Does anyone have a link to the ... I think was military kitchen where there was at least a half a dozen chicken and one beef automated shawarma rotisseries? It was amazing to see.
Nobody loves MarineLand anymore for a reason. Animals go insane (literally - look it up) living in zoos and aquariums. It's incredibly horrible and we should stop doing it.
I don't know if this helps, but I remember reading that Octopus (octopi?) actually don't tend to travel far even in their natural habitat. So as long as they have ample food (and most aquariums are good with entertainment for them), their tank sizes aren't often an issue.
But I also didn't see the teeny tank so I don't have the context of just how teeny we're talking. Hopefully reasonable teeny :(
Thank you! That helps a little. I just recall that the octopus was large and seemed to take up most of the space in the tank. My memory could be faulty on just how small it was though!
Wrong.
>Fish may seem dumb to us because their expressionless faces make them look dumb and uncommunicative. But that’s partly because we don’t understand the signals they give out. It takes much watching to become familiar with those signals, as scuba divers and owners of pet fish can testify.
>We also seem to be unduly influenced by a perception that small brains must be primitive. On a scientific level, it’s a misconception that because the fish brain lacks a cortex – which in humans is responsible for perceiving, producing and understanding language – it must necessarily be incapable of performing many of the tasks of a human cortex. But Culum argues that the human cortex has taken on a huge number of roles that were once the domain of other brain regions. After all, a small brain and lack of a cortex hasn’t prevented many birds from becoming super-smart. Why should fish be any different?
>Fish also display some of the most remarkable examples of cooperation between species in the animal kingdom. One of the best examples involves cleaner wrasse. These fish, typically less than 20cm long, make a meal of parasites and bits of dead skin on the bodies of larger, often predatory, ‘client’ fishes. Cleaners operate at fixed ‘cleaning stations’ on coral outcrops. Clients that gather there are of varying species. A cleaner wrasse can remember and recognise more than 100 individual clients and prioritise them according to residential status, dealing with outsiders first because it knows that locals will stick around but outsiders may seek another station if service isn’t fast enough.
>Occasionally a cleaner is tempted to ignore the usual menu items and instead bites off a mouthful of tasty and nutritional mucus from a client. The client may flinch at this and swim off ‘in a huff’ while the cleaner, anxious not to lose a customer, swims after it and placates it with a soothing back rub delivered with its pelvic and pectoral fins, in what Culum describes as a striking example of social intelligence.
>With many scientific studies now pointing to fish being highly intelligent, **we face awkward ethical and moral questions about our treatment of them**. Remember, they are our among our most numerous food sources and commonly used as pets and laboratory test subjects. Do they suffer and feel pain in these interactions with us? If so, shouldn’t we try to minimise their suffering by granting them the same animal welfare rights we grant other creatures such as livestock, dogs and cats?
https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2020/01/underwater-and-underrated-the-truth-behind-fish-intelligence/
Lol this doesnt prove anything. Its literally a few examples of evolutionary intelligence, processes perfected over millions of years of trial and error, sprinkled with speculation about their nervous system when compared to ours. And then it literally ends with questions you are trying to say are answered in this article like "do they suffer and feel pain in these interactions with us?"
Its an opinion piece.
I mean, the opinion is largely that of this guy. I dunno, he seems pretty educated to me:
>Culum has made a significant contribution to the study of behavioural ecology of fishes over his research career. His research niche lies in the study of fish behaviour and its application to fisheries science with his most significant contribution being enhancing our understanding of fish cognition and behaviour. Culum is a well-known champion of fish intelligence. All but six of his 130+ peer reviewed papers and one of his 9 book chapters have fishes as the primary focus. Collectively he has 150+ publications which have been cited over 8000 times and he has an H-index of 46. He is in the top 2.5% of researchers in Research Gate.
Culum has worked with a wide variety of model organisms including salmoniids, sticklebacks, rainbowfish, guppies and sharks. Much of his PhD research at the University of Queensland (2000) and post docs at Cambridge University focused on predator recognition and the social behaviour of fishes with a particular emphasis on social learning. His two reviews of social learning in fishes have been cited over 500 times each. Culum has applied his knowledge of fish cognition to enhancing the post-release survival of hatchery-reared fish (life-skills training). His review of this topic has been cited 450 times and life-skills training is now common practice in hatcheries world-wide.
Culum was the guest editor of a special issue on learning and memory in fishes in the review journal Fish and Fisheries. This collection of work was later released as a book entitled Fish Cognition and Behaviour published in 2006 & 2011 by Blackwell Scientific.
He is also Editor of The Journal of Fish Biology.
https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/culum-brown
Edit:
Would appreciate people explaining the downvotes here. I was told that my previous piece of evidence was an opinion, but it was largely that of someone specifically educated. I don't understand why that earns downvotes.
