Could and should the ring tailed lemur be replaced by other lemur species in zoos ?

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

@Onychorhynchus coronatus I don't understand what the thesis of your thread is supposed to be. Are you advocating that ring-tailed lemurs should be phased out completely, or just be reduced in numbers and replaced with rarer species? For now I'm going to assume the latter, since the ring-tailed lemur remains endangered in the wild as well as one of the most popular and recognizable zoo animals - but I actually can't tell for sure what your stance is from all that you've posted.



How can you look at those numbers and immediately draw that conclusion? There's no evidence there that indicates zoos are not breeding or phasing in lemurs because they care more about ring-tailed. In fact, zoos in the US have been making a concerted effort to breed other species of lemurs and increase their captive populations - particularly the rarer species such as blue-eyed black lemur. The fact is simply that there are not enough lemurs of other species to replace the sheer quantity of RLTs - a problem that is not resolved by reducing the RLT population.

Important also to remember that ring-tailed lemurs (and to a lesser extent ruffed lemurs) are common in many private or smaller zoos - so their huge population may actually be indicative of the fact that many zoos have ring-tailed lemurs that would otherwise have no lemurs, rather than more endangered species of lemur. Meanwhile, many mid-sized and large zoos keep multiple other species in addition to ring-tailed - a trend that is seen across other taxonomic groups as well.



Unsurprisingly, ruffed lemurs are the most common species in North American zoos after ring-tailed.



Potentially not being the same as actually - nobody has presented any evidence that the lack of other lemur species is caused by ring-tailed lemurs occupying space for expansion. Given that there has been difficulty breeding some of the other lemur species and that many private or very small zoos are largely responsible for the abundance of ring-tailed lemur, I would dispute the assumption that RLTs are responsible for the low numbers of other species.

There is no "thesis" to the thread actually it is just a thought experiment for people to comment on regarding this subject. I stated that at the start in the introduction so if you are looking for a thesis then it might be better to look elsewhere as I am not an academic.

Zoos have in recent years been focusing on other species, that is true, but there is still to this day a strong emphasis on keeping and breeding the ringtailed lemur and I do think this is to the detriment of other species.

Again, yes, there are not enough individuals of other lemur species to replace ringtailed lemurs but that is because of the emphasis that has been placed on keeping this species for the past half a century or more whilst neglecting other species that are in greater requirement of ex-situ.

I would say that the evidence is in the ring tailed lemur studbook keepers suggesting a limit be put on the number of ring tailed lemurs being bred by zoos and the further suggestion that these institutions focus more on housing and breeding other species of lemur.

Moreover, Mittermeier's data that @TeaLovingDave has shared clearly illustrates that there is a rather strong bias in zoos towards keeping the ring tailed lemur (even several regional studbook manuals suggest this ! ). While it isn't possible to directly and explicitly connect the abundance of ring tailed lemurs in captivity with the scarcity or absence of others I would say that the two are somehow interlinked.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

These quotes are from the paper "Integrating Ex situ and In situ Conservation of Lemurs" by Christian Schwitzer and colleagues and I feel they are quite pertinent to the discussion.

"Currently, many of the most threatened lemur species are not kept in captivity at all, neither in Madagascar nor in zoos belonging to any of the major zoo associations. The sportive lemurs exemplify this: All 26 species comprising the Lepilemuridae family are now Red-Listed as either Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable, making them one of the most threatened primate families on earth. Yet, not one of them is kept in zoos anywhere in the world today, and we still know virtually nothing about their captive husbandry."

"In order to minimise risks, such colonies should ideally not be concentrated in single facilities, but rather spread across several institutions, as is already the case with existing captive lemur populations. There is thus not only a role for regional breeding facilities in Madagascar, but also for zoos inside and outside of Madagascar."

 

[Coelacanth18]

There is no "thesis" to the thread actually it is just a thought experiment for people to comment on regarding this subject. I stated that at the start in the introduction so if you are looking for a thesis then it might be better to look elsewhere as I am not an academic.

What I meant was that the title and sides of this subject were not clearly delineated for me - when asking in the title line "Could and should the ring tailed lemur be replaced by other lemur species in zoos", I wasn't sure if you meant replaced completely or simply reduced to increase numbers of the other species. Perhaps you didn't mean either and were open to both interpretations - I just had trouble following who was making what arguments in this thread and what the overall opinions of people in this thread (including yourself) are.

