As summer is approaching, I’d like to share this bird-friendly beach etiquette reminder. A lot of people let their dogs roam freely on the beach, but dogs that chase wildlife can have a detrimental effect on the animals that have no choice but to share the shoreline with us. Please enjoy the summer with your pets and make sure to give wild animals plenty of space!

Potentially controversial opinion here, but this goes for any other natural place too. Your dog shouldn't be running off-lead and disturbing wildlife outside of specific designated dog areas. The amount of damage free-roaming dogs cause to the rare ground-nesting birds on the heathland near me, despite constant appeals for people to keep them on-leash, is disgusting. And for the love of FUCK, stop letting your dogs run off-leash in fields with livestock. Especially pregnant ewes and young lambs.

"But my dog is a nice dog and my dog would never hurt any animal!"

Important generally but also specifically for shorebirds. Many are endangered or threatened and nest in very specific places, and one loose dog among eggs or chicks can devastate a colony.

One of the worst things for zoos is well-meaning people who mistakenly believe that “having a dog” or “loving animals” makes them animal experts.

“That rhino looks sad.” No, that’s literally just how his face looks, and he lays in the mud because it keeps him cool.

“That tiger doesn’t have any water.” Yes she does, she has access to an automatically-refilling drinker, it’s just hidden from public view because it’s ugly.

“That polar bear needs a friend.” No he doesn’t, polar bears are solitary.

“That parrot is missing feathers.” Yes, the keepers are aware of it, they know the reason why, they’re monitoring his health, and they’re doing their best to solve the problem.

“That antelope is pacing along the fence.” He always paces at this time of day because he can see the females when they shift. If you came back later, he wouldn’t be pacing.

“This exhibit is too small.” Well, according to our well-researched and species-specific standards, it’s technically not too small, otherwise we’d lose accreditation. Would the keepers ideally like more space for the animals? Yep. Do you have a million dollars to donate to make that happen? Didn’t think so.

The point is, zoo visitors rarely understand the full context of what they’re seeing. Trust me – keepers would love it if y'all would just ask us if you have a concern. We’re more than happy to explain things that appear confusing or troubling, and could probably put your mind at ease every time.

I’m not going to lie and say that every animal in every zoo is healthy and content 100% of the time. That’s certainly what we strive for, but it’s not reality. At any given time, there will be sick animals, injured animals, behavioral issues including stereotypic behavior, and a variety of other problems that the public might notice. Animals have health and behavioral issues just like people do; this is true whether they’re in the wild or under human care. What zookeepers wish the public would understand is that it’s literally our job to anticipate, understand, manage, and resolve these issues, and that we take that responsibility very seriously because we know our animals better – and love them more – than any visitor ever could.

To put it another way: I’m sure there are times when I could walk into your home and see that your house is a mess, your kids are in desperate need of a washing and are throwing temper tantrums on the floor yelling that they’re “starving.” Would it be right for me, based on that one moment, to accuse you of child abuse? Of course not. But this is what people do at zoos all the time. They come in, spend a few hours, don’t ask questions, make up their own story in their head, and then run their mouth on the internet about it. And then there are the people who think that anything wrong with an animal at any time must be due to human negligence. Bro, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but… animals get sick, they get injured, they have accidents, and they die. That’s reality in the wild AND in captivity, no matter how careful we are.

Loving food doesn’t make you a chef. Loving air travel doesn’t make you a pilot. And loving animals doesn’t make you a zookeeper. Please have some respect for the highly educated, well-trained people who have dedicated their careers (and much of their personal lives) to making sure these animals are well taken care of, and give us the benefit of the doubt that we know our animals and we know what we’re doing.

My original post here is from almost exactly six years ago - early June, 2017. Since it’s been circulating again recently, I wanted to come back to it with the perspective of a lot more years involved in the zoo field.

First off, everything @keeperchat said is accurate. There’s a ton of context every day zoo visitors are missing, just by virtue of not a) being familiar with how the industry works and b) not knowing the specific facility, animals, etc. Even if you work as a zookeeper, you’re not going to know enough about everything you’re looking at when you visit another zoo to make accurate judgements most of the time. When I go to facilities, I can generally make an educated guess about what I’m looking at, like why an animal is pacing, but when I ask - and I do - I never have all the details, and sometimes I’m flat wrong. This is why I always encourage people to find a staff member and ask if they’re concerned: it’s always fine to have a question or worry about something, just don’t make assumptions and be polite about it.