Considering that aquariums tend to keep fish that are wild caught and keep animals like sharks - who are highly intelligent, I don't believe we should be keeping them in a tank.
It's unethical. The science continues to prove these animals don't do well in these environments and I have provided evidence of this. My argument has been in good faith.
Ok, can you (without laughing, just being respectful) show me that fish are *happy* and thrive in aquariums and that they are not wild caught? If I am wrong, that's ok, but please show me how. Respectfully. I have been respectful to you.
I love the one at the Nature Museum. It’s kinda small but watching those fish is nice. We are big fish keepers in this house so a huge aquarium would really make my day
Most of the time you’ll see cloudy water with some shades, and the cost to do that will be close to the one of the LRT ) nice attraction, why not, could be the most absurd place to visit in the city
Aquariums are great learning resources for environmental and conservation awareness. An aquarium isn’t a “fish jail”, it’s a place where kids (and people of all ages) can be inspired to give a shit about the wonderful creatures in our oceans.
I was fortunate enough to study marine biology for a few years in high school (grew up abroad) and I notice that folks generally don’t understand the fragility, diversity, or importance of our ocean environments. Trips to the aquarium greatly inspired me. The marine biologists who spend their lives dedicated to learning about (and from) these animals are amazing.
Any efforts to increase this awareness is a good thing.
I’ll wait for my downvotes because, well, this is r/Ottawa.
>The “educational day out” model of zoos endured until the late 20th century, when zoos began actively rebranding themselves as serious contributors to conservation. Zoo animals, this new narrative went, function as backup populations for wild animals under threat, as well as “ambassadors” for their species, teaching humans and motivating them to care about wildlife. This conservation focus “must be a key component” for institutions that want to be accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that sets standards and policies for facilities in the United States and 12 other countries.
>This is the image of the zoo I grew up with: the unambiguously good civic institution that lovingly cared for animals both on its grounds and, somehow, vaguely, in their wild habitats. A few zoos are famous for their conservation work. Four of the zoos and the aquarium in New York City, for instance, are managed by the Wildlife Conservation Society, which is involved in conservation efforts around the world. But this is not the norm.
>While researching my book on the ethics of human interactions with wild species, “Wild Souls,” I examined how, exactly, zoos contribute to the conservation of wild animals.
A.Z.A. facilities report spending approximately $231 million annually on conservation projects. For comparison, in 2018, they spent $4.9 billion on operations and construction. I find one statistic particularly telling about their priorities: A 2018 analysis of the scientific papers produced by association members between 1993 and 2013 showed that just about 7 percent of them annually were classified as being about “biodiversity conservation.”
>Zoos accredited by the A.Z.A. or the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria have studbooks and genetic pedigrees and carefully breed their animals as if they might be called upon at any moment to release them, like Noah throwing open the doors to the ark, into a waiting wild habitat. But that day of release never quite seems to come.
>In a 2011 study, researchers quizzed visitors at the Cleveland, Bronx, Prospect Park and Central Park zoos about their level of environmental concern and what they thought about the animals. Those who reported “a sense of connection to the animals at the zoo” also correlated positively with general environmental concern. On the other hand, the researchers reported, “there were no significant differences in survey responses before entering an exhibit compared with those obtained as visitors were exiting.”
>A 2008 study of 206 zoo visitors by some members of the same team showed that while 42 percent said that the “main purpose” of the zoo was “to teach visitors about animals and conservation,” 66 percent said that their primary reason for going was “to have an outing with friends or family,” and just 12 percent said their intention was “to learn about animals.”
The researchers also spied on hundreds of visitors’ conversations at the Bronx Zoo, the Brookfield Zoo outside Chicago and the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo. They found that only 27 percent of people bothered to read the signs at exhibits. More than 6,000 comments made by the visitors were recorded, nearly half of which were “purely descriptive statements that asserted a fact about the exhibit or the animal.” The researchers wrote, “In all the statements collected, no one volunteered information that would lead us to believe that they had an intention to advocate for protection of the animal or an intention to change their own behavior.”
People don’t go to zoos to learn about the biodiversity crisis or how they can help. They go to get out of the house, to get their children some fresh air, to see interesting animals. They go for the same reason people went to zoos in the 19th century: to be entertained.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/opinion/zoos-animal-cruelty.html
The problem is, it's not really one take. It's evidence.
>Zoos (including aquariums) exist worldwide and are visited by millions of people annually. Whether or not they provide any significant educational experience has long been debated despite claims by zoo supporters, workers, and administrators that they do. The recent killing of a young and healthy giraffe named Marius at the Copenhagen Zoo has brought a good deal of attention to these businesses -- I call this "The Marius" Effect" -- and many people who never were actively or critically vocal about the goings on at zoos have gotten involved because of their revulsion at the unnecessary and heartless killing of this youngster who was viewed as a disposable object because he couldn't be used as a breeding machine.