Zoos have in recent years been focusing on other species, that is true, but there is still to this day a strong emphasis on keeping and breeding the ringtailed lemur and I do think this is to the detriment of other species.

Again, yes, there are not enough individuals of other lemur species to replace ringtailed lemurs but that is because of the emphasis that has been placed on keeping this species for the past half a century or more whilst neglecting other species that are in greater requirement of ex-situ.

A half century is a long time... the zoos of 1970 had very different priorities than the zoos of 2020 have. A bias in the past towards RTLs is certainly likely, and zoos are dealing with the aftermath of that today. However, I would dispute the degree to which this is a problem of modern day making. A lot of lemur species that *once* existed in captivity were never common or straightforward to breed, and slowly died off when wild animals stopped replenishing captive populations - this is on top of the fact that captive population management wasn't well-established until at least 20 years ago (maybe 10-15 depending on species and standards) at which point many of those species were already doomed or an uphill battle. The difficulty of breeding other species is also likely a byproduct of early investment in RTLs, but now the reality is that the husbandry is well worked out for that species - making it widely available and a good choice for zoos with less professional experience and fewer resources - while not being as well worked out for smaller populations, a situation that many zoos with resources are attempting to remedy.

In case where I landed overall wasn't clear from that dense paragraph: I agree that bias towards RTLs *is* an issue, but is a bias that 1) existed for a long time and is now being lessened to limited success, and 2) is not being necessarily being perpetuated by the majority of zoos.

I would say that the evidence is in the ring tailed lemur studbook keepers suggesting a limit be put on the number of ring tailed lemurs being bred by zoos and the further suggestion that these institutions focus more on housing and breeding other species of lemur.

I'm sure it does, but that message wasn't necessarily being directed at all zoos - some institutions in particular have mismanaged their animals and are breeding past capacity. Studbooks and breeding programs also often suggest that zoos shift focus to obtaining other species, but there is a caveat that zoos need to first phase out their own animals and then successfully obtain a rarer species. I don't remember if the RTL studbook acknowledges these are challenges for smaller or private facilities, but other studbooks often do. You are right, though, that some zoos are over-breeding and sending surplus to zoos that otherwise might have successfully transitioned - I agree that this is an issue.

Moreover, Mittermeier's data that @TeaLovingDave has shared clearly illustrates that there is a rather strong bias in zoos towards keeping the ring tailed lemur (even several regional studbook manuals suggest this ! ).

It absolutely illustrates a strong bias - what it doesn't illustrate is how or why, which was my point.

While it isn't possible to directly and explicitly connect the abundance of ring tailed lemurs in captivity with the scarcity or absence of others I would say that the two are somehow interlinked.

Fair enough - I don't quite agree with you on that, partially because I would like to see more concrete numbers and evidence of that fact (which admittedly are hard to come by) and partially because I think for the reasons I outlined the circumstances and reasons are actually far murkier than simply a bias towards ring-tailed over other species.

As for the cited paper by Christian Schwitzer: I agree with his sentiments, but again would say that the situation is complicated by Madagascar's willingness to invest in these programs and cooperate with overseas organizations, as well as the fact that successful husbandry is a process that involves a lot of time and a host of errors that may lead to further population declines in the short-term.

It should definitely be pursued, but it would take a while - if ever successful - for these rarer species to become established in captivity enough to expand to many facilities. In the meantime, RTLs hold hundreds of potential spaces that could be transitioned over in the future.

 

[Tetzoo Quizzer]

My comment was a direct response to Fignewton, explaining why it could be argued that there might be too many Ring-tailed Lemurs in zoos. As I stated, there might be resources used that could free up “room” for other species. Equally, there are plenty of reasons why this may not be the case; they are the most terrestrial of lemurs, which may well make their husbandry easier, they have interesting and complex social behaviour which means they are quite likely to be doing something, their diet is relatively unspecialised, and they have a unique look. Zoos will always tend towards the charismatic as long as they depend on a paying public; how this can be harnessed to benefit the “boring” species which need extreme actions or which can only survive outside captivity is perhaps the key question to consider.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

This is from the Duke lemur center referencing the ring tailed lemur species survival plan :

"Due to the large number of L. catta in captivity, the ring-tailed lemur Species Survival Plan calls for only a few breeding pairs of animals each year so that precious captive breeding space can be occupied by the rarer species of lemurs."

