This is not about popularity. They are still very popular and common in private roadside zoos here. But EAZA has pressed really hard its members to phase them out in recent decade or so.
Last edited:
What are some animals that are usually not in collections because of politics?
- Thread starter Nico_Olieros
- Start date
This is not about popularity. They are still very popular and common in private roadside zoos here. But EAZA has pressed really hard its members to phase them out in recent decade or so.
Sphenisciologist
Well-Known Member
Politics spark controversy – the two are very intertwined.
Maybe they are slightly different, but it’s not legible to say that politics don’t lead to controversy very easily. Not sure if that’s vice versa. Also politics is a very broad term. This thread could be talking about governmental or social politics. I assume based on the thread makers first statement, it’s anything within human society, but that alone is still very broad.
Last edited:
Even if anyone were to grant that, the thread title literally says "what are some animals that are usually not in collections...".
Do you think tigers (to take one of your examples) qualify?
Sphenisciologist
Well-Known Member
Okay, maybe not tigers, but definitely at least elephants (depending on world region), polar bears and pandas do qualify.
Elephants are widespread through captive collections. Zoos are limited in keeping them by financial and space constraints (not politics).
In Australasia alone, we’ve received a total of eight elephants from overseas in recent years (seven from Thailand; one from Sri Lanka) and overseas, zoos have received African elephants designated to be culled within their countries of origin.
Elephants breed well in captivity and are readily traded both regionally and internationally.
Pandas yes.
Polar Bears are a little complicated for USA - they can't be bred if wild caught (which is both odd and killing off the population of a species that is both highly charismatic and the only flagship of the Arctic that is relatively easily kept) but otherwise no politics involved. For Canada and other continents no politics involved.
Elephants are unnecessarily thrown into the limelight by activists, but otherwise there's really no politicalness involved regarding elephants. (Unless you want to smuggle ivory and violate a whole bunch of conservation laws to end up in prison
)
Chinese pangolins. Seeing Prague zoo getting pangolins this year really do prove that politics is seriously involved in getting the deal done, and i'll not be surprised if one of the reasons other zoo haven't got them is because of "not to involve in China".
There is no public hostility to white tigers. Many smaller zoos which have decided to add tigers to drive public footfall (which ultimately pays ALL the bills), will add generic animals because they have either been refused animals by (and participation in) the various organised programmes, or because there are simply not enough such animals available.
I said that many visitors prefer seeing white tigers to other tigers. I doubt if many want to see a pure subspecies but just want to see a tiger, preferably a young one.
There you go, denigrating koalas by reinforcing a common but incorrect myth about them. They are in fact never drunk or drugged, just leading a relaxed lifestyle exploiting a nutrient-poor but widely available food.
Can’t argue about the STD though.
I know, but it’s a useful myth for the purposes of the joke.
Yes - the public easily differentiate between white tigers and other big cats such as 'orange' tigers and lions; often lumping both of the latter together. I have even heard people ask how old a tiger has to be, before its stripes fade and it turns into a lion.
You definitely have a very good point in broad terms; however in one specific aspect Jurek makes a very good point indeed:
If I recall correctly, the IUCN has strongly urged for the creation of ex-situ populations of Mountain Nyala and Ethiopian Wolf, but have been blocked at every turn by Ethiopian authorities.... which is a very real problem when the latter species in particular is subject to threats which can (and have) lead to massive population crashes; between rabies, canine distemper and habitat loss, they are *very* vulnerable.
China charges about £1 million a year for a giant panda. How much would zoos pay to hire a mountain nyala or an Ethiopian wolf?
Probably not much, sadly - the average visitor would probably just think they were just another antelope and a somewhat ginger wolf respectively.....
Probably true in the case of the mountain nyala but I feel Ethiopian wolves would be more well receivedProbably not much, sadly - the average visitor would probably just think they were just another antelope and a somewhat ginger wolf respectively.....
Also, checking the IUCN site... they do say a mountain nyala ex-situ program should be started but not for Ethiopian wolf...
Haliaeetus
Well-Known Member
There aren't proper "roadside zoos" in France, most White Tigers belong to large generalist collections (Beauval, la Flèche, parc des Félins...).
There are the circuses but the suppression of wild species is planned here...
Removing all aquariums (of which one has tigers), aviaries, and butterfly facilities, there's 69 USA AZA facilities without tigers, 91 with.
How has no one mentioned Golden Snub-nosed Monkey?
That's surprising. I think I've been to one AZA facility that currently doesn't have tigers.
There are plenty of places that focus on native species, or African species. Some are smaller, or don't really focus on carnivores. Turtle Back has every big cat, plus cheetah, puma,and cloudie, except for tiger.