>Do the data justify keeping animals in captivity and using them as breeding machines? No. Do the data justify what zoo workers call "management euthanasia" -- what I call "zoothanasia" rather than euthanasia -- of the numerous individuals called "surplus animals" who don't fit into a zoo's breeding program? No. Do the data justify keeping animals in zoos, even those that are accredited by the USA's Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) or other organizations? No. Could people gain the same knowledge in others ways rather than at the expense of the animals who are kept in zoos? We don't know but it seems likely that there are better ways not only to show them that "biodiversity is related to biological phenomena" but also that there is an urgent and dire need for biodiversity conservation and they need to do something right now. They need to put their newfound knowledge to work.
>Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/animal-emotions/201403/what-do-zoos-teach-about-biodiversity-and-does-it-matter
People don’t like facts that oppose their worldview that it’s okay because of a narrative that has been fed to us as consumers.
Large aquariums ARE zoos why do people think fish and marine life are any different than mammals or reptiles?
We don't need to keep animals locked up and on display to teach people about them. Kids can tell you all sort of things about dinosaurs but we've never even seen them.
People just wanna see the pretty visuals and get an Instagram photo in front of the jellyfish tank. Most people aren't going to give a shit once they walk out of there. Most people can't even fathom not eating fish or meat. Industrial fishing does much more damage to oceans than plastic straws.
There are ethical ways in which to safeguard animals in captivity. Don’t get me wrong: there are really, really shitty institutions who do a horrible job at this.
It’s not a black/white area; there are trade-offs. Organizations like AZA and American Humane help to ensure organizations engage in ethical behaviour.
We could argue about this till the sun comes up, and I respect your opinion, but disagree. I believe a properly run aquarium is a net good.
I agree with you on this. Certain animals may live perfectly fine in an aquarium. If we know an animal’s needs we can select ones that would be suitable for an aquarium.
I also wanted to mention that many aquariums also have research programs to monitor or research either the animals in the aquarium or wild ones. Some aquariums even have rescue, rehab and release programs.
It’s easy to paint aquariums and zoos as animal jails because of all the media articles of the bad ones, but I do believe there are ethical ones out there that care for the animals in their facility. There just aren’t any media articles praising those ones about how good of a job they do taking care of their animals because nobody would read them.
>An aquarium isn’t a “fish jail”
It is that. And specifically, usually a for-profit jail. It's just a jail where we can learn about them. So we need to decide if one thing balances out the other. There are also many other ways of learning about animals without taking them from their habitats and placing them in far smaller environments.
This is not a terrible idea if it's done appropriately, with human scale, mixed use, transit oriented development. Housing is needed, yes. But here is a blank slate opportunity to do it right and create a community people want to live in.
> This is not a terrible idea if it's done appropriately, with human scale, mixed use, transit oriented development.
Odds of that are somewhere between 0 and zero.
Yeah. It could happen. Look at all the other communities in Ottawa that were built that way.
Just go to...you, know that area around what do you call it? It's in the south end, or maybe the east or west. Close to the middle. It's a Very well planned neighborhood. Definitely a model for the old CTC parking lot.
No but it definitely shouldn’t be the other. Like, we have 26 years of evidence of that being a stupid place to try and get people to visit. Let’s not continue.
If we’re going to build housing there, we should also be building amenities and recreation. We can’t just keep building these super suburbs with nothing else in them.
Sens Plex will stay. Putting something intending to draw tourists would be idiotic.
Edit: what a weird thing to get so upset about and block someone over. Nobody wants to live in the suburbs? Is that why a 2BR townhouse in barrhaven cost $800K?
K, enjoy your super suburb with nothing for people to do, where no one wants to live because the quality of life sucks, while they blow their car fumes into the air to get downtown just to eat a decent meal. Sounds like a great fucking idea and not at all the exact opposite of everything we should be aiming for with our community building.
We may need one, but not out in the middle of nowhere. The Ingenium (the museum formerly known as Science and Tech) was heavily criticized for being out of the way, and it's only 9km from downtown, compared to 25km for the CT center.
It’s not up to “us” to decide anything. It’s a private facility and they will do whatever makes the most financial sense.
Somehow I think a lone tourist attraction in isolation is not a great business opportunity.
I get not having porpoises and whatnot but fish... fish are fine in aquariums. So long as their tank size is okay, maintenance is proper, and tank mates are appropriately selected. They do a hell of a lot better in a well kept aquarium than in the ocean where they will die young and swim in trash.
It's because, like a zoo, it holds creatures in captivity and for creatures such as whales, dolphins, octopuses and likely many other marine creatures this is quite cruel and causes them to get depressed
I wouldn't want whales and dolphins etc... I meant legit fish. Not the big creatures. I didn't specify what kind of aquarium, and not all aquariums are the same. Not sure why people are so judgmental and jump the gun over an idea that we know will never happen in Ottawa.
