Aquatic Zoos - Captive Animals Protection Society

More documents

Recommendations

Info

visit, and therefore in those cases the chances to witness visitor misconduct ware radically reduced. If we only count public aquaria that had ten or more visitors at the time of counting the exhibits for the study of signs (see above), then 90% of the public aquaria with ten or more visitors showed visitors ‘misconduct’ (n=20) at one point. 75% of the these public aquaria showed two or more incidents of visitor misconduct per every ten visitors, and 30% showed more than five incidents for every ten visitors (n=20). From all the 277 incidents witnessed in only one did the investigator witness the public aquarium staff challenging the misbehaving visitor. Code type Number of incidents of visitor Misconduct Incidents visitors misconduct recorded per every 10 visitors A-MAC44 BIPA 10 13 13.0 A-SCO45 CHPA 15 16 10.7 A-FOW04 SIPA 13 10 7.7 A-DEE48 CHPA 23 17 7.4 A-STA49 BIPA 17 12 7.1 A-BOL21 APA 5 3 6.0 A-BLU06 CHPA 69 30 4.3 A-SEA27 CHPA 49 19 3.9 A-SEA33 CHPA 39 15 3.8 A-SEA20 BIPA 29 11 3.8 A-AQU08 BIPA 6 2 3.3 A-SEA17 CHPA 250 74 3.0 A-UND18 CHPA 46 13 2.8 A-MAR50 SIPA 12 3 2.5 A-LYM16 SIPA 4 1 2.5 A-BLU03 CHPA 90 14 1.6 A-SEA01 CHPA 33 4 1.2 A-BLA26 APA 21 2 1.0 A-NAT41 CHPA 176 12 0.7 A-NAT47 APA 60 4 0.7 A-THE23 BIPA 138 2 0.1 A-BRI02 APA 12 0 0.0 A-SEA53 CHPA 11 0 0.0 A-MAT58 SIPA 5 0 0.0 A-OCE56 SIPA 5 0 0.0 A-MAT10 SIPA 2 0 0.0 A-ABE52 SIPA 1 0 0.0 A-FOR25 APA 1 0 0.0 A-ISL24 APA 1 0 0.0 A-SEA11 SIPA 1 0 0.0 A-SEA32 SIPA 1 0 0.0 Table 17. Cases of visitor misconduct identified during this study per public aquarium investigated (first column). The third column shows the number of visitors present at the time the investigator had recorded all exhibits, the fourth column shows the number of incidents of visitor misconduct recorded, and the fifth column the number of incidents recorded per every 10 visitors present. CHIPA= Chain Public Aquaria, BIPA= Big Independent Public Aquaria, SIPA= Small Independent Public Aquaria, APA= Auxiliary Public Aquaria. Considering that the investigator could not be everywhere witnessing all incidents, and only the ones that were recorded on tape have been counted, the occurrence of incidents of visitor misconduct is bound to be much higher than the level deduced from these figures. Figure 74 shows the relative frequency of types of behaviours witnessed classed as ‘misconduct’, and it can be seen that physical interactions with the animals were the most common type. 118
14% Relative frequency of incidents of visitor misconduct in UK public aquaria in 2004 7% 5% 3% 2% touching animal 27% 42% touching water stepping on barrier using flash photography tapping/banging the tank glass picking-up/holding animal Throwing/dipping objects into the water Figure 74. Relative frequency of incidents of visitor misconduct in UK public aquaria during 2004. N=277. These results indicate that there seems to be a ‘public aquarium culture’ (akin to what could be called a ‘zoo culture’) of disregarding signs that direct visitors actions, which because of its scope (at least 90% of the aquaria) and intensity (at least a third of the aquaria with more than five incidents for every ten visitors) it could not be sustained without the public aquaria ‘acceptance’, reluctant or not. Either the public aquarium industry finds itself powerless to stop or correct this ‘culture’, or the industry itself is in agreement with those who consider the signs as ‘symbolic’ and not really meaning what they say. The second option seems more likely, because it is in the public aquaria interest not to be seen policing its visitors, allow them to behave in a way in which they enjoy their visit more than if they had ‘followed the rules’, and often such rules have been imposed by ‘outsiders’, such as the local authorities or the zoo regulations (and therefore may be considered ‘unnecessary’). This may be in the public aquaria interest, but certainly not in the interest of the animals they keep. An example of this was witnessed during this investigation. An octopus which was kept in a very exposed enclosure with not enough shelter and too much light was so distressed by some members of the public tapping its glass that it inked as a response (figure 75). This behaviour is a natural defence mechanism which often happens when octopus are captured (for example 50% of Octopus rubescens captured by a Seattle Aquarium are reported to ink while being packed, Anderson, 1995) but it never should take place in the closed system of aquarium because the ink may end up suffocating the octopus, apart from radically increasing the amount of suspended organic matter –which the filtration system could be unable to handle without the help of a protein skimmer (Toonen, 2003). Figure 75. Case of an octopus (left) kept in a UK public aquarium that inked (right) as a defence mechanism after some visitors had tapped its tanks. 119
