Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 30, 2014, 07:00:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Captivity vs. Danger of the wilderness  (Read 3192 times)
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2007, 10:22:33 PM »

Haha, yes he is.

But the thing that's even more annoying is the attitude that animals can be left alone. I hope it's not a popular one.  It's too late to leave them alone now, after we've "interfered" tons of them to the brink of extinction or beyond.  The bottom line is if we don't actively work to conserve in multiple ways (including zoos), we're going to be the losers.  The time for a "hands off" approach has long passed.

If conservationists (including zoos) stop doing what they do, it's not like the people who interfere w habitat/animals are going to stop.

Yes, I agree with that.  Mankind, by its very nature will fuck up nature.  We've got 2000+ years of history of fucking up nature, and as many years of keeping "wild" animals in captivity.  The problem is the definition of "wild".  Is it one that is born in captivity?  Is it one that's live since it was a juvenile in captivity?  Is it only "domestic" pets---remember, EVERY domestic animal has "wild" roots.  There is a big argument in the zoo community now days with certian species, like chimpanzees as an example.  Some people think that the animals should be animals---they should have their social structure and work out their issues amongst themselves with the only human intervention being in absolute extreme emergencies.  For those of you who don't know, chimps can be a brutal, brutal species.  I've seen them literally rip a male from limb to limb.  They can be extremely violent with each other.  That said, they also can be very loving family units.  The adults still slap the shit out of the offspring, but they interact in an obvious caring family unit.  Others think that operant condition (capturing of behaviors) should be done with all chimps so that medical care can be provided.  The thing is to "capture" a behavior by using operant conditioning, you inherently change the behavior of the animal because you introduce a "rewards" system.   The simple fact is that in the wild, chimpanzees are severely threatened as a result of bushmeat, human disease, habitat destruction, and loggging/mining.   There is also the fact that there are more captive chimpanzees in North America than in Africa in the wild.  Its something that is really, really open for debate. 
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2007, 10:29:33 PM »

Yes, I agree with that.  Mankind, by its very nature will fuck up nature.  We've got 2000+ years of history of fucking up nature, and as many years of keeping "wild" animals in captivity.  The problem is the definition of "wild".  Is it one that is born in captivity?  Is it one that's live since it was a juvenile in captivity?  Is it only "domestic" pets---remember, EVERY domestic animal has "wild" roots.  There is a big argument in the zoo community now days with certian species, like chimpanzees as an example.  Some people think that the animals should be animals---they should have their social structure and work out their issues amongst themselves with the only human intervention being in absolute extreme emergencies.  For those of you who don't know, chimps can be a brutal, brutal species.  I've seen them literally rip a male from limb to limb.  They can be extremely violent with each other.  That said, they also can be very loving family units.  The adults still slap the shit out of the offspring, but they interact in an obvious caring family unit.  Others think that operant condition (capturing of behaviors) should be done with all chimps so that medical care can be provided.  The thing is to "capture" a behavior by using operant conditioning, you inherently change the behavior of the animal because you introduce a "rewards" system.   The simple fact is that in the wild, chimpanzees are severely threatened as a result of bushmeat, human disease, habitat destruction, and loggging/mining.   There is also the fact that there are more captive chimpanzees in North America than in Africa in the wild.  Its something that is really, really open for debate. 

It is absolutely up for debate, and certain things like you described with the chimpanzee's are what I mean by I do not see any possible reason for putting polar bears in a zoo.  It is clearly not their natural habitat and it would be near impossible to replicate their natural setting.  I think that, based on climate issues alone, is inhumane in my eyes.  I know they are dying cause of global warming and yada yada yada, but...I want to go to the zoo and take a pic of what I am talking about so you can see.  In fact I do have pics of the last time I was there.

