Malayan Tapirs in Australia
- Thread starter Coquinguy
- Start date
Like you, glyn, I would like to see our zoos NOT give up on Malayan tapirs, but I'm frustrated by the apparent lack of any hard scientific findings on the blindness issue. Everyone's just assuming that it is just as a result of excessive sunlight, (and it probably is,) but what if there is something more involved?
Can't one of our universities be prevailed on to carry out some research on this? Or is there some study in existence which I'm not aware of?
Can't one of our universities be prevailed on to carry out some research on this? Or is there some study in existence which I'm not aware of?
i think the assumption is based on a lot of anecdotal evidence from around the world which indicate that pretty much only australian zoos have had this problem (with a few exceptions)...i dont think the hole in the ozone layer helps much
i dont think a uni would be bothered doing a study into it. however, many excellent studies into the biology of malayan tapirs already exist....shy, nocturnal rainforest dwelling animal....makes you wish that instead of using horse veils to try and cure the problem the zoos had bothered to ground the design of their enclosures in biological knowledge and give the animals a more approtriate environment.
i think an enclosure of the sort of darkness that the zoo uses to exhibit small mammals in the cats of asia area would have been better for tapir. and all that uses is a full roof and bamboo clumps on three sides
i dont think a uni would be bothered doing a study into it. however, many excellent studies into the biology of malayan tapirs already exist....shy, nocturnal rainforest dwelling animal....makes you wish that instead of using horse veils to try and cure the problem the zoos had bothered to ground the design of their enclosures in biological knowledge and give the animals a more approtriate environment.
i think an enclosure of the sort of darkness that the zoo uses to exhibit small mammals in the cats of asia area would have been better for tapir. and all that uses is a full roof and bamboo clumps on three sides
Sorry to burst your bubble but as all 3 of these fig trees are heritage listed the area could not be used for the Malayan Tapir. The deer are not reknown for chewing on bark whereas the tapir would definately have chewed the bark and the trees would have been ring barked and killed within 12 months. If you look closely at the middle tree it is already under some duress from the presence of the deer/substrate underneath it.
and trees that old are probably still recovering after the construction team of wild asia impacted severely on their root system...
on the other hand, and im not suggesting for a number of reasons that tapir should have gone where the chital are...but couldnt the zoo have logically protected the tree trunks like they do for just about every other tree in an animal exhibit?
on the other hand, and im not suggesting for a number of reasons that tapir should have gone where the chital are...but couldnt the zoo have logically protected the tree trunks like they do for just about every other tree in an animal exhibit?
ZYBen
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you have never seen the Large Fig tree in Adelaide Zoo's Tapir Exhibt, very healthy tree, no ringbarking.
ZYBen
Well-Known Member
I have a big Fig tree about the Sanctuary, with chew marks from tammar wallabies around almost the bottom of the whgole tree and its grown through a wire fence which is now embedded in the trunk, and its going strong (i can climb to the top of it) I am thinking of putting a cassowary enclosure around it, but will start a thread about that now.
Several Malayan Tapir exhibits I have experienced in European zoos have semi-forested enclosures with trees over-hanging the entire length and width of the exhibit. Why was this not contemplated in exhibit design in Australia?
Yes I've seen the tree,langurs and tapirs at Adelaide several times.
The Taronga fig trees are a different species of fig plus the impact of a water feature which is important to Malayan Tapir behaviour and health would have been problematic to the root system of the fig trees. Tapirs are individuals and their browsing behaviour can vary. I am not aware of the heritage regulations in South Australia but the horticulturists in New South Wales researched this option and were advised against housing the tapirs in this area.
this thread seems to have evolved from the status of malayan tapirs in australian zoos to why they have reached such critically low numbers.
one cannot help but feel zoos have not done enough with this species. as with pygmy hippo. to quote the adelaide zoo, "despite being a threatened species were not currently breeding pygmy hippo due to a lack of space in Australian zoos".
its a sentence that seems to sum up the precarious status of many exotic species in australian zoos. inbreeding and the inability to import further stock has left many species hanging close to regional extinction, even when phasing them out isnt the ideal.
