Should zoos keep potentially invasive species?

I appreciate that this might not be a popular opinion, but I whole-heartedly applaud the decision of Oklahoma Zoo to plan to maintain Raccoon Dogs.

For some of the reasons mentioned above, I'm not persuaded that the possible escape of the species into the Oklahoma countryside would bring environmental or public-health catastrophe.

@Giant Panda, whose posts here (as always) I enjoy very much, asks why the species should be maintained in a zoo, given that there is no conservation need to do so, and possibly no educational need either (although I would disagree with this). My answer to this question would be that I - and, I think, others too - like to be able to see animals such as Raccoon Dogs. Not because they're rare. Not really because I can learn something from doing so (although I think I can learn from such an opportunity). But because they're fascinating animals, beautiful animals, and for the time I spend observing them, I feel enriched. A few years ago, I was lucky enough to see them in the small zoo in Solingen (close to Wuppertal) in a nicely-designed exhibit, alongside another at-risk species (the Raccoon). They looked great - and I was certainly not alone in finding them to be massively appealing. My worry is that the focus on invasive species in the EU means that several species that are familiar, popular and, yes, enriching, will be no longer available to be seen for future generations - Coatis, Chipmunks, Raccoons, and more.
 
I can’t think of any other examples of escaped zoo animals becoming invasive. One example I thought of was Pacific lionfish in the Atlantic but that was apparently 6 privately owned individuals that were dumped during hurricane Andrew in 1972. And even then, they didn’t become a major issue until this century. With 2 terrestrial mammals, I feel the risk is very low of them becoming an issue that we would be unable to contain in the unlikely event of both animals escaping. After they escape, they’d have to survive in the wild after a life in captivity and outcompete native fauna, breed, and those offspring would have to survive as well ALL while the government and the zoo would be attempting to recapture them. Very unlikely and negligible in terms of assessing risk when planning an exhibit in my opinion.
 
I don't have the time (or possibly intellect) to reply to this raft of new posts, but I just wanted to thank their contributors. It was a pleasure to read so many thoughtful responses*.

*Even if they were all disagreeing with me :D
 
I think, in the particular case of the raccoon dogs, it depends on whether or not it is a single-sex or mixed-sex group. Very few zoos in the US keep raccoon dogs, so as long as it is a single-sex group, an escape has no chance of creating a breeding population.

On the other hand, I think it could potentially be irresponsible for OKC to breed them. We can’t say for certain whether or not they would become invasive if they escaped, but the possibility is there. Europe has small carnivores too, albeit not as many as in the US, and the States has even more trash for them to live off of. The fact that they are invasive in a similar environment is the best indicator we have, and it suggests that precautions should be taken.

Additionally (unrelated to specific topic), I don’t think OKC should breed them because if they spread to other zoos they might take space away from other canids that need it more. Personally, I would have rather seen dholes than raccoon dogs.
 
sooty mangabey said:
I appreciate that this might not be a popular opinion, but I whole-heartedly applaud the decision of Oklahoma Zoo to plan to maintain Raccoon Dogs.

For some of the reasons mentioned above, I'm not persuaded that the possible escape of the species into the Oklahoma countryside would bring environmental or public-health catastrophe.

@Giant Panda, whose posts here (as always) I enjoy very much, asks why the species should be maintained in a zoo, given that there is no conservation need to do so, and possibly no educational need either (although I would disagree with this). My answer to this question would be that I - and, I think, others too - like to be able to see animals such as Raccoon Dogs. Not because they're rare. Not really because I can learn something from doing so (although I think I can learn from such an opportunity). But because they're fascinating animals, beautiful animals, and for the time I spend observing them, I feel enriched. A few years ago, I was lucky enough to see them in the small zoo in Solingen (close to Wuppertal) in a nicely-designed exhibit, alongside another at-risk species (the Raccoon). They looked great - and I was certainly not alone in finding them to be massively appealing. My worry is that the focus on invasive species in the EU means that several species that are familiar, popular and, yes, enriching, will be no longer available to be seen for future generations - Coatis, Chipmunks, Raccoons, and more.
Click to expand...

Although I tend to fall into the Giant Panda camp (tripping on bamboo tent pegs), it's hard to argue with this post. One of the highlights of last summer was time spent at a similar enclosure at Bern Tierpark.

However, racoon dogs are already invasive to central Europe, so there is a clear educational opportunity, as well as the human enrichment (I like that) of seeing the animal itself. I'm sure Sooty was much the happier for them being alongside racoons, but most visitors would be equally happy with just the latter. Indeed, when I saw a similarly active exhibit of just racoons at Gelsenkirchen later in the summer I couldn't say I was any less uplifted, although admittedly I did miss the 'challenge' of separating the two species.
 
Last edited:
FunkyGibbon said:
I'm sure Sooty was much the happier for them alongside racoons, but most visitors would be equally happy with just the latter.
Click to expand...

....and barring any reverse in the legislation, within the decade they will have to be happy with neither :( which, incidentally, brings me to one of the more pertinent illustrations of why the new EU regulation is frankly barmy.... both species, although invasive in central Europe, reached this status through escapes from fur farms and *not* zoological or private collections, despite the raccoon in particular having been held in vast numbers for centuries :p
 
Personally I'm not that thrilled about Oklahoma getting raccoon dogs as they're the ABC small carnivores in Chinese zoos (if lucky enough you may even spot a wild one in Shanghai Zoo). However, I do believe there are more reasons to justify keeping raccoon dogs than that a small community of zoo enthusiasts would love to see them (For the specific situation of Oklahoma, as we know neither the enclosure design nor their source of animals I think it's too early to judge).