At the same time, though, there are times that there are things people will see that aren’t ideal, and I promise the zoo knows it too. This is true from the smallest unaccredited facility to big AZA facilities: every zoo I visit where I talk with the staff or leadership, there’s always a list of “things we’d like to change as soon as we get funding / have the resources / the animal currently living there passes.” Generally it’s habitat construction or renovation, but sometimes it’s things like finding a different social grouping for a species, or updating infrastructure needs. Zoos are constantly adjusting based on all the variables they have to juggle, such as the desires of their visitors, the practices of the field, the age and condition of their habitats, the needs of their animals, and the amount of staff time and funding available. Some of them are really proactive about messaging their goals, and other aren’t, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t being thought about. That’s what master plans are - written plans for updating and improving the facility for the next X number of years.

An example for you: older styles of exhibit with poured rock work are incredibly hard to change, because you have to jackhammer/blast the concrete out to get rid of it entirely. They tend to be too small for the species they were originally built for, and generally don’t have a lot of natural turf or places to hide. These are often renovated by filling in the moat and adding fencing, but can also be kept as homes for geriatric animals that don’t use extra space and have low mobility. So an exhibit might look old and outdated, but be perfect for an 18 year old arthritic lion. Now say that cat has passed away, and the zoo wants to renovate. Say they want to keep the original rock walls, mesh the top and front in, and add perching for small primates. That’s a great use of the space - but because of ongoing supply shortages and inflation, steel is currently extremely expensive . I’ve had discussing with multiple facilities in the past few months who really want to redo fencing but just flat out cannot afford it right now. So maybe that renovation has to wait a year or two, until prices drop again. What should the zoo do with the exhibit in the meanwhile? There’s probably animals who can live there happily, like theoretically a porcupine, although it won’t be a great “exhibit” in terms of their visibility to the public. Or they can leave it empty, which people complain about. Depending on what point in this theoretical example you visit the zoo, you might see: a lion in what looks like an old, outdated exhibit; a porcupine in an exhibit that doesn’t look “right” for them based on what you’re used to seeing; an empty, overgrown space; or an updated exhibit with modern features build on the old bones of the original habitat. Without a source of information - maybe asking staff, or seeing a sign, or the zoo posting on social media - you’d never know what you’re looking at and why it’s considered acceptable by the industry. Now repeat that process for basically every exhibit at the zoo, because that’s the lifecycle of a habitat.

This isn’t to say that everything at all facilities is perfect, and any concern means you don’t know what you’re looking at. That’s why USDA inspections exist - to keep facilities accountable - and ideally part of what accreditation groups exist to address. The industry is a huge spectrum, accreditation or no: just like there are less-than-stellar accredited facilities (including AZA ones), there’s also some pretty solid unaccredited facilities out there. Things can change drastically with the addition or loss of a single person in management, too, so the rigor of animal care and speed with which issues get addressed can definitely vary at a facility over a period of time. I’ll be honest in that a lot of those issues never make it to the public view. They’re either dealt with internally (or not), and hopefully caught by USDA or an accrediting group if they persist. So it’s always fine to ask questions, raise concerns, and if something seems really sketchy, make a report to USDA or a facility’s accrediting group. But, please, before you do those last two? Do the first: ask about what you’re seeing, before assuming negligence.

Apparently a lot of ppl are making reports to DOC about this. Idk how much they would be able to do about practices at a foreign zoo but like ... considering how mega endangered these lil guys are it wouldn't be surprising if the govt gets involved....??

If anyone knows how wildlife loaning/movement from NZ works, I’d love for you to chime in. I know the bird’s egg came to the zoo from another AZA facility. With animals bred at facilities, generally ownership goes to the owner of one or both of the animals (or alternates). I don’t know if kiwi that were taken outside NZ are part of any agreement where the DOC has control or oversight over them. I did see an article from the chick’s birth noting that he can’t be returned to NZ due to biosecurity laws, though.

