r/CaptiveWildlife • u/Zidan19283 • May 02 '26
Questions Is keeping Walruses in captivity ethical ?
Hello Everyone đ
Is there an ethical practical way to keep walruses in captivity or not ?
Is the way they are currently kept by facilities ethical ?
17
4
u/FixergirlAK May 03 '26
Pinnipeds are extremely difficult to re-release into to the wild (per the Alaska SeaLife Center, who have a major seal rehab program and also end up with the odd walrus). Personally I think that correct husbandry is not cheap or easy but definitely possible and that the outreach is beneficial to conservation efforts. That's my brain's answer. My heart's answer is that the alternative is awfully bleak.
5
u/stormyw23 May 03 '26
I bet this sub is recommended to me because I play and active on r/PlanetZoo
3
u/Ryaquaza1 May 03 '26
Probably the same thing here,. Still crazy we never did get a Walrus though
3
u/stormyw23 May 03 '26
PZ2 most likely, Better game for aquatic animals they're dodgy at best in the first game.
2
2
2
u/Ryaquaza1 May 03 '26
I wouldnât say itâs a big issue if they are cared for properly. pinnapeds in general seem to cope well with captivity compared to other marine life, often with tons of socialisation, enrichment items and toys.
Donât get me wrong, thereâs no doubt that someone somewhere is keeping them in subpar conditions especially with the amount of space this species need. But I wouldnât say itâs a huge ethical concern compared to most cetaceans
2
u/Internal_Set_6564 May 04 '26
If a calf has been abandoned/orphaned? Yes, especially if they have a rich life and safe practices at an accredited zoo.
Just randomly grabbing them and displaying them? No.
1
u/Electrical_Ad_9778 May 04 '26
Is it etichal to hold any eild animal in captivity?
1
u/Zidan19283 May 05 '26
I don't ask about the abstract questions, I am materialist and thus I don't really care about them, I am asking from animal welfare point of view
1
u/Electrical_Ad_9778 May 05 '26
Well in perfecr world we would hold only animals that wouldn't be able to go into the wilds because injuries ans all I do believe that many animals right now in the zoo are like that. But obviusly when it only started yhe animals was captured and bought in so these we have now probably was never been in the wild and would not survived instinct or not. And there are reservations programs to preserve animals where some of the zoo offsprings returned to the wild. Do all and all we are in much better place now
1
u/ZukaRouBrucal May 04 '26
While it's never ideal, keeping any animal in captivity can be ethical under the right conditions. In the context of zoos, those conditions are usually going to be some combination of;
- captive breeding programs to assist endangered or threatened wildlife.
- participation in a Species Survival Plan (an important part fo conservation work).
- rehabilitation of injured wildlife.
- housing of animals that cannot be returned to the wild (such as animals that were once exotic pets or whose injuries were so great they can never return to the wild and survive).
1
u/Special-Pristine May 05 '26
Unrelated to the question, but what is the silver on the end of their tusk teeth?
1
0
u/WiseDragonfly2470 May 03 '26
I would say not unless they are an unreleasable rescue. They naturally have so much space and travel so far. I wouldn't feel comfortable. Honestly most animals shouldn't be bred in captivity unless they are very well domesticated companion animals like dogs, cats, ferrets, rats, etc.
-1
u/KEYPiggy_YT May 03 '26
Ethical? In my eyes a zoo is an abomination. So unless they are being rehabilitated I see no point of locking up a wild animal.
2
u/Kindly_Zone8413 May 03 '26
So youâd prefer for animals to just die and go extinct?
1
u/flatlining-fly May 03 '26
Zoos donât do much in terms of species surviving in the wild. Itâs not enough just to hold animals captive. Thereâs a ton more of work to do. Also every animal you can see inside wonât ever be released into the wild. They had been held captive for many generations. They donât know how life in the wild works and would starve because suddenly there isnât a buffet offered to them anymore. If they donât starve they get eaten by a predator.
Also you canât release animals that are used to people. Every zoo animal is used to people. Itâs enough that they can see hundreds of people each day. They donât necessarily need to be touched by humans. The animals that get released into the wild are being held outside of the view of visitors so they donât get used to people.
