For me, its less the size of the zoo but how well the zoo uses its space. I've been to many excellent small zoos, but the small zoos that are excellent don't have many, if any, large megafauna species.
Absolutely. Many small zoos are superb. Sometimes, understanding and working with the limitations of space actually leads to far better welfare. The limitation of space will often lead to more conscious effort made to enhance the space, even in smaller species you can see more complex and engaging enclosures at small zoos where larger zoos simply offer a larger but more simple space.
Alrighhttt. If a polar bear enclosure has a space of like 80 feet and a little pool whilst normally they roam on routes of miles that is cool witg you?
at a aquarium they had a white tiger in a small enclosure and it was indoors,floor was concrete just looked depressing i couldn’t imagin waking up to that everyday
One thing I find myself constantly explaining to guests is that the animals actually have a lot more room that the public doesn’t get to see that they can retreat to at any time
Zoos should definitely keep innovating with trail systems. Many of the large, charismatic species like tigers are on the brink of extinction and zoos have aided in their conservation.
I also think in general having long, thin exhibits are better than square-ish ones. Which it part of what trails do. Long, thin exhibits: • Take up the same space • Allow the animals to see, hear, and smell each other better, with a chain link fence to allow perception without movement • Allow animals to walk for a long time in the same direction, for more comfortable walks • Is more likely to cause variation in the exhibit from natural features like weather 🌦
I think the current trail systems are a good proof of concept. But it will be interesting to see how they develop in other facilities. The high elevation bridges etc are certainly not the only way to develop the same behavioural opportunities for the animals.
"In fact, very little money from zoos goes towards genuine conservation efforts that functionally improve an animal’s conservation status in the wild. The “reserve populations” of animals kept and bred in captivity are almost never introduced into the wild, especially species non-native to the location of the zoo. In 1990, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) identified survival action plans for 1,370 species (418 of which were Endangered). Only 1.4% (19 species) were identified as being candidates for reintroduction of captive-bred animals. Facilities located near natural habitats remain the best alternative to zoo breeding/release, which would incorporate preparation for eventual reintroduction into the animals’ daily lives while held in captivity to optimize chances of survival following release. Therefore, animals kept and bred outside of their natural range without the intention of eventual release (particularly including popular animals in US zoos like lions, tigers, elephants, gorillas, and pandas) provide no direct benefit to conservation whatsoever, and likely detract from resources that could be used for other meaningful conservation efforts. According to Benjamin Beck, former associate director of biological programs at the National Zoo in Washington DC, in the last century, “only 16 of 145 reintroduction programs worldwide ever actually restored any animal populations to the wild. Of those, most were carried out by government agencies, not zoos.” Further, financial, spatial, logistical, and biological factors frequently prevent breeding that allows for highly diversified gene pools within the captive populations that are also self-sustaining. For example, due to such unsuccessful captive breeding efforts, zoos take Asian elephants from their wild homes to maintain the current numbers at zoos in the United States; consequently depleting the very populations they claim to be protecting." Earth dot org.
It’s quite refreshing to see some honest criticisms of zoos that aren’t basically just “abolish all zoos.” Zoos can absolutely work, and they can be very important and helpful in conservation efforts and for the public knowledge, too. Great video overall!
@@theonlytman2344 "Zoos often trumpet the idea that they support elephant conservation in the wild, when in fact, most zoos contribute little to nothing towards meaningful in-situ conservation efforts, especially in comparison to their overall operating budget. Asian elephants have declined by 50% or more since the early 20th century to between 40,000-50,000 individuals, while African elephants have decreased by more than two thirds since the 1970s, with recent reports estimating that as few as 415,000 individuals remain today (Williams et al., 2020; Gobush et al., 2021). Despite these substantial population declines, zoos restock their collections with individuals taken from the wild. Zoos continue to import elephants from the wild because the captive population alone is unsustainable; without the addition of elephants taken from the wild, the rapid demise of the captive population would likely occur within the next 25-30 years. For the captive Asian elephant population, it was reported in 2000 that zoos in North America would need to import four elephants per year simply to maintain the population at its current level (Wiese, 2000). Since 2000, in the United States, more captive elephant deaths have occurred than births; sadly, deaths have equaled or exceeded births in 20 out of the recorded 21 years" (Devan Schowe, 2022).
@@Tofu_va_Bien The problem with your argument is that it's a cherry-picked study. You're comparing an animal with unregulated standards and is readily available in captivity, to species that objectively depended on breeding programs. The California Condor, the Lord Howe Island Stick Insect, and all the IUCN labeled Extinct in the Wild species, see their populations stable or greatly increase as a result of conservation programs. There are also the millions provided from the AZA to Mountain Gorilla conservation, as well as all the major Mountain Gorilla organizations that recognize zoos as helpful to their mission. The Mountain Gorilla Conservation Fund, the Gorilla SAFE Program, and the Dian Fossey Gorilla fund. "Melbourne Zoo announced on Wednesday its world-first breeding program, set up in 2003 with just one pair of insects, had notched up 13,000 hatched eggs." (9News) "In 1982, only 22 birds remained in the wild. San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance received permission to begin the first captive propagation program for California condors. Thanks to the California Condor Recovery Program, the population of California condors has grown to more than 500 birds. More than half of these birds are now flying free in the wild." (San Diego Zoo Safari Park) Then there's the Arabian Oryx's reversal of "Extinct in the Wild" status. It was move spearheaded by the WWF and Phoenix Zoo. This is an animal that once went from a few dozen individuals to thousands in both the wild and in captivity. As for elephants, the answer to lifespans and fundraising, is to enforce AZA standards in order to handle the species. There are roadside zoos and circuses that contain these animals that should not be there in the first place. The example should be the facilities with high quality standards such as the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, the White Oak Sanctuary, and the National Zoo. "Longevity of elephants is not well understood, and most of the available information comes from African elephants. Recent data suggests that African elephants rarely live to the age of 50. Evidence suggests that Asian elephants typically live into their mid-50s, but there is not enough consistent data available on wild Asian elephants to accurately estimate their lifespan. Median life expectancy for female Asian elephants is 47 years old. According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ most recent life expectancy table, the median life expectancy of a female Asian elephant is 46.9 years."
At a zoo here, there were two equally sized enclosures. In one were multiple young male lions. They roared, lazed around, played with each other, etc. They looked reasonably happy, though I'm obviously not an expert on them. In the other was a single tiger. The tiger's fur was ruffled, head down, and she paced nonstop up and down the fenceline. Her distress was quite clear to anyone looking. Though she had an enclosure as big as the lions and didn't need to share it, it was very lacking in foliage or places to hide, and almost every angle of the enclosure was visible to people.
Hello! I study zoo animal care and would like to mention that pacing isn't always a welfare issue. Many captive wild cats patrol their enclosures by pacing, or they exhibit anticipatory behaviour when they expect food, which can cause them to pace. When on placement at my local zoo, I learnt that one of the Scottish wildcats paces to solicit human attention because she was hand-raised. However, that's not to disregard animals that do pace due to legitimate welfare issues. I suggest that if you visit that zoo again, to tell a member of staff about your concern for the tiger. Zoos and zookeepers genuinely value feedback from visitors - it's one of the best ways for them to improve! C:
@@juiciekeeps Thank you for your words! I do think this was stress pacing. I also saw the cheetahs and lions do it, but the tiger looked really disheveled and anxious. I haven't seen the tiger since though, so I sadly can't ask the staff about it.
@@Serasugee I think what your describing in that tiger is a pretty classic example of a 'stereotypic behavior' - given the context of an unenriching habitat and body language you've described. If you want to look more into that sort of thing that would be the term to start looking into. (source: studying Zoology)
I think zoos should continue to develop further. I know some people will say otherwise, but I say this because many of the species that struggle in captivity are often the ones that are the most endangered. Elephants, tigers, gorillas, etc., are examples of endangered species, some critically endangered, that tend to struggle in captivity. The problem lies in the future of the wild populations. If the wild populations of these species continue to decline or do not change from where they are now, then keeping captive populations of them is an unfortunate necessity. That’s why I say it’s important for captive facilties to keep developing. Additionally, there are animals that are not endangered but may be rescues. Not all rescue animals can be released back into the wild, and sanctuaries can’t always take them in. Many polar bears, for example, were rescued from the wild either because they were orphans or problem bears that were saved from being euthanized. They’re another example of an animal that tends to struggle in captivity. Finally, there’s the issue of balancing the issue of animal welfare vs. guest experience. What I mean by that is that many animals that guests see in zoos are not endangered. Grizzly bears, warthogs, and red kangaroos are not endangered, but they’re very popular and help draw in guests. Yes, there are plenty of crowd-drawing endangered species, but the problem is that having a zoo full of only endangered species leads to a surprising lack of animal diversity. For example, most people don’t know what a Palila, Bear Cuscus, or Père David’s Deer are, but they do know what elephants, tigers, and gorillas are. Many endangered species are generally unknown to the public, and because of that, there’s the problem that filling a zoo with only endangered species, while not a bad idea, will not be as successful as one that has both endangered and non-endangered species. While it sounds greedy, zoos need money to keep the zoo functioning, pay the staff, and care for the animals. Having a wide variety of animals brings in more guests, who bring in more money. Ultimately, it’s a delicate and difficult balance that will not always work for everyone. It’s just best to keep making strides in the advancement of zoos and other captive facilities until they’re no longer needed (which is unlikely to happen).
Some great points here! Finding a balance on that sliding scale is certainly tricky, and is constantly changing too. Thanks for taking the time to reach out. *heads off to google “Palila”*
I think we need to have an honest discussion over zoos vs. trophy hunting, and how one kind of offsets the other. ARA’s hate both, but for *fact’s* sake let’s have a debate regarding the two, otherwise.
That's what animal sanctuaries are there for. Zoos are there to make money. Plain and simple. They *profit* off of the fact that said species are endangered. Anything a zoo can do an animal sanctuary or reserve can do far better.
@@lasagnapig630 Sanctuaries don't re-release animals back to their ever-diminishing "natural habitats" nor do they fund global conservation projects. Tell me you don't understand conservation without telling me you don't understand conservation.
A zoo in my country announced last year that they will be completely redesigning and expanding their Asian elephant habitat, and one of the key changes will be the introduction of a trail-based habitat like the one described in the video. Indeed, this would give the elephants much more opportunity to roam and travel around the zoo as a group and display more natural behaviours. They will also be adding a second, larger habitat for adult males, so they will be able to stay at the zoo in a bachelor group. They already have a habitat for adult males, but it is currently VERY small and only occupied when they're actively trying to breed the young females (so about once every two years). I'm excited to see what this change will bring to the wellbeing of the elephant herd. Their eldest female and matriarch died last year. She lived in that zoo for over fifty years and saw her habitat change from a small concrete yard to a large sandy plains. She didn't live to see the next big step for elephant wellbeing in zoos, but her children and grandchildren will.
Building enclosures is truly an art and some people are better at it than others. A lot of zoos simply lack the resources to develop and construct a robust and enriching environment. That said, in 2024 there's almost no excuse for subpar enclosures. Knowledge is ubiquitous, materials of all kinds available, huge inventories of plant and fungus material...
Absolutely. As part of discussions I’ve had during my career was always feasibility. Ie. When discussing potential new species, a whole list of criteria such as availability, whether we had the keeper knowledge, whether we could build a suitable enclosure, whether it fit the goals of our collection plan etc. as part of that we’d often identify that we would not be able to provide a suitable enclosure for one reason or another and luckily management supported this. Someone else mentioned city zoos, and they are an example where many species can’t be housed appropriately and over time have been phased out.
It’s not just the size of the enclosure, but also what’s in it, how is it planted, is it mixed species. Understanding the animal in the wild and the ability to replicate. Prevailing climate in a zoo might determine species kept. Also, what is outside of the enclosure for sensory stimuli.
