Tasmanian Devil Ambassador Program in Europe

[TeaLovingDave]

US do the same with sea otters and no one can argue with that.

And yet people do and have done so quite recently on this forum as I recall! Of course, the otter situation is a bit different as there is said to be a tourism element to the USFWS policy in this regard.

The only way European zoos can assist the program is to take post-reproductive animals and use them to educate people about the plight of the devils. Frankly breeding them is simply an ego-trip for the management of the zoo concerned.

And yet metaphorically going "we've got this" isn't an ego trip at all

In any case, you haven't addressed the main point I made - if every European zoo which has stock not bred in Australia is clogging up spaces which could be filled by surplus from Australia, why would Copenhagen be permitted to repeatedly send stock to collections such as Duisburg, Planckendael and Pairi Daiza, all of which have had multiple generations of Danish devils?

 

[HOMIN96]

I'm glad this thread got going like this. I couldn't respond earlier so now I have a lot to answer Even though some of the points were made already by others.

This is just a silly statement. I don't know the specifics of the European issue (re Copenhagen's breeding) - and no-one else here seems to either - but the entire point of sending older surplus devils out of Australia is to free up space in Australia's virus-free breeding programme for saving the species from extinction. Having overseas zoos filling available spaces with home-bred devils detracts from the conservation effort in Australia because then there would be nowhere for the older devils to be placed and they would then be using valuable spaces which should be being used by breeders.

Says what exactly?

@TeaLovingDave I think the Copenhagen breeding is not a problem for the Program as there will be more european holders than in the US. The arrival (from Australia) in Prague and the future arrival in Paris go in this way. Will see for Budapest and Edinburgh what happen.


What's the problem. Australia want to controle what is done with this species. I think it's a good thing.
US do the same with sea otters and no one can argue with that.

Generally, I see as much more beneficial to have multiple sub-programs on each continent, possibly all coordinated from Australia, as the oversea population can serve as the "last-resort safety" if some unexpected disaster happens. In both Europe and North America, there is a lot of high-quality institutions that could certainly aspire to breed them.

Later in the thread, there is a mention about two-year-long quarantine required by law that law can't be changed? I mean even now before transports through Europe we are required to do bunch of medical tests (some zoos even require some extra stuff to be done) so why not establish some medical protocol "what tests need to be done before the import can happen" do them and thus making the quarantine last not as long? Would it be that hard?

I completely understand that it is one of Australia's "signature animals" and they want to have certain control over it, but this can be done in other ways.

Some information for our Northern hemisphere friends.

I worked with Dasyurids, you don't have to school me on issues we face in breeding them

Frankly breeding them is simply an ego-trip for the management of the zoo concerned.

Of all the things we disagree on, with this one I have to disagree the most...You basically disregard all the work we as zookeepers do to provide animals with conditions suitable for breeding. Breeding anything is always a success and sign of good work, if management boasts with it as if it was mainly their success that is the second thing.

Also, how is it an ego trip overseas but in Australia it is fine just because it is a native species?

 

[Chlidonias]

It is really irrelevant how people on this thread feel or how they want to argue the point because apart for @MRJ nobody is actually involved in working with devils at all. I totally understand the reasoning that an overseas programme could be worthwhile and that people want to see them in overseas zoos, but an overseas breeding programme is simply not required and even if there was one then the logistics of importing devils back to Australia would make it incredibly unwieldy (or quite possibly, in the future, impossible) - the point of the programme is not to have devils in zoos, it is to have virus-free devils back in the wild.

This seems like one of those situations where people are focussing on "this animal needs a breeding programme in zoos" while ignoring that the breeding programme is already being taken care of effectively. One could also point out that if there are indeed enough European zoos which could provide space for a breeding programme as well as surplus Australian devils, as is being implied in this thread, then surely it would be more significant to use those breeding spaces for a species which actually does need one in (non-Australian) zoos rather than for a species which doesn't need a (non-Australian) breeding programme?

With regards to a couple of comments, I kind of feel that if you suggested to someone in the Australian devil programme that it was all being arranged in order to satisfy their egos, you wouldn't get a very good response back from them.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

I kind of feel that if you suggested to someone in the Australian devil programme that it was all being arranged in order to satisfy their egos, you wouldn't get a very good response back from them.

And if you suggested to the management of Copenhagen Zoo that they bred the species out of pure ego, the response would be no less angry

I don't think the Australian programme is egotistical, but nor do I think the concept that any European collection breeding the species would do so solely out of ego is true; my comment was meant to point out that the two stances come across no different. and no less wrong/reductive.

