Animal diplomacy

[iluvwhales]

We all know about China's giant panda diplomacy where China lends pandas to zoos and zoos pay a million dollars a year for this privilege for some years before the animals and- at a certain age- their young are repatriated.

I recently learned that the Philippines has decided to engage in a sort of diplomacy program with the critically endangered Philippine eagle. In 2019, a pair of these birds were sent to Jurong Bird Park in SIngapore. They will be there ten years with an option for renweal. Who knows, maybe one day this unique species will find its way to a zoo near year...

What if the United States were to engage in an animal diplomacy program? Here is a rough idea I have: the bald eagle, American bison, West Indian manatee, whooping crane, California condor, black-footed ferret, Florida panther, red wolf, and wood turtle are possible candidates given their endangered status and -for the eagle and bison- as symbols of the country.

Animals would be loaned to other zoos for a period of ten years with an option to renew for a second term of five years. Those currently holding them will be "grandfathered" in and pay half of the price a new zoo would pay for the right to hold the species. Stipulations will be placed that purebred animals be bred (e.g., no beefalos) and that animals be returned to the United States at a certain age. Depending on the species, money is given to the federal or appropriate state government. For example, California condor money would go to California, and black-footed ferret money would go to Colorado. The money would go to efforts in the United States to conserve and reintroduce the species into the wild.

What do you think of animal diplomacy in general? Is animal diplomacy good for conservation or animal welfare? Is it a worthwhile investment for zoos? Do you think it focuses too much on international politics? Is it too restrictive?

 

[ZooBinh]

I don't know much about the diplomacy, but I'm really interested as to what other's have to say.

 

[Jurek7]

Zoos voluntarily pay for conservation during keeping some animals. I heard something like semi-compulsory 6000USD per year for okapi conservation mentioned, but I may be completely off.

I also know that China wanted to loan golden snub-nosed monkeys for USD100,000 per year but got no takers. Probably giant pandas are the only animals popular enough to make this type of loan worthwhile. Even they do not reliably bring enough crowds to pay for their loan, and are more like an insider status symbol / media interest.

Currently the problem is rather the opposite. A healthy breeding program often struggles to find enough zoos to keep the offspring for free.

There is also a values clash. Zoos do not like to be seen as acting for profit. And commercial contracts are prone to money mismanagement and short-term closing with harm to long-term conservation plans.

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

Response from a European point of view:

What if the United States were to engage in an animal diplomacy program? Here is a rough idea I have: the bald eagle, American bison, West Indian manatee, whooping crane, California condor, black-footed ferret, Florida panther, red wolf, and wood turtle are possible candidates given their endangered status and -for the eagle and bison- as symbols of the country.

Keep in mind that the eagle, bison and to a more limited extend the manatee are kept and bred in decent numbers in Europe too. No zoo is going to pay extra to get one from the states if they can source them here for free. The crane, condor, panther, wolf and turtle all have similar counterparts present in Europe, and I doubt it is worth the trouble for zoos to keep "just" another species of crane or turtle. And for the ferret: small mustelids in general are scarce and we have our native species here too.

Additionally, several of the species you mention occur in the wild outside of the United States (e.g. eagle, manatee, crane, bison), so that would make it impossible for the US to monopolize them.

 

[TheEthiopianWolf03]

As mentioned already, most animals that would hold any importance to the culture of the US are already housed by many European zoos. Maybe Black footed ferrets and Condors could work but who is to say that they can acquire both these animals from both Mexico and Canada if they wanted to.

There is also the fact that aside from us zoochatters, there isn't a lot of very charismatic animal that represents the US and will draw a crowd in Europe. Why would a zoo pay millions to house a subspecies of a cougar? Why would they do the same for another wolf species? The reason that the pandas work is because not only are they unique in regards to other animals, they are an ABC animal in their own right and a major crowd drawing exhibit if implemented properly. Many zoos get huge crowds just from having pandas or even panda cubs. If the US wanted to do something like China in regards to diplomacy they should probably do the following:

1.) Choose an animal that isn't housed in foreign zoos that is native to the US. Animal should also have some sort of "cuteness" or some aspect to it that will be marketable (This means that more likely than not this animal would need to be a vertebrate of sorts with a preference to bird or mammal)
2.) Popularize that animal through media, books, movies, pop culture, etc
3.) Have a bunch of zoos in the US start to house said species
4.) Wait for foreign interest to pick up

I can't think of a species that can fit number one so that just shows that to other European/foreign zoos, animal diplomacy will probably fall flat since there is nothing of interest to foreign zoos (Maybe Australia or some region that lacks North American species diversity but probably not Europe or Asia).

 

[Tea_and_Biology]

The US currently has nothing to offer in this regard.

The only country that comes close to being able to fulfill a niche similar to that China and the giant panda occupy would be Australia and it's monopoly on interesting native monotremes and marsupials, notably the koala. And, to some extent, despite the general global abundance of Australian wildlife in captive collections, for the slightly more niche or more sought species - koala, tasmanian devil, wombat, platypus etc. - they indeed do!