Snakes are the easiest example of quality over quantity.You could give a snake a massive enclosure but if it has no cover they will be stressed,but give it a medium sized enclosure with substrate to burrow in and things to climb and hid in they will be set
Choosing which species a zoo houses is also the question of "why". If a zoo is participating in captive breeding or research, they need to keep those particular animals, and design enclosures with that in mind. But then, visitors bring money that is needed to run the zoo and those programs, so they need charismatic animals to draw in visitors.
We should stop expecting every zoo to have the same full range of popular species. A zoo may keep one type of big cat, or one type of ape, but has to invest the space and personnel to develop the best range of habitats, hiding spots, foraging reward programs, whatever is appropriate for the species. They should focus on keeping one species well, develop the expertise, and be honest if it can't be done. We as spectators should encourage them to go this way. One city may have lions, another tigers, one gorillas, another chimpanzees.
As someone in the herping community this is a hot button topic. While I prefer the biggest possible enclosure, a smaller enclosure with enrichment is so much better than a big empty one, but a small empty one is awful.
I think they should continue to improve because zoos and sanctuaries are a safe guard against complete extinction, where if they do go extinct in the wild, they could still be reintroduced from captive populations.
That is not the goal of a zoo. Zoos bring people and wildlife face to face, hoping to create an emotional experience so those people will be pro-conservation. A place breeding and keeping populations alive to keep them wild.... Those would have zero visitors and ideally zero human interaction at all.
While there are some zoos that engage in valuable captive breeding programs for some endangered species, zoos as a whole catch too many animals from the wild and drive more animals to extinction than they ever rescue.
@@eljanrimsa5843 you might unfortunately be right, but it's the cheap, roadside type of zoos that do this, they put bad light on actually great zoos, from my experience Zurich and Prague zoos are the best I've been to
@@No-longer1 I'm a watcher of TH-cam videos, not a reader of scientific papers. I can recommend e.g. Earthling Ed "Why SHOULDN'T we support zoos and their conservation work?" to give you an overview over the arguments. Scientific papers - Since I can't give you direct links here in a TH-cam comment, this is a bit the wrong format, but I can give you hints what to google: - There is a study "Critically endangered species should be left to breed in the wild" by the University of East Anglia, which is prominently referenced by PETA. - There is also a web page titled "Zoos and Why They Should Not Exist" which has a list of 10 related scientific papers.
I’m pleasantly surprised to see a video about zoos that isn’t just “ZOOS BAD ANIMALS WANDER 4 500000 MILES IN THE WILD” and that offers constructive discussion about the topic. Of course, the biggest enclosure you can provide is ideal, but I’ve seen plenty of small zoos that have smaller enclosures and their animals are clearly happy and thriving. How the enclosure is furnished and designed matters just as much as how much space the animal has. A tiger could have a 15 acre enclosure that’s a barren field and it would still be more bored than the one on 4 acres of carefully designed habitat space with climbing and swimming areas. If you ask me though, too many zoos hyperfixate on megafauna that bring in visitors (like big cats, pandas, elephants, giraffes, etc) and neglect smaller species of animals desperately in need of captive research and breeding, like Sumatran striped rabbits or countless other animals with declining populations that we literally can’t even fill out a Wikipedia page for. The only facilities actually bothering to work with and study such ignored species are often dismissed by the big name AZA zoos as being “poor facilities” people shouldn’t support. People forget that zoos are still businesses motivated by money no matter if they have noble intentions.
8:56/8:58/9:01 - 9:14 Or as Casual Geographic put in layman's terms, animals that are highly intelligent, highly social or travel very long distances will, more often than not, struggle while living in a captive environment.
Really good content. About Elephants: According to a german expert in Modern Zoos Elephants acctually do about the same distance in walking compares to wild Elephants. But I think there is still some development to be done too In general I think the best enrichment can be acchieved by joining different species in one exhibit
That’s an interesting point on elephants. Distance is certainly measurable so it becomes something we can easily compare, but as you rightly say, distance isn’t the only factor at play! Mixed exhibits will certainly affect the animals in a number of ways. If you haven’t already seen it, one of my previous videos covered mixed exhibits in a bit more detail!
I think with that study in mind, it's best we utilize bigger space and enrichment to reflect that. These are animals with lower lifespan in captivity so far. But with the existence of places like White Oak or Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, it can be done.
Insta-subbed. There aren't enough good zoo channels on YT, and I'm very glad to find one focused on explanation and analysis like this. Your presentation is very competent, too. Keep up the good work! I'll definitely go back through and watch your older videos.
I lived only few meters away from a forest. I walked my dog there every day for 0,5-4 hours depending on the weather and the time I had. There were 4 major pathways you could take that split into several other trails. I couldn't take my dog the same trail every day or even every other day because she would just sit on the road untill we go back. She would rather stay home than walk the same path so often. But if we walked a different path each day of the week she would eagerly lead the exploration XD
Great watch. Overall as someone born and raised in Zimbabwe i think Safari's will always have an edge on zoo's coz the animals can have all their space and not be confined to enclosures but rather big vast areas that you need vehicles to drive into and see the animals whilst allowing them thejr natural habitat.
I will say. The only zoo I keep coming back too is the Bronx zoo. Iv never looked at the exhibits and felt sad or down. I love that place. Best zoo in the world
The most important thing is if the animals are getting enough mental stimulation, especially with interesting activities. There there were thing like a pool to swim in, strong elevation differences to climb on/off, toys 🧸, an animal-friendly TV 📺, and/or regular socialisation with other animals the healthy amount of space needed for them would be much smaller. Though megafauna should probably be limited to more rural areas or in suburbs.
Yeah the rural zoo vs city zoo is a really interesting one. Historically towns and cities with zoos as flagship visitor attractions had the big hitters, lions, tigers, bears, apes etc. but often they simply don’t have the space to provide large complex exhibits alongside other animals/facilities. I may take a closer look at that at some point, it’s a really good point 👍
Hey, I am a Butterfly explainer at the American Museum of Natural History. I’d love to see more discussion among the general public about Butterfly vivariums and insectariums. A lot of the time, insects are left out. Sure it seems easy to give butterflies space, but different conditions in lighting, temperature, and foliage different from their native environment can contribute to increased or decreased quality of life.
hi! do you mean the one in DC? because if so, i’d love to talk to you thru email or something. I’m very much interested in zoology and animal husbandry, especially that of invertebrates and reptiles, and would love to be able to talk to you about your job and the sort of duties that you preform!
Schools, hospitals, prisons, and military camps also have to share a lot of considerations in managing humans similarly to how zoos have to manage animals. Many times the same problems found in zoos also exist in those analogous human environments, with humans suffering similar symptoms. Psychiatric wards and prisons are especially damning because they frequently aren't intended to actually be healthy spaces for people, with psych patients and inmates being regarded as trash and thus the only considerations for these spaces are logistical convenience and bare minimum necessities that prevent the attendees from rebelling. Psych wards are so miserable even today, despite all the research into patient care dating back to the Edwardian era. Sometimes I'll look at a bad exhibit and see it no differently than a bad hospital room.
I do have a request for a video. Explain where animals go during colder seasons in temperate regions. I know many zoos have heated indoor facilities to house warmer climate creatures during such months, but I've always wondered if that's the case for ALL animals at a given zoo or if they're taken offsite to other locations until the next season
Unless I hear anything different, no video needed! In the UK atleast, where there is no major swing in temperatures across the year, what you describe is largely true. From my experience most mammals and birds will be offered heated indoor accommodation. There will then be certain standards in place with regards to access. Ie. Species with high susceptibility to cold will be fully indoors, will have limited access either outdoors or to water outdoors. In those species, the indoor exhibit should be suitable for 24hr housing. Those with a higher tolerance for cold will be given the option. I’ve never heard of species being sent on holiday to warmer climates before. As a result, exhibit design is usually based on the animals suitable climate. Some species indoors with climate control either hot or cold, some species not suitable for the location all together. There’s also some indoor exhibits with an outside access only for in the warmest weather. In that situation the indoor should provide a full exhibit too. I know of a number of collections who have seasonal exhibits though. These are often farmyard animals, where they bring in rare breeds around lambing/calving time. These domestic species possibly more equipped to being moved and possibly being moved between sites for birthing anyway. The other seasonal exhibit I’ve seen are pop up situations with ray and shark species. This sits outside the “normal” zoo exhibit, but isn’t something I know much about. A few US zoos use a company which provides this as a service which you could take a look at. It’s arguably what you’re describing. Assuming they are not “new” individuals each year. The animals are housed in a warmer state during the winter and moved “on display” in a pop-up exhibit during the summer months.
Love the video, but surprised you didn't include this reference, since it's published material with the exact trail concept you mentioned at the end of the video. Riley, L. M. (2022). The behavioural biology of primates. In P. Rose (Ed.) The Behavioural Biology of Zoo Animals. CRC Press. Must say, always enjoy the content, and I'm very glad you're using relatively recent science to back up your arguments. I do think, however, we should note that zoos are continuing to develop, and, at least with large predators like tigers and such, and cognitively active species like parrots, we are seeing that different enrichment types are reducing stereotypy to different amounts. While I don't think reducing stereotypy alone is a good metric to measure animal welfare, I do think it shows a good benchmark, since reduced stereotypy and increased behavioural diversity have been linked in a couple of papers.
So, to put it bluntly, more intelligent species need more entertainment, and the solution for this is to change enclosures into escape rooms for animals. Love this idea ❤
I was designer and constructor and even Director of Wildlife and build the biggest safari in Malaysia. I can tell you that most so called organizations cannot even agree on the size of each enclosure and on specific requirements. It's a mess.
Thanks for the interesting video and good job on explaining such a complex question so well! Everyone will have a different opinion on the topic of zoos, but by explaining this specific aspect and combining your professional knowledge with your interpretation of these academic papers (thanks for adding a reference list!), you at least help to make steps towards a situation which is better. Keep up the good work :)
I've always enjoyed Chester Zoo, i had the opportunity to visit around 3ish years ago. It was the first time I've ever seen multiple large animals, bears, elephants, rhinos ect... be consistently active The Zoo of Minnisota is an amazing zoo, their tiger enclousure is beautiful. I also got to see the bears there playing right in front of the viewing area Como Park Zoo is particularly cool, i totally recomend it.
Amazing video and summary of all the pros and cons of your traditional zoo. My local zoo has been undergoing a LOT of construction over the past 10 years and it's encouraging to see them take what was once several small exhibits and re-format them into one, somewhat larger, but more interesting exhibit for a single species. Animal wellfare is a complex issue that takes time and research to get right!
What an insightful video well done, it has really invoked me to think more deeply about the welfare of animals in zoos and your explanations were fantastic. Looking forward to seeing your channel grow!
VERY insightful video. Although some animals don’t do well in captivity, many of these are being threatened with extinction, and if there are no captive populations then if they go extinct in the wild they’re gone for good. I do think it may be a good idea the phase some animals out of traditional zoos though. Species like elephants, apes, big cats, bears, etc. should probably be kept in wildlife sanctuaries that are similar to their natural environments.
The apes are mostly critically-endangered though. So far the only population of the great apes that are increasing in the wild are mountain gorillas in Rwanda, but even then a good chunk of that is due to fundraising from *accredited* zoos and aquariums. Accredited zoos partner with in-situ conservation projects "on the ground", so to speak, and even then accredited zoos do actually re-release captive-bred animals back to the wild, for example the once extinct in the wild scimitar-horned oryx in Chad that is now classified as simply "endangered". However, yes, admittedly with species like gorillas it is hard for them to be properly re-introduced into the wild from captivity, but with most of them being depleted in the wild the question is do you have any better ideas?
