Toronto Ripley's Aquarium of Canada | 13.11m | 2s | Ripley Entertainment | B+H

Miscreant said:
I somehow overlooked this--but going out and catching 10 sharks? Perhaps at this point it's just pumping intuitions and genuine agreement is beyond our reach, but I just intuitively find that objectionable. The sharks are far better off in the vastness of the sea than in a preposterously small (relatively speaking) tank for us to point at.
Click to expand...

I will agree on that point at least: The sharks should be born in captivity. I'm sure there are plenty of fertile sharks in captivity already that are more than capable of filling the needs of all the world's aquariums. The concept of going out and catching a shark on open seas for use in an aquarium is slightly reminiscent of 19th century game hunters bringing exotic animals from all around the world to live in a tiny iron cage in London.

Since at this point it's just my pumping intuitions, though, I'm willing to drop it and get back to talking about the architecture.
Click to expand...

Despite everyone's interest in construction and architecture (myself included), you do bring up a lot of valid points about the ethics involved in this project, and it seems like a valid topic/debate. It adds some flavor to the thread and spaces out my needlessly clustered photo updates
 
Miscreant said:
The sharks are far better off in the vastness of the sea than in a preposterously small (relatively speaking) tank for us to point at.
Click to expand...

Maybe not... (caution, decently graphic)
[video]channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/shark-fin-soup/embed/?vWidth=639&vHeight=393[/video]

Notice they said 73 million a year, we're talking about 10 for this aquarium.
 
Last edited:
Right, yes yes, you do raise an important issue. If we interpret 'better off' as 'more safe' then it's clearly false. In captivity sharks and other wildlife have a greater chance of survival than in the wild. But I think this interpretation of 'better off' is too restrictive. Consider this by way of analogy: is an adult child better off in the safety of his grown parent's home, where he (say) needn't work, needn't enter the world in a major way and face its attendant dangers, needn't face failure after trying to succeed, and so on? Or is he better off with less safety but more opportunity?

I think most of us--all of us--will say the latter option is right. So why not say it for wildlife?
 
Hence the shark fin ban that is rippling around the world, in great part thanks to Toronto's own Rob Stewart who helped put this barbaric practice into the public consciousness with his excellent documentary "Shark Water" (2007).
 
A friend of mine posted these on Facebook:

62199036960842948641648.jpg


Shark Lagoon:

34040536961192157371510.jpg


CityNews report w/ video of it getting filled:

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/entertainment/local/article/219262--work-underway-to-fill-huge-shark-tank-at-ripley-s-aquarium-of-canada
 
Last edited:
I found the juxtapositioning of the two troubling - just because there are what appears to be deplorable issues at Marineland really shouldn't be used as a frame against Ripley, considering the latter had an explicit conservation component.

AoD
 
To be fair, however, many of us questioned the Ripley's model a long time ago in this thread, offering up the Shedd as a far better approach with it's waterfront location and focus on research and education etc. Placing a Ripley's attraction at the foot of the CN Tower just didn't bode well for me from the start. I'm still keeping an open mind about it all but the issues at Marineland do make you think...

... and it's a little rich that we are racking our brains now about how to revitalize the Ontario Place grounds when so many of us already argued for a decent and respectable aquarium there. The city should have stepped in and made some more demands at the time.
 
Tewder:

To be fair, as far as I know there are no gross mistreatment of animals at Ripley, and as to Shedd - we can't even fund the Experimental Lakes Area research facility in Northern Ontario, which is focused ONLY on research.

As to the role of the city - it wasn't in a position to dictate what goes into a provincial facility, much less offer anyone funds to relocate there.

AoD
 
Leadership at the city level could have taken an aquariam project in a very different direction. Not an easy path, I grant you, but what is?

As for Ripley's, who's to say how effective their 'conservation' program is (and I'm not being facetious, I'm really asking)? Ripley's, like Marineland, is a private business. Does this really ever bode well for animal conservation? In the end it just strikes me as a dated model.
 
For some people keeping anything in captivity is thought to be fundamentally wrong and immoral; whether it's a goldfish, a lobster at the supermarket or elephants in a pen, they are generally treated with one sweeping brush. This seems to be an increasingly popular view. If one has this viewpoint as a matter of principle, then any good initiatives and influences that are brought about by aquariums and zoos are never going to be justification.

My interest in the marine world and conservation in general came from a visit to a large aquarium as a youth. I think zoos and aquariums have a place but they need to reinvent themselves, reassess what animals they chose to keep and place much greater emphasis on research and conservation initiatives. They should also demonstate that they are actually funding and helping educate in these areas. There are a few aquariums that do this quite well, unfortunaly they get muddled in with more entertainment oriented parks such as Marineland.
 
I'd like to cut through any notion of Shedd being somehow ethically superior to Ripley's due to its focus on research and education by pointing out that, like MarineLand and unlike our Ripley's, Shedd has live shows featuring large mammals performing tricks for people's amusement. Also, keep in mind that our Ripley's will feature educational programs and dedicated classroom space, as well as breeding/conservation programs for endangered species.
 
Bogtrotter said:
For some people keeping anything in captivity is thought to be fundamentally wrong and immoral; whether it's a goldfish, a lobster at the supermarket or elephants in a pen, they are generally treated with one sweeping brush. This seems to be an increasingly popular view. If one has this viewpoint as a matter of principle, then any good initiatives and influences that are brought about by aquariums and zoos are never going to be justification.

My interest in the marine world and conservation in general came from a visit to a large aquarium as a youth. I think zoos and aquariums have a place but they need to reinvent themselves, reassess what animals they chose to keep and place much greater emphasis on research and conservation initiatives. They should also demonstate that they are actually funding and helping educate in these areas. There are a few aquariums that do this quite well, unfortunaly they get muddled in with more entertainment oriented parks such as Marineland.
Click to expand...



I also wonder to what degree the ones that do it right are public rather than private, or at least some sort of partnership?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top