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

  • Thread starter Thread starter MRJ
  • Start date Start date
Andrew Swales said:
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...
Click to expand...
I agree zoos generally could do a much better job selling their non-conservation benefits. If the post I referred to had said something like: "Australian zoos should have a population of pygmy hippos because they assist in showing the diversity of life in rainforests and the importance of rainforests. They are also popular with visitors thus increasing visitor satisfaction" I would have said fair enough.

As for us we have nailed our standard to the mast of conservation and are happy to be judged by that.

Not sure what mobile phones have to do with the discussion though. ;)
 
MRJ said:
You are correct my interpretation of conservation does not include simply keeping and breeding. Nor is it acceptable to regional associations including AZA, EAZA, and ZAA any more, either. A classic example is the pygmy hippo, It is classified as Endangered in the wild but I believe there are over 3,000 animals in zoos round the world. How are those animals in zoos aiding the species in the wild? More specifically for this discussion, how does adding 10 or 20 animals in Australian zoos to that 3000 further their conservation?
Click to expand...

I would agree with that - simply keeping and breeding a species that is not in immediate danger of disappearing in the wild at any moment (ex. Bali myna) is, by itself, not a conservation program nor is it likely to make a meaningful impact on the survival of a species. This goes hand-in-hand with my belief that claiming zoos should keep lots of species as "assurance populations" is short-sighted when there is no plan in place to replenish wild populations and when reintroduction is far from a straightforward or easy process. The idea that we should rely on zoos to keep polar bears from going extinct when their habitat is being permanently altered by climate change (for example) is nonsensical IMO. Of course for zoos in North America or Europe I think there is little harm in trying to keep viable populations of endangered species anyway (and that's sort of the point I was trying to get across), but I understand how the calculus might be different for Australia. Again, not being familiar with the specific costs or biosecurity issues I'm not the one to make a judgement about what species are worth the cost for Australian zoos in particular.

MRJ said:
I think Australian zoos could definitely have roles in taking surpluses from other regions without necessarily being part of the core programs.
Click to expand...

That seems reasonable to me, especially given that surplus animals will often be available; it would free up space for more genetically valuable breeding in larger zoo regions; and it would probably be enough to satisfy an average Australian visitor's itch for seeing ABC exotics. Actually makes more sense than what I was thinking about minimal participation in breeding still being potentially worthwhile, as Australia gets a lot of the species without the added cost of having to transfer some of them out (which frankly doesn't seem to happen too often/for most species anyway, based on what I've read from @Chlidonias's species threads for the country).
 
Simon Hampel said:
Yes, I don't think Meerkats have any real educational value in Australia - unless specifically in the context of the African savannah.

For example, Monarto Zoo's collection of Meerkats makes sense from an educational perspective given the other animals they keep and the environment they have at the zoo - a rough approximation of the savannah.

It makes far less sense to me in many other zoos for anything more than a crowd-pleaser.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, if it corresponds to an African thematic area or concept within a zoo then there is a congruence.
 
We Humans are an interesting species, we infrequently value the common wildlife that lives with us, but we love the exotic/different/foreign.

Exotic wildlife differs wherever you are in the world. Something you see for free everyday can have no local value, but is considered exotic overseas. When I lived in Cairns, Busloads of tourists used to stop at the local park to view Agile Wallabies, whereas locals barely gave them a second glance, and complained about their poop on the footy pitch. When visiting a major zoo, I would estimate that 80% of Australasians think their local wildlife is less appealing to see than the exotic charismatic mega fauna, and it is the exotic that drives visitation to the major Zoos in the country. (you only have to spent a few minutes in the entry queue to hear what people want to see, and sadly in my many years of visiting zoos I have yet to hear anyone say “I want to see the Red-Tailed Phascogale / Eastern Barred Bandicoot / Spinifex Hopping-mouse”… all charismatic and interesting creatures that should be better known in Australia.)

Re-reading the Australasian Hippo Population thread, the only time the “Conservation” word is listed is in my post where I stated “We are talking about major conservation organisations that are multi million dollar businesses, that have the backing, funding and support of State governments” and in this context I was referring to the Zoos in the region that currently display Hippos.