Im not too fond of zoos but im really glad i stumbled upon this video because i would really love to see good zoo enclosures in the future and this gives me some hope. There's massive problem with the space and terrain variation in the zoos I've been to. I've even seen 10 or so budgies be stuck in a really small cage with nothing but a few perches and that's one of the easiest species to care for. Honestly I think that we should reduce the amount of animals in zoos and give the endangered species even more though and space than we already do. Of course there must be some animals to get people's attention but theres no need to keep "boring" animals that are not endangered in zoos unless they're rescues, cohabitants with other species or used for research Thanks for the video, its refreshing to hear an opinion thats not extremly anti zoo or completely uneducated
this was pretty informative! i don't have a particularly well-developed opinion on zoons, but of course it can't be reduced to 'zoos are without flaws and beyond critique' or 'abolish all zoos', since there's a clear public good to teaching people about animals, and many of the best zoos also conduct conservation and research work which is very important. at the same time, as you've outlined, certain animal needs may prove difficult to provide in captivity.
I was in zoo in Vietnam (family took me), it was a big zoo but all animals were in cages, some elephants had chains on their feet etc. They were very skinny. I couldn't look at this at all. Contrary i was in my city's zoo for sleepover and we were show how everything works in the background. I saw how this people treat animals. I feel they need slight renovations of some enclosures but it was nice expirience
Different zoos have different cultures, priorities and legal responsibilities which can lead to vastly different standards. It’s important to recognise, as you have that not all zoos are the same! Love the idea of a sleepover at the zoo! What a great way to engage people
Testing prototypes of animal proof products like the Wolf and Grizzly Discovery Center does would be a great way to get a lot of extra enrichment in zoos.
I'm wondering if you're going to discuss breeding programs in future videos. I've always beem told by breeders of reptiles that its good to breed in cpativity because you can offer captive bred options to people so there is less demand for wild caught ones and that breeding provides insurance colonies in case something happens with the wild counterparts. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic and how different species are affected!
I did a video covering a few of these points called “where do zoos get their animals”. The zoo industry realised this was a problem many years ago, and began trying to breed sustainable captive populations. Both in Europe and the US there are collaborative breeding programmes, run across accredited zoos. There are also smaller programs run by groups of individuals. Captive breeding for the pet trade can be a bit different. There’s a lot of good breeding, good record keeping, good genetics etc within certain circles, with a view to maintain populations of healthy wild-type animals sustainably. Then there’s the other side where breeding is focussed on breeding “rare morphs” which has always confused me. This often involves crossing individuals with rare alleles to try and have “rare” offspring which look a certain way. I’ve not been in that industry, but have seen comments about inbreeding being accepted and “not a risk”. Now I’m not a geneticist, but inbreeding does increase the chance of recessive alleles being displayed, as is the aim for rare colour morphs, but I know nothing about the potential for other factors, eg health or behaviour. I did look into this many years ago and couldn’t find much literature on it, possibly someone else will post a good link here!
@@zooblether Ah, thank you for responding! I've seen a mix of both in the reptile hobby, though, it's mostly venomous keepers trying to keep venomous genes pure to have captive wild populations. For the pet trade, it seems to be a mix bag. There are some folks I know that try to do inbreeding as little as possible while still maintaining the fancy morphs. There are also some I know that try to buy wild caught animals so that they can start a captive breeding operation themselves, that way they can offer captive breed reptiles to others. But, then I know of others who breed without thinking too much about the animal's welfare in genetic terms and that's when we see some genetic issues (ex: I believe there are some ball python morphs that can't be bred together because they lead to "lethal" clutches). I hope that over time we keep not only our wild-type captive bred populations genetically healthy, but also our morphs as well.
In my city there are 2 Zoos, the original one to me is honestly animal abuse, it has Tigers, Jaguars and Lions in enclosures that are like 10x5 meters with a private room of maybe 10x5 on the back, Eagles and Hawks in enclosures made for Macaws, small monkeys in room sized enclosures with only the chickenwire-like walls to cling on, and many other problems that show its antiquity, its in the middle of the city so it cant be expanded more, on the contrary the newer zoo has a reverse "problem" it has a few kilometer long multispecies enclosures were they try to emulate a certain ecosystem (without predators of course), this makes it hard for visitors to see most animals unless they pay for the safari style tours into the enclosure, but I think it's the better solution
one of the best exhibits i've ever seen is at the Phoenix Zoo. they have an exhibit for native mountain goats that's literally a natural small mountain surrounded by native brush and desert! those goats are hardly ever visible and, when they are, they're like little white dots up on their mountain :D the Oregon Zoo is separated into 2 facilities; the "public" areas where one can walk about and see all the beautiful enclosures, and the "private" area where they have their rehabilitation and medical centers and, the "private" area is at *least* the same size as the "public" areas! they also have probably the best elephant enclosure in North America, with multiple big and deep pools, long paths connecting different areas, and an entire back area the same size as the front (which is already massive) where they can go to have privacy
For me this video highlights my two favorite zoos and exactly why i love them. One is a small rescue zoo that has difficult animals that need medicine or extra care. And my other favorite that has LARGE EXPANSIVE areas and open areas where multiple species co exist like a safari. Some areas are open to the public while others are very much hidden. I live in Michigan and Toledo and potter park are the particular zoos I’m talking about. And i know it might be hard to hear but potter park has tigers. It’s small but they have tigers and lions simply because they need extra care… it’s important we understand and continue to keep these creatures because it raises awareness and helps people understand that these creatures are not pets and need LOTS of care. Removing them from zoos only makes the black market trade that much more lucrative and removes awareness. We need to understand these creatures have LARGE ranges and travel LONG distances each day and our habitat encroaching is a BIG deal. And we can only really SHOW that by SHOWING the lengths we have to go through to replicate the habitat.
Sometimes smaller enclosures are actually better, for example some species of Scorpions only really leave their hides to look for food and larger terrariums make it harder for them to find any prey items you may have left them.
One of my friends thinks sanctuaries are inherently better than zoos, but upon thinking about it I wonder what the real difference is. (At least, between AZA accredited facilities, not shady zoos and sanctuaries 😬)
I wound up here after looking for tutorials for the game Planet Zoo XD. Not complaining, though. Im really curious about this kind of thing and I really enjoyed your video.
Would facilities similar to The Wilds near Columbus, OH; The Wild Animal Sanctuary near Denver, CO: and a large zoological facility in Europe which I don't know the name of fit the standards of highly improved animal welfare?
It depends. I don’t know much about the management techniques at either of those facilities. I understand the wilds has large exhibits and It’s certainly true that larger exhibits can offer more complex exhibits, which in turn could lead to improved welfare opportunities. However, large expansive exhibits may not actually be used by the animals. Often the features and management will do a lot more for animal welfare than size alone. For any “sanctuary” or “rescued animals” you have the added complication that even in a good exhibit, their historic behavioural traits can continue for a long time after leaving a poor exhibit, so this should be considered too.
I have an idea for a future video, I think a video on enrichment would be interesting, like new feeding methods or toys. I always find it fascinating how zoos keep their animals entertained.
I completely agree with most everything you've said during this video, except for one thing. Animals that have major differences with one another should not be housed together (like in many zoos, i.e. Omaha Zoo, where aerial, arboreal, aquatic, and terrestrial creatures are housed all together). Many animals get stressed too easily and adding on more different species to their environment usually results in a rapid increase in their stress, leading to agression. Zoos should house animals that have roughly the same build (like antelope and deer)- because when they know there is others around that are calm, they are usually calm aswell. Great video, 9/10
To the stuff about adding choices, how would you reccomend to do that for a dog? Surely with methods like this I can help my dog out, any info would be great
It’s very important to note that some animals need more or less space. An ambush hunting snake will not need much room relative to its body size and will actually feel uncomfortable if there’s too much open space! But the exact opposite is true for many other animals that like to roam in open fields.
At the aviary near me, they only take bald eagles that are injured and cannot fly correctly/survive in the wild. In cases like this the space/morality of the entire subject changes dramatically. Giving any space, care, and treatment to an animal that would otherwise be dead is a blessing to the animal itself.
I think the solution is combining when possible. Busch gardens actually has a solid savannah where they have plenty of space. With reptiles the height/width/depth ratio also matters a ton , not just volume
zoos are an essential part of conservation. However, although it may be possible to provide more complex environment for big cats, I just don't see how this would be possible for elephans, both asian and african
Elephants can be kept in captivity as long as there’s acres upon acres of land. Sanctuaries and safari parks that span that size tend to have better quality of life than elephants with just below 10 acres.
Tye Ashboro zoo in NC focuses on elephants and their solution is having I believe around 100 acres for their herd to roam. Visitors walk any section or the whole park. People often complain that they have to walk or that the animals were far away when they saw them, but, oh well. The elephants are far happier and healthier than any other herd iv seen. Small facilities just shouldn't have them.
@@Elizabeth-n3v2u That seems suitable. Animal welfare is more important than visitor satisfaction. If visitors want to see the elephants, maybe the zoo could implement a safari system.
First of all i want to say that i find it good that u adress criticism of zoos and acknowledged the problems that prevail in a zoos environment. Still for me zoos will never be something i would go to on my own will, as you already mentioned some animals adapt better to zoo environments then other thats the first issue, they adapt. That means what people get to see is not a representation of there normal behaviour. for example a lion that u would see in freedom differes from one held in captivity , they adapt to the environment they are given to survive and therefore change there behaviour. This means that the argument of educating the public still stands but it doesnt need to involve captive animals bc there behaviour changed and they therefore doesnt represent there actually species anymore. Secondly in my opinion we have no right to force animals into captivaty, as you again mentioned on the drive to your home town zoo you found the confined space that u were put in uncomfortable, now extend that uncomfort to your whole life and u get the situation these animals are in. No captive animal has the freeedom of a free one and they couldnt even make the choice. Third and last why not focus our mission to educate the public and save endangered species by preserving the wild life and maybe building more and extending already existing wild life habitats, where people can see animals in the purest form where they can act on there own free will, were they arent confined to a smell place where they are in the presence of large groups of there own species, thats where our focus needs to be and thats where real education and wildlife preservation will be.
There is a zoo decently near me that I always hated due to the awful enclosures. I kid you not my backyard was bigger than an enclosure with 2 tigers in it, and my backyard aint that big. There was also a bear in a 30x50 foot (just a guess) chain link fence. There was some other bad enclosures but those were by far the worse. You just hate to see it.
I recall Radiolab featuring a story about how much work went into an designing a new and more enriching exhibit for gorillas at a time when most exhibits were concrete and iron bars. This may seem obvious to us now, but zoos are constantly evolving to better suit an animal's needs. Who knows what exhibits will look like decades from now.
I agree that would be awesome but from the zoo perspective, if it’s too big, then the visitors might not get to see the animals they want which means they might not show up as often and not to mention the logistics of making enough money to pay the bills on such massive exhibits Not to mention tax and other fees, just from owning all that land ( I feel like the majority of people in the zoo industry genuinely care for animals, but they just gotta make do with the situation they have)
Try the San Diego Zoo Safari Park in Escondido, California. It does have a lot of regular well constructed habitats, but the main draw is the massive several hundred acre African plain habitat which is home to herds of several species that coexist. It’s really something special. There’s a free tram service that drives you around the perimeter to see everything.
One of the most impressive zoos I’ve ever been to is Chiang Mai zoo. It’s absolute huge and there’s loads of space for animals. Certain animals, such as small monkeys, are completely free roaming.
Not a zookeeper by any means, but i have been keeping reptiles for a long time, and I've come to understand a lot of these principles firsthand. My philosophy with keeping animals is that we should strive to replicate their natural enviornment and the bennificial conditions experienced in the wild as closely as possible, this includes space, clutter, cover, lighting/climate control, food, and anything else the animal would benefit from in the wild. For instance, i car efor a texas banded gecko, a diminutive, tiny lizard found in arid habitats. I've set up her enclosure to replicate her natural habitat and encourage a multitude of behaviors; she has lots of space on the ground to explore, as well as subterranean tunnels and elevated rocks and braches to climb. There's a thriving group of isopods, beetles and other microfauna to clean her waste, manage the soil and be an occasional snack. There's an array of plants growing inside that provide climbing and hiding opportunities for her. It seems that this habitat works well for her; she's able to comfortably nap in her numerous crevices during the day, but at night, she becomes very active, curious, and, for lack of a better word, livley. She's explored every inch of her habitat and is incredibly curious, and is very outgoing and curious whenever i reach in to maintain it, and overall shows all the signs of being happy and stress free. I'm in the mindset that if we can't mimic their natural environment well enough or on the scale needed for optimum well-being, then a species probably should just be left in the wild. Marine iguanas, for instance, will probably never be kept in captivity; their diet alone is enough to make caring for them extremely difficult, let alone their space and climate needs.