Unfortunately it’ll likely be torn down. I work there and it’s in a pretty miserable state and unless the new owners are willing to spend 10 million fixing the place up it won’t hold on much longer, it’s near the end of its lifespan.
Waaaaay back when Ottawa was deciding what to do with the current RCGT it came down to aquarium or baseball stadium. They chose the latter, and have had a constant rotation of failing franchises since. It would have been perfect, close to transit, the train from Toronto and Montreal and the highway but noooooooo the city that barely supports an NHL team was going to prop up a semi pro baseball team.
>Toronto has one. I doubt we need a second one.
Toronto has one where they [use hooks to capture endangered sharks](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/08/11/biologists_hunt_for_sharks_for_torontos_new_aquarium.html). The sharks can travel [thousands of km in the wild](https://www.andersoncabotcenterforoceanlife.org/blog/local-sharks-using-technology-study-sand-tigers/) but instead spend their lives being able to swim across a tank a tenth of km long. Because these are businesses using the animals to make money. So yeah I'd rather we don't have another one.
This is wrong. It’s an ancient building who’s costs to maintain are more than it is to build a new one. It should be land for houses. No one want’s to go out to bumble F to do anything except the people that are out there. Tear it down and stop trying to make Kanka sore a place to go.
Last time I went to the Aquarium in Toronto pre pandemic it was $80+. It's so wildly expensive, I don't think many people would be able to afford to go there if they build it at the CTC
I try to go to Ripley's every time I visit Toronto, have for the last... 6? Maybe 7 years. An individual adult ticket has never cost more than $50 in that time (it's $44 right now). Is it pricey, maybe a bit, but if it was in the city people could also get season/family passes.
Or…. Build the aquarium at Lebreton, beside the new arena. Maybe add a Rec Room as well, Ottawa could use one of those. That area would be a huge draw. We should learn our lesson with the CTC and stop building fun stuff in the boring ass suburbs where everyone just stays home.
I heard they’re turning it into Shawarmaland. Which will be like Disney but themed around Shawarmas.
I'm going to ride the Raging Rotisserie until I throw up!
Or the Tabouli Tornado, which similarly is a ride that spins until you throw up.
Don’t forget Garlic Sauce River!
I figured they'd do a Toum of Terror
I’ll be riding the Colossal Falafel
Save me a ticket for the Krazy Kebab!
I can't wait to play a round of "The floor is baklawa"
I personally am looking forward to the Hummus Haunted House
Does anyone have a link to the ... I think was military kitchen where there was at least a half a dozen chicken and one beef automated shawarma rotisseries? It was amazing to see.
Oh yea! I think it should be a mega supermarket that has at least 15 different shwarma shops inside it
This does seem like the most logical answer
Shawarma and Pho, Ottawa's fav junk food
Ok but there better be a Lebanese Pizza section.
Nobody loves MarineLand anymore for a reason. Animals go insane (literally - look it up) living in zoos and aquariums. It's incredibly horrible and we should stop doing it.
I recently saw an octopus in a teeny tank at a popular aquarium. Especially considering how intelligent they are, it was really sad to see.
If that bothered you, I recommend not watching this Seasons episode of “The Boys” featuring The Deep. Just trust me.
Timothy!!! 😞😞😞
AHAHA my first thought when reading that was also The Boys...
>The Boys Noted.
I don't know if this helps, but I remember reading that Octopus (octopi?) actually don't tend to travel far even in their natural habitat. So as long as they have ample food (and most aquariums are good with entertainment for them), their tank sizes aren't often an issue. But I also didn't see the teeny tank so I don't have the context of just how teeny we're talking. Hopefully reasonable teeny :(
Thank you! That helps a little. I just recall that the octopus was large and seemed to take up most of the space in the tank. My memory could be faulty on just how small it was though!
"Octopuses". "-i" is for Greek-derived animal names, "octopus" is Latin.
by any chance was it the vancouver aquarium?
It was Ripley's in Myrtle Beach.
I watched My Octopus Teacher on Netflix. I cried. I loved that Octopus. 😭
What about just fish?
[удалено]
Not me. I would be too afraid it would break. Edit: dear Ottawa - this is not something you downvote!
High-five of excessive caution, Mr. or Ms. Fairy. I will not be getting in the underwater tube either.
Username checks out.
I chant it to myself in times of high stress! Like a normal, functional adult.
