China and Their Giant Pandas

[Zygodactyl]

In the end you just look for a reason to ask New Zealand to send more native species abroad while there is no other reason for it than your personal pleasure.

DDCorvus gets it dead right with his last sentence.

New Zealand doesn't have any need for the native species to be established in overseas zoos.

This attitude sounds rather similar to the attitude that the Born Free guy expressed about zoos in general. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is in Italy, the Pyramids are in Egypt, and polar bears are in the Arctic Circle. While it is my view that some of New Zealand's conservation measures are potentially problematic long-term (a single feral cat killed over 100 short-tailed bats in a week, highlighting the weakness of in-situ conservation when the major problem is predators), my complaint regarding their refusal to allow least concern species to be exported in small numbers is that it seems to be without conservation benefit, much like their refusal to allow male, non-venomous, tropical snakes in domestic zoos.

There is only one conservation reason to send New Zealand's species abroad and even that is for fund-raising reasons, but except for the Kakapo I cannot imagine any being particularly suitable for raising a lot of income and the Kakapo's ecology makes it quite unsuitable for that role.

Wattlebirds, short-tailed bats, weka, and tui all seem like strong candidates for raising awareness of New Zealand's fauna. They're all cute, all slightly weird-looking, and all personable: three factors which seem essential for awareness-raising species. (And when I watched the David Attenborough documentaries Life of Birds and Life of Mammals for the first time about a year ago I realized that these species are even more charming when you see them in action.)

I'd argue that education in itself is a valid goal. I'm obsessed with animals yet I never heard of any of those species before I out of undergrad. Is it a coincidence that with the exception of the kakapo (which became internationally famous thanks to Last Chance to See) and the extinct moas and huia, all the New Zealand species I'd heard of until well into adulthood are at least occasionally found in zoos outside the country (for the record they are kea, kaka, kakariki, kiwi, and tuatara). How many people will go through their lives without having heard of these species? Even if it has no conservation benefit, I'd argue that most people being ignorant of such interesting species is a loss in itself. (The same also goes for the bushwren, rifleman, and stitchbird, which while not interesting for most people to look at are interesting birds.)

Likewise, the blue duck, New Zealand pigeon, rifleman, and bellbird also won me over the first time I encountered them (again, as an adult), however they're more typical-looking birds (even if they're interesting in ways other than their appearance), which may make them less appealing to visitors. (And if any of them were in Attenborough documentaries, I apparently find them more forgettable.)

With rare exceptions - e.g. takahe on North Island islands like Titiritiri or Kapiti - the islands are still part of the species' natural (exisiting or former) ranges.

The takahe case was in the back of my mind, but I was specifically thinking about the kakapo program. In fact I mentioned that while the kakapo program is ex situ the stitchbird is in situ, indicating that I do know the difference.

My point is that the kakapo lives on on offshore islands where it never lived naturally (even the Stewart Island population which saved the species was likely introduced), and which have to be cleared not just of introduced predators, but of the native and endangered weka as well. While I love the kakapo and am happy that it's been saved on these offshore islands, I feel like the fact that these islands were needed highlights the value of ex situ conservation, even in New Zealand. (On a related note, I also do not understand why Hawai'i has not yet tried to create predator-free islands on those islands northwest of the main chain for some of its endangered birds.)

 

[Giant Panda]

island populations of native species in NZ are not ex-situ (either Zygodactylus doesn't really know what it means or he is trying to be clever). With rare exceptions - e.g. takahe on North Island islands like Titiritiri or Kapiti - the islands are still part of the species' natural (exisiting or former) ranges. They are reintroductions, albeit many species' populations are managed nationally (e.g. individuals moved between or to new islands to maintain numbers and genetic diversity)..

To be fair to Zygodactyl, many would define conservation translocations as an example of ex situ conservation.

 

[Zygodactyl]

I see translocations to areas of a species' former range as a gray area personally. Yes, they used to live there, but it was a different population that may have been different in a variety of minor ways. However moving a species to a place where there's no evidence it ever lived is definitely ex situ conservation.

