Modern Obligation for Zoos is Ex-situ Captive Breeding of Threathened Species: Your Opinion

N

Nikola Chavkosk

Well-Known Member
Your opinion zoochatters,

Do you think that modern zoos in this modern and challenging time, should be obliged to try to obtain to keep and breed threathened species who are not yet in captivity and if can be expected that such animals will eventually florish in captivity? Because zoos are one of the major, if not the most important factor, for conservation of animal species.
I mean obligation also in regards to legistlation (not just moral obligation) and help from governments or supranational bodies like for example the European Union, in obtaining new threathened species that supposedly can be successfully kept in captivity, and for increasing the number of founders for animals already present in captivity in small numbers.
Some examples of such animals:

African forest elephant
West African giraffe
Eastern lowland gorilla
 
Last edited:
I would think most zoos would be eager to jump on such projects; as would many staff working in them. HOWEVER the crux of the issue is money.

If there was government backing for such projects I'm sure they'd be taken up eagerly (so long as provided finances are long-term stable and of suitable amounts).
In general I think many zoos already try to do this within their means, but not every zoo has the staff and facilities for proper reintroduction programes; though they could at least form part of breeding groups holding stock.


The other issue is one of space and staff. Many zoos are already tightly packed into corners with limited expansion room; and since many older zoos are often in or near urban areas the land that they can get access to is often at a premium price (because developers will pay high prices for such land). So it could well be that it would take a lot of financial backing to allow a zoo to purchase extra land to have expansion space to allow for such projects. That's without construction and staffing costs on top.


It's a fantastic idea, however any obligation would have to account for the zoos own specific situation; its current stock and purpose and provision of funds for such projects.
 
That would be a great idea, but something to keep in mind is besides critically endangered species, zoos also have an obligation to the animals they already have currently. The west african giraffe is critically endangered, but a zoo taking them in probably already has giraffes, which are vulnerable a facility that has the capacity to keep eastern lowland gorillas probably already has western lowland gorillas, and so on.
 
I think zoos in the EU are required to participate. I am however not sure what it exactly means.

Of course, reintroduction, bot internationally and nationally endangered species is very important. But usually overlooked are raising public interest in conservation and raising funds for field conservation.
 
Something else to keep in mind is the potential impact on wild populations of capturing animals for zoos. One would have to weigh the potential benefit of an ex situ population against the potential harm of causing further decline in the wild populations by collecting individuals. There is an ethical side to that concern as well; one would have to be fairly certain that their methods of creating an assurance population in captivity is not contradictory to the overall goal of preserving that species.
 
Nikola Chavkosk said:
:) Because zoos are major, or the most important factor for ex-situ conservation of animal species. Not most important factor for conservation of animals in situ - because here governments play the biggest role (?)
Click to expand...
ah fair enough then. I overlooked the connection to ex-situ in the thread title.
 
For mammals and birds, no. In fact it is not a modern obligation but a concept that comes from last century and leaders in the field such as Durrell, New York Conservation Society and San Diego have long ago moved to the majority of work being done in-situ, including conservation breeding programs. There are good reasons for this including:

Cost: often much cheaper in the home range
Disease: less chance of introducing an exotic disease from captive releases.
Adaption: Captive animals don't have to adapt to unnatural climatic conditions, diets etc then adapt back when returned for release.
Meta-population management: Much easier to institute meta-population management, whereby animals move to and from captive and wild populations to maintain genetic health of both.

Of course there may be political or other reasons why it is not possible to work in-situ.

These animals may still be in the "home zoo" as ambassadors or for husbandry or other research, and the zoo running the program will often provide expert advice as well as financial support. More than likely they will be running the program in partnership with other international organisations as well as local organisations.

Lower vertebrates and invertebrates however often offer opportunities for extensive ex-situ programs, and there are numerous examples around. Of course it may be that the zoo is in the range of an endangered species such as San Diego was with the California Condor, while Australian zoos have numerous opportunities for in-situ programs.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
Something else to keep in mind is the potential impact on wild populations of capturing animals for zoos. One would have to weigh the potential benefit of an ex situ population against the potential harm of causing further decline in the wild populations by collecting individuals. There is an ethical side to that concern as well; one would have to be fairly certain that their methods of creating an assurance population in captivity is not contradictory to the overall goal of preserving that species.
Click to expand...
I think this is the heart of the matter right here.
HyakkoShachi said:
That would be a great idea, but something to keep in mind is besides critically endangered species, zoos also have an obligation to the animals they already have currently. The west african giraffe is critically endangered, but a zoo taking them in probably already has giraffes, which are vulnerable a facility that has the capacity to keep eastern lowland gorillas probably already has western lowland gorillas, and so on.
Click to expand...

Space is certainly limited and this would be a major concern. And with the concerns with keeping elephants in captivity capturing forest elephants would likely be a pretty hard sell.
 
Certainly an ex-situ breeding program would have to consider the current in-situ populations and viability of them. One would hope and expect zoos to source their populations responsibly and it would be counter-productive for them to damage wild stocks to bolster their own.
However a species at a point where zoo acquisitions would cause such harm to the wild populations is likely in a near extinct situation. At that point the question should likely be if habitat (its normally habitat loss) and conditions in the wild are recoverable before the species is extinct or not - ergo if an in-situ program is superior.
IF its not then such a species should be at the top of the list to have individuals removed into a captive breeding program, even if the wild populations then falter even worse. Because at that point you're likely down to a handful of individuals and a captive breeding system would at least allow a stock of individuals to be built up in relative safety whilst habitat is protected (as habitat protection is typically going to be slower and harder to achieve).

Of course with the difficulties of habitat protection; with its high costs and often political nature one also has to them match that against the limited resources zoos have in terms of finances and space. It might well be that in such a situation its better to let the species run into extinction (esp if its a subspecies) and to instead focus resources on other endangered, but more likely to prosper, species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top