I can’t see where anyone is advocating for 500 Hippos to be brought into the Country. The last movements in the region were in 2013 (exports to Indonesia) and there is speculation that to keep the Hippo population going that some female Hippos be bred with their Sire. (The current 2.9 Hippos and 3.2 Pygmy Hippos in the region are all closely related) I appreciate that the region is along way from the other major zoo regions and that importing Hippos is a difficult and complex business, with difficult legislative and quarantine requirements. I truly hope that some progress can be made in importing a few hippos to improve the overall genetic health of the next generation of individuals to be held on display. I hope that it can be done sooner rather than in the next decade – otherwise we would be better off phasing them out of the region ( it's only going to take the untimely death of 2.0 Hippos and 0.2 Pygmy Hippos for the phase out to be a fait accompli).
 
kiwimuzz said:
I would estimate that 80% of Australasians think their local wildlife is less appealing to see than the exotic charismatic mega fauna, and it is the exotic that drives visitation to the major Zoos in the country. (you only have to spent a few minutes in the entry queue to hear what people want to see, and sadly in my many years of visiting zoos I have yet to hear anyone say “I want to see the Red-Tailed Phascogale / Eastern Barred Bandicoot / Spinifex Hopping-mouse”… all charismatic and interesting creatures that should be better known in Australia.)
Click to expand...

When I visited Madagascar, I was told that the most popular animal for Madagascan people was the giraffe.
 
MRJ said:
Not sure what mobile phones have to do with the discussion though. ;)
Click to expand...

Only that without zoos phone will be (are already?) the basic source of animal information/contact/experience for the general population.
Now that social media has such a strong-hold, most animal clips are just a few seconds of 'interesting' video; and with many now watching TV on their phones too.
If zoos only have collections of local rarities, then the only experience people will have of foreign/exotic animals will be via a 4" screen, or I suppose a relic in a museum.
It could be argued that collections of such animals will become more important socially than ever.
The conservation work with what might be threatened today, or endangered tomorrow; is quite separate, except that it has to be funded somehow...
 
kiwimuzz said:
We Humans are an interesting species, we infrequently value the common wildlife that lives with us, but we love the exotic/different/foreign.

Exotic wildlife differs wherever you are in the world. Something you see for free everyday can have no local value, but is considered exotic overseas. When I lived in Cairns, Busloads of tourists used to stop at the local park to view Agile Wallabies, whereas locals barely gave them a second glance, and complained about their poop on the footy pitch. When visiting a major zoo, I would estimate that 80% of Australasians think their local wildlife is less appealing to see than the exotic charismatic mega fauna, and it is the exotic that drives visitation to the major Zoos in the country.
Click to expand...
Not just Australians.... and in England for example, our remaining local wildlife IS actually less appealing (not just perceived to be), which is presumably why the tiny number of zoos which have specialised in such have either closed, or had to broaden their collections to include animals which are extinct here now or found in other parts of the 'region'.
kiwimuzz said:
(you only have to spent a few minutes in the entry queue to hear what people want to see, and sadly in my many years of visiting zoos I have yet to hear anyone say “I want to see the Red-Tailed Phascogale / Eastern Barred Bandicoot / Spinifex Hopping-mouse”… all charismatic and interesting creatures that should be better known in Australia.)
Click to expand...
Spinifex Hopping Mice are not exactly a footfall driver outside Australia either...

Maybe this is why God created the Meerkat...
 
MRJ said:
You are correct my interpretation of conservation does not include simply keeping and breeding. Nor is it acceptable to regional associations including AZA, EAZA, and ZAA any more, either. A classic example is the pygmy hippo, It is classified as Endangered in the wild but I believe there are over 3,000 animals in zoos round the world. How are those animals in zoos aiding the species in the wild? More specifically for this discussion, how does adding 10 or 20 animals in Australian zoos to that 3000 further their conservation?

1. Yes as stated above Australian zoos definitely have a role in our region. Whether that includes ex-situ programs is the question.
Click to expand...
I have to contest the statements in your first paragraph as either a misinterpretation or factual error:
World captive population: 31/12/2012: 339 (139.206.4) living pygmy hippo / status 31.12.2012.
Source: ISB 2012.
Global wild population:
CURRENT POPULATION TREND: Decreasing
NUMBER OF MATURE INDIVIDUALS: 2,000-2,499 (estimate / guesstimate).
Source: IUCN Red List 2015 (Assessed 23/2/2015)
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

I think, working with pygmy hippo in Australian zoos can have a benefit for the global population if the population is managed robustly. At the moment, it is a haphazard affair, for which some Australian ZC forumsters feel the local ZAA is not doing enough and has been neglecting this for years. It cannot be too hard to acquire 4-6 pygmy hippo from Asian region (regional population: 50.63 (113) - 31/12/2012) and participate in the SEAZA or in regional alignment with them.

Currently, also the common hippo in Australian zoos is not the largest population and has been pretty much stagnant for a decade. It is somewhat curious that these cannot be sourced from the very same region, where there is a good supply of common hippo that would enable better population management in ZAA region.