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

What I meant was that the title and sides of this subject were not clearly delineated for me - when asking in the title line "Could and should the ring tailed lemur be replaced by other lemur species in zoos", I wasn't sure if you meant replaced completely or simply reduced to increase numbers of the other species. Perhaps you didn't mean either and were open to both interpretations - I just had trouble following who was making what arguments in this thread and what the overall opinions of people in this thread (including yourself) are.



A half century is a long time... the zoos of 1970 had very different priorities than the zoos of 2020 have. A bias in the past towards RTLs is certainly likely, and zoos are dealing with the aftermath of that today. However, I would dispute the degree to which this is a problem of modern day making. A lot of lemur species that *once* existed in captivity were never common or straightforward to breed, and slowly died off when wild animals stopped replenishing captive populations - this is on top of the fact that captive population management wasn't well-established until at least 20 years ago (maybe 10-15 depending on species and standards) at which point many of those species were already doomed or an uphill battle. The difficulty of breeding other species is also likely a byproduct of early investment in RTLs, but now the reality is that the husbandry is well worked out for that species - making it widely available and a good choice for zoos with less professional experience and fewer resources - while not being as well worked out for smaller populations, a situation that many zoos with resources are attempting to remedy.

In case where I landed overall wasn't clear from that dense paragraph: I agree that bias towards RTLs *is* an issue, but is a bias that 1) existed for a long time and is now being lessened to limited success, and 2) is not being necessarily being perpetuated by the majority of zoos.



I'm sure it does, but that message wasn't necessarily being directed at all zoos - some institutions in particular have mismanaged their animals and are breeding past capacity. Studbooks and breeding programs also often suggest that zoos shift focus to obtaining other species, but there is a caveat that zoos need to first phase out their own animals and then successfully obtain a rarer species. I don't remember if the RTL studbook acknowledges these are challenges for smaller or private facilities, but other studbooks often do. You are right, though, that some zoos are over-breeding and sending surplus to zoos that otherwise might have successfully transitioned - I agree that this is an issue.



It absolutely illustrates a strong bias - what it doesn't illustrate is how or why, which was my point.



Fair enough - I don't quite agree with you on that, partially because I would like to see more concrete numbers and evidence of that fact (which admittedly are hard to come by) and partially because I think for the reasons I outlined the circumstances and reasons are actually far murkier than simply a bias towards ring-tailed over other species.

As for the cited paper by Christian Schwitzer: I agree with his sentiments, but again would say that the situation is complicated by Madagascar's willingness to invest in these programs and cooperate with overseas organizations, as well as the fact that successful husbandry is a process that involves a lot of time and a host of errors that may lead to further population declines in the short-term.

It should definitely be pursued, but it would take a while - if ever successful - for these rarer species to become established in captivity enough to expand to many facilities. In the meantime, RTLs hold hundreds of potential spaces that could be transitioned over in the future.

To clarify, I was open to both suggestions (reduction or replacement) and wanted to invite debate from zoochatter regarding the topic because I think it is a pertinent one when consider ex-situ prosimian / lemur conservation.

I agree with you that there was a historical bias towards keeping the species at the expense of others, however, I believe that despite the efforts of zoos to remedy this issue it still remains present even to this day.

Moreover, I personally believe that this is actually ethically questionable considering the sheer number of lemur species that are threatened with extinction and the limited space and resources that zoos have available.

I do firmly believe space occupied by the ring tailed lemur should be freed up at major zoos for species that require it more. However, I do not really care if many of the smaller ABC zoos continue to keep the ringtailed as the contributions of most (though not all) of these institutions to meaningful conservation are limited anyway.

What I do care about is whether the major zoos are pulling their weight in terms of ex-situ and in-situ conservation and unfortunately I just do not believe they are and there is room for a lot of improvement when it comes to lemurs in particular.

In essence, yes, I agree, there is a growing focus on other lemur species but I still think there is far too much space being occupied by the ring tailed lemur to the detriment of other species.

