Realistic ways of getting rare (and not) animals in the Speculative Zoo Design section

Mickey

Mickey

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
A problem that emerged recently in one of the threads (Masterplan of my "absolute" zoo) is the inclusion of animals that can't be kept in normal circumstances, for example certain Galapagos or australian animals due to wildlife export laws of said Countries, while still trying to keep a realistic vision of your speculative zoo, so I would like to discuss and define the terms of what a realistic excuse/explanation could be and what is too much of a stretch.

Ways of obtaining animals that should 100% be allowed:
  • Exchange between zoos under the same organization up to a continental level (AZA, EAZA);
  • Conservation and breeding programs;
  • Custom (and not) seizures;
  • Abandonment of animals;
  • Custody transferred;
  • Private donations.
Now, the following methods are somewhat of a stretch, but still realistic in a rare scenario and are the ones on which I would like to clarify and debate:
  • Payment of a generous amount of money to a country to export rare animals (such as Galapagos, Australia, some Countries of Africa and so on);
  • Custom seizure in which are found rare or illegally exported animals;
  • Trying to reintroduce a stock of not threatened/common but unkeeped animals in captivity;
  • Import of animals from another continental Zoo association (for example, Pronghorns from America to Europe).
 
Mickey said:
  • Payment of a generous amount of money to a country to export rare animals (such as Galapagos, Australia, some Countries of Africa and so on);
  • Custom seizure in which are found rare or illegally exported animals;
  • Trying to reintroduce a stock of not threatened/common but unkeeped animals in captivity;
  • Import of animals from another continental Zoo association (for example, Pronghorns from America to Europe).
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, the unrealistic species list in the thread mentioned only didn't 'work' for me because it contrasted heavily with the heavy detail and effort put into realism that the thread appeared to be based on from my POV. If people want to make Speculative Zoos with those animals, it doesn't bother me, it just seems less constructive, that's all.

As for the bullet points:
  • As long as your zoo is not intended to be horrendously corrupt and working against the interests of conservation, payment of a 'generous sum of money' in order to bypass laws would never happen and is either way the clearest form of bribery ever. It might happen in some of the poorer African countries or those who have links to powers outside Africa (i.e. North Korea obtaining animals from Zimbabwe as they did) but there is absolutely no way Australia or the Galapagos would ever allow what is essentially illegal wildlife trade to happen just because a 'generous sum of money' changed hands. In fact, I can safely say that not a single species will leave the Galapagos Islands destined for a zoo in the foreseeable, so any addition of a species taken from the Galapagos in a Speculative zoo is entirely unrealistic.
  • Custom seizure is valid but keep it realistic preferably - Customs seizures of African forest elephants aren't terribly common believe it or not.
  • Not entirely sure what you mean here but realistically specimens are very rarely taken from the wild nowadays, only really to form an ex situ population for extremely endangered frogs/freshwater fish. Taking mammals directly from the wild to live in a zoo is now almost unheard of, and the few instances of this have caused outrage.
  • Pronghorns to European zoos would basically never happen. No need. At all. However, something like the Black-footed cat? Maybe - I'd reckon PdF and a few other zoos might well have been trying to do something of the sort for a while now.
 
amur leopard said:
Just to be clear, the unrealistic species list in the thread mentioned only didn't 'work' for me because it contrasted heavily with the heavy detail and effort put into realism that the thread appeared to be based on from my POV. If people want to make Speculative Zoos with those animals, it doesn't bother me, it just seems less constructive, that's all.

As for the bullet points:
  • As long as your zoo is not intended to be horrendously corrupt and working against the interests of conservation, payment of a 'generous sum of money' in order to bypass laws would never happen and is either way the clearest form of bribery ever. It might happen in some of the poorer African countries or those who have links to powers outside Africa (i.e. North Korea obtaining animals from Zimbabwe as they did) but there is absolutely no way Australia or the Galapagos would ever allow what is essentially illegal wildlife trade to happen just because a 'generous sum of money' changed hands. In fact, I can safely say that not a single species will leave the Galapagos Islands destined for a zoo in the foreseeable, so any addition of a species taken from the Galapagos in a Speculative zoo is entirely unrealistic.
  • Custom seizure is valid but keep it realistic preferably - Customs seizures of African forest elephants aren't terribly common believe it or not.
  • Not entirely sure what you mean here but realistically specimens are very rarely taken from the wild nowadays, only really to form an ex situ population for extremely endangered frogs/freshwater fish. Taking mammals directly from the wild to live in a zoo is now almost unheard of, and the few instances of this have caused outrage.
  • Pronghorns to European zoos would basically never happen. No need. At all. However, something like the Black-footed cat? Maybe - I'd reckon PdF and a few other zoos might well have been trying to do something of the sort for a while now.
Click to expand...
You made some really good points:

  • My mistake for not specifying that they would still be captive in their country but can't be exported due to laws on wildlife export, so like a sanctuary or a research center or even better rescues that can't survive in the wild, I never ever intended it to be some sort of political or black market thing;
  • Yes, it would be limited to small critters and animals not bigger than a horse per say, unless perhaps it's from a circus, I can totally see an African Forest Elephant being seized from a russian circus:p;
  • Same thing as the first point, either only already captive or as you said small critters being captured for conservation reasons;
  • Well, it has to be realistic, not "necessary".
 
