Atlanta Aquarium

[ConAquaSys]

believe me when i say that most zoos and aquariums aren't as worried about their "common" livestock as you might think.

As a husbandry professional in an accredited public aquarium I find this statement to be wholly inaccurate and offensive.

(I'm going to try and make this as concise as possible)

Aquatic husbandry far exceeds mere aesthetics, display potential, and visitor impact of the animals contained within our exhibits. Animal health, welfare, and collection management are the highest priority for any aquarist, whom spend countless hours striving to maintain the best quality of life for each and every animal for which we could possibly provide.

Most large aquaria and zoos within the United States and Europe are part of an organization called the Association of Zoos and Aquariums which set husbandry and animal care standards; if these standards are not met then the institution would lose accreditation. Each accredited institution is reevaluated every 5 years to ensure our facilities meet these rigid guidelines.

If an animal health concern arises a series of protocols are enacted to ensure the health and welfare of not only the individual but the entire collection within the facility. Most, if not all, large aquariums have an in-house animal health/veterinary staff, whom spend their entire day assessing animal health through water-quality, blood draws, fecals, skin-scrapes, etc and if an illness or zoonotic disease is found an immense amount of energy goes into finding an appropriate treatment or specified care plan for the animal in question.

Our facilities are not just looking after the "bottom line", in-fact most revenue from admission/attendance wholly support the day-to-day functionality of the facility and staffing(believe me we aren't doing this for the money). Our institutions, especially non-profits, rely heavily on donors and trustees for fiscal stability and expansion.

I can't speak for every facility which utilizes synthetic marine salt but I can attest that Georgia Aquarium, whom use Instant Ocean, do supplement their exhibits beyond the product itself, especially in their reef tank, which I will admit is a little lack luster. I do have faith that as the reef matures the aesthetics and diversity of the collection will improve.

I would also like to note that Georgia's husbandry, veterinary, and animal care staff are some of the most impressive individuals I have met in this field, not to mention the awe-inspiring resources they have at their disposal. Granted the choice of product may be influenced by its cost efficiency, however I can say with authority that in no way would a facility stand for utilizing a product which could negatively impact animal welfare.

I'm sure if anyone has a legitimate concern about the quality of seawater they are mixing, in regard to animal health you are welcome to contact Georgia Aquarium or the AZA and will receive an email from a chemist/biologist whom can calm your fears.

Natural seawater is not without its issues as well, many facilities still have to supplement their reservoirs due to water quality fluctuations in near-shore environments and heavily filter their intake as to rid contaminants and excess nutrients.

Speaking from what I've experienced as a normal husbandry perspective, I would like to say that we all care very deeply for the animals within our facilities as individuals and hardly see them as fodder for the visiting public.

Hopefully this provides some insight into the field.

 

[MondoBongo]

As a husbandry professional in an accredited public aquarium I find this statement to be wholly inaccurate and offensive.

(I'm going to try and make this as concise as possible)

Aquatic husbandry far exceeds mere aesthetics, display potential, and visitor impact of the animals contained within our exhibits. Animal health, welfare, and collection management are the highest priority for any aquarist, whom spend countless hours striving to maintain the best quality of life for each and every animal for which we could possibly provide.

Most large aquaria and zoos within the United States and Europe are part of an organization called the Association of Zoos and Aquariums which set husbandry and animal care standards; if these standards are not met then the institution would lose accreditation. Each accredited institution is reevaluated every 5 years to ensure our facilities meet these rigid guidelines.

If an animal health concern arises a series of protocols are enacted to ensure the health and welfare of not only the individual but the entire collection within the facility. Most, if not all, large aquariums have an in-house animal health/veterinary staff, whom spend their entire day assessing animal health through water-quality, blood draws, fecals, skin-scrapes, etc and if an illness or zoonotic disease is found an immense amount of energy goes into finding an appropriate treatment or specified care plan for the animal in question.

Our facilities are not just looking after the "bottom line", in-fact most revenue from admission/attendance wholly support the day-to-day functionality of the facility and staffing(believe me we aren't doing this for the money). Our institutions, especially non-profits, rely heavily on donors and trustees for fiscal stability and expansion.

I can't speak for every facility which utilizes synthetic marine salt but I can attest that Georgia Aquarium, whom use Instant Ocean, do supplement their exhibits beyond the product itself, especially in their reef tank, which I will admit is a little lack luster. I do have faith that as the reef matures the aesthetics and diversity of the collection will improve.