in the case of the malayan tapir, as we know, import prohibitions or even lack of founders wasnt the main issue...with four founders plus two offspring this species could easily have been on track to become viable with just a few more participating zoos and unrelated bloodlines introduced. alot more viable than indian rhinos, for which Taronga has so far commited many millions of dollars to; a program beset with health and issues in sourcing stock.
sadly the tapir program never got to the stage of potentially viable, and were looking at losing a species to regional extinction which zoos clearly failed to meet the needs of, thus shooting themselves in the foot. its suprises me too, that even though you cant place a dollar value on animals, zoos are becoming increasingly commercial and yet they still risk 'investing money' in species and then lose profit by not managing them properly....if as a zoo supporter i became a share-holder of sorts id certiainly be jumping up and down. (just in keeping with the credit crisis theme).
the malayan tapir exhibit in wild asia at taronga is OK, but i think the tapirs have got a bit of a raw deal. the second exhibit is more of a gallery than an enclosure, and the glaring sun the tapirs were exposed to in this enclosure is one stark example of the zoo failing to provide the animals with approtriate conditions, or present them in their correct ecological context.
Wild Asia did suffer a number of setbacks in terms of acquiring species which never arrived...babirusa, spotted deer and almost the star attractions, the elephants. obviously, such problems beset wild asia's planners, as they had to allow for space for species only to find they werent coming after all. they must have breathed a sigh of relief when original plans to squeeze dhole in under the trees next to the chital (or phillipine spotted deer at that stage) were shelved.
wild asia is a wonderful exhibit but the tapirs are probably a good example of how the zoo probably tried to squeeze too many exhibits into one area. some more cynical member might even say that applies to elephants, though you know i disagree with this.
if Taronga was prepared to spend so much money on a tapir exhibit which will very likely soon be empty one would have thought that they would have perhaps tried to do it right...or not do it at all. its a wonder that the Greens, rather than attacking Taronga zoo for 'teenage elephant pregnancies' has angled their attack in these tight fiscal times to focus on how the zoo spends many millions of tax-payers dollars on purpose built enclosures which could soon be sitting empty because the zoo failed to realise that nocturnal forest dwellers cannot be displayed in full sun!
i understand that during the preliminary/conceptual stages of wild asia allowing the tapirs to mix with the elephants through log fences was suggested...this idea obviously didnt materialise. sadly, neither did a decent tapir exhibit.
timewise, the tapirs had well and truly their eye conditions by the time planning for Wild Asia was started. the zoo probably would refute my position by saying that at the time of construction it hadnt established what triggered the animals eye condition...either way, if a water feature couldnt have gone under the trees in what is currently the chital exhibit then i cant see why a 'tapir underpass' couldnt have been built to connect the tapir holding and pool with this shady exhibit, which would have resulted in the tapir having more space, a shady canopy and incidentally given the otters more space too.
as it is, we stand to lose one of the most exotic, strange and interesting large mammal species in australian zoos, and one for which Australian involvement in the international program would have been a viable option. unlike with endangered pygmy hippos, which taronga is apparently saving too
one cannot help but feel zoos have not done enough with this species. as with pygmy hippo. to quote the adelaide zoo, "despite being a threatened species were not currently breeding pygmy hippo due to a lack of space in Australian zoos".
its a sentence that seems to sum up the precarious status of many exotic species in australian zoos. inbreeding and the inability to import further stock has left many species hanging close to regional extinction, even when phasing them out isnt the ideal.
in the case of the malayan tapir, as we know, import prohibitions or even lack of founders wasnt the main issue...with four founders plus two offspring this species could easily have been on track to become viable with just a few more participating zoos and unrelated bloodlines introduced. alot more viable than indian rhinos, for which Taronga has so far commited many millions of dollars to; a program beset with health and issues in sourcing stock.
sadly the tapir program never got to the stage of potentially viable, and were looking at losing a species to regional extinction which zoos clearly failed to meet the needs of, thus shooting themselves in the foot. its suprises me too, that even though you cant place a dollar value on animals, zoos are becoming increasingly commercial and yet they still risk 'investing money' in species and then lose profit by not managing them properly....if as a zoo supporter i became a share-holder of sorts id certiainly be jumping up and down. (just in keeping with the credit crisis theme).
the malayan tapir exhibit in wild asia at taronga is OK, but i think the tapirs have got a bit of a raw deal. the second exhibit is more of a gallery than an enclosure, and the glaring sun the tapirs were exposed to in this enclosure is one stark example of the zoo failing to provide the animals with approtriate conditions, or present them in their correct ecological context.