 

[Coelacanth18]

My comment was a direct response to Fignewton, explaining why it could be argued that there might be too many Ring-tailed Lemurs in zoos. As I stated, there might be resources used that could free up “room” for other species. Equally, there are plenty of reasons why this may not be the case; they are the most terrestrial of lemurs, which may well make their husbandry easier, they have interesting and complex social behaviour which means they are quite likely to be doing something, their diet is relatively unspecialised, and they have a unique look. Zoos will always tend towards the charismatic as long as they depend on a paying public; how this can be harnessed to benefit the “boring” species which need extreme actions or which can only survive outside captivity is perhaps the key question to consider.

Yes - to clarify, I quoted you in order to explain why maybe that wasn't necessarily the case. Your explanation of how one species could occupy space from another was spot on and is definitely something that is a detriment to certain species. As I just did in my previous post, it can also be argued the other way - that common species can hold space for rarer species until their breeding and husbandry is better worked out. I can't say for sure which argument makes better sense for RTLs specifically - my instinct based on what limited knowledge I have is that it cuts both ways.

 

[Coelacanth18]

This is from the Duke lemur center referencing the ring tailed lemur species survival plan :

"Due to the large number of L. catta in captivity, the ring-tailed lemur Species Survival Plan calls for only a few breeding pairs of animals each year so that precious captive breeding space can be occupied by the rarer species of lemurs."

That seems to be in line with what you said is in the studbook, which makes sense - my earlier comments that outline how I think that message has limits/complications/nuances associated with it apply to this citation also.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Yes - to clarify, I quoted you in order to explain why maybe that wasn't necessarily the case. Your explanation of how one species could occupy space from another was spot on and is definitely something that is a detriment to certain species. As I just did in my previous post, it can also be argued the other way - that common species can hold space for rarer species until their breeding and husbandry is better worked out. I can't say for sure which argument makes better sense for RTLs specifically - my instinct based on what limited knowledge I have is that it cuts both ways.

I agree, but the question is are zoos working out the breeding and husbandry of rarer lemur species while ring tailed lemurs occupy these spaces ?

Undoubtedly for some species such as Sclater's lemur the answer would be a yes. Take Bristol zoo's heavy involvement in the ex-situ management of the Sclater's lemur for example.

However, what about the other lemur species that have no ex-situ populations either in Madagascar or abroad like the James' sportive lemur for example ?

Unfortunately the answer to this would have to be a resounding no. There is what appears to be a limited or even non existent interest in holding these species even though they are on the prescipice of extinction.

What about the species whose captive populations were allowed to die out like the Sanford's brown lemur due to the lack of interest by zoos (except Hamerton) mentioned by @TeaLovingDave ?

Zoos that undoubtedly had / have and breed ringed tailed and ruffed lemurs merely looked on and did nothing when they should have been there for that species in a moral / ethical sense.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Bit of cinematic humour. A famous "on the waterfront" quote imagined from a Sanford's brown lemur perspective.

“It wasn’t Duke, US zoos, it was you. Remember that night in the Zoological Garden you came down to my enclosure and you said, “Kid, this ain’t your night. We’re going for the price on the ringtailed lemur.” You remember that? “This ain’t your night”! My night! I coulda been kept ex-situ by many zoos! So what happens? The ring tailed gets the title shot outdoors in the walkthrough and what do I get? A one-way ticket to ex-situ extinction! You was my protector, US zoos, you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn’t have to take them contraceptive implants that made me extinct ex-situ."

 

[Coelacanth18]

However, what about the other lemur species that have no ex-situ populations either in Madagascar or abroad like the James' sportive lemur for example? Unfortunately the answer to this would have to be a resounding no. There is what appears to be a limited or even non existent interest in holding these species even though they are on the precipice of extinction.

I would dispute how much of that situation is lack of interest rather than difficult (possibly insurmountable) challenges, or a wariness to double down on ex situ as the solution for saving species that could as easily go extinct from a failed attempt at that as they could from continued in situ efforts. The climate of zoos today is not to be bold in taking endangered animals from the wild and attempting to save them in captivity; there is room for debate on whether or not that is the right approach, but to claim that zoos just aren't interested is missing the mark I think.

What about the species whose captive populations were allowed to die out like the Sanford's brown lemur due to the lack of interest by zoos (except Hamerton) mentioned by @TeaLovingDave ?

