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

Toronto Star: Biologists hunt for sharks for Toronto's new aquarium



A team of shark hunters has taken to the sea in search of Toronto’s newest downtown spectacle.

The hunters: A squadron of marine biologists and shark specialists.

The hunted: The 350 lb. sand tiger shark with a ghastly, jagged-toothed smile.

“They’re actually quite docile,” said Joe Choromanski, vice-president of husbandry with Ripley Entertainment Inc.

Choromanski’s team set out in April to catch 10 sand tiger sharks from the waters off South Carolina. Next spring, they’ll drive the sharks over the border to Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada, currently under construction at the foot of the CN Tower.

* * *

Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada will be the only one in the country with sand tiger sharks. Choromanski hopes the $130 million aquarium will be the first in North America to breed sand tiger sharks, but the experience can be gory.

During mating, the male shark bites the female’s pectoral fin to grab a hold.

“It’s the only time they don’t really get along,” he said.

Despite this, sand tigers are the perfect aquarium shark.

“They’re used to navigating reefs and shipwrecks so they do extremely well in captivity compared to open ocean sharks,” Choromanski said.

Most open-ocean sharks, such as great whites and blue sharks, breathe by constantly swimming and passing water over their gills. Sand tigers can manually pump water over their gills using their cheeks, which means they adjust more naturally to aquarium life.
Click to expand...
 
August 16th:

DsOaR.jpg


Yc8rQ.jpg
 
I'm probably opening a commercial-sized can of worms, but does anyone think the recent woes at Marineland are going to affect the Aquarium negatively? I realize the two facilities are worlds apart, but you have to know someone is going to write an op-ed making the connection when the Aquarium is closer to opening its doors.
 
It's a good question, one about which I've been wondering whether it'll be raised here. In my opinion the recent woes at Marineland should compel people to ask critical questions about this new Aquarium. After all, though this Aquarium might as a matter of fact take better care of its animals, some more basic and essential similarities to Marineland remain: both facilities necessarily involve taking animals out of their native habitats, a habitat to which they're innately well-suited, and put them in environments that almost entirely deprive them of their ability to satisfy their natural instincts and exercise their natural behaviours. These animals are then expected to adhere to regimens that aren't aimed at satisfying and developing their innate capacities, but rather at entertaining people who believe there's nothing objectionable about reducing animals to objects of entertainment.

Going into more detail about this takes us too far off topic, so I'll stop here with saying this: one of the more unfortunate effects of these facilities is that they deprive kids of the opportunity to appreciate these sea animals in all their splendor--in the sea.
 
I don't think the general public would be as sensitive to fishes as cetaceans (which are being asked to perform in front of a stage) and other marine mammals - and to my knowledge the aquarium won't be hosting any of those.

AoD
 
I actually didn't know that, and it's an important point. I agree that the general public likely won't be as sensitive to fishes as to larger marine mammals. On the other hand, I also still think there's an argument for the claim that these fishes are better off in their native habitat, though I also agree that this argument is less pressing than the one that I believe applies equally to larger marine animals.
 
Presumably most of the species at the Aquarium are just as likely to be found, chopped up ready for dinner down the road at the St. Lawrence Market.

The outcry we tend to see over zoos and such, seems to be related to species that one is less likely to make a meal out of.
 
The aquarium seeks to replicate the natural habitat of the species as much as possible, given that the purpose of attending an aquarium is to learn about those species and the habitats from which they came. The purpose of going to MarineLand, on the other hand, is about watching animals performing amusing tricks, and when the animals are done performing their tricks, they don't go back to a tank that replicates their natural habitat (i.e. the ocean), but merely the equivalent of a large holding pen. Most animals at MarineLand will know, or at least perceive in some way, the differences between the tanks they live in and the ocean, whereas fish in an Aquarium are probably totally oblivious to the fact that they're not in their natural habitat.
 
Ramako said:
The aquarium seeks to replicate the natural habitat of the species as much as possible, given that the purpose of attending an aquarium is to learn about those species and the habitats from which they came. The purpose of going to MarineLand, on the other hand, is about watching animals performing amusing tricks, and when the animals are done performing their tricks, they don't go back to a tank that replicates their natural habitat (i.e. the ocean), but merely the equivalent of a large holding pen. Most animals at MarineLand will know, or at least perceive in some way, the differences between the tanks they live in and the ocean, whereas fish in an Aquarium are probably totally oblivious to the fact that they're not in their natural habitat.
Click to expand...

