Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hankepanke t1_iylgav2 wrote

Reply to comment by DuckyDoodleDandy in Toledo Zoo welcomes twin polar bear cubs by citytiger

The species isn’t going to be preserved by a few dozen bears in zoos that get progressively more inbred, and less like their wild counterparts. The species will be preserved by preserving land and mitigating climate change. But that doesn’t make money.

In the wild, polar bears range over thousands of square miles. Keeping them in a pen is like keeping orcas in a tank. We used to be ok with captive show orcas but we’ve had to adjust based on what we consider ethical.

> It's not possible to offer them any kind of diversion or activity in a zoo that can replace these lost challenges. That's why many polar bears kept in zoos show symptoms of abnormal behavior like permanently shaking their heads, running up and down or swimming in a stereotypical fashion. These acts are ways in which they try to compensate for what they’re lacking.

https://amp.dw.com/en/polar-bears-should-not-be-kept-in-zoos-at-all-says-the-german-animal-welfare-association/a-37843062

−10

PixelateddPixie t1_iym170r wrote

With the way that climate change is impacting the artic, I think zoo captive Polar Bears are a necessary evil. I highly doubt that good-working zoos in this age will be inbreeding their polar bears. But the alternative is that polar bears become a creature of the past.

10

derbryler t1_iymas76 wrote

They will still be extinct even if they are in a zoo. They are not expressing natural behaviour in 40m².

What difference does it make if they are not in their habitat acting out the role they have in it?

−1

PixelateddPixie t1_iymcujo wrote

There is a difference between extinct in the wild and extinct in the world. I fully suppert animal rights and it's a career I want to work with in the future, however, I think it's beneficial to the growing human population to see these animals and realize the impact our choices have on these wonderful creatures.

5

derbryler t1_iymga15 wrote

But look at where we have this discussion. People will see the animals in the Zoo and think oh nice at least they are still here.

We have pictures and videos we can remember them by should they die out. But our goal now should be to prevent that from even happening.

But think of it this way. The enclosuere in toledo cost $11.500.000 Source. Then you have to add the additional upkeep.

All of that money could have been spend on conservation in its natural habitat.I really belive that everyone working in Zoos is not doing it to hurt animals and because they truely love them.But please if you want want to work for the benefit of animals help, where they need it now to prevent them from going extinct even if that means you will not have direct contact with the animals.

0

sskk2tog t1_iyn0moh wrote

How would you use that money to enact change? Because it's not just the USA causing climate change.

Is 11.5 mil going to aller the course of our plutocracy? Are we going to be able to change china's inputs to global warming with that 11.5 mill?

Yes, some people just go to see the fluffy "cute" animals. However, a large part of the newer exhibits are education. And education that is built in a way that's fun to engage in.

On top of that, odnr just (October, 2022) awarded the zoo with a quarter of a million dollar grant specifically for wildlife conservation. Part of their funding already DOES go to that.

Idealistically, I am not a fan of zoos as far as animal welfare goes. Reality is much different than an idealistic world, though. Idealistically, we would have an income cap so no one person could horde wealth, and I would love to see that happen.

1

PixelateddPixie t1_iyoi20c wrote

Exactly. These well-managed zoos are some of the best sources of money specifically for helping conserve the wildlife population. These zookeepers and other employees work there because they love the animals and want to contribute towards more research and conservation efforts to protect the animals we keep in the zoos. I love zoos and I enjoy taking my friends because I have a lot of animal knowledge and I can teach them a lot beyond what the plaques show. However, I only go to zoos that have made an obvious effort to provide the animals the best habitats within their means and are confirmed to assist conservation efforts.

2

Radzila t1_iymgzrf wrote

https://www.dw.com/en/polar-bears-in-captivity-does-it-help-or-hinder-conservation/a-19072830

Same website

1

hankepanke t1_iyn7a57 wrote

Yeah it’s the same website, does that matter though? The link I added was an interview with head of the German Animal Welfare Association and his views and experience. Even in the article you linked this passage sums up the argument:

> Such behavior, Hoeffken details, is reflected by a polar bear running or swimming in continuous circles, or repeatedly moving its head back and forth.

> Polar Bears International's Steven Amstrup has another point of view. He says that because zoos provide polar bears with their all nutritional needs - something they’d normally have to travel for in the wild, captive bears can therefore live in smaller, more confined spaces.

> "The idea that zoo animals are depressed or stressed opposes the fact that polar bears typically live far longer in captivity than in the wild," Amstrup adds.

The zoos can provide sufficient nutrition and keep polar bears alive for awhile, but is it ethical to keep them in an enclosure that makes them have psychological problems and physical tics? Just because we can keep them alive longer doesn’t mean they have a good life.

1

Radzila t1_iyttzkf wrote

I think it really does depend on the zoo. Some are very terrible. But should we just sit back and let the species die knowing we can help? It's not about keeping the same animal alive longer. It's about education and research on the breed. The animals live longer because they have constant care. I've also noticed a trend toward giving animals more space and recreating natural habitats in a lot of zoos. Plus most in the states are regulated and inspected regularly by the government.

Zoos are important

1

sylvanwhisper t1_iym74nc wrote

The people in this thread who think breeding an animal to suffer is better than not having the animal go extinct make me queasy. This is not positive news and I cannot believe you and anyone else pointing out this fact are being down voted.

These animals will grow up an an enclosure that is exponentially too small for them. They will slowly become mentally ill. They will suffer and be miserable. And they will die.

This is like thinking that dogs who live their whole lives in a kennel is a better alternative than the dog being out down.

It's devastating that polar bears will likely be extinct in our lifetime. It's just as devastating and cruel to breed them for captivity in this way.

−2

hankepanke t1_iynb9wp wrote

Thanks buddy, I kind of feel like I’m taking crazy pills that people are viewing this as only good news, so it’s good to know I’m not the only one.

There are 20,000-25,000 polar bears left in the world. 40 captive bears that will not be released into the wild are not a factor when it comes to conservation genetics. I get the zoos as a necessary evil argument for public education and I think it has some merit, but I think it also tricks some people (see this thread being in r/upliftingnews) into thinking we are doing more for the species than we actually are. Documentaries can show people how awesome these creatures are and the imminent threat they are facing. A captive polar bear surrounded by glass and metal shaking its head back and forth or swimming in circles isn’t the image people should have.

Even at its best, I’ll put some emphasis on the ‘evil’ part of necessary evil. Some animals can adapt ok to well-run zoos with large enclosures and space for the animals to be away from humans if they choose. Polar bears are not one of those animals.

2