I hate to play cause and effect but we would not be having this discussion if human emotion did not interfere in those situations like you described with the chimps.  We cannot directly communicate with animals the way they can communicate with each other, and yes, unless it is an extreme circumstance, they should be given the privilege of living their life and doing things as close to normal as they would, as if they were in their natural habitat.
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2007, 10:39:14 PM »

I don't see how I am putting human emotions on anything.  Putting human emotions on animals is bringing them into zoos.  If people didn't care about animal's in the case of some zoos having that is their purpose, then there WOULDN'T be zoos.  Lmao.  If Joe Vet didn't care about the fact that they just found an orphaned tiger cub and it will die unless they take it in, that would be nature running its course.  Bringing it into a zoo is HUMAN EMOTION.  Don't you get what I am saying?  They don't make the decision, we do.

Since I am so off my rocker Vet, explain to me how having a polar bear in an outdoor enclosure in a city that reaches temps of 95 degrees + for weeks on end, is smart/humane?


Joe Vet?  LOL.


I never said you were off your rocker.  I'm discussing your opinions with you because I'm curious where you are coming from. 

As far as the polar bear goes....  I will be the first to say that there are zoos keeping animals in inappropriate climates.  A good example are elephants in northern zoos where they have to be inside on concrete through months of the year because of harsh weather.  Polar bears are another example....to a point. 

You need to consider adaptability of the species.  I've got photos and video somewhere of cockatoos from an aviary I worked with in Ohio playing in the snow.  The birds were given free access to the outside, they would go out and play and play and play and when they got chilled, go back in through their access hole into the warm inside and warm up.  Then they'd go back out and play.  Umbrella cockatoos are NOT a cold weather avian species, yet they did this year after year without problems. 

The thing you need to consider with your bear example---which by the way, polar bears were NOT a hot topic at all until the whole global warming bandwagon started, the morning news reported over and over again that the species would be extinct, and the animal rights nuts went apeshit at the baby in Europe.  I gaurantee you that the majority of the people who go to zoos wouldn't have made even the slightest polar bear argument without this media coverage.  Think about it, Brown Bears share an overlapping habitat (northern most range of Brown, southern most of Polar----average temperatures very, very similar)  No one says anything about those bears. 

Now with the bear example you need to consider is the water moving and is it chilled?  Is there access to an indoor chilled area?  Are the bears  times limited outside in that "extreme' (for a human) heat?  Is the bear showing signs of heat stress?  How is the zoo dealing with that heat stress?  Is it effective?  Those questions all need to be answered in my opinion before you can make the blanket statement that "polar bears shouldn't be in that climate".   

Now, if the answer is the exhibit has mimimal water access, that isn't chilled, the sun shines down on it 2/3 of the day, and the bear shows signs of heat stress anytime the weather gets over 90F, the keepers hose the bear off without any cooling fans or ice misters to facilitate evaporative cooling, then yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that that zoo shouldn't have polar bears.

Does that make sense?  Basically I'm saying human nature is to change the environemnt.  We've already done a great job of fucking things up.  Its our responsibility to deal with those fuckups.
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2007, 10:42:11 PM »

It is absolutely up for debate, and certain things like you described with the chimpanzee's are what I mean by I do not see any possible reason for putting polar bears in a zoo.  It is clearly not their natural habitat and it would be near impossible to replicate their natural setting.  I think that, based on climate issues alone, is inhumane in my eyes.  I know they are dying cause of global warming and yada yada yada, but...I want to go to the zoo and take a pic of what I am talking about so you can see.  In fact I do have pics of the last time I was there.

I hate to play cause and effect but we would not be having this discussion if human emotion did not interfere in those situations like you described with the chimps.  We cannot directly communicate with animals the way they can communicate with each other, and yes, unless it is an extreme circumstance, they should be given the privilege of living their life and doing things as close to normal as they would, as if they were in their natural habitat.


