should not be owned unless it can be proven that the individual can provide these needs. In theory, many states in America do have laws that require accredited inspectors to come out to inspect and regulate those who have permits allowing them to own certain exotic animals, but more often than not most people who own large exotics don't ever get these inspections done and some don't even have permits to own such animals. That's quite troubling, since there are more captive tigers owned by individuals just in the USA than there are in the wild.

I think if an animal needs help, then as humans, who are more intellectual, we have a duty to help. I do not condone the use of animals for human personal gains, but there are great zoos and conservations who do truly want to help animals.

Are the institutions with such exotic animals caring for them in such a way that it reflects their natural needs and what is currently known of their habitat requirements, regardless of whether a 100% natural environment can be replicated? Are they doing everything in their power to ensure that any wild caught specimens are living in an environment which is as suitable as possible? Are they providing environments enriched in such a fashion that it is obvious the animal comes first and not the viewing needs of the public?

There are good institutions, there are excellent ones, there are okay ones, there are bad ones, there are ones so terrible they should be shut down. I have nothing against private collections of exotic animals where the owners/keepers are always trying to make sure the lives their animals lead are the best they can be, and I have nothing against public collections which operate in the same manner. Often large institutions will have breeding projects for less charismatic species, they have the lions, tigers and bears to draw the crowds and then have these amazing invertebrate projects so few people care about it makes my heart cry a little. Sometimes they need the charismatic species to keep the funds rolling in, and some of those species have adapted rather well to zoo life.

Sometimes I do feel the "all zoos are bad, boo" attitude is a little short sighted, and actively ignores all the work a lot of good zoological institutions do for various species ex-situ and in-situ. Some species do better in captivity than others, and there are species which I believe are not suitable for being on display/living in captivity (this includes certain large sea creatures), at least in the manner they currently do.


Soapboax Addition
I hate, hate, hate, hate all the "release these captive animals back where they belong" purely because a lot of the people who say this know little to nothing of how complicated a process this can be, particularly with long term captives or captive bred individuals. Some people demand it immediately, and will take (illegal) action to do this themselves with sometimes disastrous consequences. Some species are adaptable, but some require a very gradual exposure to the world they will find themselves in, and it is often not as simple as releasing an animal into the wild. That is irresponsible.

Here is an interesting topic to contribute, Elephants do not do well in captivity and a lot of zoos are phasing them out. Elephants in captivity are prone to joint and foot problems in africa wild elephants do not suffer from these issues, it is literally a captive animal issue in elephants.

Captive animals often have health issues that their non captive species don't encounter in the protected wild areas they live in.

Also have you ever herd of the scimitar horned oryx would you believe that although zoos try to contribute to conservation. Did you know that a Texas exotic game hunting ranch is responsible for helping to fund reintroduction efforts for Scimitar horned Oryx. Of course this particular game ranch could be best described as a hunting preserve it requires you to actually track the animal yourself, it's legitimate hunting that requires actual knowledge. The ranch actually funded the efforts to reintroduce that species and currently the ranch holds the largest population of scimitar horned oryx in the United States. So not all private collections are bad, and not all of them just breed animals just for profit of course if your breeding for hunting than your animal stock has to be top quality.

As much as I dislike hunting it surprised to learn that our largest population of scimitar horned Oryx here in the USA is currently on game ranch that breeds top quality Oryx for people to go in and hunt, but not only that they supplied the reintroduction population for Scimitar Horned Oryx because their captive bred top quality animals for hunting had the most diverse genetics of any captive Oryx population in the United States. Which made the selection of Oryx that were chosen to be released good candidates for reintroduction into their native habitat. This ranch basically is the reason why the Scimitar Horned Oryx still exists today.

Yet people seem so opposed to hunting ranches that instead of looking at what hunting ranches could do to help a species exist for years to come they freak out and say we shouldn't hunt them and yet this model works from a money standpoint. A game ranch earns a lot of money per year enough that they likely could have money left over after spending what they earn on their captive animals and some of that could be put towards saving species from extinction in the wild.

To cite a movie that I saw called Racing Extinction in less than 100 years we could loss 50% of all earth's biodiversity that is half of the worlds wild life gone, This is where our captive animal populations come in and let me tell for some species this may be their last hope for any reintroduction efforts at all.