Also kept by Racine.
Zoobat Collections (N. America)
- Thread starter Coelacanth18
- Start date
Milwaukee County Zoo has
Common vampire bat
Ruwenzori long-haired fruit bat
Straw-colored fruit bat
Common vampire bat
Ruwenzori long-haired fruit bat
Straw-colored fruit bat
I was surprised to see an exhibit for Greater Spear-nosed Bats (Phyllostomus hastatus) at Winnipeg's Assiniboine Park Zoo last week. A rarity these days.
TheEthiopianWolf03
Well-Known Member
What species is the AZA currently focusing on for captive breeding?
Here is the regional-collection plan for the AZA bat tag.
https://www.battag.org/uploads/6/2/7/6/6276216/rcp_bat2015-8f8ee468-final.pdf
What zoos were planning on bringing in Black Flying Fox and California Leaf-Nosed Bat? Did this ever happen? Also an interesting note that in 2015 there were 0 Mexican Free-Tailed Bats listed in US zoos whereas now San Antonio has a good sized group.
I think it's a shame that that the Pallas's Long-Tongued Bat, Grey-Headed Flying Fox, and Ruwenzori Rousette are not planned to be worked with by AZA zoos in the future, with the latter two being active phase-out programs. All are very cool species and the flying fox is listed as Vulnerable. I'm bummed I missed them at the National Aquarium, I think they're the only collection with them...
Interesting to see that the Marianas Flying Fox is being looked at as a potential species, though I'm fairly certain there's a ban on exporting the species which is why we never received any.
~Thylo
I think it's a shame that that the Pallas's Long-Tongued Bat, Grey-Headed Flying Fox, and Ruwenzori Rousette are not planned to be worked with by AZA zoos in the future, with the latter two being active phase-out programs. All are very cool species and the flying fox is listed as Vulnerable. I'm bummed I missed them at the National Aquarium, I think they're the only collection with them...
Interesting to see that the Marianas Flying Fox is being looked at as a potential species, though I'm fairly certain there's a ban on exporting the species which is why we never received any.
~Thylo
According to the RCP, there are still 4 institutions that plan to work with nectarivorous bats; it is suggested that they all move to keeping one species so as to ensure future availability. Pallas's is the recommended species because it has the largest population. Grey-Headed Flying Fox as said is only at one institution and there are already 4 flying fox SSPs that are all in need of additional space as it is. They are vulnerable, but since their home range is Australia I think it's less of a concern (the Aussies have the resources to handle their own conservation issues). The Ruwenzori bats have never been properly managed (including hybridizing with Egyptians) and there is currently an overcrowding issue with Rousettus bats, so they are phasing out Ruwenzori in addition to reducing the Egyptian rousette population.
I also missed the GHFFs at National Aquarium, and spent a solid 30 minutes searching for them...
Is it technically an import though, since the Northern Mariana Islands are a U.S. territory? They are under the jurisdiction of USFWS.
Yeah but three of those species aren't endangered whereas Grey-Headed is. My understanding is that NAiB randomly takes the bats off-exhibit often with no given reason.
Indeed but I believe the Marianas themselves refuse to export any of the bats. It sort of surprises me how few endangered species from US controlled islands are actually represented in US zoos. The Marianas might have the most representation with six bird species whereas Hawaii (not counting Hawaiian zoos) is only represented by three waterfowl as well as an individual owl at LA which may be gone and Hawaiian Crow at San Diego WAP which may be gone, and Puerto Rico only has the woodpecker at DWA, a couple amazons at Brookfield, the toad at a handful of zoos, maybe coquí here and there, and maybe the boa here and there.
~Thylo
True, but the other three populations exist and Grey-Headed does not. TAGs usually operate on status quo; they almost always support the continuation of large, existing captive populations in favor of phasing in new ones, regardless of conservation status. Personally I'd rather see a phase-in of an even more threatened species, like Mariana (a native species) or Livingstone's/Lyle's, two threatened species already held in European zoos.
It is certainly a shame, especially about the Hawaiian birds. There are in situ conservation projects for most of these species, at least. Also one thing to note: the amazons are at Lincoln Park, the other Chicago zoo; they have been contributing financially and logistically to the in situ breeding facility in Puerto Rico for a long time.
The thing is TAGs focus on populations that have had significantly fewer founders than 9.13 so I've never really bought that whole excuse of not having enough blood to sustain the population wholeheartedly. There also are other foreign populations of the species outside of Australia, namely in Israel, and imports are obviously possible. It's just a personal issue I have, as you said, though I know it's all much easier said than done. It seems the vast, vast majority of phase-in programs (many of which are for species already held and breeding in Europe) get canceled before they ever take off. Owston's Civet, Jaguarundi, and Vicuña all come to mind, with at least the latter two having had holders already lined up.