I would also like to note that Georgia's husbandry, veterinary, and animal care staff are some of the most impressive individuals I have met in this field, not to mention the awe-inspiring resources they have at their disposal. Granted the choice of product may be influenced by its cost efficiency, however I can say with authority that in no way would a facility stand for utilizing a product which could negatively impact animal welfare.

I'm sure if anyone has a legitimate concern about the quality of seawater they are mixing, in regard to animal health you are welcome to contact Georgia Aquarium or the AZA and will receive an email from a chemist/biologist whom can calm your fears.

Natural seawater is not without its issues as well, many facilities still have to supplement their reservoirs due to water quality fluctuations in near-shore environments and heavily filter their intake as to rid contaminants and excess nutrients.

Speaking from what I've experienced as a normal husbandry perspective, I would like to say that we all care very deeply for the animals within our facilities as individuals and hardly see them as fodder for the visiting public.

Hopefully this provides some insight into the field.

i'm familiar with the AZA thanks, and many of the husbandry concerns.

so i'll try to keep this succinct as well.

i'm also familiar with the budgetary constraints and issues facing public institutions.

i have witnessed, first hand, questionable practices in handling and care of a variety of animals across a variety of institutions.

my statements are far from wholly, or partially, inaccurate. as for offensive, sorry if you took offense, there is nothing personal here, and i think if you read the whole of my posts you'll see that i have tried to qualify my statements in a sensible manner. it seems you've cherry picked an unfortunately stated sentence to dissect.

the fact remains that for a large number of facilities, budgetary concerns lead to constraints in the level of care animals receive, and it could even be argued that many of the guidelines set forth by the AZA are poor, and minimally acceptable to the health and well being of the animals. i think the best example of this is the housing situations for many of the large african animals that draw so many people each year to the zoos.

i would also like to reiterate again that i am not charging that a majority of, nor a plurality of, poor conditions are caused by willful malice.

however even a cursory google search yields plenty of articles about the conditions at zoos and aquariums. ranging from good, to subpar, to down right frightful.

for god's sake. many SeaWorlds have an AZA accreditation. so please spare me the song and dance about that being a meaningful certification.

http://www.aza.org/current-accreditation-list/

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

"i have witnessed, first hand, questionable practices in handling and care of a variety of animals across a variety of institutions."

Please elaborate on how you are more qualfied than the individual above you.
(pun intended)

 

[MondoBongo]

"i have witnessed, first hand, questionable practices in handling and care of a variety of animals across a variety of institutions."

Please elaborate on how you are more qualfied than the individual above you.
(pun intended)

please elaborate as to how any of his statements are substantiated, or his qualifications.

there is a vast amount of evidence supporting me, i am comfortable in what the facts state.

one other thing i wanted to note which i feel applies here as an example is specifically related to pinnipeds. many facilities, to save money and work, will house them in freshwater pools. while this is possible, it also leads to issues for them, most notably eye infections.

i would think that if the health of the animals was the primary concern, and cost was no object, this would not be the case.

here is some information relating to elephants:
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/zoos/elephant-deaths/
http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wil...l-of-shame/2013-ten-worst-zoos-for-elephants/

general thoughts:
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/zoos/facts/zoos.html
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/zoos/
http://www.captiveanimals.org/news/2010/03/10-facts-about-zoos

these guys are accredited by a different organization than the aza:
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/yo...cle_3dfcd972-3e94-5c65-88d0-d1f90f7cd165.html

on a personal level zoos are something i struggle with. let's be honest, for most animals they will NEVER be able to provide them an environment in which they can truly thrive. however, the other side of that coin is that they do provide valuable education and research to the greater community.

do the benefits outweigh the costs? i haven't been able to decide honestly. it is an issue i struggle with every time i visit a zoo or aquarium.

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

You are going off on a tangent.
I will not go to a circus because the delorable conditions the animals are forced to endure and I will never again enter The Miami SeaQuarium where they keep an Orca in a puddle, but this conversation was about public aquariums and comparing salt mixes.
I still contend that if there was a better salt mix than IO insitutions that house billions of dollars of livestock would spring for it and pass the extra expense onto you and me.:fun2:

 

[Sugar Magnolia]

At this point we're beating a dead horse. This topic has been covered many times over.

We're done here.