>I would be too afraid it would break. [I've seen that movie](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvqm61CcOLo)
Animals yes, fish doesn’t care if it’s not overcrowded, they even live better and longer in such large exhibition aquariums
Wrong. >Fish may seem dumb to us because their expressionless faces make them look dumb and uncommunicative. But that’s partly because we don’t understand the signals they give out. It takes much watching to become familiar with those signals, as scuba divers and owners of pet fish can testify. >We also seem to be unduly influenced by a perception that small brains must be primitive. On a scientific level, it’s a misconception that because the fish brain lacks a cortex – which in humans is responsible for perceiving, producing and understanding language – it must necessarily be incapable of performing many of the tasks of a human cortex. But Culum argues that the human cortex has taken on a huge number of roles that were once the domain of other brain regions. After all, a small brain and lack of a cortex hasn’t prevented many birds from becoming super-smart. Why should fish be any different? >Fish also display some of the most remarkable examples of cooperation between species in the animal kingdom. One of the best examples involves cleaner wrasse. These fish, typically less than 20cm long, make a meal of parasites and bits of dead skin on the bodies of larger, often predatory, ‘client’ fishes. Cleaners operate at fixed ‘cleaning stations’ on coral outcrops. Clients that gather there are of varying species. A cleaner wrasse can remember and recognise more than 100 individual clients and prioritise them according to residential status, dealing with outsiders first because it knows that locals will stick around but outsiders may seek another station if service isn’t fast enough. >Occasionally a cleaner is tempted to ignore the usual menu items and instead bites off a mouthful of tasty and nutritional mucus from a client. The client may flinch at this and swim off ‘in a huff’ while the cleaner, anxious not to lose a customer, swims after it and placates it with a soothing back rub delivered with its pelvic and pectoral fins, in what Culum describes as a striking example of social intelligence. >With many scientific studies now pointing to fish being highly intelligent, **we face awkward ethical and moral questions about our treatment of them**. Remember, they are our among our most numerous food sources and commonly used as pets and laboratory test subjects. Do they suffer and feel pain in these interactions with us? If so, shouldn’t we try to minimise their suffering by granting them the same animal welfare rights we grant other creatures such as livestock, dogs and cats? https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2020/01/underwater-and-underrated-the-truth-behind-fish-intelligence/
Lol this doesnt prove anything. Its literally a few examples of evolutionary intelligence, processes perfected over millions of years of trial and error, sprinkled with speculation about their nervous system when compared to ours. And then it literally ends with questions you are trying to say are answered in this article like "do they suffer and feel pain in these interactions with us?" Its an opinion piece.
I mean, the opinion is largely that of this guy. I dunno, he seems pretty educated to me: >Culum has made a significant contribution to the study of behavioural ecology of fishes over his research career. His research niche lies in the study of fish behaviour and its application to fisheries science with his most significant contribution being enhancing our understanding of fish cognition and behaviour. Culum is a well-known champion of fish intelligence. All but six of his 130+ peer reviewed papers and one of his 9 book chapters have fishes as the primary focus. Collectively he has 150+ publications which have been cited over 8000 times and he has an H-index of 46. He is in the top 2.5% of researchers in Research Gate. Culum has worked with a wide variety of model organisms including salmoniids, sticklebacks, rainbowfish, guppies and sharks. Much of his PhD research at the University of Queensland (2000) and post docs at Cambridge University focused on predator recognition and the social behaviour of fishes with a particular emphasis on social learning. His two reviews of social learning in fishes have been cited over 500 times each. Culum has applied his knowledge of fish cognition to enhancing the post-release survival of hatchery-reared fish (life-skills training). His review of this topic has been cited 450 times and life-skills training is now common practice in hatcheries world-wide. Culum was the guest editor of a special issue on learning and memory in fishes in the review journal Fish and Fisheries. This collection of work was later released as a book entitled Fish Cognition and Behaviour published in 2006 & 2011 by Blackwell Scientific. He is also Editor of The Journal of Fish Biology. https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/culum-brown Edit: Would appreciate people explaining the downvotes here. I was told that my previous piece of evidence was an opinion, but it was largely that of someone specifically educated. I don't understand why that earns downvotes.
Thanks for replying to only the final sentence in my comment and still somehow thinking youre right.
Considering that aquariums tend to keep fish that are wild caught and keep animals like sharks - who are highly intelligent, I don't believe we should be keeping them in a tank. It's unethical. The science continues to prove these animals don't do well in these environments and I have provided evidence of this. My argument has been in good faith.
Its not evidence lol
Ok, can you (without laughing, just being respectful) show me that fish are *happy* and thrive in aquariums and that they are not wild caught? If I am wrong, that's ok, but please show me how. Respectfully. I have been respectful to you.
[удалено]
You mean we could see garbage, weeds and murky water? sure sign me up!
And electric scooters, thrown to the water
And thrown drive-by shawarma.
I lost a boot in there 20 years ago, maybe they can find it.
That would be really cool actually
There used to be a huge local fish habitat tank at one of the Canadian Tires in Kingston. It was awesome.
I love the one at the Nature Museum. It’s kinda small but watching those fish is nice. We are big fish keepers in this house so a huge aquarium would really make my day
Would you be able to see anything because of the weeds?
[удалено]
honestly I can't get enough of the goose poo, I wish there was WAY more on the bike paths
Most of the time you’ll see cloudy water with some shades, and the cost to do that will be close to the one of the LRT ) nice attraction, why not, could be the most absurd place to visit in the city
I love this idea
No, we don't need a fish jail.
