That depends, among others, on the countries and species involved. Some are trickier than others. In particular when diseases detrimental to domestic livestock are involved.
Zoos: How Many Species Should There Be?
- Thread starter Coelacanth18
- Start date
Oh, really?
Bipedal yellow mongoose - Stock Image - C048/6720
Behind the Shot: Standing Mongoose - Wildlife Josh
Banded Mongoose
Standing Mongoose by Mike Dodak
Apparently, not everyone got that memo...
Sphenisciologist
Well-Known Member
It really just depends on which one is more convenient to the customer – a lot of local and common restaurants that sell similar foods are right next to each other with success. I don’t know any fast food Indian restaurants but a Dominos and local pizza restaurant are right next to each other in a town in Illinois I frequently visit, with the Dominos being the better option for fast service and delivery options and the local one being better for food quality. That’s just food though, so ending that there before the thread gets too far off topic.
The main difference here is that if you want to watch a blockbuster movie, you can just rent it on a streaming service for a buck or two on your TV or computer. As biased as they may be towards a certain actor, it’s not that big of a deal if the movie doesn’t have the actors they want. Going to a zoo, especially outside of the city, requires gas, road-trip planning, most-likely admission prices and more. Average guests aren’t going to travel half way across the country to see a Guam kingfisher – that’s just the reality. They want to see an impressive habitat for the elephants or giraffes.
Zoos don’t usually phase out a species because they want to. There’s almost always a reason, such as the last individual being too old or the exhibit is simply too outdated and there’s not enough funding to make a whole new one, this is especially true for large animals. Sometimes planned phase outs are better for the zoo, if the result lives up to better exhibit quality for a certain animal, even if it means sacrificing an older species.
Last edited:
iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
As someone who loves zoos, but admittedly doesn't work in one, I enjoy seeing more species in zoos, and different species at different zoos, and I am sad that both individual zoos and entire countries/regions are moving toward having fewer. But that's purely from an enjoyment perspective as a clueless member of the public.
In terms of where to draw the line, I admit I don't know. I personally like seeing different types of deer or goats, even if a less discerning member of the public thinks they're all the same. On the other hand, you all have been working on your taxonomies and created some new (or newer) species and subspecies (and sub-subspecies?) that seem to be differentiated only or primarily by genetics, or in-situ geographic distribution within a region, or some very tiny physical difference, rather than by something that's actually visible from exhibit-level observation, and it's probably less important to me that this gets reflected in a particular zoo. (I'm not saying those scientific distinctions aren't important or worth conserving. Just that they may not come through to your visitors).
From a business perspective, I wonder (but admittedly don't know), if fewer species is a poor business decision as well. There are times during summer breaks or vacations where I have had the free time to go to the same zoo two days in a row, but if I've seen everything the first day (or feel like I have) because they have cut back on the number of species they hold, then I'm not going to come the second day. Which means less admission/concession sales (if we're thinking merely economically), less education and engagement (if we're thinking in terms of conservation education), and less likelihood that I'm going to rave about it to all my non-zoo-obsessed friends (if we're thinking about getting more people to just show up). Similarly, if I'm traveling for vacation, it's often hard to get family/friends to want to make the zoo a part of our itinerary, if they feel like they can see everything back home.
But I also admit that I'm not a business expert, so maybe it's like the big blockbuster movie. Sure, some people do show up at the arthouse theater for the smaller films, but the blockbuster that's the same everywhere is more cost efficient and a better bet. (And most of the money is made off the popcorn anyway.....).
What most worries me most, though, is the potential threat to conservation that this might create (or contribute to) if it turns out that even our wisest scientists have miscalculated somewhere. When I read that AZA is phasing out a species/subspecies -- not because it's impossible for U.S. zoos to keep them, but because EAZA "has it covered" (or vice versa, EAZA phasing out because AZA has enough) -- it makes me think of that old saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket. A disease, a war, an economic downturn, local politics and activism, or the local impacts of climate change itself could too easily mess up those calculations.
Before anyone yells at me -- I get that I'm not an expert, and I also get that some of these things are zoos trying to respond to factors that are outside of their control, and just doing the best they can. But I still find it unfortunate, even if the experts think it's necessary.
At the same time, I get the feeling (which may be completely wrong), that some of these challenges are -- at least partially -- self-created and self-imposed. Instead of phase outs, why not at least consider private and non-accredited sources? Why not make the recommendation to affirmatively try to change the government regulations about importation? Of in the case of species held elsewhere, why not recommend that the animals be managed as part of one world collection, with representative ambassadors in regions throughout the world, instead of phasing them out of all but a few regions?
