Predicting Extinctions

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Don't want to get into this debate again, but I am thoroughly perplexed by this comment. I understand your anxiety for lesser known species - I happen to feel the same way about them. However, the tiger would probably be one of the last examples I would ever use for reintroduction of captive animals.

Tigers are one of the largest draws at a zoo. The largest of the big cats - and according to many the most impressive and beautiful - is essential for hundreds of zoos worldwide. A large proportion of those zoos hold hybrid animals, specimens that could most likely never be reintroduced unless it was absolutely necessary.

Secondly, what would these tigers be reintroduced into? As you say, their habitat is being destroyed at an alarming rate. Another one of the most pertinent problems facing tigers is human-tiger conflict. The problem in this case is that, particularly in India, the areas where tigers are most abundant are also the areas where the population is increasing the fastest. This means that there is a high rate of tiger persecution in the area. The effect of introducing more tigers in this area would result in both more competition between the tigers (resulting in deaths by starvation) and more human-tiger conflict (again, more deaths). So essentially, reintroducing tigers does no favours for the tigers already there.

Reintroducing all the tigers in captivity would almost triple the wild population in an ever-reducing space, while significantly reducing the revenue of many zoos. I hope you see that this is ridiculous.

Reintroduction would be immensely difficult but I believe that what @Dassie rat is getting at is less advocating reintroduction and actually a more philosophical point.

I think what he is questioning is why are these endangered subspecies of leopard, tiger and lion in zoos if they cannot be reintroduced ?

Furthermore, why are zoos congratulating themselves and marketing themselves as the saviours of these subspecies when keeping them ultimately defeats the objective / purpose ?

You could make the case that Carl Jones argues for persuasively IMO that we should be looking more at the genetic "domestication" of zoomix tigers and lions of no value for conservation but that attract visitors rather than keeping endangered subspecies in conditions which defeat the objective of their conservation.

 

[amur leopard]

I too don't want to get into a debate, but I think he means introducing tigers into conservation facilities and sanctuaries in their native range surveyed by scientists to increase the population, not just thrown out in the middle of a decimated landscape.

Then why did he say in situ? Even if he did, these places would firstly have to be built, bring in no income, be protected from poachers and their transfer would serve little to no purpose - they are still in captivity, whether or not they are in their native range is fairly irrelevant in this context.

Reintroduction would be difficult but I believe that what @Dassie rat is getting at is less advocating reintroduction and more a more philosophical point in the sense that what are these endangered subspecies of leopard, tiger and lion doing in zoos if they cannot be reintroduced ?

They are bringing in money and inspiring people to get involved in conservation, very simply. And while I am certainly concerned about the plight of smaller, less known species, there is no doubt that tigers and other megafauna bring in much, much more money than their smaller and lesser known counterparts. You can be philosophers all you want, it won't result in any concrete action since what you propose is off the cards and impossible, not to mention unhelpful and inefficient. Personally, I see no reason at all for it.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Then why did he say in situ? Even if he did, these places would firstly have to be built, bring in no income, be protected from poachers and their transfer would serve little to no purpose - they are still in captivity, whether or not they are in their native range is fairly irrelevant in this context.



They are bringing in money and inspiring people to get involved in conservation, very simply. And while I am certainly concerned about the plight of smaller, less known species, there is no doubt that tigers and other megafaune bring in much, much more money than their smaller and lesser known counterparts. You can be philosophers all you want, it won't result in any concrete action since what you propose is off the cards and impossible, not to mention unhelpful and inefficient. Personally, I see no reason at all for it.

No one is saying that they don't bring in money or inspire people to care about conservation but rather that keeping endangered subspecies of the tiger, lion and leopard in zoos is rather self defeating when you consider the actions that are necessary for their survival in-situ and their overall wellbeing in captivity.

As I've mentioned Carl Jones has argued persuasively that we should be looking at keeping genetically "domesticated" zoomix tiger, lion and leopard as viable alternatives that are of no conservation value but still keep visitors coming through the doors and paying to see them whilst also lessening the stress that these animals experience within zoos.

I really hope you get involved in conservation one day @amur leopard by the way because then you can use the word "concrete action" meaningfully with a fuller sense / grasp of what it means and entails within the context of species conservation

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

@Carlos M This is a little bit off topic but still relevant within the context of this thread in terms of conservation but does the zoo you mention keep native and endangered freshwater turtles ?

 

[Carlos M]

@Carlos M This is a little bit off topic but still relevant within the context of this thread in terms of conservation but does the zoo you mention keep native and endangered freshwater turtles ?

Last time I went there (now more than a year ago), they supposedly keep Central American Snapping Turtle (Chelydra rossignonii), which are classified as Vulnerable, and also Central American River Turtle (Dermatemys mawii), classified as Critically Endangered. However, I don't actually remember seeing that last species, only the former one years ago. So I fear that maybe those species aren't kept anymore, even though their enclosures are still there but possibly empty.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Last time I went there (now more than a year ago), they supposedly keep Central American Snapping Turtle (Chelydra rossignonii), which are classified as Vulnerable, and also Central American River Turtle (Dermatemys mawii), classified as Critically Endangered. However, I don't actually remember seeing that last species, only the former one years ago. So I fear that maybe those species aren't kept anymore, even though their enclosures are still there but possibly empty.