 

[FunkyGibbon]

It is really irrelevant how people on this thread feel or how they want to argue the point because apart for @MRJ nobody is actually involved in working with devils at all. I totally understand the reasoning that an overseas programme could be worthwhile and that people want to see them in overseas zoos, but an overseas breeding programme is simply not required and even if there was one then the logistics of importing devils back to Australia would make it incredibly unwieldy (or quite possibly, in the future, impossible) - the point of the programme is not to have devils in zoos, it is to have virus-free devils back in the wild.

I feel like these debates about Australian animals in European zoos always go south fast and I'm not quite sure why.

But:

I've highlighted the sentence in bold. Where else in the forum would we entertain the argument that literally no opinion other than the official one is worthwhile even contemplating? I mean no disrespect to @MRJ at all, but the idea that on a discussion thread there is no room for discussion or variation is unusual, to put it mildly.

Devils, as is typical for dasyurids, must be bred in their first year, and only reliably breed for three years. In captivity most live 6 to 8 years.
- There are around 300 animals (150 pairs) in the breeding program at any one time, spread between 5 breeding institutions. In addition there are between 150 and 200 non-breeding animals in other Australian zoos and up to 250 animals in semi wild and managed populations in Tasmania. So that is over 700 animals in the program in Australia.
- Analysis of breeding results in captive populations when the program was established showed that best breeding results were obtained when large numbers of animals were kept.

I really appreciate this information, there is much that was unknown to me. I'm really glad that the program in Australia is far more comprehensive than I previously understood. I assume that 150 pairs has been chosen because it's enough for a sustainable population in the long term?

I would like to make a couple of points, which despite my lesser experience are consistent with logic and possibly even reality.

1) It was initially stated that the reason that European facilities shouldn't breed is that the space in them was necessary for older devils. But given there are only six European zoos holding them, and given how comprehensive the Australian program is, with some facilities obviously holding large numbers of individuals (based on the figures presented), this just doesn't make sense.

The only way European zoos can assist the program is to take post-reproductive animals and use them to educate people about the plight of the devils. Frankly breeding them is simply an ego-trip for the management of the zoo concerned. Running an international breeding program would be a waste of time and money for everybody concerned.

2) Why should European zoos not breed devils and use them to educate the public? It would probably attract more attention, if only because babies are cute. And would having European zoos periodically exchange young animals really be more expensive than the institutions in question importing post-reproductive animals from Australia every four years?

- If you think it is difficult getting animals out of Australia you should try to get them in. I can't imagine devils from Europe ever being imported into Australia.

3) Whilst I think it extremely unlikely, one of the arguments for an ex-situ population would be as some kind of insurance. In the event that it was actually necessary to import devils I can only imagine it would become possible.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

It was initially stated that the reason that European facilities shouldn't breed is that the space in the was necessary for older devils. But given there are only six European zoos holding them, and given how comprehensive the Australian program is

...and, as I have already noted more than once, with the exception of the initial holder and Prague these valuable spaces *have* been filled by Europe-bred animals

 

[Chlidonias]

It is really irrelevant how people on this thread feel or how they want to argue the point because...

I've highlighted the sentence in bold. Where else in the forum would we entertain the argument that literally no opinion other than the official one is worthwhile even contemplating? I mean no disrespect to @MRJ at all, but the idea that on a discussion thread there is no room for discussion or variation is unusual, to put it mildly.

I think you misinterpreted the intention of my opening sentence in that post. I wasn't saying that it shouldn't or couldn't be discussed, I was simply saying that debating in this thread whether there should be a breeding programme in Europe will have no effect on the actual breeding programme. My sentence was just saying "the arguments entertained here do not change the situation that a European breeding programme is not considered necessary by the conservation effort".

 

[MRJ]

They were, but my point is that even if they had been given special permission to breed them, they would not have been allowed to disperse their stock to further collections if taking up spaces which could have been filled by surplus Australian stock was a concern, given the fact that the dispersal of Danish stock started *after* surplus non-breeding stock started being sent to the USA.

Moreover, Copenhagen has received fresh stock to boost their genepool in recent years, and as the first batch of Danish stock at other collections has aged and died off at collections such as Duisburg and Pairi Daiza, they have been sent further Danish stock - therefore maintaining the "clogged-up spaces" which they are suggested to comprise by MRJ

One thing I have come to realise over the years is that threatened species programs are always subject to political interference and the higher profile the animal the more likely that is. In the case of Copenhagen they benefit because their princess is an ex-Tasmanian. I would imagine the only influence the program managers had over Copenhagen was choosing which animals were to be sent to fulfil the quota decided by their political masters.