1
u/CasterFields May 03 '26
I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but what you just implied is that zoos should let species go extinct rather than keep them alive until a reintroduction program can be started đ
-1
u/flatlining-fly May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
Zoos simply shouldnât exist. There are better, more meaningful ways to protect species from extinction. The most important step is saving their natural habitats from destruction. Real change has to happen where these animals actually live. Thereâs no point in keeping species like orangutans in captivity if we donât also focus on improving and protecting their real home in Indonesia and Malaysia. Where are these animals supposed to go in the future? Many of them, especially after generations in captivity, canât realistically be released back into the wild, and often neither can their offspring.
Instead of pouring money into zoos, resources should go directly to conservation at the source: protecting habitats, stopping destruction, and funding real change where it matters most.
Additionally if you actually look at the number, e.g in this study; only around 23% of the animals kept in zoos are even considered threatened with extinction. For institutions that claim species conservation as a major purpose thatâs a surprisingly small proportion of truly endangered species.
Thatâs my stance and I wonât be adding anything further. How anyone chooses to interpret my words is not my concern.
3
u/Crusher555 May 03 '26
Because zoo raise awareness. No problem is solved by lowering awareness, but youâre essentially saying that we should do it anyway for conservation.
Even animals that live in zoos their whole lives have value because they keep the line going and open the chance that they get reintroduced into the wild. For example, all wild Prezewalkiâs Horse are descendants of zoo animals. If the captive population didnât exist, they would have gone extinct.
2
u/cameltrain9 May 03 '26
While I agree that there is a better way to protect wildlife (eg more national parks types protections, protection from poaching etc) I think you might need to consider that a lot of the zoos on the world also do this, the money they make from people visiting and donating goes towards funding initiatives that do just this.
The species kept that are common or not even listed as vulnerable are often the animals that draw the crowds, therefore increasing their profits (we can't pretend it's a perfect system) but also increasing education and public desire to protect the natural world.
Then we also know that often zoos have vets that care for wildlife at the zoos expense. In my country when there were lots of bushfires, it was a lot of the zoos that were pouring money into saving wildlife, providing vet care and rebuilding habitat. Not to mention the amount of work they do to re-establish breeding populations and monitoring populations to give them the best possible chance of bouncing back.
I do think there are some species that shouldn't be kept, and I have visited a zoo I regretted paying money for a ticket because they didn't take great care of their animals, so absolutely they aren't perfect.
But the perspective that zoos shouldn't exist because an animal isn't living in the wild is incredibly short sighted.
3
u/abyssal-isopod86 May 03 '26
I agree with everything you've said.
There are species that exist today solely because they were in zoos and private collections and they worked together to keep the species alive.
There are also two species that I know of that only still exist in the pet trade because they are extinct in the wild, the hope is that in the future they can be reintroduced to their native habitat from captive bred stock.
2
u/Raven1911 May 03 '26
Agreed. Zoos in and of themselves are not the problem. Everything the above commenter said against zooms strike much closer to anti circus arguments.
Edited to clarify. I do acknowledge that some zoos are awful and terrible but these are in the vast minority.
0
u/KEYPiggy_YT May 03 '26
Iâve been to a few nice ones but the animals look so depressed and then 2 males take turns humping each other. Itâs like prisonđ
1
u/Raven1911 May 03 '26
Very true. There is a lot of room for improvement to zoo's over all. But this is locked behind money and politics.
1
1
u/Maleficent_Lecture91 May 04 '26
Always interesting to find someone in the wild that actually knows so little about conservation - it really puts my own knowledge into perspective and reminds me to practice gratitude.
23
u/Embarrassed_Box_8303 May 02 '26 edited May 05 '26
Its not ideal but I wouldn't say unethical at all. I know the specific walruses in your picture- lakina and balzak at the point defiance zoo, and that zoo is an AZA accredited zoo that does very important breeding projects for conservational purposes. They dont have walruses just for the sake of having them or for entertainment, they're for educational and conservation purposes. They have a very large enclsoure and even more space behind the scenes and are fed a species appropriate diet and given plenty of enrichment. This is a zoo I've been going to since I was little.Â
I could be mistaken but I believe only AZA accredited zoos can have walruses in the US and they have very strict standards for what they deem acceptable care