First, the fact of raccoon dog being a proven invasive species itself warrants the educational value of exhibiting these animals. If potentially invasive species should ever be allowed in captivity, I hope they are kept in a accredited facility serving such purposes. In the case of raccoon dogs, it's interesting to note that though being a least concern species as a whole, their numbers are declining in part of their native range in spite of being an invasive species in Europe. I tell a similar story about alligator snapping turtles every time when I give tours of Smithsonian's national zoo to my friends, which I find stirs more interest and discussion than merely stating it's a invasive species. Second, as US zoo visitors are familiar with raccoons, exhibiting raccoon dogs could tell a great story about convergent evolution. (Also a more applicable case for a zoo than the more classic cases such as dolphin vs. ichthyosaur or thylacine vs. wolf.;)) Besides, raccoon dogs are very unique animals. They are a basal canid species. They climb trees. They are the only canids that hibernate. They hold a special place in Japanese culture... Just to name a few.
 
Absolutely yes, of course. Think that zoos shouldn't keep invasive species very much like think that medicals and pharmaceutics should not use medicines (because they are made from plants that are medicinal = poisonous, many of them potentially lethal). And the same goes for the peanut-brained idiotic trolls that made the law phasing out species from zoos obligating to sterilize them for making them disappear completely from Europe (Reeves's muntjack, common racoon, etc).

The ones that don't should keep invasive species are private breeders without experience or with little care, smaller non AZA zoos without much prevention, etc. But professionals about keeping species restrained and contained, why on Earth they shouldn't?
 
Northern Palm Squirrel became an established invasive population due to them being released as free ranging animals at Perth Zoo, and then eventually leaving the Zoo grounds for the sourunding suburbs.
 
It's pretty tough for animals to escape from the zoo, let alone a breeding population. Even so, don't states like Hawaii and Florida restrict animals that can be exhibited in zoos? I guess I don't see why zoos shouldn't keep invasive species.
 
animal_expert01 said:
Northern Palm Squirrel became an established invasive population due to them being released as free ranging animals at Perth Zoo, and then eventually leaving the Zoo grounds for the sourunding suburbs.
Click to expand...

That population was not invasive, the squirrels survived in the zoo grounds primarily and although they were occasionally seen in the surrounding suburbs they never persisted there because of the local cats. And the population within the zoo has now died out, naturally.

:p

Hix
 
To be fair any animal can be invasive at the right place even endangered species such as Chinese salamanders in Japan or large animals such as camels. The irresponsibility of some individual, or accidents shouldn't be a reason to eliminate the captivity and trade of certain species of animals, especially those that are distinct (depending on region) such as brush-tail possums (would make a great marsupial ambassadors due to their moderate size and easy breeding) and raccoon dog.

Also the EU ban is like Japan's ban on invasive species on a lower level
 
PossumRoach said:
The irresponsibility of some individual, or accidents shouldn't be a reason to eliminate the captivity and trade of certain species of animals
Click to expand...

Why not? If the species in question is devastating enough to the area around where it is being held it arguably should be.
 
FunkyGibbon said:
Why not? If the species in question is devastating enough to the area around where it is being held it arguably should be.
Click to expand...
So is it okay if the trade of domestic swine, horses, and house cats is totally abolished because some people let them loose?

inb4 they have been domesticated for thousand of years so it is "acceptable"
 
Last edited:
PossumRoach said:
So is it okay if the trade of domestic swine, horses, and house cats is totally abolished because some people let them loose?

inb4 they have been domesticated for thousand of years so it is "acceptable"
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what I was implying at all....

It seems obvious it's all about risk: the likelihood of a given species escaping/being released multiplied by the consequence of that happening. Given that the consequences seem to divide into two broad camps, little to none (the species is recaught, dies out or establishes a small population with no significant impact) and devastating (species causes local extinctions by outcompeting or predating on other species, potentially leading to larger ecological collapse), and given that over time the likelihood of escapes/releases is basically going to be 100% (even hyper-secure facilities will screw up eventually, although I admit the devil is in the detail with the 'eventually'), it makes sense to similarly divide species into at least three groups: can be kept, can only kept by licensed/professional individuals and can never be kept. Obviously, this is region specific because both likelihood and consequence will be totally different in different areas.

To take an extreme but reasonable example:
let's say we have a small island with a unique biota, that has somehow either never had invasive species or they've been eradicated and it currently exists in a 'pristine' state. Given what we know from history, I would argue it would be a moral necessity to make sure that cats and pigs (from your example) never got anywhere near its shores. Horses, on the other hand, would seem to be fairly low risk, as long as there's no question of disease transmission.

I think that's a long way from arguing that the trade of those species be 'totally abolished'.
 
Sorry for assuming your implications Funky. I am just mad about USFW's idiotic injurious species list. While I do agree about banning the trade of uncontrollable or hermaphrodite creatures such as the zebra mussel or giant African land snails (despite wanting to have one), it is something completely arbitrary when small local events on island ecosystems such as Hawaii or NZ become a reason to ban the trade of Java sparrows or brush-tail possums on mainland US while cat owners enjoy their freedoms despite the damage their animals male. That is the reason why I have a beef against alien species bans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top