 

[Coelacanth18]

In terms of the strict definition of in situ and ex situ, whether the animal was originally in that area or not would be the decisive factor in determining which it is. However, there is a difference between releasing animals into a protected area and letting them survive on their own, and intensive management and control of their environment and population. I can see why the latter would still be considered in situ, but I think the distinction is relevant.

 

[Giant Panda]

I see translocations to areas of a species' former range as a gray area personally. Yes, they used to live there, but it was a different population that may have been different in a variety of minor ways. However moving a species to a place where there's no evidence it ever lived is definitely ex situ conservation.

Well now to be fair to Chlidonias(!), I don't think you can say it's "definitely" ex situ. By "conservation translocation", incidentally, I meant translocation to an area outside the former range for species conservation purposes, as opposed to "reintroduction" which is within the former range and "assisted colonization" which infers newly habitable range. There are those who regard even reintroductions as ex situ conservation, but I'm inclined to agree that it's a grey area not really worth worrying about.

 

[jibster]

My point is that the kakapo lives on on offshore islands where it never lived naturally (even the Stewart Island population which saved the species was likely introduced), and which have to be cleared not just of introduced predators, but of the native and endangered weka as well. While I love the kakapo and am happy that it's been saved on these offshore islands, I feel like the fact that these islands were needed highlights the value of ex situ conservation, even in New Zealand. (On a related note, I also do not understand why Hawai'i has not yet tried to create predator-free islands on those islands northwest of the main chain for some of its endangered birds.)

I think you're making far too much of the fact that the kakapo is not native to the offshore islands - besides the fact that the islands may lie slightly outside the kakapo's historic range, there is little else about the kakapo's situation that compares to the sort of ex situ conservation you are advocating (i.e., zoo conservation). The kakapos are on islands with the same (or substantially the same) climate and vegetation and are far from a "captive population" - I would call them managed, and they are managed in a location as close to truly in situ as is possible. To not acknowledge the great difference between such management and the establishment of intensively managed captive populations seems rather silly.

As to your point about the conservation value of New Zealand's unique fauna (particularly avian) and your desire for captive populations to boost awareness, I have to question whether your particular viewpoint and experience are the most relevant when considering this. You obviously are not the typical zoogoer (much like I myself and probably most of the other readers of these forums), and while I do not doubt that you and some others would love to see these species, I doubt whether any of them are so "charismatic" that they could substantially impact public awareness more than the limited species already in non-NZ collections. Is there really any significant institutional interest outside of NZ in keeping these non-endangered species, especially when collections worldwide are being thinned to smaller and smaller numbers of species (not to get into that argument here, but when space is limited and ex situ populations maintained as insurance populations require numbers sufficient to maintain genetic diversity if they are to have much conservation value)? What is there specifically about the wattlebird, weka, or tui to engage the public awareness? If any argument was to be made for a flagship species that could raise public awareness, I would argue that the most value would come from a truly popular species like one of the endangered NZ penguin species (not that I'm arguing that there should be ex situ captive populations of these penguin species, but that such species could be the best and most effective way of raising public awareness given the popularity of penguins to the public). I simply do not believe there is much to gain from a conservation perspective by establishing ex situ populations of these common species, particularly when most zoos do so little to emphasize conservation when presenting those NZ species already present in collections. From my own experience, most zoos containing the limited NZ species currently established do little to emphasize the plight of NZ wildlife on a larger scale, and I see no reason to suspect that the addition of these species would change that.

Having said all that, I fully realize that my words are likely falling on deaf ears, as others have made several of these same points. I admire your passion for these underknown and underrepresented species (I share a similar interest in birds and lament the huge loss of species from captivity due to institutional neglect or lack of interest), and I don't suspect that anyone can (or even should) change your mind on this. From a practical standpoint, however, I maintain that there is little of true conservation value to be gained from the addition of such species to collections outside of New Zealand.

