KBLovedDisney
Well-Known Member
I am very guilty of projecting humanity onto mine. My husband has to keep telling me that they don't know what I am saying....
Sitting there talking to the little guy and he just looks at me
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Pinioned birds at Animal Kingdom—UPDATED
- Thread starter LittleBuford
- Start date
Sitting there talking to the little guy and he just looks at me
I am assuming that you are just going to ignore the links in several of the articles that point to actual studies showing the benefits of zoos in regards to education, conservation, etc.
I'll make it a little easier and put direct links to a couple here. Some are behind pay walls, but I doubt that will matter as you won't read them regardless.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034505
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916503254746
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10645578.2016.1144028?src=recsys&journalCode=uvst20
Model3 McQueen
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I am very guilty of projecting humanity onto mine. My husband has to keep telling me that they don't know what I am saying....
Sitting there talking to the little guy and he just looks at me
lol that's awesome. My kitty wont give me the time of day unless I bring him snacks, cuddles, or I approach with a brush
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
No, it is an aintazoo, rednecks rule.
The Empress Lilly
Well-Known Member
I don't feel guilty that we won evolution. 
I’m a paying customer who wishes to know more about the practices employed by Disney in one of its parks. People get worked up over all sorts of nonsense in this forum; I don’t think mine is an especially strange thing to want more information on.
Gitson Shiggles
There was me, that is Mickey, and my three droogs
What others get worked up about—if they choose to contact Disney—they get generic form responses. That is what I would expect, especially one that doesn’t specifically address my concern. You consider yourself a paying customer, as do I. Hundreds of millions of others have potentially paid money, directly and indirectly, to Disney. Unless a large write-in campaign is mounted, the one-drop-in-the-bucket approach is going to evaporate before the next drop collects.
I would suggest trekking into the animal-inhabited regions of AK and talking to the CMs. Other users here may advise you exactly which exhibits/areas to visit. The response you would get from a CM would definitely be more personal, and hopefully more specific.
As I said, I am already familiar with the arguments for and against zoos. I could very easily get into a link war with you, but that wasn’t the point of this thread. My aim in posting here is never to change anyone’s mind—experience has taught me that that would be a futile endeavour. I wanted to share my own experience and was interested to know what others thought on the issue, and I’m grateful to hear everyone’s views. It’s clear I’m very much in the minority, and that’s fine. I haven’t changed my mind, and if I do visit Animal Kingdom again, I will head straight to Pandora and the two musical shows without stopping to look at anything else. I should be able to put my money where my mouth is and not go to WDW at all, but that’s a moral quandary I’ll have to sort out for myself.
Last edited:
I am no longer at the parks and won’t be back for for a while. My aim in writing to them is not to bring about change—I’m not silly enough to think that one email can make any difference. I just want more information on this particular issue. Perhaps all I’ll get is boilerplate, but there’s no harm in trying.
Gitson Shiggles
There was me, that is Mickey, and my three droogs
Well, now that’s settled: Here’s a song for all the pinioned birds out there.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I can't completely agree that one can substitute instinctual behavior with human emotion. Can't go along with that, but, they do tend to go toward what they like, which would be their instinct and really not be able to carry that beyond when it is actually happening. They do get bored in the sense that their instinct is to explore and label their territory, but that isn't human emotion either, just animals acting out based on the things they are hard wired to do. They are warm and loyal companions and they do attach to things they recognize as safe and comfortable. One of the other things about instinct is the ability to recognize danger and react to it. The minute that they become aware of danger, that warm, cuddly ball of hair has instinct kick in and will react very defensively.
I thought the Condor On A Stick was one of the snacks at Harambe Market...
yoda_5729
Well-Known Member
This is a tough topic for me, and I do respect everyone's views, as I do think people are concerned and worried about animals welfare. Both sides of the argument have some solid points. I think we as a society, are making sizable progress over the decades from the horrid conditions animals were held in back in the day, to now. I think just like everything else, we are hopefully going to see progress where the conditions become better and better.
I think zoos and the similar areas have done a lot of good over the years. I think it is important to be vigil in making sure they continue to keep up to standards, and not necessarily be put out of business or eliminated altogether, but be educated or encouraged to explore newer or better methods at keeping the animals content, so their lives are as fufilled as possible. I do think animals do have an emotional spectrum, I don't know that it's as defined as humans, but elephants have been shown to mourn the loss of members of their groups. Chimps and bonobos are very similar to man. I think though that zoos serve a purpose in inspiring others, protecting the endangered, and as a means to learn about the animals, and what they need or want.
I read somewhere that the Siberian Tiger is no longer called that, because it is believed to be extinct in Siberia and is called the Amur Tiger. Some of these animals homes are getting populated by people or getting destroyed. That's not even counting animals that were born in captivity. As far as I know, I think Disney does an honorable job of taking care of the animals in their watch. The company has been dealing with living animals for decades, long before Animal Kingdom at Discovery Island, and with the horses at Fort Wilderness. I do respect everyone's voice in the matter though, from both sides, I just think it would serve society better to keep watch over zoos and aquariums, and the like, to hold them to the high standard they should be, but support them when they do something positive. Ultimately, anyone turning their back on them, is dooming the animals, both the ones under their care, but also the ones that are helped and rescued like the Manatees in the living seas or the turtles, otters, and dolphins during oil spills or hurricanes. I worry about that with Sea World, as though I have not seen Blackfish, and I do always wish all animals be taken care of to the highest level they can, Sea World did a ton for ocean life, and usually were always present at disasters to care for tons of animals they weren't benefitting from. That of course doesn't erase any bad things, but if we can keep the good and eliminate the bad, I think that's an accomplishment. 1/4 of Walt Disney World is declared a Nature Preserve, protecting local wildlife, that Disney isn't benefitting from financially. I think it's a necessity to be critical of them, but also to try to pressure or persuade them to do better, but compliment them in doing good. Mankind needs places that take care of and protect animals. We just always have to be pushing to make it as good as possible.