I've read a few articles saying things like this may be in the works, and I think that's great. But they also seem to be coming much too slowly. If we need the public to take climate change seriously as a global threat (and we do indeed need that), then does it really make sense to have all the in-fighting between regional organizations? Why not pool everything together into WAZA and really have a global impact? Similarly, if climate change and species survival is really something that we need everyone to pitch in on, does it really make sense to turn up our noses at private breeders or quality non-accredited facilities? (The same way that some wildlife reservations and in-situ only advocates turn up their noses at zoos)?
Again, I'm just a dumb member of the public here, but it makes me wonder whether the business side of zoos and the science side of zoos and the government affairs/advocacy side of zoos might need to be working more closely together -- or put more positively, whether they might benefit from thinking about new ways they could work together.
In terms of where to draw the line, I admit I don't know. I personally like seeing different types of deer or goats, even if a less discerning member of the public thinks they're all the same. On the other hand, you all have been working on your taxonomies and created some new (or newer) species and subspecies (and sub-subspecies?) that seem to be differentiated only or primarily by genetics, or in-situ geographic distribution within a region, or some very tiny physical difference, rather than by something that's actually visible from exhibit-level observation, and it's probably less important to me that this gets reflected in a particular zoo. (I'm not saying those scientific distinctions aren't important or worth conserving. Just that they may not come through to your visitors).
From a business perspective, I wonder (but admittedly don't know), if fewer species is a poor business decision as well. There are times during summer breaks or vacations where I have had the free time to go to the same zoo two days in a row, but if I've seen everything the first day (or feel like I have) because they have cut back on the number of species they hold, then I'm not going to come the second day. Which means less admission/concession sales (if we're thinking merely economically), less education and engagement (if we're thinking in terms of conservation education), and less likelihood that I'm going to rave about it to all my non-zoo-obsessed friends (if we're thinking about getting more people to just show up). Similarly, if I'm traveling for vacation, it's often hard to get family/friends to want to make the zoo a part of our itinerary, if they feel like they can see everything back home.
But I also admit that I'm not a business expert, so maybe it's like the big blockbuster movie. Sure, some people do show up at the arthouse theater for the smaller films, but the blockbuster that's the same everywhere is more cost efficient and a better bet. (And most of the money is made off the popcorn anyway.....).
What most worries me most, though, is the potential threat to conservation that this might create (or contribute to) if it turns out that even our wisest scientists have miscalculated somewhere. When I read that AZA is phasing out a species/subspecies -- not because it's impossible for U.S. zoos to keep them, but because EAZA "has it covered" (or vice versa, EAZA phasing out because AZA has enough) -- it makes me think of that old saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket. A disease, a war, an economic downturn, local politics and activism, or the local impacts of climate change itself could too easily mess up those calculations.
Before anyone yells at me -- I get that I'm not an expert, and I also get that some of these things are zoos trying to respond to factors that are outside of their control, and just doing the best they can. But I still find it unfortunate, even if the experts think it's necessary.
At the same time, I get the feeling (which may be completely wrong), that some of these challenges are -- at least partially -- self-created and self-imposed. Instead of phase outs, why not at least consider private and non-accredited sources? Why not make the recommendation to affirmatively try to change the government regulations about importation? Of in the case of species held elsewhere, why not recommend that the animals be managed as part of one world collection, with representative ambassadors in regions throughout the world, instead of phasing them out of all but a few regions?
I've read a few articles saying things like this may be in the works, and I think that's great. But they also seem to be coming much too slowly. If we need the public to take climate change seriously as a global threat (and we do indeed need that), then does it really make sense to have all the in-fighting between regional organizations? Why not pool everything together into WAZA and really have a global impact? Similarly, if climate change and species survival is really something that we need everyone to pitch in on, does it really make sense to turn up our noses at private breeders or quality non-accredited facilities? (The same way that some wildlife reservations and in-situ only advocates turn up their noses at zoos)?
Again, I'm just a dumb member of the public here, but it makes me wonder whether the business side of zoos and the science side of zoos and the government affairs/advocacy side of zoos might need to be working more closely together -- or put more positively, whether they might benefit from thinking about new ways they could work together.
I love a good collection, but there are a lot of moving parts when it comes to "how many species".
I think great exhibitry and design go a long way in compensating for what a given zoo may lack in species diversity. I'm not talking about human amenities and zip lines. I'm thinking more about effective naturalistic enclosures where the animals don't display stereotypical signs of boredom/pacing.