 

[Chlidonias]

regarding the above few posts, NZ's offshore islands are literally right offshore, some by as little as a few hundred metres, others by a few kilometres - they were continuous with the mainland until the sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age. Species found on the mainland were also found on the islands until wiped out there by either Maori hunting, the introduction of rats, or European hunting. Even some moa species were still found on the larger offshore islands when Maori arrived. As an example, the Stephen's Island wren was found widely throughout the country and only by the time of European arrival was it restricted to Stephen's Island - and when Europeans arrived that tiny island still retained populations of piopio, saddleback and kokako amongst other "mainland" birds.

The only bird on the offshore islands which is actually outside its natural (current or former) range for conservation purposes is the takahe which is an exclusively South Island species (and maybe orange-fronted kakariki on one of the North Island islands). All others are either translocations or reintroductions, depending on how you want to define the two terms in the situation.


With regards to a couple of other points, one was made by Zygodactyl that New Caledonian owlet-nightjars should be established on offshore islands "like New Zealand does" (not an exact quote). New Zealand's situation is fairly unique because it has a multitude of suitable islands either ready for moving species to, or which only need mammals removed, or sometimes which need to be revegetated first. Lots of islands! New Caledonia does not - it has a few, and I doubt most would be suitable for the purposes, even if the owlet-nightjar still exists and if any could be found and removed from a population of unknown size.

Second was the question posed up-thread a little by Zygodactyl, "On a related note, I also do not understand why Hawai'i has not yet tried to create predator-free islands on those islands northwest of the main chain for some of its endangered birds." - this would acually be introductions to islands outside their natural ranges, not at all comparable to NZ. I realise you were not making that direct comparison but there are all sorts of likely reasons apart for the obvious one of possible side-effects on the endemic animals of those other islands. For example, one of the major problems for Hawaiian birds is avian malaria, the main reason few of them occur in lowlands any more. It doesn't matter which island they are on, they still won't be able to survive the disease unless the islands have enough altitude. Also the islands are very diverse in habitat - clearly dry islands would not be suitable for rainforest birds and vice-versa, so just because there are islands there doesn't mean much with knowing a bit more than "there are islands there".

 

[jibster]

Good points, Chlidonias. I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Hawaiian archipelago with regards to smaller offshore islets and the such, but as you point out (a thought that had occurred to me as well), any island would have to be either mosquito-free (which is unlikely if the island is vegetated enough to support the forest required for many of the species) or have sufficient highland forest to sustain a population of the species in question. I have little doubt that the people working on conserving Hawaiian native bird populations would have attempted such translocation(s) if it were possible.

Speaking of the Hawaiian avian situation, I stumbled upon an interesting New Yorker comment that touches upon this:

Could Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Save Hawaii’s Endangered Birds? - The New Yorker[/QUOTE]

 

[Zygodactyl]

Is there any evidence that the kakapo ever lived on offshore islands? I'm aware of no subfossil remains from those islands, and the fact that the native (and again, endangered) weka has to be removed for the kakapo to survive on those islands suggests strongly that those islands are not the kakapo's natural abitat.

New Caledonia (like New Zealand but unlike Hawai'i is a continental fragment). Consequently, there are a large number of small islands/large islets off every part of Grand Terre except the northwest coast. And even there, I count at least three reasonably-sized islands and a few smaller islets in the vicinity of Port Boquet Bay.

With regards to Hawai'i, you do have a point. I was thinking that there might be more islands like Nihoa, some without endemic species. However of course the reason Nihoa has such high rates of endemism is because of its size. Clearly a different strategy is needed. I wonder whether it would be possible to eradicate predators and avian malaria on Molokai. (New Zealand is great at eradicating predators, the US excels at eradicating diseases when human lives or livestock are threatened; it seems potentially plausible.) It has fewer than eight thousand people and a wide range of habitats; it's the smallest of the main islands (both population and area wise) which isn't completely arid. It has a number of endangered species of its own, and several recently extinct species with close relatives on other islands.