I appreciate this video. I'm writing a book about a fictional zoo that will be out this year; this information is very robust and comprehensive. I'll bring this back to my co-authors to discuss!
Nice video. Will you make a video about why do zols let some subspecies interbreed? I've heard there are barely any tigers in zols that are completely of one subspecies.
Accredited zoos do not ever do this. It's Joe exotic type roadside "zoos" that feed the hybrid tiger overpopulation crisis. They often claim they breed big cats for conservation when in reality its nothing of the sort, they just wind up dumped in tourist traps, fairs, and private collections and genetically are worthless to conservation efforts. It's extremely sad.
Yeah, I have a pet snake and while he's living in a much smaller habitat than in the wild. I've utilized the space in a way that allows me to lose him in the terrarium, and of course I supplement his need for exercise with a snake proofed room so I can let him explore the room supervised, with his terrarium door open. So, while I can't offer him a massive terrarium (yet), he has enrichment, since he is a captive bred snake from a long line of captive bred corn snakes I couldn't release him into the wild even if I wanted to. Little goober would have his ass kicked by a mouse xD
5:58 Yep, that's something I worked hard to accomplish, 3D gradient for temps and humidity with hiding spots in many areas and elevations. One benefit from that is microclimates! 11:33 Also, I make scent trails for my snake to follow to the food or I make him hunt the frozen/thawed rodent ^^
THIS VIDEO!!❤❤❤❤ a zoo should be about the animals comfort, idk about yall but i dont wanna see an animal suffering! id pay the ticket price if i knew the animals had an environment where they were truly happy, and we could see that
no animal can truly be happy in an enclosure they just learn to adapt cause they have no other choice and sometimes they cant handle it (look up zoochosis)
How much space can you live in? How much space do you want? What should be that space have? How come the birth rates of zoo animals increased during the covid lockdowns ( no visitors looking, making noise). Just asking.
For me, the ideal zoo would be the animals in their natural while the humans are enclosed and unable to disrupt them. I’m thinking something like a safari for some humans and perhaps a prison for others, depending upon their behavior. The humans’ experience wouldn’t be very high on my priority list.
I truely believe Melbourne zoo in Australia will have only one classic zoo megafauna in the next 50 years. The zoo is over 100 years old. The elephants are about to move to the zoos sister open range zoo. They’ll have more space to themselves than the entire size of the Melbourne zoo. I hope Melbourne zoo add more smaller weirder endangered mammals instead. They phased out African wild dogs and the zebras became aggressive towards the giraffes so they’re gone too. It’s simply not big enough. This was a zoo that originally had bears in actual concrete boxes and patrons would throw peanuts at them. They’ve come a long way but are limited by their space. They still have hundreds of different mammal species and obviously hundreds of lizards and birds ect. The general public still complains bc the tiger was hiding or because they saw ‘literally no animals’ during their visit. It’s a zoo just outside of the CBD in the second largest Australia city. It used to be world class but now it’s a in a battle with its physical space
Yes! More small weird animals are definitely a good direction for city/space restricted zoos! We used to have a lovely nocturnal house at our local zoo when I was little, it was great 👍
Until there is peace in the world, and the rainforests, jungles and savannas are restored to a respectable range... and traveling to these places becomes more affordable... zoos need to still exist. We are in the midst of an ecological crisis, so to shut down places or initiatives which are preserving and caring for wildlife would be suicidal. It's going to take everything we've got to get through this, and we do not have have the luxury to point fingers.
But zoos and aquariums can contribute to population loss and habitat loss. Wild animals are still captured for display, especially in the East. We can't pretend that zoos don't have room to improve just because they want to do something noble. Additionally, there is a good amount of evidence to show that zoo's aren't as effective as they claim to be. The majority of the species they hold aren't being bred for release, and in the cause of the mega fauna such as elephants, gorillas, and Killer Whales, zoos will consistently argue that these animals can't even be removed from a zoo setting, less they perish or their welfare suffers. Some animals seem to be there solely for money making purposes rather than genuine attempts to protect the species.
“Should some animals disappear from Zoos all together?” I’ve only seen like a minute of the video and I’m sure your mention it but considering that like 80% of Elphants show signs of severe mental in wellness (rocking back and fourth) Id say those should definitely be on the list- Their large, intelligent, social animals with very big ranges in the wild their as anti zoo as an animal can get.
I think that my local zoo is pretty good at animal welfare, although I feel bad for the polar bear during the summer, poor guy is always panting all the time in the summer.
I would like to see zoos continue to try to innovate where they can, but for certain species, particularly the largest and most intelligent ones, they may need at least as much space as the entire zoo itself in order to thrive. Elephants are definitely the most problematic terrestrial species, as they're huge, nomadic, and can't make use of vertical space that well. While a tiger can go over a steep, narrow bridge without much trouble, and might even enjoy hanging out there for a bit - especially if it gives them a good view of the people - any bridge that would be comfortable and safe for even a single elephant to cross would need to be built to highway standards. What's more, elephants don't really like heights, because those pose a risk to them. For species where adapting an existing zoo layout won't work, I think we need to take a different approach, and rather than keep them as part of a collection, have entire facilities built on massive land areas for them to roam. These areas should be developed to provide the animals with variable environments that can be reconfigured from time to time. Then accommodations for visitors can be designed around this optimal habitat, and not the other way around. Perhaps these gigantic elephant paddocks could be bounded by roads, and visitors could observe them via a safari-style experience. Or perhaps there could be elevated guest facilities that would allow the people to view the animals without very much intrusion into their space, while also giving guests a greater field of view for observing the animals at a distance. These could be towers or walkways above the exhibits, for example. I think it's important that these large animals remain in captivity, though -- especially those who are endangered in the wild. Such animals serve as ambassadors for their wild cousins, as well as providing a reserve in case the wild populations go extinct. It's good to have a backup plan - especially since it's a lot easier to build and maintain an ethical zoo than it is to curb habitat destruction and climate change. Zoos can serve as a last line of defense for endangered species while humanity tries to get its collective shit together.
Zoos should totally move onto animals that need help more, the ones that are doing okay or even great in the wild should be okay, of course having a somewhat captive population still in zoos could help for genetic research and if the species went under again.
Until such time as humans decide to stop destroying the natural environment, we must unfortunately use captivity as a way to preserve endangered species. its important we do the best we can to make the lives of these creatures healthy and fulfilling.
@@eljanrimsa5843 I don't think that’s an accurate judgement of how zoo's preserve most species- alot of them already have captive lineages to choose from- and in the case of a specific deer species native to Japan, the last survivors getting shipped off into a zoo in Britain is what saved the entire species from extinction and now can be seen from the park they were originally taken from. And when it comes to species affected by poaching, it results in a not insignifcant amount of animals that get injured in the traps to the point they are unable to live in the wild but can manage in captivity and have a chance to continue passing down their genes. Those are the sensible cases atleast. What works for tigers does not work for something like the devil’s hole pupfish.
@@No-longer1 With "deer species native to Japan" I guess you mean the milu a.k.a. Père David's deer from China, and with "a zoo in Britain" you mean the deer park in Woburn Abbey. I can guess that easily because there are only a handful of mammal species that have been successfully reintroduced after from a captive breeding program after going extinct in the wild. Most species do not breed well in captivity, the saga of the last Northern white rhinos was a testament to this.
For some species captivity will never be able to provide the same enrichment as the wild…. And that’s ok, I wish he explained more the importance of keeping captive animals…. but that may just be a different video altogether.
It really depends on the animal. Some species naturally spend their whole lives in a small area, or aren't bothered so long as their needs are met. Others like orcas, sharks, tigers etc will always have mental issues in any captivity.
Yes there have been some successes, and also some failures. In many cases it’s experimental, largely through necessity, and with small populations, the risk is therefore catastrophic if it doesn’t go to plan. There are some ongoing projects which I’ll hopefully be discussing in a video later this year.
I like zoos, I would miss them. And just like I believe you can keep a reptile, cat or dog resposible, I believe you can keep others reposible too. Though not all. Elephants being a prime example of being to smart and big to keep
innovate, because if one day the worst case scenario happens and you are only left with zoos as your last hope for that species, at least you can house them more happily while you work on reintroduction into the wild programs. Giving up just isn't an option anymore.
I definitely think that some of the megafauna we keep should still be kept but more effort should towards enrichment and enclosures, but there are a select number of species I think shouldn’t be kept in captivity great white sharks and whales for example
In one zoo. The benefits in terms of enrichment, scents etc. wear off over time. So the rotation needs to feasibly happen regularly enough that moving between zoos would be a different thing all together. Rotational exhibits is just one zoo with multiple exhibits that are somehow linked and animals can be swapped either by the tunnel/trail systems or by recalling into a house/houses and then let out into a different exhibit.
I won’t patronize my local zoo, and I’m not sure any of this would help. Portland Zoo has made it incredibly clear that they care a lot more about profits than they do about education, conservation, or even the health of their animals. So many botched surgeries, so many outdated enclosures… it’s horrific.
![30 ชั่วโมงคนเดียว บนรถไฟชั้น 3 โซเวียต [Around The World Ep. 2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlE9boAVqDA/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
For me, its less the size of the zoo but how well the zoo uses its space. I've been to many excellent small zoos, but the small zoos that are excellent don't have many, if any, large megafauna species.
Absolutely. Many small zoos are superb. Sometimes, understanding and working with the limitations of space actually leads to far better welfare. The limitation of space will often lead to more conscious effort made to enhance the space, even in smaller species you can see more complex and engaging enclosures at small zoos where larger zoos simply offer a larger but more simple space.
Alrighhttt. If a polar bear enclosure has a space of like 80 feet and a little pool whilst normally they roam on routes of miles that is cool witg you?
@@nilspalmer7407Polar bears are megafauna, of course a small enclosure isn't enough.
at a aquarium they had a white tiger in a small enclosure and it was indoors,floor was concrete just looked depressing i couldn’t imagin waking up to that everyday
@@justingjr06jr84That’s the Downtown Aquarium, right? Yeah. Tigers need acres of land
One thing I find myself constantly explaining to guests is that the animals actually have a lot more room that the public doesn’t get to see that they can retreat to at any time
not at all zoos sadly
Augsburg doesn't for example 😅
@@caitlinw8351 they do at the one I work at :/
Which one would that be? Would love to visit
And then they turn around and complain about not being able to see the animals…
Zoos should definitely keep innovating with trail systems. Many of the large, charismatic species like tigers are on the brink of extinction and zoos have aided in their conservation.
I also think in general having long, thin exhibits are better than square-ish ones. Which it part of what trails do.
Long, thin exhibits:
• Take up the same space
• Allow the animals to see, hear, and smell each other better, with a chain link fence to allow perception without movement
• Allow animals to walk for a long time in the same direction, for more comfortable walks
• Is more likely to cause variation in the exhibit from natural features like weather 🌦
I think the current trail systems are a good proof of concept. But it will be interesting to see how they develop in other facilities. The high elevation bridges etc are certainly not the only way to develop the same behavioural opportunities for the animals.
"In fact, very little money from zoos goes towards genuine conservation efforts that functionally improve an animal’s conservation status in the wild. The “reserve populations” of animals kept and bred in captivity are almost never introduced into the wild, especially species non-native to the location of the zoo. In 1990, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) identified survival action plans for 1,370 species (418 of which were Endangered). Only 1.4% (19 species) were identified as being candidates for reintroduction of captive-bred animals.