The problem with your logic is humans.  Saying the animals should be able to live their lives undisturbed means that humans shouldn't be fucking up the animals planet.  if you can get humans to quit doing that, then lead the way.  I'll follow more than willingly. 
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2007, 10:43:41 PM »


The problem with your logic is humans.  Saying the animals should be able to live their lives undisturbed means that humans shouldn't be fucking up the animals planet.  if you can get humans to quit doing that, then lead the way.  I'll follow more than willingly. 

I know what you mean.  I am doing a mid term paper at the moment, when I finish I'll post the pictures I have of the polar bears, and the cheetah enclosure at my zoo.  I know you prolly don't give a shit but youll see what I mean.
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2007, 10:54:52 PM »

I know what you mean.  I am doing a mid term paper at the moment, when I finish I'll post the pictures I have of the polar bears, and the cheetah enclosure at my zoo.  I know you prolly don't give a shit but youll see what I mean.

Nah, post them or PM them to me.  Whichever you prefer.  Its been a long, long time since I was at that zoo.  My memory of things is fuzzy.

Also, consider the questions I posted about the bear exhibit.  You need to consider those type of things with all zoo exhibits.
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2007, 12:15:39 AM »

Here are the polar bear pics.  This was not this past summer, but the summer before that.  It was prolly low 90's that day cause I remember being hot as shit


* bear1.JPG (65.34 KB, 644x483 - viewed 116 times.)

* bear2.JPG (74.39 KB, 644x483 - viewed 121 times.)

* bear3.JPG (61.31 KB, 644x483 - viewed 114 times.)

* bear4.JPG (39.46 KB, 644x483 - viewed 111 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: November 08, 2007, 12:17:58 AM »

Some more pics, two cool pics of a tiger from Big Cat Falls which apparently they import the trees/wood/foliage and all from the tigers natural habitat.  It is kind of well done though not as big as I expected, at all.  Another pic of where they had the elephants, that are no longer at the zoo.  They have no elephants now to my knowledge.  And a pic of a gorilla, sitting on steps and holding onto a cargo net.  Ya know, like the steps/cargo net that you'd see in a natural setting =P


* cat1.JPG (96.92 KB, 644x483 - viewed 111 times.)

* cat2.JPG (93.44 KB, 644x483 - viewed 112 times.)

* elephant.JPG (95.57 KB, 644x483 - viewed 112 times.)

* gorilla.JPG (34.38 KB, 644x483 - viewed 116 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2007, 12:20:34 AM »

Another decent shot of the tiger enclosure at Big Cat Falls


* cat3.JPG (96.26 KB, 644x483 - viewed 114 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Purple Aki
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1895


penisory contact with her volvo.


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2007, 03:42:19 AM »

If it wasn't for zoos keeping animals in captivity, I would never have had the opportunity to see a gibbon jerk off IRL.
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2007, 09:46:16 AM »

If it wasn't for zoos keeping animals in captivity, I would never have had the opportunity to see a gibbon jerk off IRL.

I've seen turtles bang.
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2007, 10:49:42 AM »

Which animal is happier? 

The one who lives at the zoo, is given 4 animals to play with, is fed well on a regular basis, has great health care, and never worries about anything? 

Or the animal who lives in the wild, wandering across the continent seeing the world.  They miss meals, they risk being killed on a daily basis.  But they are free.

Which animal is happier?  Which would you rather be?

Animals don't look at 'happiness' like we do

otherwise they would be watching tv...drinking beer....& smoking cigarettes
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2007, 11:44:48 PM »

Here are the polar bear pics.  This was not this past summer, but the summer before that.  It was prolly low 90's that day cause I remember being hot as shit

Ok, well.....