The export of high-profile and/or threatened Australian species is tightly controlled, with all involved institutional parties entering into an agreement ("Ambassador Agreement") with Australia's Dept. of Environment and Heritage r.e. the husbandry and disposal of any animals, and future of any progeny (see here). Thankfully, unlike the Chinese use of animals in 'diplomacy' (which has amounted to little more than political theatre and minor commercialisation; with respect to ex-situ conservation, it's been a complete failure), the Australians actually do it right - with a non-commercial focus on functional international breeding programmes and promotion of conservation. Tasmanian devils sent abroad, for example, are surplus individuals from the "Save the Tasmanian Devil Program’s" (STDP) captive population - allowing participating Australian institutions to free up space for breeding stock, and the only money that changes hands goes directly towards the programme's in-situ management efforts.

All this to say, even if the US had something like a panda, it shouldn't mimic how China has used pandas (and attempted snub-nosed monkeys) for 'diplomatic' purposes, in any instance. Instead, go the Australian way - putting the animals and conservation first.

Which brings me back to my first point; the US lacks a monopoly on any species that would benefit from an international programme like this.

 

[Matt G]

We all know about China's giant panda diplomacy where China lends pandas to zoos and zoos pay a million dollars a year for this privilege for some years before the animals and- at a certain age- their young are repatriated.

I recently learned that the Philippines has decided to engage in a sort of diplomacy program with the critically endangered Philippine eagle. In 2019, a pair of these birds were sent to Jurong Bird Park in SIngapore. They will be there ten years with an option for renweal. Who knows, maybe one day this unique species will find its way to a zoo near year...

What if the United States were to engage in an animal diplomacy program? Here is a rough idea I have: the bald eagle, American bison, West Indian manatee, whooping crane, California condor, black-footed ferret, Florida panther, red wolf, and wood turtle are possible candidates given their endangered status and -for the eagle and bison- as symbols of the country.

Animals would be loaned to other zoos for a period of ten years with an option to renew for a second term of five years. Those currently holding them will be "grandfathered" in and pay half of the price a new zoo would pay for the right to hold the species. Stipulations will be placed that purebred animals be bred (e.g., no beefalos) and that animals be returned to the United States at a certain age. Depending on the species, money is given to the federal or appropriate state government. For example, California condor money would go to California, and black-footed ferret money would go to Colorado. The money would go to efforts in the United States to conserve and reintroduce the species into the wild.

What do you think of animal diplomacy in general? Is animal diplomacy good for conservation or animal welfare? Is it a worthwhile investment for zoos? Do you think it focuses too much on international politics? Is it too restrictive?

China's "panda diplomacy" was invented during the Cold War.

 

[ZooBinh]

I would think that Madagascar could engage in something like this, but I'd imagine it'd be very hard to set up.

 

[TheEthiopianWolf03]

I would think that Madagascar could engage in something like this, but I'd imagine it'd be very hard to set up.

The problem with Madagascar is that many of their most charismatic animals are already well established with other zoos. Ring tailed lemurs, Coquerel's sifakas, chameleons, and the likes while well established in popular media are already somewhat common in zoos. Until the other animals get a shine in the spotlight, Madagascar isn't going to really have a system in place for animal diplomacy.

 

[ZooBinh]

The problem with Madagascar is that many of their most charismatic animals are already well established with other zoos. Ring tailed lemurs, Coquerel's sifakas, chameleons, and the likes while well established in popular media are already somewhat common in zoos. Until the other animals get a shine in the spotlight, Madagascar isn't going to really have a system in place for animal diplomacy.

Yea, but I would say that if they decided to bring out Indris, there could be some takers but that would be so hard to set up due to the difficulty of keeping them, and I'm not sure that Indri's are that popular in the general media's knowledge.

 

[Batto]

What if the United States were to engage in an animal diplomacy program?

For that, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service would have to completely overhaul and change their current approach .
The only North American species they currently allow to be "lent" to European institutions are a few sea otter orphans from the Alaska Sealife Center. However, given the paperwork and pricey husbandry (in particular due to the seafood diet) involved, it doesn't surprise that only four European institutions currently keep them.

 

[HOMIN96]

Yea, but I would say that if they decided to bring out Indris, there could be some takers but that would be so hard to set up due to the difficulty of keeping them, and I'm not sure that Indri's are that popular in the general media's knowledge.

If we'd be able to keep indris alive and well in captivity, I have no doubt that they would became people's favorites almost instantly

 

[Andrew Swales]

If we'd be able to keep indris alive and well in captivity, I have no doubt that they would became people's favorites almost instantly

Yes please, can we join the queue...?

 

[HOMIN96]

Yes please, can we join the queue...?

You are welcome to do so! But keep in mind that the current waiting time is 10+ years...

