"There is no conservation value in keeping exotics in Australian zoos" - prove me wrong.

[MRJ]

There is a thread on Zoochat about things that you see visitors do or say at zoos that annoy you. Well, there are things on Zoochat that annoy me and one of these is the claim that such and such an exotic species should be kept in Australian zoos for "conservation" reasons. Most recently it was a post in the Australian Hippo thread. I actually posted a reply but deleted it. So I'm posting this.

I'll tell you why:

• There simply are not enough spaces available in Australian zoos for a viable conservation program. The two largest conservation breeding programs for natives in Australian zoos, the Tasmanian devil and orange-bellied parrot, each have about 500 animals. Imagine finding 500 spaces for an exotic species, it would wipe out spaces of so many other display species.
• The obvious answer would be to be a participant in an overseas program. However Australia's, biosecurity laws and the sheer tyranny of distance makes this a difficult and expensive option. In most zoo transfers the receiving zoo pays the cost of the transfer. Few zoos in Europe or North America would want to pay the enormous costs involved when they could get an animal from down the road. Australian zoos would have to pay all the costs.
• Just keeping and breeding a threatened species is not enough. A conservation program must be about improving the status of a species in the wild, whether that be directly with a species or more generally with an ecosystem. Zoo associations agree with this, both AZA and EAZA regard in-situ programs as complying with their conservation accreditation requirements, very few ex-situ programs qualify, and ZAA is following suit.

There have only been a couple of genuine ex-situ programs for exotic species in Australia that I am aware of:

• The attempt to establish an insurance population of black rhinos, based at Western Plains Zoo.
• Melbourne Zoo rescuing a frog species from the Hong Kong airport construction site and returning it after construction had finished. Actually small animals would be ideal candidates for any programs the zoos might consider, however I don't see anybody arguing on these pages for more populations of tiny brown frogs in Australian zoos.

There have been other one off events involving the release of very small numbers of animals bred in Australia, but these events would have almost no influence on the conservation of the species concerned. I would call them experimental, but others less kind might call them PR stunts.

Please note I am not arguing against having exotic animals on display, and recognize they can be valuable as ambassadors. There are some great examples, for instance orangutans and palm oil.

Claiming that Australia needs populations of exotic animals like hippos for conservation reasons is just greenwash. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I'm not going to argue in favour of exotic species in Australian zoos but neither am I going to rule out the possibility that zoos on the Australian continent could in theory help with ex-situ efforts for exotic species (Australia is a megadiverse country / continent but it is not as crippled socio-economically and in terms of infrastructure as other megadiverse countries regions).

Rather what I would say (similar to my views / stance on zoos in South America / Latin America) is that the primary focus and number one priority of zoos in Australia should always be towards ex-situ and supporting in-situ programes with native species and biodiversity over exotic species.

Also, just a question, but what about species native to islands that are part of the Australasian Pacific region (geographically and geopolitically) but not native to the Australian mainland continent ?

Personally I do strongly believe that Australian zoos should be heavily involved / invested in the ex-situ / in-situ conservation of the species that I refer to above.

 

[Coelacanth18]

This is such an interesting and well-argued take that I want to engage you on it simply for the sake of discourse, but not being that knowledgeable about Australia's specific biosecurity restrictions I'll only make two general points and acknowledge that both may be more complicated than I'm positing:

(Also, for what it's worth: my second point may be moot based on your interpretation of "conservation program" potentially not including the simple breeding of endangered species - but not being privy to the hippo conversation that sparked this I included it anyway. Feel free to disregard if it doesn't quite fit what you are talking about.)

1. As far as running conservation programs for exotic species goes, Australia (as well as New Zealand) may be well-positioned to help species within the Australasia-Pacific region outside of their respective countries, as @Onychorhynchus coronatus brought up. Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, and other Pacific island countries have species of conservation concern and may lack the infrastructural capacities of the two regional powers. Depending on how lax biosecurity laws are for Pacific island endemics, that may be a set of species where Australia could play a major role in a proper conservation program.

