History of arrival of Livingstone's fruit bats at Jersey (1990 -1995)
Here is a brief history of how the Livingston's fruit bats arrived in Jersey zoo through capture attempts that spanned the first half of the 90's.
On the rationale for the capture of the bats from the wild:
"In response to the perceived threat of extinction posed by the low number of P. livingstonii and its limited distribution, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) listed it as priority Grade 1 (Mickleburgh et at., 1992). Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust (JWPT) began efforts to bring a population into captivity for breeding, in collaboration with the Centre Nationale de Documentation et de Recherche Scientifique des Comores (CNDRS) and the Government of the RFIC, which retains official ownership of all animals involved in the captive breeding programme (Carroll and Thorpe, 1991). A goal of 20 wild-caught bats (ten males and ten females) was arrived at primarily as a balance between a minimum number set by theoretical genetic concerns (Lacy, 1994) and a maximum number set by the perceived small numbers of animals in the wild."
Difficulties experienced in the field with the first capture attempts:
"However, limited by dwindling habitat. practicality and expense emerged as decisive factors in capture efforts. The first expedition, in 1990 (Carroll and Thorpe, 1991), yielded no captures for two primary reasons: 1) the need for increased capture-site reconnaissance, and 2) the need for improved expertise and equipment. The next expedition, in 1992, successfully captured five males and one female at a site dubbed the "Pentagon."
"Crucially, in this year a promising site for future attempts was identified ("Bistro 21 "), where P. Livingstonii are attracted to flowering kapok trees Ceiba pentandra in sufficient numbers to allow capture. Thus, one recommendation resulting from the 1992 attempt was the importance of timing capture attempts with kapok flowering. In 1993, a further expedition caught six males and one female at Bistro 21, known locally as Hunguni, although one male died shortly after capture. External examination revealed lesions around the mouth (possibly ulcers or net injuries), although no in-depth post mortem was attempted. Problems highlighted during this expedition included delays in assembling personnel, causing capture to commence after peak flowering, and a significant male bias in bats caught, caused either by a bias in the source population or in the catching technique (Young et aL., 1993). Further recommendations included the need for sufficient personpower, equipment and time to allow for inclement weather (Trewhella et aL., 1995)."
"In the course of these expeditions, capture at known day roosting sites (as bats disperse at dusk and return at dawn) was ruled out for two primary reasons. The first was practicality; roosts are located at sites in which night mist-netting would be impossible -forested areas above 650 m altitude, on steep, wet mountain sides. The second and more serious concern was that disturbance at roosts may lead to abandonment, as has been observed in related species (Mickleburgh et aL., 1992). This could place a serious strain on the remaining wild population, if suitable roosts are However, limited by dwindling habitat."
The first wild caught Livingstones fruit bat arrive at Jersey zoo in the early 90's, but with skewed sex ratios, females begin giving birth:
"By the end of 1994, there were ten males, two females, one captive-bred female, and two wild-conceived but captive-born females held at JWPT (Courts and Wormell, 1996). The 1995 expedition was thus the fourth attempt in six years, and aimed to bring together previous years' experience and to augment the colony with eight additional female P; livingstonii."
The Jersey Livingstone's fruit bat colony numbers are boosted in 1995 by the capture of more females to address the skewed sex ratio. Lessons learned in first capture attempts are applied and some success achieved.
"The single most important factor in the success of the 1995 expedition was the ability to coordinate the capture to coincide with the most appropriate time of year at a previously identified catching site."
"A second factor in the successes of 1995 was improved equipment, particularly the thicker aluminium net supports used, which past experience had indicated would be .helpful (Trewhella et al., 1995). The altered poles allowed a greater tension on top net lines and thus a greater net height (Saw, 1996). The majority of P. livingstonii captures were made in the middle bank of nets, with approximately equal and smaller numbers caught in the upper and lower banks, indicating that a middle net height of about 17 m was appropriate".
"The expedition succeeded in capturing five of the eight females desired for the captive population, undertook the most extensive census of P. Livingstonii to date, and continued with environmental education work on the island of Anjouan. Considerable further effort will be needed to ensure that the species survives in the future."
"The target founder population for the captive bat programme of 10 males and 10 females was established as a compromise between the need to meet genetic requirements (Ballou and Ralls, 1982; Templeton and Reed, 1984; Lacy, 1994) and the limitations posed by a small wild population. Pteropus livingstonii is still extremely vulnerable, although this study has shown that the wild population is considerably larger than previously thought."
Future of the bats at Jersey zoo and the Rodrigues fruit bat as a model for the Livingstone's:
"The long-term management of the bats now in captivity will follow that of the Rodrigues fruit bat Pteropus rodricensis (Mickleburgh et al., 1992), in order to minimise the loss of genetic diversity within the population (Carroll, 1988; Mace and Carroll, 1995). This management strategy takes into account the apparently promiscuous, harem-based social structure of P. Iivingstonii -(Pierson and Rainey, 1992; Herron, 1993) and the uncertainty of paternity within the population which results. Further studies both on P. rodricensis and P. Iivingstonii will enable this model to be refined."
On the ex-situ value of the captured Livingstone's bats:
"The captive population of P. livingstonii serves several purposes (WRI/IUCN/ UNEP, 1992). First, it serves to focus both attention and funding on this species, and thus provides a flagship for the conservation of Comorian wildlife. Second, it provides the opportunity to study a species which is extremely poorly known; the population has already yielded valuable studies of social behaviour, feeding habits, and reproductive biology (Herron, 1993; Courts, 1996a,b,c; Courts, 1997a,b; Courts and Wormell, 1996). Third, it provides potential for reintroduction of the species should this ever be desirable in the future. In the P. rodricensis programme, this has not proven necessary to date. Removal of the major threats to this species (hunting and habitat destruction) combined with a lack of major tropical storms during the 1980s has allowed the wild population to recover from a low of around 100 to approximately 3,000 in 1995 (K. Whitman, pers. comm.)."
Source (use sci-hub to access paper 
): CAPTURE AND SURVEY OF LIVINGSTONE'S FRUIT BATS Pteropus livingstonii IN THE COMOROS ISLANDS: THE 1995 EXPEDITION, Clark et al, 1997 (Journal: The Dodo).
.