Facilities located near natural habitats remain the best alternative to zoo breeding/release, which would incorporate preparation for eventual reintroduction into the animals’ daily lives while held in captivity to optimize chances of survival following release. Therefore, animals kept and bred outside of their natural range without the intention of eventual release (particularly including popular animals in US zoos like lions, tigers, elephants, gorillas, and pandas) provide no direct benefit to conservation whatsoever, and likely detract from resources that could be used for other meaningful conservation efforts.
According to Benjamin Beck, former associate director of biological programs at the National Zoo in Washington DC, in the last century, “only 16 of 145 reintroduction programs worldwide ever actually restored any animal populations to the wild. Of those, most were carried out by government agencies, not zoos.” Further, financial, spatial, logistical, and biological factors frequently prevent breeding that allows for highly diversified gene pools within the captive populations that are also self-sustaining. For example, due to such unsuccessful captive breeding efforts, zoos take Asian elephants from their wild homes to maintain the current numbers at zoos in the United States; consequently depleting the very populations they claim to be protecting." Earth dot org.
It’s quite refreshing to see some honest criticisms of zoos that aren’t basically just “abolish all zoos.” Zoos can absolutely work, and they can be very important and helpful in conservation efforts and for the public knowledge, too. Great video overall!
Zoos are an absolute necessity! Just in most cases they aren’t done right
@@Trilltord theyre not a necessity at all
@@davidgambin2551Yes they are. Tell that to the California Condor, as well as any once Extinct in the Wild species.
@@theonlytman2344 "Zoos often trumpet the idea that they support elephant conservation in the wild, when in fact, most zoos contribute little to nothing towards meaningful in-situ conservation efforts, especially in comparison to their overall operating budget. Asian elephants have declined by 50% or more since the early 20th century to between 40,000-50,000 individuals, while African elephants have decreased by more than two thirds since the 1970s, with recent reports estimating that as few as 415,000 individuals remain today (Williams et al., 2020; Gobush et al., 2021).
Despite these substantial population declines, zoos restock their collections with individuals taken from the wild. Zoos continue to import elephants from the wild because the captive population alone is unsustainable; without the addition of elephants taken from the wild, the rapid demise of the captive population would likely occur within the next 25-30 years. For the captive Asian elephant population, it was reported in 2000 that zoos in North America would need to import four elephants per year simply to maintain the population at its current level (Wiese, 2000). Since 2000, in the United States, more captive elephant deaths have occurred than births; sadly, deaths have equaled or exceeded births in 20 out of the recorded 21 years" (Devan Schowe, 2022).
@@Tofu_va_Bien
The problem with your argument is that it's a cherry-picked study. You're comparing an animal with unregulated standards and is readily available in captivity, to species that objectively depended on breeding programs. The California Condor, the Lord Howe Island Stick Insect, and all the IUCN labeled Extinct in the Wild species, see their populations stable or greatly increase as a result of conservation programs. There are also the millions provided from the AZA to Mountain Gorilla conservation, as well as all the major Mountain Gorilla organizations that recognize zoos as helpful to their mission. The Mountain Gorilla Conservation Fund, the Gorilla SAFE Program, and the Dian Fossey Gorilla fund.
"Melbourne Zoo announced on Wednesday its world-first breeding program, set up in 2003 with just one pair of insects, had notched up 13,000 hatched eggs." (9News)
"In 1982, only 22 birds remained in the wild. San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance received permission to begin the first captive propagation program for California condors. Thanks to the California Condor Recovery Program, the population of California condors has grown to more than 500 birds. More than half of these birds are now flying free in the wild." (San Diego Zoo Safari Park)
Then there's the Arabian Oryx's reversal of "Extinct in the Wild" status. It was move spearheaded by the WWF and Phoenix Zoo. This is an animal that once went from a few dozen individuals to thousands in both the wild and in captivity.
As for elephants, the answer to lifespans and fundraising, is to enforce AZA standards in order to handle the species. There are roadside zoos and circuses that contain these animals that should not be there in the first place. The example should be the facilities with high quality standards such as the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, the White Oak Sanctuary, and the National Zoo.
"Longevity of elephants is not well understood, and most of the available information comes from African elephants. Recent data suggests that African elephants rarely live to the age of 50. Evidence suggests that Asian elephants typically live into their mid-50s, but there is not enough consistent data available on wild Asian elephants to accurately estimate their lifespan. Median life expectancy for female Asian elephants is 47 years old.
According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ most recent life expectancy table, the median life expectancy of a female Asian elephant is 46.9 years."
At a zoo here, there were two equally sized enclosures. In one were multiple young male lions. They roared, lazed around, played with each other, etc. They looked reasonably happy, though I'm obviously not an expert on them. In the other was a single tiger. The tiger's fur was ruffled, head down, and she paced nonstop up and down the fenceline. Her distress was quite clear to anyone looking. Though she had an enclosure as big as the lions and didn't need to share it, it was very lacking in foliage or places to hide, and almost every angle of the enclosure was visible to people.
Hello! I study zoo animal care and would like to mention that pacing isn't always a welfare issue. Many captive wild cats patrol their enclosures by pacing, or they exhibit anticipatory behaviour when they expect food, which can cause them to pace. When on placement at my local zoo, I learnt that one of the Scottish wildcats paces to solicit human attention because she was hand-raised. However, that's not to disregard animals that do pace due to legitimate welfare issues. I suggest that if you visit that zoo again, to tell a member of staff about your concern for the tiger. Zoos and zookeepers genuinely value feedback from visitors - it's one of the best ways for them to improve! C:
@@juiciekeeps Thank you for your words! I do think this was stress pacing. I also saw the cheetahs and lions do it, but the tiger looked really disheveled and anxious. I haven't seen the tiger since though, so I sadly can't ask the staff about it.
@@Serasugee I think what your describing in that tiger is a pretty classic example of a 'stereotypic behavior' - given the context of an unenriching habitat and body language you've described. If you want to look more into that sort of thing that would be the term to start looking into. (source: studying Zoology)
@@CoreHope1331 I've never heard the phrase, I'll be sure to look it up!
I think zoos should continue to develop further. I know some people will say otherwise, but I say this because many of the species that struggle in captivity are often the ones that are the most endangered. Elephants, tigers, gorillas, etc., are examples of endangered species, some critically endangered, that tend to struggle in captivity. The problem lies in the future of the wild populations. If the wild populations of these species continue to decline or do not change from where they are now, then keeping captive populations of them is an unfortunate necessity. That’s why I say it’s important for captive facilties to keep developing.
Additionally, there are animals that are not endangered but may be rescues. Not all rescue animals can be released back into the wild, and sanctuaries can’t always take them in. Many polar bears, for example, were rescued from the wild either because they were orphans or problem bears that were saved from being euthanized. They’re another example of an animal that tends to struggle in captivity.
Finally, there’s the issue of balancing the issue of animal welfare vs. guest experience. What I mean by that is that many animals that guests see in zoos are not endangered. Grizzly bears, warthogs, and red kangaroos are not endangered, but they’re very popular and help draw in guests. Yes, there are plenty of crowd-drawing endangered species, but the problem is that having a zoo full of only endangered species leads to a surprising lack of animal diversity. For example, most people don’t know what a Palila, Bear Cuscus, or Père David’s Deer are, but they do know what elephants, tigers, and gorillas are. Many endangered species are generally unknown to the public, and because of that, there’s the problem that filling a zoo with only endangered species, while not a bad idea, will not be as successful as one that has both endangered and non-endangered species. While it sounds greedy, zoos need money to keep the zoo functioning, pay the staff, and care for the animals. Having a wide variety of animals brings in more guests, who bring in more money.
Ultimately, it’s a delicate and difficult balance that will not always work for everyone. It’s just best to keep making strides in the advancement of zoos and other captive facilities until they’re no longer needed (which is unlikely to happen).
Some great points here! Finding a balance on that sliding scale is certainly tricky, and is constantly changing too. Thanks for taking the time to reach out.
*heads off to google “Palila”*
I think we need to have an honest discussion over zoos vs. trophy hunting, and how one kind of offsets the other.
ARA’s hate both, but for *fact’s* sake let’s have a debate regarding the two, otherwise.
it costs about 10 dollars to make a zoo do what 1 dollar can do in a nature sanctuary
That's what animal sanctuaries are there for. Zoos are there to make money. Plain and simple. They *profit* off of the fact that said species are endangered. Anything a zoo can do an animal sanctuary or reserve can do far better.
@@lasagnapig630 Sanctuaries don't re-release animals back to their ever-diminishing "natural habitats" nor do they fund global conservation projects.
Tell me you don't understand conservation without telling me you don't understand conservation.
A zoo in my country announced last year that they will be completely redesigning and expanding their Asian elephant habitat, and one of the key changes will be the introduction of a trail-based habitat like the one described in the video. Indeed, this would give the elephants much more opportunity to roam and travel around the zoo as a group and display more natural behaviours. They will also be adding a second, larger habitat for adult males, so they will be able to stay at the zoo in a bachelor group. They already have a habitat for adult males, but it is currently VERY small and only occupied when they're actively trying to breed the young females (so about once every two years). I'm excited to see what this change will bring to the wellbeing of the elephant herd.
Their eldest female and matriarch died last year. She lived in that zoo for over fifty years and saw her habitat change from a small concrete yard to a large sandy plains. She didn't live to see the next big step for elephant wellbeing in zoos, but her children and grandchildren will.
Building enclosures is truly an art and some people are better at it than others. A lot of zoos simply lack the resources to develop and construct a robust and enriching environment. That said, in 2024 there's almost no excuse for subpar enclosures. Knowledge is ubiquitous, materials of all kinds available, huge inventories of plant and fungus material...
Absolutely. As part of discussions I’ve had during my career was always feasibility. Ie. When discussing potential new species, a whole list of criteria such as availability, whether we had the keeper knowledge, whether we could build a suitable enclosure, whether it fit the goals of our collection plan etc. as part of that we’d often identify that we would not be able to provide a suitable enclosure for one reason or another and luckily management supported this. Someone else mentioned city zoos, and they are an example where many species can’t be housed appropriately and over time have been phased out.
It’s not just the size of the enclosure, but also what’s in it, how is it planted, is it mixed species. Understanding the animal in the wild and the ability to replicate.
Prevailing climate in a zoo might determine species kept. Also, what is outside of the enclosure for sensory stimuli.
All of these are definitely factors! So much goes in to good exhibit design, and zoo science is constantly revealing more about what can be done. 👍
Snakes are the easiest example of quality over quantity.You could give a snake a massive enclosure but if it has no cover they will be stressed,but give it a medium sized enclosure with substrate to burrow in and things to climb and hid in they will be set
Choosing which species a zoo houses is also the question of "why". If a zoo is participating in captive breeding or research, they need to keep those particular animals, and design enclosures with that in mind. But then, visitors bring money that is needed to run the zoo and those programs, so they need charismatic animals to draw in visitors.
We should stop expecting every zoo to have the same full range of popular species. A zoo may keep one type of big cat, or one type of ape, but has to invest the space and personnel to develop the best range of habitats, hiding spots, foraging reward programs, whatever is appropriate for the species. They should focus on keeping one species well, develop the expertise, and be honest if it can't be done. We as spectators should encourage them to go this way. One city may have lions, another tigers, one gorillas, another chimpanzees.
As someone in the herping community this is a hot button topic. While I prefer the biggest possible enclosure, a smaller enclosure with enrichment is so much better than a big empty one, but a small empty one is awful.
I think they should continue to improve because zoos and sanctuaries are a safe guard against complete extinction, where if they do go extinct in the wild, they could still be reintroduced from captive populations.
That is not the goal of a zoo. Zoos bring people and wildlife face to face, hoping to create an emotional experience so those people will be pro-conservation. A place breeding and keeping populations alive to keep them wild.... Those would have zero visitors and ideally zero human interaction at all.