Mickey said:
@Batto @amur leopard you two pointed out this issue, so I would like your opinions about it, and to clarify, the 2nd list is a list of questions, not statements
Click to expand...
And I would like to clarify that I do not like to cough out answers on command^^. A simple "please", or in your case "per favore", would have been nice. ;)
@amur leopard has already replied to most of it. While major zoos, including SDZ (*cough* Fiji iguanas *cough*), might have been involved in not all too clear animal exports in the (more or less distant) past and still at times participate more or less involuntarily in "greenwashing" (especially regarding rare parrots and reptiles), most of them try to keep their books as clean as possible to avoid any public outcry. At least when it comes to larger mammals...
Privately owned zoos, however, can be a different matter, and to contradict the previous dictum regarding endemic Galapagos species, there have been exports of marine iguanas from the Galapagos to Switzerland / Uganda and from there to Japan. But international laws and regulations such as CITES apply here just as well, and such shenanigans can harm these zoos' reputation and chances to become an accredited zoo association member for good. No major Western zoo would take in such animals. So much about realism...

That you consider bribery and profiting from illegal animal smuggling as options to obtain animals for a zoo at all is kinda ominous, if I may add...
 
Last edited:
Mickey said:
My mistake for not specifying that they would still be captive in their country but can't be exported due to laws on wildlife export, so like a sanctuary or a research center or even better rescues that can't survive in the wild, I never ever intended it to be some sort of political or black market thing;
Click to expand...

No rescue centre in the Galapagos would ever export anything off the islands, ever. Australia has strict rules on exporting its indigenous species whether captive or wild, so whether the species are in a zoo or not beforehand has absolutely no bearing.

Mickey said:
Well, it has to be realistic, not "necessary".
Click to expand...

But because it is not necessary whatsoever and would in fact negatively impact the North American ex situ population, it would never happen...
 
amur leopard said:
Just to be clear, the unrealistic species list in the thread mentioned only didn't 'work' for me because it contrasted heavily with the heavy detail and effort put into realism that the thread appeared to be based on from my POV. If people want to make Speculative Zoos with those animals, it doesn't bother me, it just seems less constructive, that's all.

As for the bullet points:
  • As long as your zoo is not intended to be horrendously corrupt and working against the interests of conservation, payment of a 'generous sum of money' in order to bypass laws would never happen and is either way the clearest form of bribery ever. It might happen in some of the poorer African countries or those who have links to powers outside Africa (i.e. North Korea obtaining animals from Zimbabwe as they did) but there is absolutely no way Australia or the Galapagos would ever allow what is essentially illegal wildlife trade to happen just because a 'generous sum of money' changed hands. In fact, I can safely say that not a single species will leave the Galapagos Islands destined for a zoo in the foreseeable, so any addition of a species taken from the Galapagos in a Speculative zoo is entirely unrealistic.
  • Custom seizure is valid but keep it realistic preferably - Customs seizures of African forest elephants aren't terribly common believe it or not.
  • Not entirely sure what you mean here but realistically specimens are very rarely taken from the wild nowadays, only really to form an ex situ population for extremely endangered frogs/freshwater fish. Taking mammals directly from the wild to live in a zoo is now almost unheard of, and the few instances of this have caused outrage.
  • Pronghorns to European zoos would basically never happen. No need. At all. However, something like the Black-footed cat? Maybe - I'd reckon PdF and a few other zoos might well have been trying to do something of the sort for a while now.
Click to expand...
I agree with @amur leopard for most of his reply.
The acquisition of wild animals by mere payment is unethical (and often illegal), so I discarded this option in my Masterplan.
Custom seizures are common among many species of reptiles (even large ones as Crocodiles and Monitors), and small birds and mammals.
I have no opinion on "Trying to reintroduce a stock of not threatened/common but unkeeped animals in captivity" ; perhaps it would work for species whose captive lineage is dying (because of consanguinity for example).
Import of animals from another continental Zoo association : I can mention many examples as the recent imports of Douc Langurs from Khao Kheow Zoo and Harpy Eagles from the Itaipu Research Centre (not a zoo but these eagles are captive-bred) to Beauval, and the earlier imports of Tasmanian Devils and Koalas out of Australia. Maybe it could work for non-threatened species if they are unique, with no available proxies : I can think to the Pronghorns or Thorny Devils (but also the Bighorns and even the American species of Lynxes [even if there are 2 Lynx species in Eurasia]. It's the reason why I maintained some of these odd creatures in my speculative Zoo.
 