I think it's an open question whether, to the fish themselves, the Aquarium is a fair approximation of their natural habitat. It is, after all, an Aquarium, not their natural habitat. Whether that matter of fact difference is a difference to them is...arguable. But put it this way: fish have evolved to maximize their survival in one particular kind of environment; when that environment is changed it's likely that certain behaviors and inclinations they have in their natural habitat--perhaps ones of which we're not yet entirely aware given the sheer complexity of evolutionary 'design'--will be compromised.

Either way, I was admittedly confusing what Marineland does with this Aquarium, assuming that it'll have larger sea mammals etc. The situation is considerably different given that the Aquarium won't have Marineland-like attractions.
 
The pictures above seem to indicate the retail portion is starting construction now ?
 
I think Miscreant that your argument for the treatment of the animals as individuals is worth considering; however, in terms of general animal welfare I actually believe that these kind of facilities have greater value than dollars for entertainment. The greater context is that we are decimating and altering the "natural" environments left for these creatures. There is or will soon likely be nothing left of "nature" or "the wild". The fate of all living organisms will soon be near entirely in our hands.

Given this context the relationships we build with creatures, particularly those of the sea which we can't really observe in their natural environments anyways, really and truly does matter. Seeing these creatures in nature documentaries simply isn't enough. That is like saying watching movies of people or interacting with people exclusively over the internet is enough to establish strong relationships and emotional bonds.
 
TrickyRicky said:
I think Miscreant that your argument for the treatment of the animals as individuals is worth considering; however, in terms of general animal welfare I actually believe that these kind of facilities have greater value than dollars for entertainment. The greater context is that we are decimating and altering the "natural" environments left for these creatures. There is or will soon likely be nothing left of "nature" or "the wild". The fate of all living organisms will soon be near entirely in our hands.

Given this context the relationships we build with creatures, particularly those of the sea which we can't really observe in their natural environments anyways, really and truly does matter. Seeing these creatures in nature documentaries simply isn't enough. That is like saying watching movies of people or interacting with people exclusively over the internet is enough to establish strong relationships and emotional bonds.
Click to expand...

Great points. An aquarium has the ability to teach generations of children what it is that is so worth protecting.
 
TrickyRicky said:
I think Miscreant that your argument for the treatment of the animals as individuals is worth considering; however, in terms of general animal welfare I actually believe that these kind of facilities have greater value than dollars for entertainment. The greater context is that we are decimating and altering the "natural" environments left for these creatures. There is or will soon likely be nothing left of "nature" or "the wild". The fate of all living organisms will soon be near entirely in our hands.

Given this context the relationships we build with creatures, particularly those of the sea which we can't really observe in their natural environments anyways, really and truly does matter. Seeing these creatures in nature documentaries simply isn't enough. That is like saying watching movies of people or interacting with people exclusively over the internet is enough to establish strong relationships and emotional bonds.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. Your general point is a good and subtle one. I agree with many of the factual remarks you make, but I don't agree with the implications you draw from them about how we should evaluate the Aquarium.

For one, I agree with the larger context you put into perspective--we're decimating our natural environment. Though I don't go so far to say that there won't be, never mind isn't right now, anything left of nature. Ontario alone is a massive province, and driving through it to Manitoba is should suffice to show how much untamed wilderness there truly is--and it's obviously only a mere fraction of the world's wilderness preserves. So by extension I don't agree with your claim that there'll soon be nothing left of 'nature.'

Even so, your argument obviously doesn't stand or fall on this point. The real point to take away from your post, as I understand it, is that our changing relationship with nature--one that involves our increasing dominance over and control of it--does make the need to forge real relationships with other creatures and nature as a whole more pressing. I wholeheartedly agree.

But the irony, as I see it, is that building an aquarium doesn't improve this unfortunate situation but rather exacerbates it: I'm not sure there's a better example of human dominance over nature than building an artificial reservoir wherein fish can roam for the visual enjoyment of urbanized human beings. That's to say that I ultimately reject your claim that seeing these creatures in nature documentaries isn't enough. In fact, I think nature documentaries are an ideal way to teach children and adults about the importance of the natural habitats of species that are so different from us. An aquarium, in other words, manifests the very the problem that you bemoan in your post. If we really want to forge a relationship with these species, it's imperative that we enjoy them in the wild where they ultimately belong.
 
canmark said:
Toronto Star: Biologists hunt for sharks for Toronto's new aquarium
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top