To consider those pictures and the bear, you have to consider what I posted earlier.  The fact that YOU felt hot as shit doesn't mean anything in relation to that bear.  I see a bear in those pictures that is not showing ANY signs of heat stress--now obviously, you'd need live video to be certian, but based on the snapshot you've provided, there isn't much evidence to support your idea of the bear not being able to tolerate a day that YOU thought was hot as shit.  There is no panting, no foaming of the mouth, its lounging comfortably infront of readily available clean water---had that bear been too hot you would have seen it clearly panting to cool itself.  That panting would have led to foaming of the mouth.  As a marine mammal (which polar bears are frequently classified as because of their interaction with water), it would have gotten into the water to try to cool off.  You absolutely have to consider the adaptabilty of the species before making statements like what I think you are thinking.  Does that make sense?  Just because you felt hot doesn't mean the animal did. As a matter of fact by posting what you have, you have done exactly what you said you didn't do.   You were uncomfortable, the animal obviously had to be too.  You have to objectively look at the animal.  Does that make sense?

Polar bears aren't going to potentially go extinct because of the ice melting and their not being able to keep cool. They are going to go extinct because they aren't going to be able to get food.  The ice melting destroys their hunting grounds and they are going to starve. 


Moose are a real good example of an artic species that cannot adapt--and probably a better example of what you are trying to say than a Polar Bear (although Polar Bears are a media favorite right now).  I know of a southern US zoo that has been trying to get moose for several months.  This zoo has elk, white tailed deer, big horned sheep and bison on a relatively large "North American hoofstock exhibit".  A large moose bull would really complete the exhibit as an example of native species in a part of the country where people don't encounter those animals.  Unfortunately moose in their winter coats will heat stroke with temperatures above 55-60F.  If it gets to 65, they will be dead.  This has been proven.  Its not uncommon to have winter temperatures in the 70's at that particular zoo and at the same time have cold spells wtih lows in the teens.  The question is will the moose develop a winter coat or stay in a summer coat with the cooler temperatures.  The zoo has chosen NOT to get moose because of the risk of the temperatures been too extreme for the animals ability to cope---especially temperatures like the 100+ for two weeks straight and 90's for over 2 months this last summer.  That, to me is a responsible decision with the animals best interest at heart.  An irresponsible zoo with the desire to just exploit the animals would get a moose anyway and worry about cooling it later.
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2007, 11:51:40 PM »

Some more pics, two cool pics of a tiger from Big Cat Falls which apparently they import the trees/wood/foliage and all from the tigers natural habitat.  It is kind of well done though not as big as I expected, at all.  Another pic of where they had the elephants, that are no longer at the zoo.  They have no elephants now to my knowledge.  And a pic of a gorilla, sitting on steps and holding onto a cargo net.  Ya know, like the steps/cargo net that you'd see in a natural setting =P

The gorilla exhibit is the kind I really don't like.  Just like you said, that cargo net isn't "natural".    But more so, the environment has little to no stimulation for the animal.  A bare wall and cargo net doesn't challenge the animals brain, which leads to stereotypical behaviors and other problems.  If that room is one of many where the gorilla can move between and interact with other gorillas, its very different than the bare room the picture shows.  Not only that a cargonet like that is not necessarily an appropriate climbing surface for a 200+ lb gorilla.  You can simulate trees indoors---St. Louis is a reasonable example of that, even though their great ape house has been around for a while now.   Its not empty walls. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2007, 11:55:48 PM »

Animals don't look at 'happiness' like we do

otherwise they would be watching tv...drinking beer....& smoking cigarettes

Yup.  Do they have that emotion?  Yes  I think they do.   But happiness for a zebra is eating fresh grass---humans (well most non granola humans) don't eat grass.  Happiness for an elephant is wallowing in a mud hole and throwing dirt on their back.   Humans make fun of other humans that do the same thing.   Humans want to put human emotions on animals.  Its sometimes very hard not to do that, but it has to be considered. 
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 09, 2007, 09:42:04 AM »

Yup.  Do they have that emotion?  Yes  I think they do.   But happiness for a zebra is eating fresh grass---humans (well most non granola humans) don't eat grass.  Happiness for an elephant is wallowing in a mud hole and throwing dirt on their back.   Humans make fun of other humans that do the same thing.   Humans want to put human emotions on animals.  Its sometimes very hard not to do that, but it has to be considered. 