Last edited:
Lots of animals not commonly kept in zoos can be found in the private trade, some with legal origins, others not so much. This can be another way that zoos (especially private ones) could (and do) obtain rare animals.
 
Last edited:
Haliaeetus said:
Maybe it could work for non-threatened species if they are unique, with no available proxies : I can think to the Pronghorns or Thorny Devils (but also the Bighorns and even the American species of Lynxes [even if there are 2 Lynx species in Eurasia]).
Click to expand...

As I've said, would never happen with the first two - they're just too hard to hold from a European zoo perspective - the first because they'd need more space than more quality European zoos would be able to provide (NA zoos are generally larger due to land being generally cheaper) and because they aren't particularly different from a normal visitor's perspective to most gazelles or antelopes, so the money spent on importing them and establishing a breeding population would more or less be wasted.

Thorny devils, as @Batto has already explained, are not possible at all and will not happen, at least not in the foreseeable and I'd count this as another completely unrealistic import.

The other two species you mention, Canadian lynx and Bobcat, are both already in European zoos.
 
Batto said:
And I would like to clarify that I do not like to cough out answers on command^^. A simple "please", or in your case "per favore", would have been nice. ;)
Click to expand...
I thought "I would like" was kind enough, but if it didn't seem, I apologize.
Batto said:
That you consider bribery and profiting from illegal animal smuggling as options to obtain animals for a zoo at all is kinda ominous, if I may add...
Click to expand...
Again I didn't mean any kind of black market shenanigan to be involved
amur leopard said:
No rescue centre in the Galapagos would ever export anything off the islands, ever. Australia has strict rules on exporting its indigenous species whether captive or wild, so whether the species are in a zoo or not beforehand has absolutely no bearing.
Click to expand...
Perhaps we can just say, after these considerations, that the first bullet point is out of discussion.
 
birdsandbats said:
Lots of animals not commonly kept in zoos can be found in the private trade, some with legal origins, others not so much. This can be another that zoos (especially private ones) could (and do) obtain rare animals.
Click to expand...
This could be referred to the second bullet point, if an animal is seized from a private zoo, it can be transferred to an accredited facility, right?
 
birdsandbats said:
Lots of animals not commonly kept in zoos can be found in the private trade, some with legal origins, others not so much. This can be another that zoos (especially private ones) could (and do) obtain rare animals.
Click to expand...
I've previously alluded to this in regard to "greenwashing". Given tighter and tighter regulations in more and more countries, I wonder how long this is going to be an official option, at least for established zoos, and even including species beyond the charismatic megafauna. I'm already witnessing how less and less major European zoos keep venomous species due to increased red tape and organizational issues. Including species that are quite common in the pet trade.
 
Mickey said:
This could be referred to the second bullet point, if an animal is seized from a private zoo, it can be transferred to an accredited facility, right?
Click to expand...
It can be and has happened (e.g. plenty of white lions, tigers...), but there's no guarantee that these animals will stay there for good or found any lasting zoo populations.
 
Last edited:
Batto said:
It can be and has happened (e.g. plenty of white lions, tigers...), but It's not a guarantee that these animals will stay there for good or found any lasting zoo populations.
Click to expand...
For absurd, let's say a Greater Bushbaby, or any rare australian species is seized from a private zoo, would it be sent to an accredited zoo or would it be sent directly to Australia?
 
Mickey said:
For absurd, let's say a Greater Bushbaby, or any rare australian species is seized from a private zoo, would it be sent to an accredited zoo or would it be sent directly to Australia?
Click to expand...
That depends on the species, its legal status, the countries involved and further circumstances, including politics. In 2015, Cologne Zoo sent confiscated jewelled geckos back to NZ.
Jewelled geckos returned to New Zealand
 
Mickey said:
So it all comes down to the circumstances?
Click to expand...
As mentioned above: that depends on the circumstances at play and the involved stakeholders.
However, I wouldn't hold my breath on the likeliness of authorities miraculously discovering a fertile pair of Thorny devils, illegally kept in some European backyard, and donating it to @Haliaeetus 's zoo project to establish an European ex situ population...;)
 
Last edited:
Mickey said:
For absurd, let's say a Greater Bushbaby, or any rare australian species is seized from a private zoo, would it be sent to an accredited zoo or would it be sent directly to Australia?
Click to expand...

Well, there would be no reason for a seized Greater Bushbaby to be sent to Australia in the first place :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top