Kia ora (greetings), I just wanted to note for everyone that New Zealanders’ outrage at the mistreatment of Paora the kiwi by Zoo Miami goes beyond animal welfare concerns. There’s an important cultural context behind it too. Kiwi are not only considered a national symbol of NZ, but are also considered taonga (cultural treasures) by Māori, the Indigenous people of NZ. I speak on this as a Māori trained in the enviro sciences - but I can’t speak for all Māori, and it’s difficult to translate some Māori concepts to English. 

Thanks to @why-animals-do-the-thing and @fruitbird15 for sharing this situation.

Māori consider kiwi taonga because in the Māori worldview, everything is related in one big environmental ‘family’ through shared descent from the primordial parents, Ranginui and Papatūānuku. Additionally, generations upon generations of kiwi and Māori have shared a relationship of caring and providing for the other, and so they've become interwoven into our culture's traditions. This concept of interconnection through shared descent & ongoing relationships is called whakapapa. For Māori, the protection and care of kiwi and other taonga is a cultural responsibility - not one that is a burden, but an honour passed down by our ancestors.

A foreign zoo shamelessly exploiting and mistreating a kiwi with no regard for its cultural importance not only hurts the bird, but also all those connected to it, New Zealanders and Māori in particular. To take a sacred responsibility and to dishonour it in such a way is disgusting. The ideal scenario would be for Paora to return to NZ where they can be properly cared for both culturally and physically, but as noted above because they were born and live overseas there are biosecurity concerns. An additional issue is that it currently appears that the NZ Govt has failed to ensure the authority over Paora’s care remains with NZ/Māori. This means the only thing the NZ Govt (and its Department of Conservation/DoC) can do for Paora is use diplomacy to convince American organisations to improve Paora’s situation. The NZ Govt will face a lot of internal pressure from Māori in this case, because the NZ Govt has a responsibility to protect the relationship between Māori and our taonga under Te Tiriti o Waitangi - the founding treaty of New Zealand, which the NZ Govt ultimately derives its authority to govern NZ from. 

It does not matter that Paora was born in America - Māori have a responsibility to them and any descendants they may have, and the NZ Govt in turn has a responsibility to Māori. This means Paora is not just a random animal being mistreated overseas that happens to be an endangered species endemic to NZ, but an important individual whose welfare and ‘ownership’ has social, cultural and political significance.

It's really hard to convey just how repugnant Paora's mistreatment is for many Māori and how infuriating it is that we ultimately can't do anything to protect our whanaunga (kin/relative).

If you can, please formally express your concerns for Paora's wellbeing to Zoo Miami and/or the AZA.

I really appreciate you taking the time to add the cultural context here. It definitely provides a lot more insight into why people are so angry, beyond what appears to be “just” inappropriate treatment of an endangered bird.

For those not following along on other reblog chains, the New Zealand DOC put out a statement a few hours ago indicating they’ll be communicating with AZA about their concerns. (Which is interesting, politically - they didn’t say they’d be contacting Zoo Miami, but indicated instead they’re going to talk to the organization with oversight authority about it. I don’t know if that’s an intentional indication of what they feel needs to happen to incite change, or just a place they’re starting with a system they’re not super familiar with).

I’ll post another update later in the day when we get a statement on the concern from Zoo Miami. I’m not… incredibly optimistic it’s going to be appropriate to the situation. But it depends on what happens in the morning.

If the zoo puts out a statement on their own in the AM, it’s entirely possible the zoo will take the stance that their facility staff feel Paora is in a good welfare situation and the program shows no negative impacts (probably a line about choice and control or voluntary engagement). This may go hand in hand with dismissing the concerns of the people of New Zealand because after all zoos are the experts on bird science. But it’s also possible conversations with the DOC/AZA will result in Miami being told to either hold a statement while they discuss, or to put out a specific statement, or to end the program entirely. The latter is unlikely because that’s not how AZA’s internal mechanism are supposed to work… but the thing is, the CEO of AZA used to run the Department of the Interior for the US Government. I’m guessing he’s likely be even more sensitive to feedback from the DOC as someone who was once more of a peer in that political space.