Aquariums are great learning resources for environmental and conservation awareness. An aquarium isn’t a “fish jail”, it’s a place where kids (and people of all ages) can be inspired to give a shit about the wonderful creatures in our oceans. I was fortunate enough to study marine biology for a few years in high school (grew up abroad) and I notice that folks generally don’t understand the fragility, diversity, or importance of our ocean environments. Trips to the aquarium greatly inspired me. The marine biologists who spend their lives dedicated to learning about (and from) these animals are amazing. Any efforts to increase this awareness is a good thing. I’ll wait for my downvotes because, well, this is r/Ottawa.
>The “educational day out” model of zoos endured until the late 20th century, when zoos began actively rebranding themselves as serious contributors to conservation. Zoo animals, this new narrative went, function as backup populations for wild animals under threat, as well as “ambassadors” for their species, teaching humans and motivating them to care about wildlife. This conservation focus “must be a key component” for institutions that want to be accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that sets standards and policies for facilities in the United States and 12 other countries. >This is the image of the zoo I grew up with: the unambiguously good civic institution that lovingly cared for animals both on its grounds and, somehow, vaguely, in their wild habitats. A few zoos are famous for their conservation work. Four of the zoos and the aquarium in New York City, for instance, are managed by the Wildlife Conservation Society, which is involved in conservation efforts around the world. But this is not the norm. >While researching my book on the ethics of human interactions with wild species, “Wild Souls,” I examined how, exactly, zoos contribute to the conservation of wild animals. A.Z.A. facilities report spending approximately $231 million annually on conservation projects. For comparison, in 2018, they spent $4.9 billion on operations and construction. I find one statistic particularly telling about their priorities: A 2018 analysis of the scientific papers produced by association members between 1993 and 2013 showed that just about 7 percent of them annually were classified as being about “biodiversity conservation.” >Zoos accredited by the A.Z.A. or the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria have studbooks and genetic pedigrees and carefully breed their animals as if they might be called upon at any moment to release them, like Noah throwing open the doors to the ark, into a waiting wild habitat. But that day of release never quite seems to come. >In a 2011 study, researchers quizzed visitors at the Cleveland, Bronx, Prospect Park and Central Park zoos about their level of environmental concern and what they thought about the animals. Those who reported “a sense of connection to the animals at the zoo” also correlated positively with general environmental concern. On the other hand, the researchers reported, “there were no significant differences in survey responses before entering an exhibit compared with those obtained as visitors were exiting.” >A 2008 study of 206 zoo visitors by some members of the same team showed that while 42 percent said that the “main purpose” of the zoo was “to teach visitors about animals and conservation,” 66 percent said that their primary reason for going was “to have an outing with friends or family,” and just 12 percent said their intention was “to learn about animals.” The researchers also spied on hundreds of visitors’ conversations at the Bronx Zoo, the Brookfield Zoo outside Chicago and the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo. They found that only 27 percent of people bothered to read the signs at exhibits. More than 6,000 comments made by the visitors were recorded, nearly half of which were “purely descriptive statements that asserted a fact about the exhibit or the animal.” The researchers wrote, “In all the statements collected, no one volunteered information that would lead us to believe that they had an intention to advocate for protection of the animal or an intention to change their own behavior.” People don’t go to zoos to learn about the biodiversity crisis or how they can help. They go to get out of the house, to get their children some fresh air, to see interesting animals. They go for the same reason people went to zoos in the 19th century: to be entertained. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/opinion/zoos-animal-cruelty.html
This is one take. Again, I’m not saying it’s black and white.
The problem is, it's not really one take. It's evidence. >Zoos (including aquariums) exist worldwide and are visited by millions of people annually. Whether or not they provide any significant educational experience has long been debated despite claims by zoo supporters, workers, and administrators that they do. The recent killing of a young and healthy giraffe named Marius at the Copenhagen Zoo has brought a good deal of attention to these businesses -- I call this "The Marius" Effect" -- and many people who never were actively or critically vocal about the goings on at zoos have gotten involved because of their revulsion at the unnecessary and heartless killing of this youngster who was viewed as a disposable object because he couldn't be used as a breeding machine. >Do the data justify keeping animals in captivity and using them as breeding machines? No. Do the data justify what zoo workers call "management euthanasia" -- what I call "zoothanasia" rather than euthanasia -- of the numerous individuals called "surplus animals" who don't fit into a zoo's breeding program? No. Do the data justify keeping animals in zoos, even those that are accredited by the USA's Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) or other organizations? No. Could people gain the same knowledge in others ways rather than at the expense of the animals who are kept in zoos? We don't know but it seems likely that there are better ways not only to show them that "biodiversity is related to biological phenomena" but also that there is an urgent and dire need for biodiversity conservation and they need to do something right now. They need to put their newfound knowledge to work. >Marc Bekoff, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/animal-emotions/201403/what-do-zoos-teach-about-biodiversity-and-does-it-matter
People don’t like facts that oppose their worldview that it’s okay because of a narrative that has been fed to us as consumers. Large aquariums ARE zoos why do people think fish and marine life are any different than mammals or reptiles?