There are a lot of rare animals in private collections and roadside zoos. I'd love to see these species, but it's a major disappointment to travel somewhere and see a one-of-a-kind species kept in awful holdings.
I think great exhibitry and design go a long way in compensating for what a given zoo may lack in species diversity. I'm not talking about human amenities and zip lines. I'm thinking more about effective naturalistic enclosures where the animals don't display stereotypical signs of boredom/pacing.
There are a lot of rare animals in private collections and roadside zoos. I'd love to see these species, but it's a major disappointment to travel somewhere and see a one-of-a-kind species kept in awful holdings.
I feel like there are a lot of ways zoos could help reverse these trends of phasing out species, and wish more Zoos would innovate and create new ideas that'd help better their mission, both education and conservation wise.
1. Mixed Species Exhibits! While certain mixed species exhibits are common, this is a trend that I wish zoos would take further. Sure, many zoos want the ABC Elephants, Giraffes, and Zebras- but keeping these species in mixed settings would limit the amount of space they take from other species. As Dallas' Giants of the Savannas show, it is very possible for a zoo to build an innovative elephant complex that mixes them with other ungulates or birds. Throw some impala or springbok in there! Giraffes and Plains Zebras are both even easier to mix, and I find it inexcusable for a reputable zoo to still be keeping them in single species exhibits.
Mixes can also go beyond the standard mixes with new world Primates, free-flight aviaries, and African savannas. Many zoos keep some arboreal primate species, so why not add some ground level interest to these exhibits? Try mixing a langur species with chevrotains, warty pigs, or tapirs. Try mixing South American Primates with pudu or agouti. Try mixing Guenons or Colobus with a duiker species. If zoos get creative with how they use space and build more dynamic mixed exhibits, it'd go a long way to enhance both education and conservation.
2. Reconsider the keeping of domestic animals in zoos. I am all for city zoos using a small portion of their zoo for a farm exhibit, especially if it focuses on endangered heritage breeds or local breeds. However, does every zoo need this kind of exhibit? And what about other domestic species? I can't stand the number of zoos passing off watusi Cattle in an African Savanna, for instance, when there are plenty of endangered ungulates by which the SSPs are struggling. Perhaps zoos should reconsider keeping camels in their collection plan as well, to give additional room to Asian Deer, Banteng, Gaur, and Takin.
3. Take advantage of geography. Some zoos do a really good job with this, but others not so much. Many zoos have either wetlands/pond areas or mountainous/rocky areas. These don't need to sit as wasted space. These areas can make very interesting exhibits for animals from these sort of biomes. If a zoo has a pond sitting unutilized, throw in some endangered waterfowl species, or build habitats for some semi-aquatic animals. If a zoo has rocky terrain they haven't built on, add habitats for markhor, bighorn sheep, or snow leopards.
4. Focus on smaller animals. I'm all for zoos having those large animals that attract visitors, but visitors who are already in a zoo would likely stay longer if the collection had a greater total number of species on display. Keep those select megafauna, and certainly have those ungulate habitats, but make sure these are supplemented by habitats for smaller mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (the latter of which is extremely underrepresented in most zoos).
5. Reconsider which species a zoo is keeping when there are two similar species. Yeah, I get it. As much as I'd love some zoos to, they aren't going to replace their Tigers with a rare Asian Ungulate species. But that doesn't mean that a zoo couldn't (and shouldn't) replace generic Tigers with subspecific ones. This also applies to species the general public won't know how to differentiate. For instance, perhaps some zoos with chimpanzees would be better off switching over to bonobos, and support an SSP in need of some additional holders. Or consider switching which Gibbon species it keeps towards a rarer one. A lot of times the species struggling to stay in US Zoos have a similar species in a lot of Zoos, quite possibly overrepresented, and a redistribution of which zoos are keeping which animals could be a net positive.
1. Mixed Species Exhibits! While certain mixed species exhibits are common, this is a trend that I wish zoos would take further. Sure, many zoos want the ABC Elephants, Giraffes, and Zebras- but keeping these species in mixed settings would limit the amount of space they take from other species. As Dallas' Giants of the Savannas show, it is very possible for a zoo to build an innovative elephant complex that mixes them with other ungulates or birds. Throw some impala or springbok in there! Giraffes and Plains Zebras are both even easier to mix, and I find it inexcusable for a reputable zoo to still be keeping them in single species exhibits.