It’ll be an interesting next 24 hours.

Apparently a lot of ppl are making reports to DOC about this. Idk how much they would be able to do about practices at a foreign zoo but like ... considering how mega endangered these lil guys are it wouldn't be surprising if the govt gets involved....??

If anyone knows how wildlife loaning/movement from NZ works, I’d love for you to chime in. I know the bird’s egg came to the zoo from another AZA facility. With animals bred at facilities, generally ownership goes to the owner of one or both of the animals (or alternates). I don’t know if kiwi that were taken outside NZ are part of any agreement where the DOC has control or oversight over them. I did see an article from the chick’s birth noting that he can’t be returned to NZ due to biosecurity laws, though.

DOC has nothing to do with the management of NZ birds in foreign zoos. Apparently they've received enough reports that they're going to contact the AZA, though.

As you said, he can't return to NZ (these laws are concerned with the possibility of introducing a foreign disease to the population). So, there's nothing for the NZ government to do, and Zoo Miami doesn't answer to them. They DO answer to the AZA. Anyone who wants to share concern should direct their comments to the AZA, not DOC.

Tautoko! Ultimately the NZ Govt and thus DOC is powerless beyond ~ diplomacy ~.

I hope this incident pushes the NZ Govt to do some more work on their relationships with overseas organisations that hold taonga species, and that any future taonga species and their potential descendants sent overseas are better protected, but I doubt it.

I think the diplomacy is a big aspect. Because people contacted the DOC and got them to make a statement so quickly, this has basically gone from “zoo program annoys New Zealanders” to “zoo program potentially caused international incident.” Because zoos like Miami and AZA as an entity all base their brands heavily on being involved in international conservation and working with people on the ground in those locations, there’s now a lot of pressure for them to handle this well. Both in terms of professional relationships with the entities involved, and public pressure.

On another note, this conversation is making me realize that I don’t actually think I’ve seen the language New Zealanders have been using to discuss kiwi in any education, and I wish I would have. I didn’t know that “taonga” meant basically a culturally “treasured” species until someone explained it in the notes (thank you!). That’s an aspect of interpretation around kiwi I think we’re missing in the US - although obviously I don’t know if it would be appropriate for facilities to teach the terminology to the American public, or if they’d capture the concepts accurately given how much the whole industry still struggles to recognize or remove colonial influences from their messaging.

Apparently a lot of ppl are making reports to DOC about this. Idk how much they would be able to do about practices at a foreign zoo but like ... considering how mega endangered these lil guys are it wouldn't be surprising if the govt gets involved....??

If anyone knows how wildlife loaning/movement from NZ works, I’d love for you to chime in. I know the bird’s egg came to the zoo from another AZA facility. With animals bred at facilities, generally ownership goes to the owner of one or both of the animals (or alternates). I don’t know if kiwi that were taken outside NZ are part of any agreement where the DOC has control or oversight over them. I did see an article from the chick’s birth noting that he can’t be returned to NZ due to biosecurity laws, though.

Okay folk, questions for you. I got some really neat photos of a bison giving birth on exhibit yesterday (thank goodness for good zoom). 1) do I post the photos here because it’s cool to talk about? 2) what’s the best way to do that so people aren’t suddenly exposed to them? I can CW, but it’s just a bit… fleshy and goopy… as all births tend to be and I don’t want to spring that on folk. Maybe the more intense photos behind a cut?

Here’s the plan: once they’re edited they’ll go up under a cut, and fully tagged. Above the cut will be one of the zoo’s nice photos of a clean calf, and a non-gross one of the very fresh calf that I took, as well as details of what’s inside.

Tigers' stripes are on their skin, not just their fur - but how often do you get to see it?!

This is the female Amur tiger at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium (I can't find her name online, somehow). A sign on the exhibit noted she had recently had medical care and part of her belly had been shaved in the process. A beautiful lady, and those stripes on her skin are just stunning.

Judging by the spotting on her nose and horizontal stripes on her forehead, she is the 12-year-old Amur tiger, Isabella. She is the mother of 3 cubs (Finn, Aurora, and Titan) born 2016.

It is indeed! The wing on her forehead matches. Thanks for adding that detail and also for a cub photo!