I can't speak to that specific example. If endangered lemurs have died out in captivity due to lack of interest that certainly is a travesty - I'd argue not one that would be prevented by reducing the number of ring-tailed lemurs to make room for them, since space wouldn't be the issue there. It seems like a confusing argument to say that, in order for zoos to not phase out rarer lemur species due to lack of interest, that they should phase out RTLs to increase space - it's a solution that doesn't fit the problem.

Zoos that undoubtedly had / have and breed ringed tailed and ruffed lemurs merely looked on and did nothing when they should have been there for that species in a moral / ethical sense.

Personally I think that's an unfair characterization to make when 1) zoos didn't necessarily foresee which lemur species they should invest in until momentum and circumstances made it difficult to change course, and 2) several zoos are actively trying to change the current bias. As I stated before, RTLs became abundant in large part because they were easy to breed when other species weren't - which then created a feedback loop of increasing knowledge of RTL and ruffed lemur husbandry and lagging knowledge for other species' husbandry.

Correct me if I read you wrong on these points, but I also think that you have been doing a lot of generalizing of "zoos" as if they are a cohesive unit that collectively made the wrong choice. I would dispute that characterization - zoos do not all have the same philosophies, goals, or understandings of their role in conservation. Especially prior to the full development of oversight organizations and regional breeding programs, zoos largely operated independently or haphazardly collaborated with a few others on species efforts without any knowledge of the full picture or long-term viability. To also place the blame on individual zoos for keeping and breeding the animals they had access to, rather than being proactive and insightful enough to invest resources they may not have had into keeping a species that had never been successfully kept in captivity, seems like an unreasonable conclusion to me.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I would dispute how much of that situation is lack of interest rather than difficult (possibly insurmountable) challenges, or a wariness to double down on ex situ as the solution for saving species that could as easily go extinct from a failed attempt at that as they could from continued in situ efforts. The climate of zoos today is not to be bold in taking endangered animals from the wild and attempting to save them in captivity; there is room for debate on whether or not that is the right approach, but to claim that zoos just aren't interested is missing the mark I think.



I can't speak to that specific example. If endangered lemurs have died out in captivity due to lack of interest that certainly is a travesty - I'd argue not one that would be prevented by reducing the number of ring-tailed lemurs to make room for them, since space wouldn't be the issue there. It seems like a confusing argument to say that, in order for zoos to not phase out rarer lemur species due to lack of interest, that they should phase out RTLs to increase space - it's a solution that doesn't fit the problem.



Personally I think that's an unfair characterization to make when 1) zoos didn't necessarily foresee which lemur species they should invest in until momentum and circumstances made it difficult to change course, and 2) several zoos are actively trying to change the current bias. As I stated before, RTLs became abundant in large part because they were easy to breed when other species weren't - which then created a feedback loop of increasing knowledge of RTL and ruffed lemur husbandry and lagging knowledge for other species' husbandry.

Correct me if I read you wrong on these points, but I also think that you have been doing a lot of generalizing of "zoos" as if they are a cohesive unit that collectively made the wrong choice. I would dispute that characterization - zoos do not all have the same philosophies, goals, or understandings of their role in conservation. Especially prior to the full development of oversight organizations and regional breeding programs, zoos largely operated independently or haphazardly collaborated with a few others on species efforts without any knowledge of the full picture or long-term viability. To also place the blame on individual zoos for keeping and breeding the animals they had access to, rather than being proactive and insightful enough to invest resources they may not have had into keeping a species that had never been successfully kept in captivity, seems like an unreasonable conclusion to me.

Yes, of course I agree, and that level of caution is quite justified and needed because in many cases it is simply far better to conserve species in-situ rather than ex-situ in zoos (shame that caution couldn't be applied to the keeping of large taxa though isn't it ?).

Look at the quote by Schwitzer that I posted above in regards to the sportive lemurs and their absence in captivity. Granted, at least some of that may be attributed to the Malagasy government and bureaucratic difficulties / obstacles.

But have there been any zoos that have expressed an interest or actively pursued the option of keeping them ex-situ ?

Have there been any zoos (except for Durrell and Bristol) that have contributed anything to their conservation in-situ?

