The Calgary Zoo thread

[terminator]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Please expand on this. Do zoo/rehabilitated tigers not take to being reintroduced to the wild?

I will concede that tigers are som eof the most adaptable animals and most likely of zoo animals to be reintroduced into the wild. However, these animals are also prone to venturing in to human areas and attacking humans thus its a catch 22.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I'm going to echo Outofthecube here and ask you to expand on this with two questions:

How is an animal destroyed by man better than an animal in the zoo (and how does this relate back to your concern with animal happiness/what is the chemical evidence behind death producing more endorphins than years of captive life)?

What purpose(s) that zoos provide have been replaced by other, more "modern" institutions?

I think I'll answer Q2 first. The proliferation of documentaries and the interwebs actually prove a much more beneficial view of these animals. You can see them in the wild doing what they do rather then chilling in a jail cell were you can watch them pace.

I see with Q1 you are trying to use science, but that is illogical, as a scientist I will say that it is the lack of negative chemical reactions in the brain that makes death more appeasing for these animals. Further we must combat our ethical and moral situation. We save 1 animal so that we can perpetuate captive breeding? Its moving towards increased domestication.

[octothorp]

So, this thread is apparently intended to be an all-purpose Calgary Zoo thread, what do people think of the new additions?


I really like the black rhino, it's a fascinating creature to watch, definitely my favorite new addition. I was calling for them to get a black rhino since they first announced that the elephants were on the way out.

The senior komodo dragon is cool to look at, but I haven't been back since the young ones have been in the exhibit as well. I'm hoping they'll be a little more lively.

The bonobos are fascinating, too. I'm hoping they'll get some females at some point to form a full troop, but right now the social structure of the males they have is a little too fluid to introduce females into.

The Himalayan Monal is a gorgeous bird. I especially like the female, with their really understated plummage and then the halo of iridescent green around her eyes.

I haven't had much of a chance to watch the Eurasian Boar or Lynx yet.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by octothorp

The bonobos are fascinating, too. I'm hoping they'll get some females at some point to form a full troop, but right now the social structure of the males they have is a little too fluid to introduce females into.

The Himalayan Monal is a gorgeous bird. I especially like the female, with their really understated plummage and then the halo of iridescent green around her

Where are the bonobos?? I was there last week and didn't see them - I didn't even know the zoo got bonobos. They are fascinating creatures!

And where is the Himalayan Monal?

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by terminator

I will concede that tigers are som eof the most adaptable animals and most likely of zoo animals to be reintroduced into the wild. However, these animals are also prone to venturing in to human areas and attacking humans thus its a catch 22.



I think I'll answer Q2 first. The proliferation of documentaries and the interwebs actually prove a much more beneficial view of these animals. You can see them in the wild doing what they do rather then chilling in a jail cell were you can watch them pace.

I see with Q1 you are trying to use science, but that is illogical, as a scientist I will say that it is the lack of negative chemical reactions in the brain that makes death more appeasing for these animals. Further we must combat our ethical and moral situation. We save 1 animal so that we can perpetuate captive breeding? Its moving towards increased domestication.

Entertainment is not, however, the sole purpose of a Zoo. It is certainly the financial force behind a Zoo, but not the sole purpose.

How is science illogical, exactly? As a scientist, I would think your concern over the 'happiness' of said animals would be quantifiable and based on physical information, not 'morals' and 'ethics'.

[terminator]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Entertainment is not, however, the sole purpose of a Zoo. It is certainly the financial force behind a Zoo, but not the sole purpose.

How is science illogical, exactly? As a scientist, I would think your concern over the 'happiness' of said animals would be quantifiable and based on physical information, not 'morals' and 'ethics'.

I think you need to completely slow down and re-read the post. Entertainment was not mentoined once, nor implied and I posted my scientific position using the provided logic.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by FFR

Where are the bonobos?? I was there last week and didn't see them - I didn't even know the zoo got bonobos. They are fascinating creatures!

And where is the Himalayan Monal?

I think he is thinking of the new Mandrills. They are in the same building as the Gorillas.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by terminator

I think you need to completely slow down and re-read the post. Entertainment was not mentoined once, nor implied and I posted my scientific position using the provided logic.

Documentaries and the 'interweb', Blue Planet, National Geographic... these are sources of entertainment. Their educational value is always a bonus, but entertainment is key. No slowing down is needed, nobody is in a rush here. We're all good.

As I said, I'd like the scientific evidence that suggests death is more appeasing than captivity. A link to a study or something would be ideal. You keep using the word logic/illogical, I'm not getting what you mean when you say asking for the 'science' behind something is 'illogical', and that you based your position off of 'logic'.