Male Dogs like humping....

Human males like humping....





where was I going with this?
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 09, 2007, 10:48:23 AM »

Ok, well.....

To consider those pictures and the bear, you have to consider what I posted earlier.  The fact that YOU felt hot as shit doesn't mean anything in relation to that bear.  I see a bear in those pictures that is not showing ANY signs of heat stress--now obviously, you'd need live video to be certian, but based on the snapshot you've provided, there isn't much evidence to support your idea of the bear not being able to tolerate a day that YOU thought was hot as shit.  There is no panting, no foaming of the mouth, its lounging comfortably infront of readily available clean water---had that bear been too hot you would have seen it clearly panting to cool itself.  That panting would have led to foaming of the mouth.  As a marine mammal (which polar bears are frequently classified as because of their interaction with water), it would have gotten into the water to try to cool off.  You absolutely have to consider the adaptabilty of the species before making statements like what I think you are thinking.  Does that make sense?  Just because you felt hot doesn't mean the animal did. As a matter of fact by posting what you have, you have done exactly what you said you didn't do.   You were uncomfortable, the animal obviously had to be too.  You have to objectively look at the animal.  Does that make sense?

Polar bears aren't going to potentially go extinct because of the ice melting and their not being able to keep cool. They are going to go extinct because they aren't going to be able to get food.  The ice melting destroys their hunting grounds and they are going to starve. 


Moose are a real good example of an artic species that cannot adapt--and probably a better example of what you are trying to say than a Polar Bear (although Polar Bears are a media favorite right now).  I know of a southern US zoo that has been trying to get moose for several months.  This zoo has elk, white tailed deer, big horned sheep and bison on a relatively large "North American hoofstock exhibit".  A large moose bull would really complete the exhibit as an example of native species in a part of the country where people don't encounter those animals.  Unfortunately moose in their winter coats will heat stroke with temperatures above 55-60F.  If it gets to 65, they will be dead.  This has been proven.  Its not uncommon to have winter temperatures in the 70's at that particular zoo and at the same time have cold spells wtih lows in the teens.  The question is will the moose develop a winter coat or stay in a summer coat with the cooler temperatures.  The zoo has chosen NOT to get moose because of the risk of the temperatures been too extreme for the animals ability to cope---especially temperatures like the 100+ for two weeks straight and 90's for over 2 months this last summer.  That, to me is a responsible decision with the animals best interest at heart.  An irresponsible zoo with the desire to just exploit the animals would get a moose anyway and worry about cooling it later.

I don't remember foaming, but it was panting.  Supposedly when we walked away it jumped in the water but when we came back 30min or so, it was just standing there again.  Because you know everyone waits until they jump in the water, and we did too, for a while then got bored.

I am no vet, but it just "looked" uncomfortable.  Just because it could survive in a climate like Philadelphia doesn't mean it should be here. 

As far as the elephants go, for whatever reason they were listed as 1000-2000lbs less than what the same type of elephant would be in their natural habitat.  As I said they eventually took the elephants out of the zoo.
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: November 12, 2007, 04:20:53 PM »

I don't remember foaming, but it was panting.  Supposedly when we walked away it jumped in the water but when we came back 30min or so, it was just standing there again.  Because you know everyone waits until they jump in the water, and we did too, for a while then got bored.

I am no vet, but it just "looked" uncomfortable.  Just because it could survive in a climate like Philadelphia doesn't mean it should be here. 

That is your opinion. 

Quote
As far as the elephants go, for whatever reason they were listed as 1000-2000lbs less than what the same type of elephant would be in their natural habitat.  As I said they eventually took the elephants out of the zoo.