There is a picture in the gallery of a mixed species enclosure at the Aurora zoo with caiman and numerous freshwater turtle species.

Is this the enclosure they were being kept in ? or was it another?

By the way, will PM you about something.

 

[Carlos M]

There is a picture in the gallery of a mixed species enclosure at the Aurora zoo with caiman and numerous freshwater turtle species.

Is this the enclosure they were being kept in ? or was it another?

By the way, will PM you about something.

No, that's not the enclosure. The enclosure in the picture is supposedly home to Painted wood turtle (Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima), Northern giant musk turtle (Staurotypus triporcatus), and White-lipped mud turtle (Kinosternon leucostomum), along with Spectacled Caiman. However, last times I went the enclosure was only home to Mesoamerican slider (Trachemys venusta). Maybe the signs are outdated, or I'm misidentifying the animals. But in the gallery there's a picture of a some subaquatic exhibit in construction, which I believe is the one that ended up being the supposedly home to the species I mention formerly.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

No, that's not the enclosure. The enclosure in the picture is supposedly home to Painted wood turtle (Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima), Northern giant musk turtle (Staurotypus triporcatus), and White-lipped mud turtle (Kinosternon leucostomum), along with Spectacled Caiman. However, last times I went the enclosure was only home to Mesoamerican slider (Trachemys venusta). Maybe the signs are outdated, or I'm misidentifying the animals. But in the gallery there's a picture of a some subaquatic exhibit in construction, which I believe is the one that ended up being the supposedly home to the species I mention formerly.

Thanks for that info @Carlos M ! much appreciated!

Ah I see, well it wasn't a bad looking enclosure from the photo though there looks like there were a lot of animals kept together within it and perhaps too many.

I'll have a look and see if I can find that exhibit that you mentioned, it would be interesting also to find out what happened to that ex-situ programe for those particular species.

 

[15399]

Some of the other threads deal with this in more detail, but there are a few flaws with your argument. What defines a species? Difficult to say - there are various definitions, many of which reference divergence dates. But stripped down to its bare bones, a species is a group of animals that add something different to the environment and are adapted differently to other groups of animals to cope well in the habitats they must contend with.

I'm sure you are aware of the massive differences between, e.g., Amur and Sumatran tigers. A Sumatran tiger would doubtlessly not last long in the Russian winter and vice versa. The situation is the same, though mostly less poignant, with lots of other subspecies. You also say there are plenty of tigers. This is simply not the case. The only subspecies that is not in grave danger is the Bengal tiger. IUCN evaluation is not only based on the number of a certain species that exist, but also their population density. For example, the Saiga antelope numbers in the hundreds of thousands, yet is critically endangered since its range is massive, stretching over a large portion of Northern Asia, while there are a large number of fish species endemic to a single lake who have been ruled as least concern. Therefore, given the tiger's range and therefore extraordinarily low population density, the species is still highly endangered in its own right.

You may well argue that it is more important to save species, and I would (to an extent) agree with you. I would be cautious in saying that, though - letting a couple of megafauna subspecies go extinct is not a great look...

While tiger and leopard are examples with different subspecies with extreme differences, there are some that I believe could, should, and in some cases are, being mixed. These include Sloth and sun bears, red panda, giraffe, etc.

 

[Zoofan15]

While tiger and leopard are examples with different subspecies, there are some that I believe could, should, and in some cases are, being mixed. These include Sloth and sun bears, red panda, giraffe, etc.

I think the difficulty we have (within a captive situation) is that the definition of what is acceptable to hybridise varies not just from region to region, but from zoo to zoo; and changes over the decades. These changes are often difficult to reverse.

Around 30 years ago, it was accepted by every accredited zoo that Bornean and Sumatran orangutans should not be hybridised as they are seperate species. There is currently a moratorium on the breeding of hybrids - some of which are only in their 30’s and will live several decades more.

There appears to be little consensus on how chimpanzee populations should be managed. Many (including every Australasian zoo) happily hybridise the different subspecies; whereas a handful of European zoos maintain populations of purebred Western chimpanzees; while others have Central chimpanzees.

Ideally, decisions need to be made universally (like with the orangutans) and followed long term; otherwise in the future, we’re just undoing the work of previous generations if we declare their current work invalid/obsolete.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I think the difficulty we have (within a captive situation) is that the definition of what is acceptable to hybridise varies not just from region to region, but from zoo to zoo; and changes over the decades. These changes are often difficult to reverse.

Around 30 years ago, it was accepted by every accredited zoo that Bornean and Sumatran orangutans should not be hybridised as they are seperate species. There is currently a moratorium on the breeding of hybrids - some of which are only in their 30’s and will live several decades more.