Yes, Lincoln Park, I don't know why I repeatedly mix up the two despite knowing better
I do wish other zoos could get the amazons, especially in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.~Thylo
The thing is TAGs focus on populations that have had significantly fewer founders than 9.13 so I've never really bought that whole excuse of not having enough blood to sustain the population wholeheartedly. There also are other foreign populations of the species outside of Australia, namely in Israel, and imports are obviously possible. It's just a personal issue I have, as you said, though I know it's all much easier said than done. It seems the vast, vast majority of phase-in programs (many of which are for species already held and breeding in Europe) get canceled before they ever take off. Owston's Civet, Jaguarundi, and Vicuña all come to mind, with at least the latter two having had holders already lined up.
Yes, Lincoln Park, I don't know why I repeatedly mix up the two despite knowing better
~Thylo
Phase in’s have generally not happened in recent years. Really the only way see new species being brought in, is by having large imports to a single powerful institution (maleo at Bronx or island Iguana species at San Diego). Basically starting a program anyway, without explicit tag consent and slowly spreading it out to other institutions. Yet obviously this takes a large institutional commitment of time, space and funding. Plus it only works for the most powerful of zoos within AZA.
I think you're correct in many cases, but that's not the rule. Both Vicuña and Jaguarundi have still be imported into the US by smaller non-AZA collections as have species like Fanaloka, Javan Langur, and even Asiatic Lion in Canada. Nashville certainly isn't small but I don't know if I'd say they're one of the most powerful zoos in the AZA, yet they took in and have repeatedly bred Palawan Binturong and Banded Civet imported from Europe. There's also Minnesota and their Daurian Pika, though they abandoned that project. Those are larger zoos, yes, but not the powerhouses like SDZ and Bronx. I think it all comes down to interest and determination to make it happen at the end of the day. Most AZA zoos may shy away from importing a new species if the AZA and other zoos don't explicitly show interest, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Whether it should is another issue, but in the case of many bird and herp species one zoo's action has resulted in brand new programs across collections.
~Thylo
It's not about that so much as the fact that one population is already established and the other one isn't. It's easier, more reliable, and more cost-effective to maintain an existing population than to replace it with a new one. A GHFF program is certainly possible if zoos wanted to put in the resources for it, but I doubt they will when other species are readily available stateside.
Out of curiosity, are the bats at NAiB reproductive? I haven't heard of them producing any offspring, but if they are reproducing that could be a potential game changer.
Or to get a group of zoos to collaborate on a large import of a species, which is how a captive population of pangolins got established here recently (incidentally, this was also against TAG recommendations).
I agree that TAGs rarely recommend species be imported or phased in, which is why pretty much any import of a new species is against TAG recommendations initially.
I have no idea, though I suspect if they're capable they're being kept from doing so. That often is the case with many species set for phasing-out unfortunately. @jayjds2 might know more.
~Thylo
That said, bats make up such a large percentage of mammals, yet have barely any AZA programs or corresponding conservation/reaserch spending. Would love for more species to be brought in, as for many of the smaller bat species, only a few institutions, are needed for a program. Also I hope zoos can keep the Pallas’ program alive, as it would be a shame to have no nectar consuming bats in AZA zoos.
Also does anyone know what species are managed in EAZA?
Also does anyone know what species are managed in EAZA?
The bats have had no reproduction since 2005, according to a document (made in 2015). Idk if they are on contraceptives though.
Here is the list of EAZA breeding programs as of January 2018: https://www.eaza.net/assets/Uploads/CCC/Overview-EAZA-Breeding-Programmes-January-2018.pdf
The only EEP is for Rodriguez flying foxes, for which there is an SSP for the AZA as well. There is also a studbook for Livingstone's, which is only held at 3 institutions.
I would like to see a wider range of bat programs as well. This would, of course, require more zoos to hold a wider variety of bats, which I am also in favor of. In particular, I would like to see bulldog bats and nectar-eating bats spread to more institutions, as they really showcase the diversity of the order.
Obviously the pangolin import is likely not the model, zoos should follow when importing new species. But I do understand your point. Some tags such as this are more ripe for expansion than others. Earlier today on this forum i was discussing the bear TAG. Especially how it was important to reduce the amount of species held due to a lack of sustainability of basically any species. Yet the Bat TAG is doing pretty well. Most of the species have met their targets for population size.
My understanding of the EAZA is that it is a very, very, very different beast than the AZA. This is a bit obvious in massive diversity of odd species being worked with by zoos compared to the US. This link will give you an idea of what species are kept in European zoos but for actual program animals I believe they work with at least Livingston's, Rodrigues, and Lyle's Flying Fox.
~Thylo
Yep I do understand that. While AZA has its faults, its been much more successful at consolidating species in order to achieve larger populations with more holding spaces. That is helped though by 90% of zoos being in the same country, with a shared language. While we see a lot more diversity in EAZA, they seems much less willing to take hardlines (protected contact with elephants, bans on breeding white tigers/lions,...). Also much less willing to kick zoos out, which AZA has done a nice amount in recent years.