If for any informed reasons, the ZAA would decide against either ... than it would be fair to export all (and not phase out over the next few decades). However, this is a road I think the association should not take.

I am perfectly happy with Australian zoos working with Australian faunas per se, but only on the premise it does make a meaningful contribution to global conservation efforts and maintains a representative portion of exotic wildlife from Africa and Asia. Given the island archipelago of Australasia, it would seem fair for its proximity to Australia to fix that on Indo-Pacific. After all, Australia is not separate from the rest of the global family?!!!!!

My wider thoughts on the concerns over local native fauna and flora management and ex situ conservation, I will discuss in more details later. At this point, looking at the numbers Australia would require a few more zoos to really make a meaningful impact on in situ and ex situ conservation of local fauna and flora. TBH: I can cite several examples were a lot more needs fixing.

TO BE CONTINUED.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't planning to respond but couldn't help myself. I think we need to separate two things. Should Australian zoos display exotic species and do those species have a conservation value. I think the answer to the first part is yes. Exotic species can bring in people and can bring in revenue. When presented right they can have an educational role and they can even contribute to research.

Do they have these zoo populations in Australia have a conservation role? With a big stretch you could come with the income they provide the zoo or the overall biodiversity message or even the husbandry experience they bring, which could be applied to native species. But this is clearly a stretch and only indirect. The key role of Australian zoos is to conserve native species and involving them in both in-situ and ex-situ programmes of those species. I do believe Australia has a role to play in the neighborhood, especially in species from PNG and the Pacific islands, but looking at the limited capacity in zoos in Australia and taking into account the veterinary legislation I don't see a big role for Australian zoos to play in species from other continents. And maybe controversial this includes Asia although I could see a capacity building or fund-raising role there, but no direct involvement in breeding programmes.

Looking at the biodiversity crisis inside Australia I think all capacity is needed for domestic animals and that for exotics Australian zoos can take surplus animals from other regional associations if it benefits the breeding programme there and the Australian zoo.
 
DDcorvus said:
Looking at the biodiversity crisis inside Australia I think all capacity is needed for domestic animals and that for exotics Australian zoos can take surplus animals from other regional associations if it benefits the breeding programme there and the Australian zoo.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you mean 'native animals', rather than 'domestic animals'.
 
One aspect to think about is what is meant with the "conservation value" of exotics. If we take a really direct approach we can say that only species in ex-situ programs directly aimed at restoring wild populations count. If we apply this definition (which is what @MRJ seems to be going for in this thread), exotics in Australian zoos have no conservation value, barring perhaps a handful of exceptions. It should be noted however that perhaps the majority of exotic zoo animals in zoos on other continents also have no conservation value if we go by this definition.

But we can take a broader definition. Zoos often claim that animals have ambassador roles for in-situ projects: zoo animals can help to foster an emotional connection to the species in question and the presence of species visitors have never heard about can raise awareness. The zoo can then donate money or encourage people to donate themselves, perhaps the zoo even sells merchandise and donates x% of revenue to the project. This is obviously something Australian zoos can do just as well as European or American zoos (and I would be surprised if they do not do it already).

The latter, for me, is the more interesting definition. It is a good thing that zoos donate money or otherwise support in-situ conservation, but exhibiting the species in question is not a necessity in that case. The question then becomes whether exhibiting the species makes such a program more successful, and I'm currently not aware of research that shows this. People who see or interact with real animals are reported to say they are more willing to donate to conservation, and better retain information about the species. But does this translate to a meaningful conservation impact? And do you need living animals for that? (I've seen research that suggested that actively engaging with materials like feathers has a similar effect). Does it have additional value to have the right species, or is, for example, any deer good enough to inspire effort for Bawean deer? All interesting questions, some perhaps vital to understand the indirect conservation value of exotic wildlife in zoos, and I'm not sure we can answer them well at this moment.

Nota Bene: It has been a few years since I was really up to date with the literature on visitor studies, so maybe this statement reflects the state of my knowledge better than the current state of the field.
 
Mr. Zootycoon said:
And do you need living animals for that? (I've seen research that suggested that actively engaging with materials like feathers has a similar effect).
Click to expand...
The last non-living collection I visited was the Natural History Museum in London, even though there were very few feathers on show and most of those had faded to a creamy brown, not giving much of an idea of what reality was like, either real reality or virtual reality.
The place was heaving, with tens of thousands of visitors though the doors (just pre-Covid of course). It wasn't clear what they were contributing to 'conservation' from those thousands, if anything - and from watching people I am pretty sure they weren't there for the feathers, unless they were attached to an animatronic dinosaur. The place was free to get in and nice and warm on a cold, wet winter Tuesday - which could have played a part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRJ
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top