 

[Giant Panda]

regarding the above few posts, NZ's offshore islands are literally right offshore, some by as little as a few hundred metres, others by a few kilometres - they were continuous with the mainland until the sea levels rose at the end of the last ice age. Species found on the mainland were also found on the islands until wiped out there by either Maori hunting, the introduction of rats, or European hunting. Even some moa species were still found on the larger offshore islands when Maori arrived. As an example, the Stephen's Island wren was found widely throughout the country and only by the time of European arrival was it restricted to Stephen's Island - and when Europeans arrived that tiny island still retained populations of piopio, saddleback and kokako amongst other "mainland" birds.

The only bird on the offshore islands which is actually outside its natural (current or former) range for conservation purposes is the takahe which is an exclusively South Island species (and maybe orange-fronted kakariki on one of the North Island islands). All others are either translocations or reintroductions, depending on how you want to define the two terms in the situation.

Very interesting, but presumably the translocated populations couldn’t persist without human-mediated gene-flow, in which case I’d classify them as “assisted colonization” rather than “reintroductions”. Both would be “conservation translocations”, hence why I initially used the term. In general, I follow the sensible and widely-accepted nomenclature outlined in this excellent (and brief) paper: https://www.ecoevol.ufg.br/up/102/o/2014_Seddon_et_al_Science.pdf

@Zygodactyl: I've enjoyed your discussions, but politely suggest that disagreeing with Chlidonias about New Zealand's birdlife is a bad idea.

 

[Chlidonias]

Is there any evidence that the kakapo ever lived on offshore islands? I'm aware of no subfossil remains from those islands, and the fact that the native (and again, endangered) weka has to be removed for the kakapo to survive on those islands suggests strongly that those islands are not the kakapo's natural abitat.

I'm not in a position right now to look at historical records, but in general subfossil deposits are not obtained from offshore islands - they largely come from caves, swamp deposits, or midden sites on the mainland.

The reason weka are often removed from offshore islands isn't because they cannot coexist with other species under natural systems, it is because the more endangered species are currently far less common than they would have been in the past. If you have 50 kakapo on an island and that is your world total, then you don't leave a predator in that population. If the island supports 700 kakapo and you have that many there, then you can leave weka on island. Another point is that weka were quite widely moved around and onto islands by Maori and after that by sealers, as a food source for themselves, so at least some of the island populations are not there "naturally" anyway.

 

[Chlidonias]

Very interesting, but presumably the translocated populations couldn’t persist without human-mediated gene-flow, in which case I’d classify them as “assisted colonization” rather than “reintroductions”. Both would be “conservation translocations”, hence why I initially used the term. In general, I follow the sensible and widely-accepted nomenclature outlined in this excellent (and brief) paper: https://www.ecoevol.ufg.br/up/102/o/2014_Seddon_et_al_Science.pdf

@Zygodactyl: I've enjoyed your discussions, but politely suggest that disagreeing with Chlidonias about New Zealand's birdlife is a bad idea.

it depends on the species.

Some species depend largely on human assistance (e.g. stitchbirds are only properly self-sustaining on Little Barrier Island, probably because the smaller islands don't provide enough food sources for large populations; and in many other species individuals are moved between islands - i.e. all the island groups are treated as a single population, particularly for ones like takahe, kakapo and kokako, basically the ones with the smallest total populations).

For small birds, for some larger birds which can move themselves around (e.g. kaka), and obviously for reptiles and invertebrates, island populations can be entirely self-sustaining and provide a source for further introductions to other islands.


Zygodactyl can disagree with me all he likes, but as with anyone I will point out where he is misguided (as I expect anyone to do with me).

 

[Zygodactyl]

@Zygodactyl: I've enjoyed your discussions, but politely suggest that disagreeing with Chlidonias about New Zealand's birdlife is a bad idea.

It's much more interesting to argue with people who know more than I do about a topic than those who know less. And I don't question that he knows a lot more about me. In some cases he's demonstrated that I was making an ass of myself, as with Hawai'i's bird conservation efforts and the European Unions bird-import policies.