Read the Carl Jones paper that he posted in the Aspinall thread entitled "The Ark reimagined" where he talks about the difficulties that the Durrell trust / Jersey Zoo had in establishing some species of conservation concern ex-situ. In the paper he states that much of the difficulty wasn't even related to the husbandry needs of the species in question but in the lack of interest and unwillingness of the wider zoo community to house these species.

Sounds remarkably like what happened in the case of the Sanford brown lemur doesn't it ?

Well that is because that is actually what happened. This was a species that Duke obtained and wanted to breed but because of lack of interest by the wider zoo community in holding the species these individuals were given contraceptives that caused sterilization as a byproduct.

To put it bluntly this is a human error / organizational culture problem that unfortunately is endemic within the wider zoo community albeit one that I'll grant is improving steadily but it needs to improve a lot more if some species are to be effectively conserved. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you as I don't think that is an unfair assessment at all.

 

[Coelacanth18]

(shame that caution couldn't be applied to the keeping of large taxa though isn't it ?).

Unless you're referring to Sumatran rhino - one specific example, which I've been told failed due to mismanagement rather than insurmountable husbandry issues - I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

Look at the quote by Schwitzer that I posted above in regards to the sportive lemurs and their absence in captivity. Granted, at least some of that may be attributed to the Malagasy government and bureaucratic difficulties / obstacles.

The quote was that Schwitzer believes zoos should be carving out an ex situ space for them - it doesn't speculate at all on why they haven't already done that.

But have there been any zoos that have expressed an interest or actively pursued the option of keeping them ex-situ ?

I don't know, but lack of evidence is also not evidence of the contrary. It's just as possible that the idea has been considered and rejected as that it was simply never on the table. It's also possible that zoos (as collectively as that term can be used) have decided to focus on bolstering the teetering captive populations of species they already hold like blue-eyed black lemur rather than invest a lot of resources in a sportive lemur project that might go nowhere. Maybe that's too conservative a call, but I wouldn't hit them for it without knowing what information was inputted to arrive at such a conclusion.

Have there been any zoos (except for Durrell and Bristol) that have contributed anything to their conservation in-situ?

Of sportive lemurs, I have no idea. Of Madagascar and lemurs generally, yes - many zoos support in situ conservation efforts and fund nonprofit organizations that do conservation work on the ground there. In fact, I'd wager that it's one of the AZA's most targeted regions in terms of conservation efforts overall - I know it's a top priority for San Diego Zoo Global, WCS, Omaha, and other top-level zoo organizations.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Unless you're referring to Sumatran rhino - one specific example, which I've been told failed due to mismanagement rather than insurmountable husbandry issues - I don't know what point you are trying to make here.



The quote was that Schwitzer believes zoos should be carving out an ex situ space for them - it doesn't speculate at all on why they haven't already done that.



I don't know, but lack of evidence is also not evidence of the contrary. It's just as possible that the idea has been considered and rejected as that it was simply never on the table. It's also possible that zoos (as collectively as that term can be used) have decided to focus on bolstering the teetering captive populations of species they already hold like blue-eyed black lemur rather than invest a lot of resources in a sportive lemur project that might go nowhere. Maybe that's too conservative a call, but I wouldn't hit them for it without knowing what information was inputted to arrive at such a conclusion.



Of sportive lemurs, I have no idea. Of Madagascar and lemurs generally, yes - many zoos support in situ conservation efforts and fund nonprofit organizations that do conservation work on the ground there. In fact, I'd wager that it's one of the AZA's most targeted regions in terms of conservation efforts overall - I know it's a top priority for San Diego Zoo Global, WCS, Omaha, and other top-level zoo organizations.

The Sumatran rhino never crossed my mind actually.

Rather what I was getting with that comment was more that zoos invest a hell of a lot of resources in maintaining large African and Asian megafauna that arguably would be far better conserved in-situ (yes, they are all already established within captivity granted but the point still stands).

Yet when it comes to species that do require ex-situ urgently there is often a great deal of caution displayed (often justifiably granted) and hand wringing.