There appears to be little consensus on how chimpanzee populations should be managed. Many (including every Australasian zoo) happily hybridise the different subspecies; whereas a handful of European zoos maintain populations of purebred Western chimpanzees; while others have Central chimpanzees.

Ideally, decisions need to be made universally (like with the orangutans) and followed long term; otherwise in the future, we’re just undoing the work of previous generations if we declare their current work invalid/obsolete.

Yes, totally agree with you on that point @Zoofan15 , I think there is always a need to be consistent and to think and plan towards the long-term in both in-situ and ex-situ conservation.

 

[amur leopard]

While tiger and leopard are examples with different subspecies with extreme differences, there are some that I believe could, should, and in some cases are, being mixed. These include Sloth and sun bears, red panda, giraffe, etc.

Giraffes are split into several different species, which are then split into a couple of subspecies with recognisably different coat patterns and differing characteristics. I’m not saying they couldn’t be able to survive in the wild in another species’ or subspecies’ range, I’m saying that by letting one subspecies go extinct is essentially cancelling out hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, meaning that the animals that now live there are less adapted and the ecosystem is less productive and efficient. The same goes for the others you mention, who all have fairly big differences between the subspecies with the potential exception of sun bears.

Generally speaking though, the subspecies of the species you mention are not normally held as different identities - they data they have a red panda, not a Styan’s red panda.

 

[15399]

Giraffes are split into several different species, which are then split into a couple of subspecies with recognisably different coat patterns and differing characteristics. I’m not saying they couldn’t be able to survive in the wild in another species’ or subspecies’ range, I’m saying that by letting one subspecies go extinct is essentially cancelling out hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, meaning that the animals that now live there are less adapted and the ecosystem is less productive and efficient. The same goes for the others you mention, who all have fairly big differences between the subspecies with the potential exception of sun bears.

Generally speaking though, the subspecies of the species you mention are not normally held as different identities - they data they have a red panda, not a Styan’s red panda.

Giraffe was definitely a stretch and I almost didn't include it for that reason. Both bears and the red Panda I do think should be managed only at the species level. Same with African lions.

 

[Julio C Castro]

While on the subject of megafauna overtaking the eyes and attention of zoo visitors: it’s a double edged sword in my opinion. Zoos have many aspects they need to hit on to not only be popular enough to bring in funds but also help with conserving endangered species. Some of the lesser charismatic species are displayed yet it appears at times they are severely overshadowed by megafauna almost always other than specific exhibitions such as reptile houses or aviaries. But whether they are displayed or kept behind the scenes, the lesser known species who are in need of help should be at or near the front of conservation efforts at zoos. The megafauna are BIG incentives for visitors to go to zoos and be a reason for their funding, they are so far a key part as well and may not be changing since some of those megafauna species also being endangered. I do like the push that some zoos and aquariums to promote some of their lesser known species. The Aquarium of the Pacific has a fantastic collection of amphibians, a good majority being vulnerable/endangered species. On my last visits, people of all ages were interested or at least would want to see these species. And as for their more recent expansion, Pacific Visions, delta smelt are a key specie exhibited and speaks on the importance of indicator specie for an environment. These exhibitions are big help and awareness for species that would otherwise only ever be kept off exhibit. Unfortunately, some species that were mentioned such as the Vaquita, are likely to be extinct. Certain species are doomed no matter what efforts are done, but if there is a chance to help maintain a secured population propagate, it should and needs to be done. But this effort is solely not on institutions, it’s on all of us.

 

[Dassie rat]

Giraffe was definitely a stretch and I almost didn't include it for that reason. Both bears and the red Panda I do think should be managed only at the species level. Same with African lions.

Perhaps that is the solution. If a species is not part of a reintroduction programme, just keep it at the species level in zoos and breed sparingly. If it is part of a reintroduction, keep subspecies pure so that the progeny can be introduced to the wild.

 

[birdsandbats]

Quitobaquito Pupfish along with its home, one of the only permanent water sources in the Sonoran Desert will go soon, I think.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Quitobaquito Pupfish along with its home, one of the only permanent water sources in the Sonoran Desert will go soon, I think.

I think that there is more of a chance of the population on the Mexican side of the Sonoran desert going extinct rather than the one in Arizona / the USA.

I do think it will be taken into captivity / ex-situ long before it gets to the point of a die off in the wild though.

Nevertheless, yes, with climate change on the horizon and a projected increase in desertification across that region the future in-situ does look bleak for the species and many other pupfish in Mexico and the USA.

 

[birdsandbats]

I think that there is more of a chance of the population on the Mexican side of the Sonoran desert going extinct rather than the one in Arizona / the USA.

I do think it will be taken into captivity / ex-situ long before it gets to the point of a die off in the wild though.

Really? I know the population on the US side (along with the pond they live in) is being hit hard by the border wall.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Really? I know the population on the US side (along with the pond they live in) is being hit hard by the border wall.

All biodiversity is being hit hard by the absurd border wall.

 

[birdsandbats]

All biodiversity is being hit hard by the absurd border wall.

Let's hope Biden tears it down asap, hopefully that will be in time to save whatever wildlife is still left.