While there are some zoos that engage in valuable captive breeding programs for some endangered species, zoos as a whole catch too many animals from the wild and drive more animals to extinction than they ever rescue.
@@eljanrimsa5843 you might unfortunately be right, but it's the cheap, roadside type of zoos that do this, they put bad light on actually great zoos, from my experience Zurich and Prague zoos are the best I've been to
@@eljanrimsa5843
Is there any data/published paper on that? Geniunenly curious
@@No-longer1 I'm a watcher of TH-cam videos, not a reader of scientific papers. I can recommend e.g. Earthling Ed "Why SHOULDN'T we support zoos and their conservation work?" to give you an overview over the arguments.
Scientific papers - Since I can't give you direct links here in a TH-cam comment, this is a bit the wrong format, but I can give you hints what to google:
- There is a study "Critically endangered species should be left to breed in the wild" by the University of East Anglia, which is prominently referenced by PETA.
- There is also a web page titled "Zoos and Why They Should Not Exist" which has a list of 10 related scientific papers.
I’m pleasantly surprised to see a video about zoos that isn’t just “ZOOS BAD ANIMALS WANDER 4 500000 MILES IN THE WILD” and that offers constructive discussion about the topic.
Of course, the biggest enclosure you can provide is ideal, but I’ve seen plenty of small zoos that have smaller enclosures and their animals are clearly happy and thriving. How the enclosure is furnished and designed matters just as much as how much space the animal has. A tiger could have a 15 acre enclosure that’s a barren field and it would still be more bored than the one on 4 acres of carefully designed habitat space with climbing and swimming areas.
If you ask me though, too many zoos hyperfixate on megafauna that bring in visitors (like big cats, pandas, elephants, giraffes, etc) and neglect smaller species of animals desperately in need of captive research and breeding, like Sumatran striped rabbits or countless other animals with declining populations that we literally can’t even fill out a Wikipedia page for.
The only facilities actually bothering to work with and study such ignored species are often dismissed by the big name AZA zoos as being “poor facilities” people shouldn’t support. People forget that zoos are still businesses motivated by money no matter if they have noble intentions.
This types of videos really make you think out of the box. I hope many zoo architects and other stakeholders will watch this
Hey I appreciate that! I’d like to think most of them already know all this though !
Great video well deserved views glad it blew up 🎉
Appreciate it!
8:56/8:58/9:01 - 9:14 Or as Casual Geographic put in layman's terms, animals that are highly intelligent, highly social or travel very long distances will, more often than not, struggle while living in a captive environment.
Really good content.
About Elephants: According to a german expert in Modern Zoos Elephants acctually do about the same distance in walking compares to wild Elephants. But I think there is still some development to be done too
In general I think the best enrichment can be acchieved by joining different species in one exhibit
That’s an interesting point on elephants. Distance is certainly measurable so it becomes something we can easily compare, but as you rightly say, distance isn’t the only factor at play!
Mixed exhibits will certainly affect the animals in a number of ways. If you haven’t already seen it, one of my previous videos covered mixed exhibits in a bit more detail!
I think with that study in mind, it's best we utilize bigger space and enrichment to reflect that. These are animals with lower lifespan in captivity so far. But with the existence of places like White Oak or Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee, it can be done.
Insta-subbed. There aren't enough good zoo channels on YT, and I'm very glad to find one focused on explanation and analysis like this. Your presentation is very competent, too. Keep up the good work! I'll definitely go back through and watch your older videos.
I lived only few meters away from a forest. I walked my dog there every day for 0,5-4 hours depending on the weather and the time I had. There were 4 major pathways you could take that split into several other trails. I couldn't take my dog the same trail every day or even every other day because she would just sit on the road untill we go back. She would rather stay home than walk the same path so often. But if we walked a different path each day of the week she would eagerly lead the exploration XD
my dog usually likes to do the same thing over and over again on walks.
Great watch. Overall as someone born and raised in Zimbabwe i think Safari's will always have an edge on zoo's coz the animals can have all their space and not be confined to enclosures but rather big vast areas that you need vehicles to drive into and see the animals whilst allowing them thejr natural habitat.
Your content is so good my friend. Always learn something more about this field with every video!
Hey Leaf, thanks again for your comment bud! It’s always appreciated.
I will say. The only zoo I keep coming back too is the Bronx zoo. Iv never looked at the exhibits and felt sad or down. I love that place. Best zoo in the world
The most important thing is if the animals are getting enough mental stimulation, especially with interesting activities.
There there were thing like a pool to swim in, strong elevation differences to climb on/off, toys 🧸, an animal-friendly TV 📺, and/or regular socialisation with other animals the healthy amount of space needed for them would be much smaller.
Though megafauna should probably be limited to more rural areas or in suburbs.
Yeah the rural zoo vs city zoo is a really interesting one. Historically towns and cities with zoos as flagship visitor attractions had the big hitters, lions, tigers, bears, apes etc. but often they simply don’t have the space to provide large complex exhibits alongside other animals/facilities. I may take a closer look at that at some point, it’s a really good point 👍
@@zooblethercentral park zoo sucks, many of the animals there were pacing
Hey, I am a Butterfly explainer at the American Museum of Natural History. I’d love to see more discussion among the general public about Butterfly vivariums and insectariums. A lot of the time, insects are left out. Sure it seems easy to give butterflies space, but different conditions in lighting, temperature, and foliage different from their native environment can contribute to increased or decreased quality of life.
hi! do you mean the one in DC? because if so, i’d love to talk to you thru email or something. I’m very much interested in zoology and animal husbandry, especially that of invertebrates and reptiles, and would love to be able to talk to you about your job and the sort of duties that you preform!
@@bee_png hi, no the one in NYC
That's really neat, I've been to that museum a couple times but didn't know they had a butterfly exhibit
Schools, hospitals, prisons, and military camps also have to share a lot of considerations in managing humans similarly to how zoos have to manage animals. Many times the same problems found in zoos also exist in those analogous human environments, with humans suffering similar symptoms. Psychiatric wards and prisons are especially damning because they frequently aren't intended to actually be healthy spaces for people, with psych patients and inmates being regarded as trash and thus the only considerations for these spaces are logistical convenience and bare minimum necessities that prevent the attendees from rebelling. Psych wards are so miserable even today, despite all the research into patient care dating back to the Edwardian era.
Sometimes I'll look at a bad exhibit and see it no differently than a bad hospital room.
I do have a request for a video. Explain where animals go during colder seasons in temperate regions. I know many zoos have heated indoor facilities to house warmer climate creatures during such months, but I've always wondered if that's the case for ALL animals at a given zoo or if they're taken offsite to other locations until the next season
Unless I hear anything different, no video needed! In the UK atleast, where there is no major swing in temperatures across the year, what you describe is largely true. From my experience most mammals and birds will be offered heated indoor accommodation. There will then be certain standards in place with regards to access. Ie. Species with high susceptibility to cold will be fully indoors, will have limited access either outdoors or to water outdoors. In those species, the indoor exhibit should be suitable for 24hr housing. Those with a higher tolerance for cold will be given the option. I’ve never heard of species being sent on holiday to warmer climates before. As a result, exhibit design is usually based on the animals suitable climate. Some species indoors with climate control either hot or cold, some species not suitable for the location all together. There’s also some indoor exhibits with an outside access only for in the warmest weather. In that situation the indoor should provide a full exhibit too.
I know of a number of collections who have seasonal exhibits though. These are often farmyard animals, where they bring in rare breeds around lambing/calving time. These domestic species possibly more equipped to being moved and possibly being moved between sites for birthing anyway.
The other seasonal exhibit I’ve seen are pop up situations with ray and shark species. This sits outside the “normal” zoo exhibit, but isn’t something I know much about. A few US zoos use a company which provides this as a service which you could take a look at. It’s arguably what you’re describing. Assuming they are not “new” individuals each year. The animals are housed in a warmer state during the winter and moved “on display” in a pop-up exhibit during the summer months.
Love the video, but surprised you didn't include this reference, since it's published material with the exact trail concept you mentioned at the end of the video.
Riley, L. M. (2022). The behavioural biology of primates. In P. Rose (Ed.) The Behavioural Biology of Zoo Animals. CRC Press.
Must say, always enjoy the content, and I'm very glad you're using relatively recent science to back up your arguments. I do think, however, we should note that zoos are continuing to develop, and, at least with large predators like tigers and such, and cognitively active species like parrots, we are seeing that different enrichment types are reducing stereotypy to different amounts. While I don't think reducing stereotypy alone is a good metric to measure animal welfare, I do think it shows a good benchmark, since reduced stereotypy and increased behavioural diversity have been linked in a couple of papers.
Thanks for this! Hopefully others will see it too.
It’s not a paper I had access to I don’t think otherwise I may well have done!
So, to put it bluntly, more intelligent species need more entertainment, and the solution for this is to change enclosures into escape rooms for animals. Love this idea ❤
I never thought I would see a video on this topic, very interesting.
Thanks, I’ve been trying to do exactly that! Make the videos I would like to watched!
One thing i have always hated about zoos is that there is usually more unused space or space used for decoration than there is space for the animals.
I was designer and constructor and even Director of Wildlife and build the biggest safari in Malaysia. I can tell you that most so called organizations cannot even agree on the size of each enclosure and on specific requirements. It's a mess.
Thanks for the interesting video and good job on explaining such a complex question so well! Everyone will have a different opinion on the topic of zoos, but by explaining this specific aspect and combining your professional knowledge with your interpretation of these academic papers (thanks for adding a reference list!), you at least help to make steps towards a situation which is better. Keep up the good work :)
Wow, thanks for your kind words!
I've always enjoyed Chester Zoo, i had the opportunity to visit around 3ish years ago. It was the first time I've ever seen multiple large animals, bears, elephants, rhinos ect... be consistently active
The Zoo of Minnisota is an amazing zoo, their tiger enclousure is beautiful. I also got to see the bears there playing right in front of the viewing area
Como Park Zoo is particularly cool, i totally recomend it.
Amazing video and summary of all the pros and cons of your traditional zoo. My local zoo has been undergoing a LOT of construction over the past 10 years and it's encouraging to see them take what was once several small exhibits and re-format them into one, somewhat larger, but more interesting exhibit for a single species. Animal wellfare is a complex issue that takes time and research to get right!
What an insightful video well done, it has really invoked me to think more deeply about the welfare of animals in zoos and your explanations were fantastic. Looking forward to seeing your channel grow!
Glad you enjoyed it! And thanks for taking the time to reach out!
VERY insightful video. Although some animals don’t do well in captivity, many of these are being threatened with extinction, and if there are no captive populations then if they go extinct in the wild they’re gone for good. I do think it may be a good idea the phase some animals out of traditional zoos though. Species like elephants, apes, big cats, bears, etc. should probably be kept in wildlife sanctuaries that are similar to their natural environments.
The apes are mostly critically-endangered though.
So far the only population of the great apes that are increasing in the wild are mountain gorillas in Rwanda, but even then a good chunk of that is due to fundraising from *accredited* zoos and aquariums.
Accredited zoos partner with in-situ conservation projects "on the ground", so to speak, and even then accredited zoos do actually re-release captive-bred animals back to the wild, for example the once extinct in the wild scimitar-horned oryx in Chad that is now classified as simply "endangered".
However, yes, admittedly with species like gorillas it is hard for them to be properly re-introduced into the wild from captivity, but with most of them being depleted in the wild the question is do you have any better ideas?
Im not too fond of zoos but im really glad i stumbled upon this video because i would really love to see good zoo enclosures in the future and this gives me some hope. There's massive problem with the space and terrain variation in the zoos I've been to. I've even seen 10 or so budgies be stuck in a really small cage with nothing but a few perches and that's one of the easiest species to care for.