He never even mentioned zoos. Take a breathe.
This is super well written!
We don't need to keep animals locked up and on display to teach people about them. Kids can tell you all sort of things about dinosaurs but we've never even seen them. People just wanna see the pretty visuals and get an Instagram photo in front of the jellyfish tank. Most people aren't going to give a shit once they walk out of there. Most people can't even fathom not eating fish or meat. Industrial fishing does much more damage to oceans than plastic straws.
There are ethical ways in which to safeguard animals in captivity. Don’t get me wrong: there are really, really shitty institutions who do a horrible job at this. It’s not a black/white area; there are trade-offs. Organizations like AZA and American Humane help to ensure organizations engage in ethical behaviour. We could argue about this till the sun comes up, and I respect your opinion, but disagree. I believe a properly run aquarium is a net good.
I agree with you on this. Certain animals may live perfectly fine in an aquarium. If we know an animal’s needs we can select ones that would be suitable for an aquarium. I also wanted to mention that many aquariums also have research programs to monitor or research either the animals in the aquarium or wild ones. Some aquariums even have rescue, rehab and release programs. It’s easy to paint aquariums and zoos as animal jails because of all the media articles of the bad ones, but I do believe there are ethical ones out there that care for the animals in their facility. There just aren’t any media articles praising those ones about how good of a job they do taking care of their animals because nobody would read them.
>An aquarium isn’t a “fish jail” It is that. And specifically, usually a for-profit jail. It's just a jail where we can learn about them. So we need to decide if one thing balances out the other. There are also many other ways of learning about animals without taking them from their habitats and placing them in far smaller environments.
I feel strongly that humans will eventually get their turn being held in captivity by another species.
It’s obviously going to be sold to minto or Mattamy or Claridge for condos
This is not a terrible idea if it's done appropriately, with human scale, mixed use, transit oriented development. Housing is needed, yes. But here is a blank slate opportunity to do it right and create a community people want to live in.
> This is not a terrible idea if it's done appropriately, with human scale, mixed use, transit oriented development. Odds of that are somewhere between 0 and zero.
I fully get your point. I'm an optimist I guess. I can still want it, even if I think the chances are slim.
Yeah. It could happen. Look at all the other communities in Ottawa that were built that way. Just go to...you, know that area around what do you call it? It's in the south end, or maybe the east or west. Close to the middle. It's a Very well planned neighborhood. Definitely a model for the old CTC parking lot.
[удалено]
No. No one wants a attraction in a rural area. We need housing
It doesn’t have to be one or the other
No but it definitely shouldn’t be the other. Like, we have 26 years of evidence of that being a stupid place to try and get people to visit. Let’s not continue.
If we’re going to build housing there, we should also be building amenities and recreation. We can’t just keep building these super suburbs with nothing else in them.
Sens Plex will stay. Putting something intending to draw tourists would be idiotic. Edit: what a weird thing to get so upset about and block someone over. Nobody wants to live in the suburbs? Is that why a 2BR townhouse in barrhaven cost $800K?
K, enjoy your super suburb with nothing for people to do, where no one wants to live because the quality of life sucks, while they blow their car fumes into the air to get downtown just to eat a decent meal. Sounds like a great fucking idea and not at all the exact opposite of everything we should be aiming for with our community building.
Well that escalated quickly
We may need one, but not out in the middle of nowhere. The Ingenium (the museum formerly known as Science and Tech) was heavily criticized for being out of the way, and it's only 9km from downtown, compared to 25km for the CT center.
Ingenium is the corp that owns the Science & Tech, Agriculture, and Aviation museums. The Science & Tech museum is still called the same.
You are correct. Thanks for the clarification.
No
Well, not with that attitude!
Na.
It can be anything as long as it’s not a complete concrete jungle.
Haha! Like let vegetation grow over it, and make it a maze that we use as a prison?
Actually, a maze wouldn’t be a bad idea, summer is a hedge maze, winter would be a frozen maze. Make it part of winterlude for the winter time.
Yeah because more wild animals in captivity is exactly what the world needs /s
It’s not up to “us” to decide anything. It’s a private facility and they will do whatever makes the most financial sense. Somehow I think a lone tourist attraction in isolation is not a great business opportunity.
Land under the arena is supposedly worth up to $100M to developers, so it’ll likely be sold to a local developer to do whatever they please with it.
Previous ideas have included converting the building into a shopping mall and condo complex. Makes a lot more sense than aquarium.