 

[MRJ]

Is there a good reason for not running it as an international program with breeders in Australia and abroad alike?

Yes, it is a waste of resources when there are so many endangered species that could benefit from similar programs.

 

[MRJ]

@MRJ, what is the long term goal or vision for the ZAA/ARAZPA (old) devil program?
Is there in back to in situ / reintroduction component at all (viz your reference to 250 animals in Tasmania and Tassie having few zoos ...?

Because nobody had any idea what the long term prognosis for the species was (or is) the program was set up as an insurance program so that a genetically viable population could be reintroduced if the species went extinct in the wild.

 

[MRJ]

And yet people do and have done so quite recently on this forum as I recall! Of course, the otter situation is a bit different as there is said to be a tourism element to the USFWS policy in this regard.



And yet metaphorically going "we've got this" isn't an ego trip at all

In any case, you haven't addressed the main point I made - if every European zoo which has stock not bred in Australia is clogging up spaces which could be filled by surplus from Australia, why would Copenhagen be permitted to repeatedly send stock to collections such as Duisburg, Planckendael and Pairi Daiza, all of which have had multiple generations of Danish devils?

Australia does not have to send older animals overseas. We could euthanise surplus animals or perhaps just release them, which for 4 year old captive-bred devils would be much the same thing.

Of course then there would be demands for young breedable animals to start an European program, given as you point out the number of animals in Copenhagen are not nearly enough to successfully establish a self-sustaining population. And where would they have to come from? The insurance program.

It is not my ego that is affected by the insurance program because we are only marginally involved in it. However it has been recognised internationally as an outstanding success and model.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

given as you point out the number of animals in Copenhagen are not nearly enough to successfully establish a self-sustaining population.

I don't think I *did* point that out it is worth noting that Copenhagen have a LOT more animals than they have been sending out to other European collections; last I heard, something like 5 or 6 breeding pairs plus varying amounts of offspring.

One factor which might be illuminating as to whether the policy *is* being reassessed or not would be to learn how old the animals which have arrived at Prague are - any idea, @HOMIN96 ?

 

[MRJ]

I'm glad this thread got going like this. I couldn't respond earlier so now I have a lot to answer Even though some of the points were made already by others.








Generally, I see as much more beneficial to have multiple sub-programs on each continent, possibly all coordinated from Australia, as the oversea population can serve as the "last-resort safety" if some unexpected disaster happens. In both Europe and North America, there is a lot of high-quality institutions that could certainly aspire to breed them.

Later in the thread, there is a mention about two-year-long quarantine required by law that law can't be changed? I mean even now before transports through Europe we are required to do bunch of medical tests (some zoos even require some extra stuff to be done) so why not establish some medical protocol "what tests need to be done before the import can happen" do them and thus making the quarantine last not as long? Would it be that hard?

I completely understand that it is one of Australia's "signature animals" and they want to have certain control over it, but this can be done in other ways.


I worked with Dasyurids, you don't have to school me on issues we face in breeding them


Of all the things we disagree on, with this one I have to disagree the most...You basically disregard all the work we as zookeepers do to provide animals with conditions suitable for breeding. Breeding anything is always a success and sign of good work, if management boasts with it as if it was mainly their success that is the second thing.

Also, how is it an ego trip overseas but in Australia it is fine just because it is a native species?

1. Generally I like to see conservation breeding programs that don't waste resources by duplicating the work of others and work with species where they can easily interact with the range country.

2. And if by cutting quarantine we introduce some unknown virus transferred from some other species where it is harmless, but proves to be devastating for dasyurids?

3. Sometimes, good zookeeping involves recognising when you should not allow animals to breed. We hold post-reproductive devils. My staff would love to breed them and it would certainly be beneficial to us in terms of visitation if we did. But we recognise that is not our role in the program and we have to put our egos aside.

 

[MRJ]

I feel like these debates about Australian animals in European zoos always go south fast and I'm not quite sure why.

But:

I've highlighted the sentence in bold. Where else in the forum would we entertain the argument that literally no opinion other than the official one is worthwhile even contemplating? I mean no disrespect to @MRJ at all, but the idea that on a discussion thread there is no room for discussion or variation is unusual, to put it mildly.