Mixes can also go beyond the standard mixes with new world Primates, free-flight aviaries, and African savannas. Many zoos keep some arboreal primate species, so why not add some ground level interest to these exhibits? Try mixing a langur species with chevrotains, warty pigs, or tapirs. Try mixing South American Primates with pudu or agouti. Try mixing Guenons or Colobus with a duiker species. If zoos get creative with how they use space and build more dynamic mixed exhibits, it'd go a long way to enhance both education and conservation.
2. Reconsider the keeping of domestic animals in zoos. I am all for city zoos using a small portion of their zoo for a farm exhibit, especially if it focuses on endangered heritage breeds or local breeds. However, does every zoo need this kind of exhibit? And what about other domestic species? I can't stand the number of zoos passing off watusi Cattle in an African Savanna, for instance, when there are plenty of endangered ungulates by which the SSPs are struggling. Perhaps zoos should reconsider keeping camels in their collection plan as well, to give additional room to Asian Deer, Banteng, Gaur, and Takin.
3. Take advantage of geography. Some zoos do a really good job with this, but others not so much. Many zoos have either wetlands/pond areas or mountainous/rocky areas. These don't need to sit as wasted space. These areas can make very interesting exhibits for animals from these sort of biomes. If a zoo has a pond sitting unutilized, throw in some endangered waterfowl species, or build habitats for some semi-aquatic animals. If a zoo has rocky terrain they haven't built on, add habitats for markhor, bighorn sheep, or snow leopards.
4. Focus on smaller animals. I'm all for zoos having those large animals that attract visitors, but visitors who are already in a zoo would likely stay longer if the collection had a greater total number of species on display. Keep those select megafauna, and certainly have those ungulate habitats, but make sure these are supplemented by habitats for smaller mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (the latter of which is extremely underrepresented in most zoos).
5. Reconsider which species a zoo is keeping when there are two similar species. Yeah, I get it. As much as I'd love some zoos to, they aren't going to replace their Tigers with a rare Asian Ungulate species. But that doesn't mean that a zoo couldn't (and shouldn't) replace generic Tigers with subspecific ones. This also applies to species the general public won't know how to differentiate. For instance, perhaps some zoos with chimpanzees would be better off switching over to bonobos, and support an SSP in need of some additional holders. Or consider switching which Gibbon species it keeps towards a rarer one. A lot of times the species struggling to stay in US Zoos have a similar species in a lot of Zoos, quite possibly overrepresented, and a redistribution of which zoos are keeping which animals could be a net positive.
Zoos don't but associations love to do it.
It takes quite the bravery to call Zlín "small zoo"
THIS.
SO. MUCH. THIS.
inhales...*rant part*
Let zoos keep, what they want to keep. This is probably the biggest issue I have with EAZA and other associations worldwide. IMHO, there should never be association-wide phase-out order, unless very specific reason appears. Those could be ethical or welfare reasons, but there should never be phase-out order "just because we felt like it." (Usually hidden behind some arbitrary reason)
The currently proposed list of new marsupial's EEPs is perfect example of it. They picked 22 marsupial species and that's it?! And in these 22 species there are bilbies and long-beaked echidna with a whopping 0 animals currently kept, bear cuscus with 7 animals and joint EEP for 4 oppossum species with 3 of those being represented by >5 specimes. All this with a shiny "Planning for brighter future" headline and note that this was put together after "close work with ZAA."
No dusky pademelons, no eastern wallaroos,...of course there is information that other species will be moved to either monitoring, phase out, replace with or do not obtain...I can't help but think that there will be very little "monitoring" and a lot of "phase-out". And with how careful and sensitive Australia is about giving out these species, once we lose them we won't ever see them again I am sure about that.
exhales...*rant over*
With exports from countries of origin getting harder and harder, and for some even less and less ethical, the possibilities to build nice and diverse collection will be much more scarce. We really shouldn't be limiting ourselves in our possibilities, unless there is a very good reason for it. Unfortunately in some of these decisions from "the higher ups" I just can't see it and I am not alone.
The currently proposed list of new marsupial's EEPs is perfect example of it. They picked 22 marsupial species and that's it?! And in these 22 species there are bilbies and long-beaked echidna with a whopping 0 animals currently kept, bear cuscus with 7 animals and joint EEP for 4 oppossum species with 3 of those being represented by >5 specimes. All this with a shiny "Planning for brighter future" headline and note that this was put together after "close work with ZAA."