I am merely pointing out what I see could be a hypocrisy inherent in this attitude / stance by many zoos when it comes to the lack of interest in neglected groups such as the sportive lemurs for example.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I can't speak to that specific example. If endangered lemurs have died out in captivity due to lack of interest that certainly is a travesty - I'd argue not one that would be prevented by reducing the number of ring-tailed lemurs to make room for them, since space wouldn't be the issue there. It seems like a confusing argument to say that, in order for zoos to not phase out rarer lemur species due to lack of interest, that they should phase out RTLs to increase space - it's a solution that doesn't fit the problem.

If space and resources were not an issue then why would the ringtailed lemur species survival plan specifically recommend zoos to place limits on breeding for captive individuals of this species in order to ensure that space and resources could be allocated to more endangered lemur species ?

 

[Coelacanth18]

Read the Carl Jones paper that he posted in the Aspinall thread entitled "The Ark reimagined" where he talks about the difficulties that the Durrell trust / Jersey Zoo had in establishing some species of conservation concern ex-situ.

I will try and carve out some time to read that paper - thanks for the referral . Until then, I will reiterate my point if it wasn't clear: it's entirely plausible to me that some lemur species have perished in captivity due to a lack of interest. However, that is a different problem than zoos having an overabundance of RTLs at the expense of other species - which is what I understood the original discussion to be about. If you want to make the argument that zoos shouldn't phase out endangered lemurs simply because they find them uninteresting, then we have a lot less disagreement there

To put it bluntly this is a human error / organizational culture problem that unfortunately is endemic within the wider zoo community albeit one that I'll grant is improving steadily but it needs to improve a lot more if some species are to be effectively conserved. I'll have to respectfully disagree with you as I don't think that is an unfair assessment at all.

I don't technically dispute that it was a human error / organizational culture problem - I *do* disagree about how much to place blame on zoos for it, or whether to place any blame at all. Given zoos only recently became seen as responsible for conserving wildlife and helping to save individual species from extinction, I am sympathetic to the fact that they can't save everything and that institutional change takes time - especially when it must be balanced by other needs.

zoos invest a hell of a lot of resources in maintaining large African and Asian megafauna that arguably would be far better conserved in-situ (yes, they are all already established , granted).

Yet when it comes to species that do require ex-situ urgently there is a great deal of caution displayed (often justifiably). I am merely pointing out what I see is the hypocrisy of this attitude / stance.

I don't see that as hypocritical at all - to me it looks like comparing apples to oranges. One is an investment (deserved or not) in species that already exist and survive in captivity; the other is an investment in bringing in new, untested species into captivity that may not survive. Certainly you could argue that those are not the right choices to make, but I don't think hypocrisy describes the situation.

If space and resources were not an issue then why would the ringtailed lemur species survival plan specifically recommend zoos to place limits on breeding for captive individuals of this species in order to ensure that space and resources could be allocated to more endangered lemur species ?

Perhaps because they anticipate reproductive success with other species and want to ensure that there is space for them in the future? I can't say for sure, but that's not an uncommon thing for TAGs and SSPs to do - they will recommend that abundant species be replaced by rarer species, even if that's not yet functionally possible. In any case, I already conceded that overabundance of RTLs was an issue being perpetuated by some facilities - I just didn't necessarily agree with your assumption that it was the key factor in preventing growth of other species.

In case there is any misunderstanding: my general feeling is not that many of your arguments are flat-out wrong, but that many of them are based on assumptions that I wouldn't personally make.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I will try and carve out some time to read that paper - thanks for the referral . Until then, I will reiterate my point if it wasn't clear: it's entirely plausible to me that some lemur species have perished in captivity due to a lack of interest. However, that is a different problem than zoos having an overabundance of RTLs at the expense of other species - which is what I understood the original discussion to be about. If you want to make the argument that zoos shouldn't phase out endangered lemurs simply because they find them uninteresting, then we have a lot less disagreement there



I don't technically dispute that it was a human error / organizational culture problem - I *do* disagree about how much to place blame on zoos for it, or whether to place any blame at all. Given zoos only recently became seen as responsible for conserving wildlife and helping to save individual species from extinction, I am sympathetic to the fact that they can't save everything and that institutional change takes time - especially when it must be balanced by other needs.



I don't see that as hypocritical at all - to me it looks like comparing apples to oranges. One is an investment (deserved or not) in species that already exist and survive in captivity; the other is an investment in bringing in new, untested species into captivity that may not survive. Certainly you could argue that those are not the right choices to make, but I don't think hypocrisy describes the situation.