What reference are you using for the "natural habitat weight"? The reason I'm asking is that weights by itself don't tell much in most species in zoos.  Many zoos have problems with obesity (just like most domestic cats and dogs are too fat) and those that don't seem to get almost never ending flack about starving their animals from uninformed, un educated, and way over opinionated people who love the animals they are bitching about (I'm being sarcastic).  I've worked with African elephants that weighed only 6800 lbs and with others that weighed over 13000 lbs.  Thats nearly a 100% difference in weights, but the elephants I'm thinking of were without a doubt not too thin or too fat.    That variation depends on age, sex, and species.  You have to look at body condition, not the absolute weight. 

I guess really the thing I wish people would do is think when they go to a zoo.  If its thinking about conservation, thats great.  if its thinking about the animals and what they saw them do, thats great.  If its thinking about what they think the zoo is doing wrong---thats also great as long as they present those thoughts in a constructive manner that allows for improvement.  The reason I want that is when people think, they learn.  And after having lived in New York City, I don't think the average person works hard enough trying to learn about the world around them and their interactions with that world.  Its that simple. 
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 12, 2007, 09:59:10 PM »

That is your opinion. 

What reference are you using for the "natural habitat weight"? The reason I'm asking is that weights by itself don't tell much in most species in zoos.  Many zoos have problems with obesity (just like most domestic cats and dogs are too fat) and those that don't seem to get almost never ending flack about starving their animals from uninformed, un educated, and way over opinionated people who love the animals they are bitching about (I'm being sarcastic).  I've worked with African elephants that weighed only 6800 lbs and with others that weighed over 13000 lbs.  Thats nearly a 100% difference in weights, but the elephants I'm thinking of were without a doubt not too thin or too fat.    That variation depends on age, sex, and species.  You have to look at body condition, not the absolute weight. 

I guess really the thing I wish people would do is think when they go to a zoo.  If its thinking about conservation, thats great.  if its thinking about the animals and what they saw them do, thats great.  If its thinking about what they think the zoo is doing wrong---thats also great as long as they present those thoughts in a constructive manner that allows for improvement.  The reason I want that is when people think, they learn.  And after having lived in New York City, I don't think the average person works hard enough trying to learn about the world around them and their interactions with that world.  Its that simple. 

The elephants were listed on a sign as 4000lbs, and on the same sign it said that in the wild they are 6000+.

As far as my "opinion" on the polar bears.  Didn't you talk on another thread about how keeping a gator in a tank that was too small to restrict its growth was cruel and ridiculous?

"Which is pure bullshit.  What will happen is you'll have an animal with severe metabolic bone disease and other health issues.  I've seen too many reptiles with serious health problems because of that approach.  It doesn't work and give you a healthy reptile.  If you can't house it as an adult, then you shouldn't have it.  Its that simple. "

How is this any different from taking a polar bear and putting it in a city that is absolutely nothing close to its natural climate, just because it can "get by"?
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 12, 2007, 10:40:22 PM »

The elephants were listed on a sign as 4000lbs, and on the same sign it said that in the wild they are 6000+.

As far as my "opinion" on the polar bears.  Didn't you talk on another thread about how keeping a gator in a tank that was too small to restrict its growth was cruel and ridiculous?

"Which is pure bullshit.  What will happen is you'll have an animal with severe metabolic bone disease and other health issues.  I've seen too many reptiles with serious health problems because of that approach.  It doesn't work and give you a healthy reptile.  If you can't house it as an adult, then you shouldn't have it.  Its that simple. "

How is this any different from taking a polar bear and putting it in a city that is absolutely nothing close to its natural climate, just because it can "get by"?