2. Even though admittedly it is difficult and expensive for Australian zoos to participate in many international programs for exotic species - and the overall advantages may be small - I think it's worth keeping in mind the idea of seeing captive populations as global, even if they are managed regionally. Australia might make up only a small fraction of the available captive space for species like Francois' Langur, Javan Gibbon, African Painted Dog, and Sumatran Tiger - but these programs nevertheless benefit from the additional space, and one day the survival of highly threatened species like these could be decided on the margins. I'm not personally much of a believer in the idea that most endangered zoo populations will one day replenish the wild, but I also think it's worth it for zoos to maintain their support for the ones they have now so we don't one day end up kicking ourselves for thinking it didn't matter.

 

[toothlessjaws]

If there is no conservation value in keeping exotic species in Australian zoos, then Australian zoos need to stop convincing the public thats the reason they keep exotic species.

 

[Andrew Swales]

This is such an interesting and well-argued take that I want to engage you on it simply for the sake of discourse, but not being that knowledgeable about Australia's specific biosecurity restrictions I'll only make two general points and acknowledge that both may be more complicated than I'm positing:

(Also, for what it's worth: my second point may be moot based on your interpretation of "conservation program" potentially not including the simple breeding of endangered species - but not being privy to the hippo conversation that sparked this I included it anyway. Feel free to disregard if it doesn't quite fit what you are talking about.)

1. As far as running conservation programs for exotic species goes, Australia (as well as New Zealand) may be well-positioned to help species within the Australasia-Pacific region outside of their respective countries, as @Onychorhynchus coronatus brought up. Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, and other Pacific island countries have species of conservation concern and may lack the infrastructural capacities of the two regional powers. Depending on how lax biosecurity laws are for Pacific island endemics, that may be a set of species where Australia could play a major role in a proper conservation program.

2. Even though admittedly it is difficult and expensive for Australian zoos to participate in many international programs for exotic species - and the overall advantages may be small - I think it's worth keeping in mind the idea of seeing captive populations as global, even if they are managed regionally. Australia might make up only a small fraction of the available captive space for species like Francois' Langur, Javan Gibbon, African Painted Dog, and Sumatran Tiger - but these programs nevertheless benefit from the additional space, and one day the survival of highly threatened species like these could be decided on the margins. I'm not personally much of a believer in the idea that most endangered zoo populations will one day replenish the wild, but I also think it's worth it for zoos to maintain their support for the ones they have now so we don't one day end up kicking ourselves for thinking it didn't matter.

Yes, absolutely. There are numerous reasons for Zoos existing, and the recreational, leisure, cultural, historical, personal and financial elements are all part of the equation, along with any others I might have missed. To reduce zoos to collections of threatened native spp only and thus reduce the wider contact with the variety of life for the general population to someone else's edited 'high-lights' lost in the dross of data on their mobile phone, is a grave error - in my opinion...

 

[Dassie rat]

I agree with MRJ's general premise, although I would change it to 'There is generally no direct conservation value in keeping exotics in Australian zoos'. Unless the zoos are keeping exotic animals as part of a reintroduction programme, it would be better to keep and breed endangered native species. I think there is something very wrong in many Australian zoos keeping meerkats and very few keeping numbats. There are also various other species kept in one or two zoos and nowhere else in the world. Surely these species should take priority over exotic species kept in hundreds of zoos around the world.

Whether there is a direct conservation value in keeping exotics in Australian zoos is debatable. Many Zoochatters have said that people visit zoos to see the ABC species and this pays for the XYZ species. Whether seeing an endangered species that is not part of a reintroduction programme encourages many visitors to invest in in-situ conservation is debatable. Many visitors will want to see some species, regardless of their conservation status.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Actually small animals would be ideal candidates for any programs the zoos might consider, however I don't see anybody arguing on these pages for more populations of tiny brown frogs in Australian zoos.

I'm fairly sure I've argued many times for there to be more populations of "little brown jobs" like this in all zoos

 

[Andrew Swales]

I think there is something very wrong in many Australian zoos keeping meerkats and very few keeping numbats. .

This is an unfair and simplistic 'choice', and not one most collections (be they in Australia or abroad) are in any position to make.

 

[Dassie rat]

So why do so many Australian zoos keep meerkats, rather than endangered Australian mammals?

 

[Andrew Swales]

So why do so many Australian zoos keep meerkats, rather than endangered Australian mammals?

A question probably better answered by someone nearer than I am, but I would suspect that the answer is very straight-forward; just look at the tick boxes:
Meerkats are social, diurnal, dead easy to house, easy to manage, hardy, easy to feed, recognisable to every visitor, popular with every visitor and available.
Does the same apply to Numbats?
Whether your zoo is on the Darling Downs, or the Dunstable Downs...
Therein probably lies your answer.
Simples...