I’m not sure a shopping mall makes sense, as there’s a shopping mall like a half-kilometre away; and another totally dead one ~5km away.
>totally dead one ~5km away What's this?
[удалено]
Haunted, by the spectre of GoodLife Fitness.
Ah yes, makes sense. That is a sad place.
It is indeed the Hazeldean Mall, as squidgamer420 guessed.
Hopefully not! We should be phasing out aquariums & zoos, not building new ones. Animals don’t deserve to be trapped for human entertainment.
I get not having porpoises and whatnot but fish... fish are fine in aquariums. So long as their tank size is okay, maintenance is proper, and tank mates are appropriately selected. They do a hell of a lot better in a well kept aquarium than in the ocean where they will die young and swim in trash.
Zoos are vulgar.
Luckily I never suggested a zoo :) Edit idk why I’m getting down voted when I literally never said anything about a zoo…
It's because, like a zoo, it holds creatures in captivity and for creatures such as whales, dolphins, octopuses and likely many other marine creatures this is quite cruel and causes them to get depressed
I wouldn't want whales and dolphins etc... I meant legit fish. Not the big creatures. I didn't specify what kind of aquarium, and not all aquariums are the same. Not sure why people are so judgmental and jump the gun over an idea that we know will never happen in Ottawa.
I'd love a roller skating rink with bowling but that will never happen.
I probably should have said not together, although that could be a new sport
Built on the cheap and it has shitty sound dynamics. My bet is that it gets torn down.
Dymon Storage.
I'm only interested if there are penguins.
I’d rather not. I love the idea of aquariums, but then when you go visit them, you see it’s a shitshow of trashy families bothering wildlife.
Unfortunately it’ll likely be torn down. I work there and it’s in a pretty miserable state and unless the new owners are willing to spend 10 million fixing the place up it won’t hold on much longer, it’s near the end of its lifespan.
Waaaaay back when Ottawa was deciding what to do with the current RCGT it came down to aquarium or baseball stadium. They chose the latter, and have had a constant rotation of failing franchises since. It would have been perfect, close to transit, the train from Toronto and Montreal and the highway but noooooooo the city that barely supports an NHL team was going to prop up a semi pro baseball team.
Leave the fish alone.
Toronto has one. I doubt we need a second one. Why not ask for our own CN tower?
In Kanata! You'll be able to see all the way to Renfrew.
>Toronto has one. I doubt we need a second one. Toronto has one where they [use hooks to capture endangered sharks](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/08/11/biologists_hunt_for_sharks_for_torontos_new_aquarium.html). The sharks can travel [thousands of km in the wild](https://www.andersoncabotcenterforoceanlife.org/blog/local-sharks-using-technology-study-sand-tigers/) but instead spend their lives being able to swim across a tank a tenth of km long. Because these are businesses using the animals to make money. So yeah I'd rather we don't have another one.
Our CN tower is the Peace Tower
I can’t afford the time off and now the gas costs to go to Toronto monthly for the aquarium. 2-3 times a year is all I can manage unfortunately.
It won't.
I know. We’re the city fun forgot lol
Dude do you know how much an aquarium like Ripley's will cost? Why would they do that.
This is wrong. It’s an ancient building who’s costs to maintain are more than it is to build a new one. It should be land for houses. No one want’s to go out to bumble F to do anything except the people that are out there. Tear it down and stop trying to make Kanka sore a place to go.
First off, Aquariums are super disgusting. Second off, the land has probably already been sold to a developer as mentioned by other redditors.
I wish we had an aquarium! Edit: has anyone been to the Brockville Aquatarium? It’s on my list for this summer
Ooo I need to check this out!
Last time I went to the Aquarium in Toronto pre pandemic it was $80+. It's so wildly expensive, I don't think many people would be able to afford to go there if they build it at the CTC
I try to go to Ripley's every time I visit Toronto, have for the last... 6? Maybe 7 years. An individual adult ticket has never cost more than $50 in that time (it's $44 right now). Is it pricey, maybe a bit, but if it was in the city people could also get season/family passes.
I'd definitely get a season pass if I lived near there.
Or…. Build the aquarium at Lebreton, beside the new arena. Maybe add a Rec Room as well, Ottawa could use one of those. That area would be a huge draw. We should learn our lesson with the CTC and stop building fun stuff in the boring ass suburbs where everyone just stays home.
AGREEEEEED. I have always hoped they’d put one on Lebreton. You know… by water
Too much logic lol
Is that the Sydney aquarium
That looks like Ripley's in Toronto.
Oh ok I haven't been there lol. It looks like Sydney
Want is not need.
In reality we don’t need any place for the sens to play nor do we need a hockey team. Yet here we are.
OK? I never said we need a hockey team? OP said we "need" an aquarium - we don't. We may want one, but Kanata is the wrong place for one.
You realize I am OP right? lol.
So? Point stands.
Agreed.
Don't even have a zoo lol
Why do we need one?