I really appreciate this information, there is much that was unknown to me. I'm really glad that the program in Australia is far more comprehensive than I previously understood. I assume that 150 pairs has been chosen because it's enough for a sustainable population in the long term?

I would like to make a couple of points, which despite my lesser experience are consistent with logic and possibly even reality.

1) It was initially stated that the reason that European facilities shouldn't breed is that the space in them was necessary for older devils. But given there are only six European zoos holding them, and given how comprehensive the Australian program is, with some facilities obviously holding large numbers of individuals (based on the figures presented), this just doesn't make sense.



2) Why should European zoos not breed devils and use them to educate the public? It would probably attract more attention, if only because babies are cute. And would having European zoos periodically exchange young animals really be more expensive than the institutions in question importing post-reproductive animals from Australia every four years?



3) Whilst I think it extremely unlikely, one of the arguments for an ex-situ population would be as some kind of insurance. In the event that it was actually necessary to import devils I can only imagine it would become possible.

1. They could but why expect the Australian conservation program to be disrupted to supply them with viable breeding animals when post-reproductive animals are readily available.

2, It was not so long ago many zoos would breed lions and bears so they would have cubs to attract visitors over summer, then put them down come autumn. I guess it really comes down to whether the zoos have any real interest in conservation outcomes or are only interested in the display opportunities.

3. Three of the five breeding facilities are already on the Australian mainland and are all several hundred or more kilometres apart. Given that the average number of animals at the breeding centres is 30 pairs each I wonder how many European zoos would be willing to invest in facilities to handle that many animals.

 

[MRJ]

I don't think I *did* point that out it is worth noting that Copenhagen have a LOT more animals than they have been sending out to other European collections; last I heard, something like 5 or 6 breeding pairs plus varying amounts of offspring.

One factor which might be illuminating as to whether the policy *is* being reassessed or not would be to learn how old the animals which have arrived at Prague are - any idea, @HOMIN96 ?

You pointed out they had to import fresh stock from Australia.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

You pointed out they had to import fresh stock from Australia.

Well, I don't know whether they had to or not, merely that they did import two new males a few years back. As I understand it, the imports have been as follows:

2006: 2,2 (never bred, died in 2012)
2012: 2,2 (regular breeding from these and their descendants)
2017: 2,0

At the end of 2017 ZTL lists them as having 11,11 individuals, with another 4,3 elsewhere in Europe at the time.

 

[MRJ]

Well, I don't know whether they had to or not, merely that they did import two new males a few years back. As I understand it, the imports have been as follows:

2006: 2,2 (never bred, died in 2012)
2012: 2,2 (regular breeding from these and their descendants)
2017: 2,0

At the end of 2017 ZTL lists them as having 11,11 individuals, with another 4,3 elsewhere in Europe at the time.

Hmmm, 4.2 founders, not great. Maybe if you are starting with black robins you take what you can but hardly ideal for a new program where additional animals are available. But congratulations to the team at Copenhagen Zoo on their success to date.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

Well, I don't know whether they had to or not, merely that they did import two new males a few years back. As I understand it, the imports have been as follows:

2006: 2,2 (never bred, died in 2012)
2012: 2,2 (regular breeding from these and their descendants)
2017: 2,0

At the end of 2017 ZTL lists them as having 11,11 individuals, with another 4,3 elsewhere in Europe at the time.

Something might be going "on" with Koebenhavn Zoo as it seems that in 2012 2.2 exported were breeding age individuals (Not sure about the 2006 import). Did they disregard the ZAA guidelines of sending out surplus stock and then breeding from the pool they got?

 

[Chlidonias]

Something might be going "on" with Koebenhavn Zoo as it seems that in 2012 2.2 exported were breeding age individuals (Not sure about the 2006 import). Did they disregard the ZAA guidelines of sending out surplus stock and then breeding from the pool they got?

The Copenhagen animals were sent as breeding animals and had no direct connection to the devil insurance programme, which had only just started not long before then - there was no "surplus" being sent out.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

The Copenhagen animals were sent as breeding animals and had no direct connection to the devil insurance programme, which had only just started not long before then - there was no "surplus" being sent out.

Thanks for clearing that up. I could not imagine actually a zoo like Koebenhavn flaunt the guidelines or criteria on which the individuals are sent out on loan. So, effectively it was a breeding loan!

Allthough, the Biosecurity laws in Australia and New Zealand preclude any individuals from ever making the return journey!