Perhaps because they anticipate reproductive success with other species and want to ensure that there is space for them in the future? I can't say for sure, but that's not an uncommon thing for TAGs and SSPs to do - they will recommend that abundant species be replaced by rarer species, even if that's not yet functionally possible. In any case, I already conceded that overabundance of RTLs was an issue being perpetuated by some facilities - I just didn't necessarily agree with your assumption that it was the key factor in preventing growth of other species.

In case there is any misunderstanding: my general feeling is not that many of your arguments are flat-out wrong, but that many of them are based on assumptions that I wouldn't personally make.

It is a very good paper and highly recommend reading it. I don't agree with some of the conclusions that Carl reaches about the future of zoos but I do think there is sound reasoning to his argument.

I mentioned this paper specifically in the context of this thread because of what he states about the historic difficulties that Jersey has had with establishing species of conservation concern which I think is pertinent to what we are discussing. This was due in large part to a number of factors but a major one was the lack of interest by the wider zoo community to maintain / hold these species. This appears to be an identical situation to what happened with the Sanford's brown lemur.

To be clear, I would not say that I think the overabundance of ring tailed lemurs in some zoos is the key factor preventing other species from being kept. Rather I would suggest that many zoos which incidentally keep this species seemingly have a lack of interest in maintaining ex-situ more endangered species of lemur.

I would say, that all the space currently occupied by ring tailed lemurs at most zoos could conceivably be better put to use for other species that are in greater requirement of ex-situ insurance populations. However, this is very different from stating that this is the root cause of this lack of interest / willingness on the part of zoos. This isn't really what I intended to convey.

In the case of the Sanford's brown lemur I would personally put a large share of the blame for the dying out of the species in captivity upon zoos. This because from what I've been able to gather the species was maintained for decades by the Duke lemur centre and despite numerous offers from the centre made to zoos no interest was apparently ever expressed.

I'm not sure that I agree with you regarding the ex-situ conservation role of zoos being a new thing as most zoos have been claiming these credentials since at least the 1970's and 80's and in some cases earlier. I think that if they are to continue claiming this then it is high time that these institutions prove this not with platitudes but with meaningful real-world conservation actions.

 

[Jurek7]

Sportive lemurs are leaf eaters. And I guess nobody wants to be responsible of risking lives of several primates so their food in human care is established.

Yes, almost every reserve supported by zoos does have a population of a local species of sportive lemurs. By the way, it is doubtful that there are really so many species - in every locality there is only one sportive lemur species, and they are now isolated forests so nobody knows if they wouldn't interbreed.

Another thing which some of you may not know is that Madagascar is really extremely poor and with no infrastructure. A level below other tropical countries. Often it is impossible to protect reserves, because there is virtually no infrastructure. Even in a major tourist reserve Isalo I saw people cutting wood and grazing cattle.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Sportive lemurs are leaf eaters. And I guess nobody wants to be responsible of risking lives of several primates so their food in human care is established.

Yes, almost every reserve supported by zoos does have a population of a local species of sportive lemurs. By the way, it is doubtful that there are really so many species - in every locality there is only one sportive lemur species, and they are now isolated forests so nobody knows if they wouldn't interbreed.

Another thing which some of you may not know is that Madagascar is really extremely poor and with no infrastructure. A level below other tropical countries. Often it is impossible to protect reserves, because there is virtually no infrastructure. Even in a major tourist reserve Isalo I saw people cutting wood and grazing cattle.

That could well be a factor that figures highly into considerations by zoos (if indeed there are such considerations) on not to keep sportive lemurs.

However, it hasn't stopped the highly folivorous Coquerel's sifaka from being kept by several zoos has it ?

I think that most of us do realize that Madagascar is one of the poorest countries in the world and that the issue of effectively conserving remaining protected areas and their biodiversity is a steep challenge and a total conundrum.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

In case there is any misunderstanding: my general feeling is not that many of your arguments are flat-out wrong, but that many of them are based on assumptions that I wouldn't personally make.

No, don't worry @Coelacanth18 , I respectfully disagree with many of your arguments but there isn't any misunderstanding.

In fact I think you have added greater nuance to the discussion and raised some interesting points which I do appreciate.