When it comes to New Zealand, Chli has told me a number of things I didn't know, such as the fact that subfossil remains aren't usually found on offshore islands but some moa fossils have been, and the fact that the Steven's Island wren once inhabited the North and South Islands. However nothing that he's told me has persuaded me that I'm wrong here, and in fact I think that the issue is one of underlying philosophies rather than facts. And given that Childonias has tended to agree with the New Zealand government in most cases where I've criticized them, I imagine that this difference in values is at least partially a cultural thing.

To me, I look at the kakapo conservation program and see a brilliant ex situ program which handled the difficulties of conserving a species which breeds poorly in aviaries. Chli sees it as an in situ program. It's an argument over definitions (we'd both agree the program is innovative and successful), however I believe that conservationists are generally too hostile to ex situ conservation, and unwilling to call a spade a spade, while Chli seems to genuinely believe that the kakapo's preservation efforts do not constitute an ex situ conservation effort and is willing to argue the term.

To me, I look at the sudden onset of blackhead disease in the last population of heath hens, of chytrid fungus among the world's amphibians, of the Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease in wild devils (and to this I can add avian influenza in Hawai'i thanks to Childonias), and I see disease as a terrifying and great unknown that can set back conservation work rapidly. I don't think Childonias has directly addressed this, but I could see how a reasonable person would argue that: 1. most species aren't wiped out by sudden unexpected diseases and 2. we have pressing issues which are current now. (I would counter that highly-specialized species with limited genetic diversity seem to be particularly prone to such diseases, which makes me much more worried about disease where New Zealand's fauna is concerned than most other endangered species.)

I see a single feral cat kill over a hundred New Zealand short-tailed bats in over a week and think: "all you need is one predator to wreak havoc; this is an argument for more ex situ conservation of the species." Note that here I only argued for more New Zealand zoos breeding the bats as a useful safeguard (only Aukland does AFAIK), though I'd certainly be overjoyed if a few foreign zoos got to breed them as well. New Zealand's government saw the incident it as a reason to redouble predator-eradication efforts in protected territory.

I look at the refusal of New Zealand to export its native species to foreign zoos--even when a few can be spared without harming wild populations/breeding programs--and I see parochialism and misguided moralism. The arguments Chlidonias and others have made against exporting the likes of tui and riflemen (essentially "they're New Zealand birds; come to New Zealand if you want to see them") sound to me like the arguments Will Travers of Born Free makes against zoos in general.

Zygodactyl can disagree with me all he likes, but as with anyone I will point out where he is misguided (as I expect anyone to do with me).

In that case, I'll note that I'm still not sure why you think the New Zealand model couldn't be exported to New Caledonia. I don't see this as a difference in values; I'm genuinely baffled by your thinking here. New Caledonia has quite a lot of offshore islands and a geological and biological history that is quite close to New Zealand's. If translocation saved the kakapo, why shouldn't it be tried for the owlet-nightjar? For that matter, why shouldn't it be tried for some of New Caledonia's other predator-threatened species, such as the crow honeyeater?

I also have a question for you (or two) that I think might come down to another difference in values but I'm still going to ask, since it's a case where you might potentially change my mind. New Zealand does not allow even male, non-venomous, tropical snakes in New Zealand zoos. (I think I learned this from you actually.) Frankly, I think that A. being either exclusively male or tropical should prevent any issues with escapes, B. that snakes which escape in cities won't cause problems for New Zealand's wildlife unless they breed and escape to the countryside over several generations, and C. that New Zealand zoos are fully capable of designing snake-proof enclosures. I therefore see it as a absurd, an example of conservation policy New Zealand employs which is completely without any scientific merit. What are your views on this policy, and what is your response to my criticism of it?

 

[Giant Panda]

For small birds, for some larger birds which can move themselves around (e.g. kaka), and obviously for reptiles and invertebrates, island populations can be entirely self-sustaining and provide a source for further introductions to other islands.