Honestly I think that we should reduce the amount of animals in zoos and give the endangered species even more though and space than we already do. Of course there must be some animals to get people's attention but theres no need to keep "boring" animals that are not endangered in zoos unless they're rescues, cohabitants with other species or used for research
Thanks for the video, its refreshing to hear an opinion thats not extremly anti zoo or completely uneducated
this was pretty informative! i don't have a particularly well-developed opinion on zoons, but of course it can't be reduced to 'zoos are without flaws and beyond critique' or 'abolish all zoos', since there's a clear public good to teaching people about animals, and many of the best zoos also conduct conservation and research work which is very important. at the same time, as you've outlined, certain animal needs may prove difficult to provide in captivity.
“I don’t have a particularly well-developed opinion” is a great stance to take! On zoos or anything else for that matter!
Always easier to learn if you can hear both sides of a topic than be given one extreme or the other!
@@zooblether (and now of course i notice that i wrote that i don't have a well-developed opinion on "zoons")
I was in zoo in Vietnam (family took me), it was a big zoo but all animals were in cages, some elephants had chains on their feet etc. They were very skinny. I couldn't look at this at all. Contrary i was in my city's zoo for sleepover and we were show how everything works in the background. I saw how this people treat animals. I feel they need slight renovations of some enclosures but it was nice expirience
Different zoos have different cultures, priorities and legal responsibilities which can lead to vastly different standards. It’s important to recognise, as you have that not all zoos are the same!
Love the idea of a sleepover at the zoo! What a great way to engage people
Testing prototypes of animal proof products like the Wolf and Grizzly Discovery Center does would be a great way to get a lot of extra enrichment in zoos.
Tom Scott has a video about this! A really cool collaboration!
@@zooblether I know, that's how I found out about it! I couldn't get the idea out of my head ever since.
I'm wondering if you're going to discuss breeding programs in future videos. I've always beem told by breeders of reptiles that its good to breed in cpativity because you can offer captive bred options to people so there is less demand for wild caught ones and that breeding provides insurance colonies in case something happens with the wild counterparts. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic and how different species are affected!
I did a video covering a few of these points called “where do zoos get their animals”. The zoo industry realised this was a problem many years ago, and began trying to breed sustainable captive populations. Both in Europe and the US there are collaborative breeding programmes, run across accredited zoos. There are also smaller programs run by groups of individuals.
Captive breeding for the pet trade can be a bit different. There’s a lot of good breeding, good record keeping, good genetics etc within certain circles, with a view to maintain populations of healthy wild-type animals sustainably. Then there’s the other side where breeding is focussed on breeding “rare morphs” which has always confused me. This often involves crossing individuals with rare alleles to try and have “rare” offspring which look a certain way. I’ve not been in that industry, but have seen comments about inbreeding being accepted and “not a risk”. Now I’m not a geneticist, but inbreeding does increase the chance of recessive alleles being displayed, as is the aim for rare colour morphs, but I know nothing about the potential for other factors, eg health or behaviour. I did look into this many years ago and couldn’t find much literature on it, possibly someone else will post a good link here!
@@zooblether Ah, thank you for responding! I've seen a mix of both in the reptile hobby, though, it's mostly venomous keepers trying to keep venomous genes pure to have captive wild populations.
For the pet trade, it seems to be a mix bag. There are some folks I know that try to do inbreeding as little as possible while still maintaining the fancy morphs. There are also some I know that try to buy wild caught animals so that they can start a captive breeding operation themselves, that way they can offer captive breed reptiles to others. But, then I know of others who breed without thinking too much about the animal's welfare in genetic terms and that's when we see some genetic issues (ex: I believe there are some ball python morphs that can't be bred together because they lead to "lethal" clutches). I hope that over time we keep not only our wild-type captive bred populations genetically healthy, but also our morphs as well.
In my city there are 2 Zoos, the original one to me is honestly animal abuse, it has Tigers, Jaguars and Lions in enclosures that are like 10x5 meters with a private room of maybe 10x5 on the back, Eagles and Hawks in enclosures made for Macaws, small monkeys in room sized enclosures with only the chickenwire-like walls to cling on, and many other problems that show its antiquity, its in the middle of the city so it cant be expanded more, on the contrary the newer zoo has a reverse "problem" it has a few kilometer long multispecies enclosures were they try to emulate a certain ecosystem (without predators of course), this makes it hard for visitors to see most animals unless they pay for the safari style tours into the enclosure, but I think it's the better solution
very nice video, thank you! as a big zoo enthusiast i love seeing my local zee keep improving the animals habitats every year
one of the best exhibits i've ever seen is at the Phoenix Zoo. they have an exhibit for native mountain goats that's literally a natural small mountain surrounded by native brush and desert! those goats are hardly ever visible and, when they are, they're like little white dots up on their mountain :D
the Oregon Zoo is separated into 2 facilities; the "public" areas where one can walk about and see all the beautiful enclosures, and the "private" area where they have their rehabilitation and medical centers and, the "private" area is at *least* the same size as the "public" areas! they also have probably the best elephant enclosure in North America, with multiple big and deep pools, long paths connecting different areas, and an entire back area the same size as the front (which is already massive) where they can go to have privacy
Just found your channel through this vid, good stuff. Well explained and well sourced, you deserve to be bigger.
For me this video highlights my two favorite zoos and exactly why i love them. One is a small rescue zoo that has difficult animals that need medicine or extra care. And my other favorite that has LARGE EXPANSIVE areas and open areas where multiple species co exist like a safari. Some areas are open to the public while others are very much hidden.
I live in Michigan and Toledo and potter park are the particular zoos I’m talking about.
And i know it might be hard to hear but potter park has tigers. It’s small but they have tigers and lions simply because they need extra care… it’s important we understand and continue to keep these creatures because it raises awareness and helps people understand that these creatures are not pets and need LOTS of care. Removing them from zoos only makes the black market trade that much more lucrative and removes awareness. We need to understand these creatures have LARGE ranges and travel LONG distances each day and our habitat encroaching is a BIG deal. And we can only really SHOW that by SHOWING the lengths we have to go through to replicate the habitat.
Sometimes smaller enclosures are actually better, for example some species of Scorpions only really leave their hides to look for food and larger terrariums make it harder for them to find any prey items you may have left them.
One of my friends thinks sanctuaries are inherently better than zoos, but upon thinking about it I wonder what the real difference is. (At least, between AZA accredited facilities, not shady zoos and sanctuaries 😬)
I wound up here after looking for tutorials for the game Planet Zoo XD.
Not complaining, though. Im really curious about this kind of thing and I really enjoyed your video.
Could you talk about cetaceans in captivity? Nice video btw
Would facilities similar to The Wilds near Columbus, OH; The Wild Animal Sanctuary near Denver, CO: and a large zoological facility in Europe which I don't know the name of fit the standards of highly improved animal welfare?
It depends. I don’t know much about the management techniques at either of those facilities. I understand the wilds has large exhibits and It’s certainly true that larger exhibits can offer more complex exhibits, which in turn could lead to improved welfare opportunities. However, large expansive exhibits may not actually be used by the animals. Often the features and management will do a lot more for animal welfare than size alone.
For any “sanctuary” or “rescued animals” you have the added complication that even in a good exhibit, their historic behavioural traits can continue for a long time after leaving a poor exhibit, so this should be considered too.
I have an idea for a future video, I think a video on enrichment would be interesting, like new feeding methods or toys. I always find it fascinating how zoos keep their animals entertained.
I completely agree with most everything you've said during this video, except for one thing.
Animals that have major differences with one another should not be housed together (like in many zoos, i.e. Omaha Zoo, where aerial, arboreal, aquatic, and terrestrial creatures are housed all together). Many animals get stressed too easily and adding on more different species to their environment usually results in a rapid increase in their stress, leading to agression.
Zoos should house animals that have roughly the same build (like antelope and deer)- because when they know there is others around that are calm, they are usually calm aswell.
Great video, 9/10
To the stuff about adding choices, how would you reccomend to do that for a dog? Surely with methods like this I can help my dog out, any info would be great
Just came across your channel and watched a lot of your videos. I love your content!
It’s very important to note that some animals need more or less space. An ambush hunting snake will not need much room relative to its body size and will actually feel uncomfortable if there’s too much open space! But the exact opposite is true for many other animals that like to roam in open fields.
I love your content, it is SO well done and interesting! Thanks so much for your hard work :)
I appreciate that Scharmoo, thanks for giving it a go!
At the aviary near me, they only take bald eagles that are injured and cannot fly correctly/survive in the wild. In cases like this the space/morality of the entire subject changes dramatically. Giving any space, care, and treatment to an animal that would otherwise be dead is a blessing to the animal itself.
I think the solution is combining when possible. Busch gardens actually has a solid savannah where they have plenty of space.
With reptiles the height/width/depth ratio also matters a ton , not just volume
thank you so much for this amazing video!
Glad you liked it!
zoos are an essential part of conservation. However, although it may be possible to provide more complex environment for big cats, I just don't see how this would be possible for elephans, both asian and african
Elephants can be kept in captivity as long as there’s acres upon acres of land. Sanctuaries and safari parks that span that size tend to have better quality of life than elephants with just below 10 acres.
Tye Ashboro zoo in NC focuses on elephants and their solution is having I believe around 100 acres for their herd to roam. Visitors walk any section or the whole park. People often complain that they have to walk or that the animals were far away when they saw them, but, oh well. The elephants are far happier and healthier than any other herd iv seen. Small facilities just shouldn't have them.
@@Elizabeth-n3v2u That seems suitable. Animal welfare is more important than visitor satisfaction. If visitors want to see the elephants, maybe the zoo could implement a safari system.
First of all i want to say that i find it good that u adress criticism of zoos and acknowledged the problems that prevail in a zoos environment.
Still for me zoos will never be something i would go to on my own will, as you already mentioned some animals adapt better to zoo environments then other thats the first issue, they adapt.
That means what people get to see is not a representation of there normal behaviour.
for example a lion that u would see in freedom differes from one held in captivity , they adapt to the environment they are given to survive and therefore change there behaviour.
This means that the argument of educating the public still stands but it doesnt need to involve captive animals bc there behaviour changed and they therefore doesnt represent there actually species anymore.
Secondly in my opinion we have no right to force animals into captivaty, as you again mentioned on the drive to your home town zoo you found the confined space that u were put in uncomfortable, now extend that uncomfort to your whole life and u get the situation these animals are in.
No captive animal has the freeedom of a free one and they couldnt even make the choice.
Third and last why not focus our mission to educate the public and save endangered species by preserving the wild life and maybe building more and extending already existing wild life habitats, where people can see animals in the purest form where they can act on there own free will, were they arent confined to a smell place where they are in the presence of large groups of there own species, thats where our focus needs to be and thats where real education and wildlife preservation will be.
There is a zoo decently near me that I always hated due to the awful enclosures. I kid you not my backyard was bigger than an enclosure with 2 tigers in it, and my backyard aint that big. There was also a bear in a 30x50 foot (just a guess) chain link fence. There was some other bad enclosures but those were by far the worse. You just hate to see it.
I recommend you mimic their wild habitat.
Nature bares such variety by its mere existence.
I recall Radiolab featuring a story about how much work went into an designing a new and more enriching exhibit for gorillas at a time when most exhibits were concrete and iron bars. This may seem obvious to us now, but zoos are constantly evolving to better suit an animal's needs. Who knows what exhibits will look like decades from now.
I’d love to see some big 90 or 100 or more acre zoos with lots of space and lots of animal species and some attractions!
Same
I agree that would be awesome but from the zoo perspective, if it’s too big, then the visitors might not get to see the animals they want which means they might not show up as often and not to mention the logistics of making enough money to pay the bills on such massive exhibits Not to mention tax and other fees, just from owning all that land
( I feel like the majority of people in the zoo industry genuinely care for animals, but they just gotta make do with the situation they have)
@@ryanwinters9375 Oh really…
I might make a proposal for some raised platforms for people to see some hard-to-see animals.