I think zoos and the similar areas have done a lot of good over the years. I think it is important to be vigil in making sure they continue to keep up to standards, and not necessarily be put out of business or eliminated altogether, but be educated or encouraged to explore newer or better methods at keeping the animals content, so their lives are as fufilled as possible. I do think animals do have an emotional spectrum, I don't know that it's as defined as humans, but elephants have been shown to mourn the loss of members of their groups. Chimps and bonobos are very similar to man. I think though that zoos serve a purpose in inspiring others, protecting the endangered, and as a means to learn about the animals, and what they need or want.
I read somewhere that the Siberian Tiger is no longer called that, because it is believed to be extinct in Siberia and is called the Amur Tiger. Some of these animals homes are getting populated by people or getting destroyed. That's not even counting animals that were born in captivity. As far as I know, I think Disney does an honorable job of taking care of the animals in their watch. The company has been dealing with living animals for decades, long before Animal Kingdom at Discovery Island, and with the horses at Fort Wilderness. I do respect everyone's voice in the matter though, from both sides, I just think it would serve society better to keep watch over zoos and aquariums, and the like, to hold them to the high standard they should be, but support them when they do something positive. Ultimately, anyone turning their back on them, is dooming the animals, both the ones under their care, but also the ones that are helped and rescued like the Manatees in the living seas or the turtles, otters, and dolphins during oil spills or hurricanes. I worry about that with Sea World, as though I have not seen Blackfish, and I do always wish all animals be taken care of to the highest level they can, Sea World did a ton for ocean life, and usually were always present at disasters to care for tons of animals they weren't benefitting from. That of course doesn't erase any bad things, but if we can keep the good and eliminate the bad, I think that's an accomplishment. 1/4 of Walt Disney World is declared a Nature Preserve, protecting local wildlife, that Disney isn't benefitting from financially. I think it's a necessity to be critical of them, but also to try to pressure or persuade them to do better, but compliment them in doing good. Mankind needs places that take care of and protect animals. We just always have to be pushing to make it as good as possible.
Last edited:
Thank you for your thoughts. Your view of zoos is more positive than mine, but we agree on the need to push for higher standards. The story of the capture of the original batch of Epcot (technically EPCOT) dolphins is telling in this regard: https://www.dolphinproject.com/blog/disneys-dismal-dolphins-no-make-believe-here/. What passed for perfectly normal back in the ’80s seems quite shocking today, which just goes to show how quickly attitudes change and how much even the most responsible animal-keeping institutions can learn and improve their practices. On the issue of making birds flightless, for example, some zoos have moved away from this practice and created enclosed aviaries instead. Given the money and space Disney have at their disposal, moving in such a direction would seem well within their capabilities.
yoda_5729
Well-Known Member
It's difficult, as I said. I have heard in my time at visiting various zoos, that large birds have troubles in enclosed aviaries as they can injure their wings on the walls or ceiling, as quite a few birds soar when they fly. Disney does have aviaries where pigeon sized birds can freely fly, but the larger, more powerful birds have a different concept of flight then the others do. Their bird show does have fling larger scale birds in it. I'm not saying I know the answers, I don't. Just like I don't know what a bald eagle needs to live contently, or a killer whale, a hippo, elephant, or anything else. What may look like depression or anxiety to me, may actually, honestly be nothing.
Disney does have more hippos and elephants than any other place in the united states. Elephants, it's been discovered live happier when they have multiple "friends" with them. Disney is one of the few places equipped to handle giving a large herd of elephants the room they need. Kilimanjaro Safaris is larger in size then the Magic Kingdom. Is that enough room? I don't know, and in 10 years it may not be. I can hope though that Disney will adapt, or make sure the animals are taken someplace they can be content. Disney doesn't have any large scale animals indoors, which is quite different then a lot of places. The animals have indoor facilities they can use, but they spend a lot of time outdoors. Disney has been successful in breeding animals, which my understanding is, that the conditions and circumstances are pretty good for that to be taking place successfully. With all the advances mankind has made, their isn't a rosetta stone for animals. It'd make things a lot easier if there was.
Last edited:
I found an additional source, though it pertains to Animal Kindgom Lodge rather than the park itself (see p. 434): https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...late+TAGs+Mixed-Species+Manual+2017.final.pdf
KBLovedDisney
Well-Known Member
lol that's awesome. My kitty wont give me the time of day unless I bring him snacks, cuddles, or I approach with a brush
View attachment 333116
View attachment 333117
networkpro
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- Yes
Its really Nahtazu
I somehow missed this reply yesterday. Your pet analogy makes it seem as if I was suggesting that animals already in captivity should be released into the wild, which is clearly not my argument. We have a responsibility to care for existing captive populations, which cannot survive without human care. That doesn’t mean we can’t phase out the practice of breeding future generations of animals that aren’t endangered.