Wild Asia did suffer a number of setbacks in terms of acquiring species which never arrived...babirusa, spotted deer and almost the star attractions, the elephants. obviously, such problems beset wild asia's planners, as they had to allow for space for species only to find they werent coming after all. they must have breathed a sigh of relief when original plans to squeeze dhole in under the trees next to the chital (or phillipine spotted deer at that stage) were shelved.
wild asia is a wonderful exhibit but the tapirs are probably a good example of how the zoo probably tried to squeeze too many exhibits into one area. some more cynical member might even say that applies to elephants, though you know i disagree with this.
if Taronga was prepared to spend so much money on a tapir exhibit which will very likely soon be empty one would have thought that they would have perhaps tried to do it right...or not do it at all. its a wonder that the Greens, rather than attacking Taronga zoo for 'teenage elephant pregnancies' has angled their attack in these tight fiscal times to focus on how the zoo spends many millions of tax-payers dollars on purpose built enclosures which could soon be sitting empty because the zoo failed to realise that nocturnal forest dwellers cannot be displayed in full sun!
i understand that during the preliminary/conceptual stages of wild asia allowing the tapirs to mix with the elephants through log fences was suggested...this idea obviously didnt materialise. sadly, neither did a decent tapir exhibit.
timewise, the tapirs had well and truly their eye conditions by the time planning for Wild Asia was started. the zoo probably would refute my position by saying that at the time of construction it hadnt established what triggered the animals eye condition...either way, if a water feature couldnt have gone under the trees in what is currently the chital exhibit then i cant see why a 'tapir underpass' couldnt have been built to connect the tapir holding and pool with this shady exhibit, which would have resulted in the tapir having more space, a shady canopy and incidentally given the otters more space too.
as it is, we stand to lose one of the most exotic, strange and interesting large mammal species in australian zoos, and one for which Australian involvement in the international program would have been a viable option. unlike with endangered pygmy hippos, which taronga is apparently saving too
Much of what Glyn has said deserves more comment than I will say at the moment, though I agree with a lot of what he says. I would just like to ramble on about something I think about a lot, that is creating a viable breeding program in a small region, like us, without creating problems with inbreeding etc. The tapir are a perfect case study.
Two apirs were originally brought in, they bred pretty quickly and then the eye problems started so the breeding was discontinued. It would seem that aside from that particular health issue, there is no reason why tapirs wouldn't breed well here.
My idea would be to bring in a number of regional founders at the same time, say unrelated pairs for each of the state owned city zoos, Melbourne, Taronga, Perth and Adelaide. If all goes well that would provide enough founders for three generations to be born here before you start running into the need for inbreeding. If you include NZ zoos, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be, you would have another four pairs. 8 unrelated pairs would almost wipe out the worry of inbreeding altogether. (breeding animals that are related 5 generations back is not really a problem). Space would be the main issue.
This is when you bring in the privately owned zoos, Mogo, Australia, Canberra, Cairns, The Wooloongong place, Dreamworld, Steve Robinsons place and I'm sure that there are couple of others.
If each of these places had a pair each that would mean a population of about 30 animals and I really cannot see why some places couldn't have extra animals (say three or four non breeding animals instead of a breeding pair) and perhaps extra animals could go to Werribee, Dubbo, Monarto.
If you get to a stage where new blood is needed, then unlike with pygmy hippos, it is possible.
Now all this is theory of course and practical considerations would cause problems I know but I would love to hear from some people who are more knowledgable than I about this. Can you see flaws?
As Glyn says Malayan Tapir are a fascinating, unusual animal that fits in perfectly with Australias quarantine restricions and the theme of zoos concentrating on SE Asia. Nor would they be as expensive as elephants. A bit of thought could solve this problem, unless there is something major that we know nothing about.
Two apirs were originally brought in, they bred pretty quickly and then the eye problems started so the breeding was discontinued. It would seem that aside from that particular health issue, there is no reason why tapirs wouldn't breed well here.