Try the San Diego Zoo Safari Park in Escondido, California. It does have a lot of regular well constructed habitats, but the main draw is the massive several hundred acre African plain habitat which is home to herds of several species that coexist. It’s really something special. There’s a free tram service that drives you around the perimeter to see everything.
@@shoyhi Yeah
One of the most impressive zoos I’ve ever been to is Chiang Mai zoo. It’s absolute huge and there’s loads of space for animals. Certain animals, such as small monkeys, are completely free roaming.
Not a zookeeper by any means, but i have been keeping reptiles for a long time, and I've come to understand a lot of these principles firsthand. My philosophy with keeping animals is that we should strive to replicate their natural enviornment and the bennificial conditions experienced in the wild as closely as possible, this includes space, clutter, cover, lighting/climate control, food, and anything else the animal would benefit from in the wild.
For instance, i car efor a texas banded gecko, a diminutive, tiny lizard found in arid habitats. I've set up her enclosure to replicate her natural habitat and encourage a multitude of behaviors; she has lots of space on the ground to explore, as well as subterranean tunnels and elevated rocks and braches to climb. There's a thriving group of isopods, beetles and other microfauna to clean her waste, manage the soil and be an occasional snack. There's an array of plants growing inside that provide climbing and hiding opportunities for her. It seems that this habitat works well for her; she's able to comfortably nap in her numerous crevices during the day, but at night, she becomes very active, curious, and, for lack of a better word, livley. She's explored every inch of her habitat and is incredibly curious, and is very outgoing and curious whenever i reach in to maintain it, and overall shows all the signs of being happy and stress free.
I'm in the mindset that if we can't mimic their natural environment well enough or on the scale needed for optimum well-being, then a species probably should just be left in the wild. Marine iguanas, for instance, will probably never be kept in captivity; their diet alone is enough to make caring for them extremely difficult, let alone their space and climate needs.
I appreciate this video. I'm writing a book about a fictional zoo that will be out this year; this information is very robust and comprehensive. I'll bring this back to my co-authors to discuss!
Nice video. Will you make a video about why do zols let some subspecies interbreed? I've heard there are barely any tigers in zols that are completely of one subspecies.
Accredited zoos do not ever do this. It's Joe exotic type roadside "zoos" that feed the hybrid tiger overpopulation crisis. They often claim they breed big cats for conservation when in reality its nothing of the sort, they just wind up dumped in tourist traps, fairs, and private collections and genetically are worthless to conservation efforts. It's extremely sad.
Yeah, I have a pet snake and while he's living in a much smaller habitat than in the wild. I've utilized the space in a way that allows me to lose him in the terrarium, and of course I supplement his need for exercise with a snake proofed room so I can let him explore the room supervised, with his terrarium door open. So, while I can't offer him a massive terrarium (yet), he has enrichment, since he is a captive bred snake from a long line of captive bred corn snakes I couldn't release him into the wild even if I wanted to. Little goober would have his ass kicked by a mouse xD
5:58 Yep, that's something I worked hard to accomplish, 3D gradient for temps and humidity with hiding spots in many areas and elevations. One benefit from that is microclimates!
11:33 Also, I make scent trails for my snake to follow to the food or I make him hunt the frozen/thawed rodent ^^
Good to hear! A lot of private holders are really taking good steps in their home setups!
THIS VIDEO!!❤❤❤❤ a zoo should be about the animals comfort, idk about yall but i dont wanna see an animal suffering! id pay the ticket price if i knew the animals had an environment where they were truly happy, and we could see that
no animal can truly be happy in an enclosure they just learn to adapt cause they have no other choice and sometimes they cant handle it (look up zoochosis)
How much space can you live in? How much space do you want? What should be that space have? How come the birth rates of zoo animals increased during the covid lockdowns ( no visitors looking, making noise). Just asking.
For me, the ideal zoo would be the animals in their natural while the humans are enclosed and unable to disrupt them. I’m thinking something like a safari for some humans and perhaps a prison for others, depending upon their behavior.
The humans’ experience wouldn’t be very high on my priority list.
I think that we should stick to large parks in local areas for large animals.
I think there will always be ways that enrichment can be improved
I truely believe Melbourne zoo in Australia will have only one classic zoo megafauna in the next 50 years. The zoo is over 100 years old. The elephants are about to move to the zoos sister open range zoo. They’ll have more space to themselves than the entire size of the Melbourne zoo. I hope Melbourne zoo add more smaller weirder endangered mammals instead. They phased out African wild dogs and the zebras became aggressive towards the giraffes so they’re gone too. It’s simply not big enough. This was a zoo that originally had bears in actual concrete boxes and patrons would throw peanuts at them. They’ve come a long way but are limited by their space.
They still have hundreds of different mammal species and obviously hundreds of lizards and birds ect. The general public still complains bc the tiger was hiding or because they saw ‘literally no animals’ during their visit. It’s a zoo just outside of the CBD in the second largest Australia city. It used to be world class but now it’s a in a battle with its physical space
Yes! More small weird animals are definitely a good direction for city/space restricted zoos! We used to have a lovely nocturnal house at our local zoo when I was little, it was great 👍
Until there is peace in the world, and the rainforests, jungles and savannas are restored to a respectable range... and traveling to these places becomes more affordable... zoos need to still exist. We are in the midst of an ecological crisis, so to shut down places or initiatives which are preserving and caring for wildlife would be suicidal. It's going to take everything we've got to get through this, and we do not have have the luxury to point fingers.
But zoos and aquariums can contribute to population loss and habitat loss. Wild animals are still captured for display, especially in the East. We can't pretend that zoos don't have room to improve just because they want to do something noble. Additionally, there is a good amount of evidence to show that zoo's aren't as effective as they claim to be. The majority of the species they hold aren't being bred for release, and in the cause of the mega fauna such as elephants, gorillas, and Killer Whales, zoos will consistently argue that these animals can't even be removed from a zoo setting, less they perish or their welfare suffers. Some animals seem to be there solely for money making purposes rather than genuine attempts to protect the species.
“Should some animals disappear from Zoos all together?” I’ve only seen like a minute of the video and I’m sure your mention it but considering that like 80% of Elphants show signs of severe mental in wellness (rocking back and fourth) Id say those should definitely be on the list-
Their large, intelligent, social animals with very big ranges in the wild their as anti zoo as an animal can get.
I have not found the time to watch it yet, but man, great to see this getting so many views! :)
I think that my local zoo is pretty good at animal welfare, although I feel bad for the polar bear during the summer, poor guy is always panting all the time in the summer.
@@RyoSargeantone that has animals
I would like to see zoos continue to try to innovate where they can, but for certain species, particularly the largest and most intelligent ones, they may need at least as much space as the entire zoo itself in order to thrive. Elephants are definitely the most problematic terrestrial species, as they're huge, nomadic, and can't make use of vertical space that well. While a tiger can go over a steep, narrow bridge without much trouble, and might even enjoy hanging out there for a bit - especially if it gives them a good view of the people - any bridge that would be comfortable and safe for even a single elephant to cross would need to be built to highway standards. What's more, elephants don't really like heights, because those pose a risk to them.
For species where adapting an existing zoo layout won't work, I think we need to take a different approach, and rather than keep them as part of a collection, have entire facilities built on massive land areas for them to roam. These areas should be developed to provide the animals with variable environments that can be reconfigured from time to time. Then accommodations for visitors can be designed around this optimal habitat, and not the other way around. Perhaps these gigantic elephant paddocks could be bounded by roads, and visitors could observe them via a safari-style experience. Or perhaps there could be elevated guest facilities that would allow the people to view the animals without very much intrusion into their space, while also giving guests a greater field of view for observing the animals at a distance. These could be towers or walkways above the exhibits, for example.
I think it's important that these large animals remain in captivity, though -- especially those who are endangered in the wild. Such animals serve as ambassadors for their wild cousins, as well as providing a reserve in case the wild populations go extinct. It's good to have a backup plan - especially since it's a lot easier to build and maintain an ethical zoo than it is to curb habitat destruction and climate change. Zoos can serve as a last line of defense for endangered species while humanity tries to get its collective shit together.
Zoos should totally move onto animals that need help more, the ones that are doing okay or even great in the wild should be okay, of course having a somewhat captive population still in zoos could help for genetic research and if the species went under again.
taking notes for my planet zoo zoo
Until such time as humans decide to stop destroying the natural environment, we must unfortunately use captivity as a way to preserve endangered species. its important we do the best we can to make the lives of these creatures healthy and fulfilling.
Catching the last wild ones and shipping them around half the globe to exhibit them is not something we must do. I would even argue we must not do it.
@@eljanrimsa5843
I don't think that’s an accurate judgement of how zoo's preserve most species- alot of them already have captive lineages to choose from- and in the case of a specific deer species native to Japan, the last survivors getting shipped off into a zoo in Britain is what saved the entire species from extinction and now can be seen from the park they were originally taken from.
And when it comes to species affected by poaching, it results in a not insignifcant amount of animals that get injured in the traps to the point they are unable to live in the wild but can manage in captivity and have a chance to continue passing down their genes.
Those are the sensible cases atleast. What works for tigers does not work for something like the devil’s hole pupfish.
@@No-longer1 With "deer species native to Japan" I guess you mean the milu a.k.a. Père David's deer from China, and with "a zoo in Britain" you mean the deer park in Woburn Abbey. I can guess that easily because there are only a handful of mammal species that have been successfully reintroduced after from a captive breeding program after going extinct in the wild. Most species do not breed well in captivity, the saga of the last Northern white rhinos was a testament to this.
Insightful content as always - reached out via email. Keep up the great work!
For some species captivity will never be able to provide the same enrichment as the wild…. And that’s ok, I wish he explained more the importance of keeping captive animals…. but that may just be a different video altogether.
It really depends on the animal. Some species naturally spend their whole lives in a small area, or aren't bothered so long as their needs are met. Others like orcas, sharks, tigers etc will always have mental issues in any captivity.
Is it possible to adequately prepare an animal from captivity/zoo to wild living?
There have been successes such as the Arabian Oryx and the California Condor. Though a sanctuary-based environment tor adaptation is recommended.
Yes there have been some successes, and also some failures. In many cases it’s experimental, largely through necessity, and with small populations, the risk is therefore catastrophic if it doesn’t go to plan. There are some ongoing projects which I’ll hopefully be discussing in a video later this year.
great video
Thanks!
I like zoos, I would miss them. And just like I believe you can keep a reptile, cat or dog resposible, I believe you can keep others reposible too. Though not all. Elephants being a prime example of being to smart and big to keep
Orcas are another animal that I don't think should be in captivity for similar reasons
@@gracep4288 same. Also dolphins and other salt water mammals / fish. They just don't thrive... Or even survive for that matter
innovate, because if one day the worst case scenario happens and you are only left with zoos as your last hope for that species, at least you can house them more happily while you work on reintroduction into the wild programs. Giving up just isn't an option anymore.
I definitely think that some of the megafauna we keep should still be kept but more effort should towards enrichment and enclosures, but there are a select number of species I think shouldn’t be kept in captivity great white sharks and whales for example
Does exhibit rotation mean moving animals between exhibits in one zoo or between several zoos?
In one zoo. The benefits in terms of enrichment, scents etc. wear off over time. So the rotation needs to feasibly happen regularly enough that moving between zoos would be a different thing all together. Rotational exhibits is just one zoo with multiple exhibits that are somehow linked and animals can be swapped either by the tunnel/trail systems or by recalling into a house/houses and then let out into a different exhibit.
I won’t patronize my local zoo, and I’m not sure any of this would help. Portland Zoo has made it incredibly clear that they care a lot more about profits than they do about education, conservation, or even the health of their animals. So many botched surgeries, so many outdated enclosures… it’s horrific.
As an aspiring zookeeper, this is very sad to hear. ):
Not the main point of the video but a lot of the strategies talked about here remind me of strategies used when designing video games.
Whats your opinion on invertebrates in zoos?
You are great!