Also, out of curiosity (only since you're adding your own proclaimed 'scientific' position), what sort of scientist are you? What organisation do you work with?

[terminator]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Documentaries and the 'interweb', Blue Planet, National Geographic... these are sources of entertainment. Their educational value is always a bonus, but entertainment is key. No slowing down is needed, nobody is in a rush here. We're all good.

As I said, I'd like the scientific evidence that suggests death is more appeasing than captivity. A link to a study or something would be ideal. You keep using the word logic/illogical, I'm not getting what you mean when you say asking for the 'science' behind something is 'illogical', and that you based your position off of 'logic'.

Also, out of curiosity (only since you're adding your own proclaimed 'scientific' position), what sort of scientist are you? What organisation do you work with?

I'm a geoscientist.

I'm not here to convince you. However, I think it may have been you who said to elaborate on endorphins (death vs captivity) and I said the chemical reactions, which cause distress, in the brain exists during captivity but not in death. I think thats pretty straightforward and does not require elaboration.

Again, I'm not here trying to convince anyone, but rather airing my opinion.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by terminator

I'm a geoscientist.

I'm not here to convince you. However, I think it may have been you who said to elaborate on endorphins (death vs captivity) and I said the chemical reactions, which cause distress, in the brain exists during captivity but not in death. I think thats pretty straightforward and does not require elaboration.

Again, I'm not here trying to convince anyone, but rather airing my opinion.

Understood, I was genuinely asking if there was a study regarding the positive and negative chemical reactions in the brain during captivity vs. the wild (I won't ask for vs. death, since the chemical reactions are obviously zero) and if you had a link. I'd be curious to read up on something like that.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by terminator

I'm a geoscientist.

Drink!

[GGG]

I think the other key benefit of zoos is introducing kids to these animals. They aren't going to be watching documentaries, the closest they get is the lion king. By taking them to the zoo they get to see and enjoy these animals and learn about how loss of habitat is putting many of these animals at risk in the wild. Once three to five year olds are interested in these animals they might actually watch these documentaries when they are older.

As an aside I would assume you are a vegetarian because if not Inthink you should reevaluate your anti zoo position.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by FFR

Where are the bonobos?? I was there last week and didn't see them - I didn't even know the zoo got bonobos. They are fascinating creatures!

And where is the Himalayan Monal?

Whoops, I said Bonobo but I meant Mandrill! The Monals are in one of the small enclosures between the Red Pandas and Tigers.

[JiriHrdina]

One of the best animals now is the white bear that they have. That dude is really active and all kinds of fun to watch. When I went a few weeks back he scaled the largest tree in the enclosure than took a nap at the very top. I've never seen a bear scale a tree like that so it was really cool.

[octothorp]

There's an East African Crowned Crane chick born earlier this week. They're typically hanging out way down at the east end of the African area.

[Regulator75]

Who the hell gives a pair of pants to an Otter?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ined-1.3451863

Two Calgary Zoo employees have been disciplined for giving an otter a pair of pants, leading to its death.

The pants were given to the animal as an "unauthorized enrichment item," according to zoo officials.

The otter became tangled in the clothing and then drowned, according to a necropsy.

"Our animal care protocols are among the most stringent in the industry and must be followed. We will be reinforcing our protocols with every member of our animal care staff to prevent an incident like this from ever happening again."

The male river otter, named Logan, was seen struggling in the pool last week.

A zookeeper jumped into the pool to its aid, but the 12-year-old animal did not survive.

When asked, Baird refused to say what type of discipline the two employees face, but said neither was fired.

[Fuzz]

Man, that zoo is good at killing animals. Are they worse than other zoos, or is it just that we hear lots because they are local?

[Rathji]

I would be willing to bet that we don't hear about it from zoos in other cities.

The fact is we have entire industries devoted to slaughtering thousands of animals on a daily basis means that a few animals dying by accident are not really nation-wide news unless there is a systematic abuse thing going on, like we had up north here a few years back.

[HotHotHeat]

This story is on the front page of Huff Post. What a disgrace to the city.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Man, that zoo is good at killing animals. Are they worse than other zoos, or is it just that we hear lots because they are local?

They mentioned on the news last night that there was a study that determined that our zoo has an unusually high amount of animal fatalities caused by human-handler mistakes than other comparative institutes. Not a good sign.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Entertainment is not, however, the sole purpose of a Zoo. It is certainly the financial force behind a Zoo, but not the sole purpose.

How is science illogical, exactly? As a scientist, I would think your concern over the 'happiness' of said animals would be quantifiable and based on physical information, not 'morals' and 'ethics'.

Oh boy.