My idea would be to bring in a number of regional founders at the same time, say unrelated pairs for each of the state owned city zoos, Melbourne, Taronga, Perth and Adelaide. If all goes well that would provide enough founders for three generations to be born here before you start running into the need for inbreeding. If you include NZ zoos, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be, you would have another four pairs. 8 unrelated pairs would almost wipe out the worry of inbreeding altogether. (breeding animals that are related 5 generations back is not really a problem). Space would be the main issue.
This is when you bring in the privately owned zoos, Mogo, Australia, Canberra, Cairns, The Wooloongong place, Dreamworld, Steve Robinsons place and I'm sure that there are couple of others.
If each of these places had a pair each that would mean a population of about 30 animals and I really cannot see why some places couldn't have extra animals (say three or four non breeding animals instead of a breeding pair) and perhaps extra animals could go to Werribee, Dubbo, Monarto.
If you get to a stage where new blood is needed, then unlike with pygmy hippos, it is possible.
Now all this is theory of course and practical considerations would cause problems I know but I would love to hear from some people who are more knowledgable than I about this. Can you see flaws?
As Glyn says Malayan Tapir are a fascinating, unusual animal that fits in perfectly with Australias quarantine restricions and the theme of zoos concentrating on SE Asia. Nor would they be as expensive as elephants. A bit of thought could solve this problem, unless there is something major that we know nothing about.
You've hit the nail on the head, jay.
What we need ( and never seem to get) is sufficient founders to get off to a flying start, not only with Malayan tapirs but with all exotic species.
There are a couple of reasons for this; one is the sheer expense, and the other is the relevant difficulty of obtaining unrelated animals from overseas compared to just acquiring young from another Autralian zoo.
Nevertheless, sooner or later someone is going to have to bite the bullet on this, or we're going to lose the lot.
What we need ( and never seem to get) is sufficient founders to get off to a flying start, not only with Malayan tapirs but with all exotic species.
There are a couple of reasons for this; one is the sheer expense, and the other is the relevant difficulty of obtaining unrelated animals from overseas compared to just acquiring young from another Autralian zoo.
Nevertheless, sooner or later someone is going to have to bite the bullet on this, or we're going to lose the lot.
That's true and the sumatran tigers are a perfect example of that. Almost all the animals in the region are descendents of or mated to descendants of just two pairs. These two bloodlines are so intertwined now that they may as well be just one bloodline. The exceptions are the breeding pair at Dreamworld and the three cubs at Australia Zoo that were brought in from Indonesia. These three especially are very valuable as they are from wild caught animals and so not related (as such) to any animals in captivity in the world. I'm hoping that all three won't be bred to the excisting bloodline in the region. If one was bred to a cub from Dreamworld, another to say the Perth or Auckland cubs and the third to a another bloodline from outside the region we would have bloodlines that are not so entwined.
Hi guys, I’m new here, but I thought I needed to add:
I did work experience at Taronga in June, in the carnivores division, which also meant Tapiars. Denise has a very nasty lung infection that she had contracted from rat pee. When I was there, mucous was coming out of her nose, and she was getting blood tests/ultrasounds etc. She wasn’t out very frequently because she was lying down in her holding facility most of the time.
She had pressure sores on her elbows because she couldn’t lie on her side and breathe. But they had been able to make this better and she was able to lay on her side for short periods of time.
It is possible that she was in her holding facility while you where there? She wasn’t in the exhibit with the Koi, with the glass viewing into the big pond thing? She was In the other one, while I was there at least.
Poor Denise.
I did work experience at Taronga in June, in the carnivores division, which also meant Tapiars. Denise has a very nasty lung infection that she had contracted from rat pee. When I was there, mucous was coming out of her nose, and she was getting blood tests/ultrasounds etc. She wasn’t out very frequently because she was lying down in her holding facility most of the time.
She had pressure sores on her elbows because she couldn’t lie on her side and breathe. But they had been able to make this better and she was able to lay on her side for short periods of time.
It is possible that she was in her holding facility while you where there? She wasn’t in the exhibit with the Koi, with the glass viewing into the big pond thing? She was In the other one, while I was there at least.
Poor Denise.