 

[FBBird]

A question probably better answered by someone nearer than I am, but I would suspect that the answer is very straight-forward; just look at the tick boxes:
Meerkats are social, diurnal, dead easy to house, easy to manage, hardy, easy to feed, recognisable to every visitor, popular with every visitor and available.
Does the same apply to Numbats?
Whether your zoo is on the Darling Downs, or the Dunstable Downs...
Therein probably lies your answer.
Simples...

Well said, I think. Many common zoo animals are there because they’re relatively easy, and attractive.

 

[Dassie rat]

To Andrew Swales and FBBird; MRJ's original statement was 'There is generally no conservation value in keeping exotics in Australian zoos'.

Meerkats are popular zoo animals but have no conservation value, whether they are kept in Australian zoos or elsewhere.

 

[Dassie rat]

Meerkats are social, diurnal, dead easy to house, easy to manage, hardy, easy to feed, recognisable to every visitor, popular with every visitor and available.
Does the same apply to Numbats?

Numbats are diurnal, attractive and lively have been bred in zoos. I remember when the meerkat was an obscure mongoose.

 

[Andrew Swales]

Numbats are diurnal, attractive and lively have been bred in zoos. I remember when the meerkat was an obscure mongoose.

Given - but none of which makes one a simple replacement for the other....
Many zoos could (and would) keep both, if it were possible.

 

[littleRedPanda]

Meerkats are popular zoo animals but have no conservation value, whether they are kept in Australian zoos or elsewhere.

This has been argued before. If they attract visitors to zoos, then they bring in money at lesser cost than more threatened species. Therefore there is a contribution. Maybe a bit of basic way of putting it, but I know a previous discussion on here kind of opened my eyes a bit.

 

[Andrew Swales]

If there is no conservation value in keeping exotic species in Australian zoos, then Australian zoos need to stop convincing the public thats the reason they keep exotic species.

To Andrew Swales and FBBird; MRJ's original statement was 'There is generally no conservation value in keeping exotics in Australian zoos'.

Meerkats are popular zoo animals but have no conservation value, whether they are kept in Australian zoos or elsewhere.

It was you who introduced Meerkats into the discussion, not me.
I was simply replying to your presumption that Australian zoos were choosing to keep them instead of Numbats.
I will stand corrected, but very much doubt that is the case.

 

[Dassie rat]

I don't think most zoos would want to keep numbats. I remember reading about Edinburgh having 8 meerkat enclosures, despite losing many species. I read 'The Last Tasmanian Tiger', where the last captive thylacine was neglected compared to more popular species.

 

[Dassie rat]

This has been argued before. If they attract visitors to zoos, then they bring in money at lesser cost than more threatened species. Therefore there is a contribution. Maybe a bit of basic way of putting it, but I know a previous discussion on here kind of opened my eyes a bit.

Please read MRJ's statement '"There is no conservation in keeping exotics in Australian zoos" - prove me wrong'. This is about the conservation value of keeping exotics - not about whether some exotic species are popular and attract visitors.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

This has been argued before. If they attract visitors to zoos, then they bring in money at lesser cost than more threatened species. Therefore there is a contribution. Maybe a bit of basic way of putting it, but I know a previous discussion on here kind of opened my eyes a bit.

Indeed.... this being the reason why (despite not being keen on things like white tigers and meerkats at all) I am very much in favour of their presence at somewhere like Hamerton; they bring in the footfall and cashflow that allows something more "interesting" or of more conservation significance to be brought in.

This applies to bigger places too - the "dull" ABCs have to be present for somewhere like London or Bristol to be able to afford all those Partula!

 

[Andrew Swales]

I don't think most zoos would want to keep numbats. I remember reading about Edinburgh having 8 meerkat enclosures, despite losing many species. I read 'The Last Tasmanian Tiger', where the last captive thylacine was neglected compared to more popular species.

This example is getting just a little desperate!
To suggest that modern zoos would not be interested in conserving the Thylacine, is bizarre, and I am sure that many would like to help with Numbats.
This remote debate is getting somewhat cyclical and I hope that someone nearer to the action can give clarification as to whether zoos replacing their Meerkats with Numbats is anything other than a theoretical fantasy.