If an island can support a sustainable translocated population, and it was within the species' historic range, that does raise the question of why the original population went extinct. I'll accept translocations as reintroductions if a freak event extirpated an otherwise sustainable population, but if the island was never within the historic range or couldn't be within the current range without continued management, I maintain such translocations are assisted colonization.

Zygodactyl can disagree with me all he likes, but as with anyone I will point out where he is misguided (as I expect anyone to do with me).

Fair enough.

 

[Chlidonias]

If an island can support a sustainable translocated population, and it was within the species' historic range, that does raise the question of why the original population went extinct. I'll accept translocations as reintroductions if a freak event extirpated an otherwise sustainable population, but if the island was never within the historic range or couldn't be within the current range without continued management, I maintain such translocations are assisted colonization.

generally extinctions on islands were caused by introduced mammals, usually rats (either European or Polynesian), sometimes in combination with cats. Added factors were hunting for food or (for European hunters) museums, and clearing of the island for farming. Basically they are all human-caused extinctions. Many endemic invertebrates and reptiles have relict populations in different parts of the country because intervening ones have been eliminated by rats. Almost every island around NZ had or has rats on it, and a lot of them have/had cats, pigs and goats.

For example, the Stephen's Island birds I mentioned earlier were largely wiped out by cats introduced by the lighthouse keepers (the island never managed to get rats due to its steep cliffs which prevent boat landings, so the cats fed almost solely on birds) - there is a tale oft-repeated about "a lighthouse keeper's cat" but there were actually hundreds on the island. The birds the cats didn't get were eliminated by museum collectors.

On Big South Cape Island in the far south black rats wiped out almost everything in a few years, causing the total extinction of greater short-tailed bat, Stewart Island snipe and bush wren. The South Island saddleback, by then existing solely on that island, was saved through a last-minute translocation (the few bush wrens and snipe captured did not survive the translocation attempt).

The species which do not have self-sustaining populations on islands are, in general, because the islands do not have mature forest yet - e.g. Tiritiri Matangi has been revegetated from farmland, so cannot support the same numbers or species yet as it could have before it was cleared. Takahe are a special case because the island birds are really there for advocacy purposes

 

[jibster]

To me, I look at the kakapo conservation program and see a brilliant ex situ program which handled the difficulties of conserving a species which breeds poorly in aviaries. Chli sees it as an in situ program. It's an argument over definitions (we'd both agree the program is innovative and successful), however I believe that conservationists are generally too hostile to ex situ conservation, and unwilling to call a spade a spade, while Chli seems to genuinely believe that the kakapo's preservation efforts do not constitute an ex situ conservation effort and is willing to argue the term.

I'm going to leave most of your arguments aside, Zygodactyl, as a difference of opinion. Just one brief point - you seem to be frustrated that NZ does not allow its non-endangered avian species to be exported, but do not make a compelling argument as to why it should (simply that there is no scientific justification behind its policy). There are so many factors beyond mere science that could influence such a decision and the argument "I want to see them in zoos outside NZ" doesn't seem a compelling counterargument.

As to the ex situ/in situ argument regarding the kakapo, I agree that it is an argument over definitions, but I don't agree with your point regarding conservationists being too hostile to ex situ conservation as a result. Even if one were to agree that the kakapo program was properly considered ex situ, I doubt that many (or any) conservationists would take issue with it for that reason alone. As you yourself note, the kakapo is a species that could/would breed poorly in aviaries -so what kind of ex situ program other than the program currently set up would you think could work? You seem to argue that because this one species would seem to require an arguably ex situ program, therefore all conservationists should view ex situ programs more favorably - but this argument does not logically follow, especially when a typical ex situ program in this case would likely have little or no success.

 

[Giant Panda]

generally extinctions on islands were caused by introduced mammals, usually rats (either European or Polynesian), sometimes in combination with cats. Added factors were hunting for food or (for European hunters) museums, and clearing of the island for farming. Basically they are all human-caused extinctions. Many endemic invertebrates and reptiles have relict populations in different parts of the country because intervening ones have been eliminated by rats. Almost every island around NZ had or has rats on it, and a lot of them have/had cats, pigs and goats.

