Red Panda
- Thread starter Birini
- Start date
My guess is that the red panda was supposed to be and instead they accidentally added it to the Chinese pangolin.
To be honest though I'm against walkthrough habitats in most cases. Although zoo guests in general are more respectful of their surroundings than they might be in parks or museums or whatever, I still think it puts too much faith in the public to not be a nuisance to the animals. I've noticed in a lot of zoo walkthroughs many of the animals stay as far as possible away from the paths and people.
I have built red panda exhibits with glass tunnels through them with climbing structures over the tunnel. The visitors and red pandas love them 
Both Knoxville Zoo in America and the Chengdu Panda Base in China (pictured below) keep red pandas in walkthrough enclosures:
Weird... thamks for the link, I learnes something new.
Columbus Zoo allows (for a zoo-sustaining price, obviously) the opportunity for the keepers to bring the pandas over and interact with the crowd.
I think the important key is that Zoo pandas in such situations are (a) never going to be released to the wild and (b) have been trained since birth to accept and even appreciate human interactions. That works against the natural shyness. They serve as the ambassadors to their wild cousins that zoo folk like to talk about: the idea being that if people come up close and personal with such a cute and personable animal, they will be more willing to help protect endangered species everywhere.
All the more reason an overhaul for animal-human interactions in-game would be awesome.
Problem is: is it possible for the engine?
I personally don't think that is a good idea.
Red panda's are not cats or dogs, that have learned to live with humans over many decades. Panda's are shy animals and should keep that instinct.
Animals like a panda interacting with humans won't help a single panda in the wild either, and educating like mentioned can also be done from a distance and does not need a close interaction.
Zoo's should know better that certain animals are not suited for this kind of interaction (like birds can be).
That's my opinion on this.
We should not domesticate such an animal is my opinion. That's why they should keep that instinct.
A wild animal should still remain wild. And should not be treated as a cuddly toy IMO just because they look cute.
And with good habitat design there should be no reason for the animal to be skittish all the time.
They still can get used to human presence (from a distance), but should not be introduced to each other with actual physical contact.
I would be fine with having such a thing in the game though, but in real life I don't think it's okay to introduce animals and humans in such a way.
Last edited:
This may seem like splitting hairs, but what they are doing is decided not domesticating. That takes hundreds of thousands of years and many generations. Dogs and cattle are domesticated, cats considered semi-domesticated (anyone who has ever lived one can tell you how true this is). Also, I know a few zookeepers and literally all of them go into the industry for love of the animals. I don’t know a single one who would allow an animal to be abused or used “as a cuddly toy.” They strive to give the animals the best lives they can, despite circumstances defining they have to live in different circumstances from their wild counterparts. The only reason they would allow red pandas to be part of an interactions is because in many generations of research, they’ve come to the conclusion that the animals live happier lives by being part of the program.
Fair enough. I still believe it's not good practice from a personal perspective.
If you want to be able to release animals to the wild, having them getting familiar with humans is counterproductive, as they will not flee when they get close to humans in the wild, which could lead to situations that are more dangerous for the animal concerned. (for instance poaching). (although there aren't many animals being released in the wild in real life , it still one of the main targets to achieve for many zoo's).
Having a walk through with a possibility with close contact is fine, but I don't think we should encourage such behaviour. And that is where I leave it.
Edit: ps. i'm totally fine with it if anything like this gets into the game.
Last edited:
It doesn't, it can be done in only a few generations (check out the silver fox). Domestication is a process which requires selective breeding, i.e. choosing for the animal what traits to pass along. What LN is talking about is more akin to taming, a completely different ball game (and essentially what happened to Asian elephants in some cultures - they can't be truly domesticated because it takes two years to produce offspring). In any case a lot of zoos have up-close encounters with certain species, but the interaction between visitor and animal is usually limited and most importantly supervised. There isn't really a suitable game mechanic to simulate this properly anyway.
In any event the purpose of a zoo is not just to display an animal or even to educate (though that is an important role). Breeding programmes, especially for animals like the red panda, exist to create an insurance population against extinction. The idea is to maintain a genetically diverse population in captivity and encourage natural behaviours in the event that we can one day release animals back into the wild. An excess of human interaction is counterproductive to this goal, and there is a lot of debate within the zoo community as to how much interaction, even between keepers and animals, is too much.
I’m an economist by trade. The definition of “domestication” I’ve always used is the process of turning a wild animal into a pet or farm animal. Selective breeding can be done with zoo animals — in fact it is — but simply selective breeding Bengal tigers does not domesticate them. If there is debate, it seems significantly less in the US to be honest but that may be a minor view. The idea is about animal livelihood and the need to create a backup population or releasable animals is an entirely different story. Those animals are handled differently from birth.
The cool thing about dogs is that they became the Most powerfull supporters on the planet.
Many of the addaptations are Generally usefull and even wild dogs dont necesseraly act like wolfs or other wild canids (check the stays of moskau if interested), having gained a more universal social intelligence, making them not only adaptable but good at cooperation with many diffrent species as well as each other.
Also eyecontact makes them and whoever they locked eyes with less stressed and more happy.
Truly magnificent creatures
Many of the addaptations are Generally usefull and even wild dogs dont necesseraly act like wolfs or other wild canids (check the stays of moskau if interested), having gained a more universal social intelligence, making them not only adaptable but good at cooperation with many diffrent species as well as each other.
Also eyecontact makes them and whoever they locked eyes with less stressed and more happy.
Truly magnificent creatures
I'm not sure what being an economist has to do with anything. I used to be a zookeeper. Selective breeding in terms of domestication is completely different to selective breeding of zoo animals. Zoo animals are not selectively bred in the same way - they are selectively bred for the purpose of genetic diversity, for the sake of the insurance population. Studbooks exist to ensure the maximum amount of genetic diversity occurs. In domestication, artificial selection of specific traits is used to maximise docility and utility, and more recently appearance. You'd never see a German shepherd occur naturally.
As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you mean by "handled differently at birth". All zoo animals are part of breeding programmes, if they are being bred. Red pandas are an endangered species.
Domestic dogs are not a different species from wolves, they are a subspecies (Canis lupus familiaris).