Page 1 and 2:
AQUATIC ZOOS A critical study of UK
Page 3 and 4:
CONSERVATION IN UK PUBLIC AQUARIA -
Page 5 and 6:
It is not just fish and aquatic inv
Page 7 and 8:
METHODS This study used two main me
Page 9 and 10:
Public Aquaria visited, 2004 Rand.n
Page 11 and 12:
UK PUBLIC AQUARIA PROFILE In this c
Page 13 and 14:
It is possible that there are more
Page 15 and 16:
95 Tomato clownfish 9 22 198 96 Ban
Page 17 and 18:
84 Small eyed ray 25 0% 66% 85 Pacu
Page 19 and 20:
Exotic versus local taxa kept in UK
Page 21 and 22:
27 Common sunstar 10 Cod 15 28 Cutt
Page 23 and 24:
ANIMAL WELFARE IN UK PUBLIC AQUARIA
Page 25 and 26:
Stereotypic behaviour, also known a
Page 27 and 28:
Figure 7. Regal tang circling in a
Page 29 and 30:
These categories have been defined
Page 31 and 32:
However, because not all the animal
Page 33 and 34:
clownfish and the case of ‘handli
Page 35 and 36:
e called ‘handling’ in one otte
Page 37 and 38:
Relative frequency of types of fish
Page 39 and 40:
column shows the percentage of indi
Page 41 and 42:
while performing ITB. If done very
Page 43 and 44:
Branchiomyces Cotton wool disease
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 20. Examples of evidence of
Page 47 and 48:
its nose opening up the same wound
Page 49 and 50:
Centre 13 Report 10 Parasitic infec
Page 51 and 52:
The common octopus will die if the
Page 53 and 54:
2. Large amounts of food remains pa
Page 55 and 56:
Evidence of one starfish having los
Page 57 and 58:
CONSERVATION IN UK PUBLIC AQUARIA M
Page 59 and 60:
there are obvious differences in sc
Page 61 and 62:
Animals in UK public aquaria part o
Page 63 and 64:
threatened species is totally wrong
Page 65 and 66:
Type PA Release back to wild % DO N
Page 67 and 68: Table 14 shows an estimation of the
Page 69 and 70: Some may say that removing fish fro
Page 71 and 72: The lack of publicity on joint proj
Page 73 and 74: insight. It has been said that the
Page 75 and 76: species than in the past), but they
Page 77 and 78: EDUCATION IN UK PUBLIC AQUARIA Cons
Page 79 and 80: Figure 34. Example of the type of e
Page 81 and 82: Figure 35 shows the averages of per
Page 83 and 84: 7 Beadlet anemone 145 8 Lesser spot
Page 85 and 86: Figure 38. Example of a sign that i
Page 87 and 88: Finding a close up face of a ‘fea
Page 89 and 90: thinking that indeed Nature can be
Page 91 and 92: The criteria to include entries of
Page 93 and 94: EXHIBIT DESIGN IN UK PUBLIC AQUARIA
Page 95 and 96: Sometimes some species may be house
Page 98 and 99: Figure 48 (previous page). Types of
Page 100 and 101: Almost half of the public aquaria (
Page 102 and 103: The fact that in the majority of UK
Page 104 and 105: more taxa, and 1.3% more than 20. T
Page 106 and 107: Figure 60. Examples of dirty and un
Page 108 and 109: Figure 63. One of the ‘futuristic
Page 110 and 111: Appendix 6, 6.11 There must be adeq
Page 112 and 113: educing the ambient temperature. Ba
Page 114 and 115: Figure 69. Sign advising not to tou
Page 116 and 117: Surely if there are animal welfare
Page 120 and 121: It is not only that visitors may di
Page 122 and 123: CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS Fo
Page 124 and 125: Keeping and breeding seahorses in U
Page 126 and 127: Despite all the pleasing superficia
Page 128 and 129: BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson R. C. (1995).
Page 130 and 131: Broom, D.M. (1991). Assessing welfa
Page 132 and 133: Kiesh, W. (2000). Aquarium et Mycob
Page 134 and 135: Scott, G.W.; Hull, S.L. ;Rollinson,
Page 136: AQUATIC ZOOS: A critical study of U
show all

Aquatic Zoos - Captive Animals Protection Society

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?