 

[BenFoxster]

As mentioned already, most animals that would hold any importance to the culture of the US are already housed by many European zoos. Maybe Black footed ferrets and Condors could work but who is to say that they can acquire both these animals from both Mexico and Canada if they wanted to.

There is also the fact that aside from us zoochatters, there isn't a lot of very charismatic animal that represents the US and will draw a crowd in Europe. Why would a zoo pay millions to house a subspecies of a cougar? Why would they do the same for another wolf species? The reason that the pandas work is because not only are they unique in regards to other animals, they are an ABC animal in their own right and a major crowd drawing exhibit if implemented properly. Many zoos get huge crowds just from having pandas or even panda cubs. If the US wanted to do something like China in regards to diplomacy they should probably do the following:

1.) Choose an animal that isn't housed in foreign zoos that is native to the US. Animal should also have some sort of "cuteness" or some aspect to it that will be marketable (This means that more likely than not this animal would need to be a vertebrate of sorts with a preference to bird or mammal)
2.) Popularize that animal through media, books, movies, pop culture, etc
3.) Have a bunch of zoos in the US start to house said species
4.) Wait for foreign interest to pick up

I can't think of a species that can fit number one so that just shows that to other European/foreign zoos, animal diplomacy will probably fall flat since there is nothing of interest to foreign zoos (Maybe Australia or some region that lacks North American species diversity but probably not Europe or Asia).

Out of curiosity as I have heard the term used on ZooChat many times here before, what does the term "ABC animal" mean? Is this a specific category of animals?

 

[Chlidonias]

Out of curiosity as I have heard the term used on ZooChat many times here before, what does the term "ABC animal" mean? Is this a specific category of animals?

It just means roughly "standard zoo animal" (lions, tigers, zebras, etc) - like from an child's ABC book of animals.

 

[elefante]

We all know about China's giant panda diplomacy where China lends pandas to zoos and zoos pay a million dollars a year for this privilege for some years before the animals and- at a certain age- their young are repatriated.

I recently learned that the Philippines has decided to engage in a sort of diplomacy program with the critically endangered Philippine eagle. In 2019, a pair of these birds were sent to Jurong Bird Park in SIngapore. They will be there ten years with an option for renweal. Who knows, maybe one day this unique species will find its way to a zoo near year...

What if the United States were to engage in an animal diplomacy program? Here is a rough idea I have: the bald eagle, American bison, West Indian manatee, whooping crane, California condor, black-footed ferret, Florida panther, red wolf, and wood turtle are possible candidates given their endangered status and -for the eagle and bison- as symbols of the country.

Animals would be loaned to other zoos for a period of ten years with an option to renew for a second term of five years. Those currently holding them will be "grandfathered" in and pay half of the price a new zoo would pay for the right to hold the species. Stipulations will be placed that purebred animals be bred (e.g., no beefalos) and that animals be returned to the United States at a certain age. Depending on the species, money is given to the federal or appropriate state government. For example, California condor money would go to California, and black-footed ferret money would go to Colorado. The money would go to efforts in the United States to conserve and reintroduce the species into the wild.

What do you think of animal diplomacy in general? Is animal diplomacy good for conservation or animal welfare? Is it a worthwhile investment for zoos? Do you think it focuses too much on international politics? Is it too restrictive?

I don't think there is anything unique enough from that list that would really draw a crowd

 

[JVM]

Stepping aside from the United States question that has been thoroughly approached already... I think the idea of animal diplomacy is over.

The original concept of animal diplomacy, and this did apply to pandas, would be fairly fine -- unique animals would be 'gifted' to the government as a token of goodwill, and then housed appropriately at a zoo, but they were still essentially a gift.

The world has changed a lot though. If a dictatorship were to send a gift to your country, accepting it may be seen as tantamount to support for the regime. It may be innocuous or it may be part of a quid-pro-quo. Even if everything were innocent, it could still look like someone is trying to buy influence or favor, and someone is accepting it. As mentioned above, pandas and golden monkeys (in theory) cause money to go back to China - money being taken from the zoo and handed to another government, which a zoo may be held liable for supporting no matter who it is.

The Tasmanian Devil and Platypus programs seem like good models.

 

[15399]

Barring China and Australia, there are two other countries I'd really like to see try the Australian model of animal diplomacy, and they are countries that I think have the species to make it work: Ecuador and Ethiopia. Ecuador has all the Galapagos endemics, especially blue-footed boobies and marine iguanas I'd expect a number of zoos would want if their acquisition was ethically possible. Ethiopia has the Ethiopian wolf, which I'd expect from a conservation perspective could be of interest to some zoos (also mountain nyala, but that one would be more difficult to pull off).

 

[Dassie rat]

I would have thought the woodchuck would be a popular diplomatic animal. ZTL only lists 2 collections, both in Germany.

There was a successful film called 'Groundhog Day', which has been turned into musical