If I remember correctly I was referring to severely limiting a reptiles diet to prevent it from growing so that it wouldn't need a larger enclosure or cage.  Don't warp what I posted.  There is a big difference between starving an animal and keeping it in a climate that is warm for a few days out of a few months of the year IF you provide a means for the animal to not heat stress.  Considering Philly, the summers can get warm (I've been in Philly on 90F days), but the average temperature throughout the year is 54F and even in the warm months, the average is 76F.   Thats not the extremes of heat you are trying to make it seem.  (heres a reasonable reference if you want to look at it:  http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Philadelphia.  If anything, the majority of the years could possibly be considered "polar bear friendly" ("Cold" temps <50F on average) more than half of the year with 3 months having average lows below freezing.   I've said it before and I'll say it again, just becaue you as a human were "hot as hell" doesn't mean its inappropriate for the animals.  It really seems to me that you are are taking your discomfort and projecting it on animals you saw because it doesn't fit in your mental idea of an arctic species.
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2007, 10:51:56 AM »

If I remember correctly I was referring to severely limiting a reptiles diet to prevent it from growing so that it wouldn't need a larger enclosure or cage.  Don't warp what I posted.  There is a big difference between starving an animal and keeping it in a climate that is warm for a few days out of a few months of the year IF you provide a means for the animal to not heat stress.  Considering Philly, the summers can get warm (I've been in Philly on 90F days), but the average temperature throughout the year is 54F and even in the warm months, the average is 76F.   Thats not the extremes of heat you are trying to make it seem.  (heres a reasonable reference if you want to look at it:  http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Philadelphia.  If anything, the majority of the years could possibly be considered "polar bear friendly" ("Cold" temps <50F on average) more than half of the year with 3 months having average lows below freezing.   I've said it before and I'll say it again, just becaue you as a human were "hot as hell" doesn't mean its inappropriate for the animals.  It really seems to me that you are are taking your discomfort and projecting it on animals you saw because it doesn't fit in your mental idea of an arctic species.

Lol, nevermind.
Report to moderator   Logged
SinCitysmallGUY
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4323


FIST-ta-CUFF Radio


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: November 14, 2007, 11:14:40 PM »

If I remember correctly I was referring to severely limiting a reptiles diet to prevent it from growing so that it wouldn't need a larger enclosure or cage.  Don't warp what I posted.  There is a big difference between starving an animal and keeping it in a climate that is warm for a few days out of a few months of the year IF you provide a means for the animal to not heat stress.  Considering Philly, the summers can get warm (I've been in Philly on 90F days), but the average temperature throughout the year is 54F and even in the warm months, the average is 76F.   Thats not the extremes of heat you are trying to make it seem.  (heres a reasonable reference if you want to look at it:  http://www.cityrating.com/citytemperature.asp?City=Philadelphia.  If anything, the majority of the years could possibly be considered "polar bear friendly" ("Cold" temps <50F on average) more than half of the year with 3 months having average lows below freezing.   I've said it before and I'll say it again, just becaue you as a human were "hot as hell" doesn't mean its inappropriate for the animals.  It really seems to me that you are are taking your discomfort and projecting it on animals you saw because it doesn't fit in your mental idea of an arctic species.

Damn


VET-1

Temper  Lips sealed
Report to moderator   Logged
temper35
Getbig III
***
Posts: 732


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: November 15, 2007, 09:27:27 AM »

Damn


VET-1

Temper  Lips sealed

Yes, he owns me.  They should move all the polar bears in the world to the San Diego zoo.  THE WATER IS COOLED!
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2007, 10:33:00 AM »

Damn


VET-1

Temper  Lips sealed

Nah.  Heres how I see it:  temper and I differ on opinion.  I will freely admit I have a vested interest in the zoo world because of my job.  Temper is opinionated, but not irrational.   The two of us have had an open discussion on where our opinions are coming from without it deteriorating into a stupid insult war, like so much shit does on the internet.   The thing I want is for people to think about the animals and not just spout random crap based on their opinions or perceptions.  Thats the most important thing.  If they are thinkign about the animals, then hopefully they are learning.  And if they are learning then hopefully they will take steps to not destroy the world around them. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Vet
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 1679

Immortal


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: November 15, 2007, 10:35:25 AM »

Yes, he owns me.  They should move all the polar bears in the world to the San Diego zoo.  THE WATER IS COOLED!

Dude, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.  See my above post please. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!