Which I should have considered, of course. In that case, I'll ignore the literature and call (some of) them reintroductions rather than assisted colonization. Or conservation translocations, which circumvents the problem.

 

[Chlidonias]

I'll only address some paragraphs from Zygodactyl's post:

When it comes to New Zealand, Chli has told me a number of things I didn't know, such as the fact that subfossil remains aren't usually found on offshore islands but some moa fossils have been...

not exactly what I said (or meant). What I meant was that subfossil remains usually come from mainland sites, not that they are not usually found on islands. There is a considerable difference between the two. However, generally speaking, most NZ islands are fairly small so suitable deposit sites would be rare.

However nothing that he's told me has persuaded me that I'm wrong here, and in fact I think that the issue is one of underlying philosophies rather than facts. And given that Childonias has tended to agree with the New Zealand government in most cases where I've criticized them, I imagine that this difference in values is at least partially a cultural thing.

not a cultural thing at all and I certainly don't agree with the government in everything - however your basic argument (unless I missed some point you were making) is that NZ birds should be sent overseas so people can see them in zoos and you think this will be a "safeguard" in case something happens to them in NZ. You couldn't possibly be persuaded that you are wrong in that because it is just your personal viewpoint. For me, and for many other people who have the conservation of the species' as their concern, I don't see the need for that. NZ species can be conserved perfectly well within NZ. The only value in having them overseas is so people can look at them.

I look at the refusal of New Zealand to export its native species to foreign zoos--even when a few can be spared without harming wild populations/breeding programs--and I see parochialism and misguided moralism. The arguments Chlidonias and others have made against exporting the likes of tui and riflemen (essentially "they're New Zealand birds; come to New Zealand if you want to see them") sound to me like the arguments Will Travers of Born Free makes against zoos in general.

not really. It is just the basic difference between someone who just wants to see an animal in a zoo and someone who doesn't see any reason why they should be sent to zoos. It is of no benefit to the wild populations, so there's no point to it other than so people can look at them in a zoo. I think you also did miss the point I made earlier about resources. NZ is not going to go out and capture a bunch of wild tui to send them overseas. Only captive-bred animals would be exported, so there would need to be a captive-breeding programme established in order for overseas zoos to get tui - it would be a massive waste of money and space.

In that case, I'll note that I'm still not sure why you think the New Zealand model couldn't be exported to New Caledonia. I don't see this as a difference in values; I'm genuinely baffled by your thinking here. New Caledonia has quite a lot of offshore islands and a geological and biological history that is quite close to New Zealand's. If translocation saved the kakapo, why shouldn't it be tried for the owlet-nightjar? For that matter, why shouldn't it be tried for some of New Caledonia's other predator-threatened species, such as the crow honeyeater?

I don't think a NZ-style model wouldn't work, but I also don't think that New Caledonia has as many suitable islands as you think it does. Just looking at a map and saying "ooh, lots of islands" isn't the same as knowing what is really there. I don't know either, but I simply did not think that New Caledonia had adequate islands for the purpose. Maybe it does, in which case that's all good.

I also have a question for you (or two) that I think might come down to another difference in values but I'm still going to ask, since it's a case where you might potentially change my mind. New Zealand does not allow even male, non-venomous, tropical snakes in New Zealand zoos. (I think I learned this from you actually.) Frankly, I think that A. being either exclusively male or tropical should prevent any issues with escapes, B. that snakes which escape in cities won't cause problems for New Zealand's wildlife unless they breed and escape to the countryside over several generations, and C. that New Zealand zoos are fully capable of designing snake-proof enclosures. I therefore see it as a absurd, an example of conservation policy New Zealand employs which is completely without any scientific merit. What are your views on this policy, and what is your response to my criticism of it?

I think it's a bit stupid, but I also don't really care. NZers don't go to a zoo and think "What?No snakes?!" and for myself I'm perfectly happy having no snakes allowed. Your points B and C are not good though - in both cases they plainly leave the option of snakes escaping and becoming established.