No dusky pademelons, no eastern wallaroos,...of course there is information that other species will be moved to either monitoring, phase out, replace with or do not obtain...I can't help but think that there will be very little "monitoring" and a lot of "phase-out". And with how careful and sensitive Australia is about giving out these species, once we lose them we won't ever see them again I am sure about that.
I noticed this with the AZA Parrot Tag when it was posted on the site, when it listed a large handful of species that certainly won't be showing up in North America any time soon such as Kakapo. We're monitoring Cockatiel and thousands of Budgie. It completely ignores multiple threatened species we do have here that need a boost. Moluccan and Lesser Sulphur-crested Cockatoos are on phase out. No Military or Great Green Macaw. No Amazons other than Yellow-headed... Why not support species like Major Mitchell's Cockatoo and more species of threatened lorikeets?
Keep in mind that this is the only phalangeriforme on the entire list. Meanwhile Macropods get to have seven representatives. That does not sound balanced, if anyone asks me.
You can't have balance where it never was though...macropods would always take the bigger piece of cake purely because of numbers...
Fair enough. But one species to represent phalangeriformes is still ridiculous. Can the Sulawesi bear cuscus really be a good subsitute for the other phalangeriformes that are being sent to the shadow realm known as MON?
By the way, lots of zoo work is harmed by veterinary and export laws and directives. However, these laws are meant for large-scale movements of meat, farm animals or large scale trade. Nobody really benefits that these regulations include few animals designed to zoos, which are marginally few, isolated from the general livestock and meat movement and well monitored by zoo veterinarians.
The most logical way would be for zoos to lobby to get extempted from these laws during their next update. Zoos have strong arguments: endangered species and, of course, popularity of zoos. Zoos in Europe actually had some success in the past, because they prevented zoo animals from being killed like domestic farm animals.
What do zoo community does to get an exception out of veterinary and export laws and directives?
The most logical way would be for zoos to lobby to get extempted from these laws during their next update. Zoos have strong arguments: endangered species and, of course, popularity of zoos. Zoos in Europe actually had some success in the past, because they prevented zoo animals from being killed like domestic farm animals.
What do zoo community does to get an exception out of veterinary and export laws and directives?
You're complaining about only having 22 marsupial species?! Keep in mind that's already over double the number of species to what is managed by the AZA in US Zoos, and seems like quite a substantial number of species to manage. I sure wouldn't be complaining if there are that many species still present and being managed.
And I highly doubt the zoo associations "love" to phase out species- oftentimes they have legitimate reasons to, in order to ensure that there are sustainable populations. Sure, we may not always agree with their rationale, but that doesn't mean that the associations love phasing them out.
Last edited:
I'm not sure this is totally factual. All zoos are constantly re-evaluating their collection plan, and are choosing both new species to exhibit, and species they are planning to "phase out". And while these phase outs can be due to reasons outside their control, such as the inability to acquire more, oftentimes they are for other, completely valid reasons. For instance, maybe a zoo is planning to go in a new direction with an area's theming and will phase out a species that doesn't fit the new theme. Or perhaps the zoo simply wants to have something new for guests to see and replaces an elderly individual with a different species after it passes. Or zoo management changes and the new director would rather keep a different species they personally prefer. All zoos have species they are phasing out of their collection, it's just a fact of the industry, and these aren't always outside the zoo's control. Zoos just don't have the space to keep every animal they may want to, so have to make difficult choices sometimes as to what they keep.
Agree with everything, but I'd like to precise some of your points:
1. mixed habitats are indeed the way I would go, even prey and predator display with invisible barriers, as long as none of the animals gets stressed too much, but at the end of the day it all comes down to single specimen's temperament, so while the majority of giraffes and zebras go along, you could have an hiper-aggressive male that could importunate the other animals, thus why animals are introduced behind the scenes and if the zoo does not successfully mix them one of the species is sent away or in another part of the zoo;
2. and also keeping animals that look like domestics in farm-themed areas! Canines and felines that need SSPs can be the "cat" and "dog", bovines can be cattles, wild caprines can be goats and so on.
3 & 4. I myself try to imagine smaller habitats at every corner of the zoos I visit, and while I do undertsand that it would take up space from plants and natural shadow, there are thousands of ways to keep the latters, but I don't think the majority of zoos are interested: but literally everywhere you could take a small terrarium and put herps in it, as well as feature more terrarim-style in bigger animal houses and education centers;
5. I thought this was standard in EAZA and ZAA/AZA, but apparently the keeping of generic/hybrids is still widely popular, but I highly hope it changes in the future.
In AZA Zoos, some generics are slowly on their way out. But my comment on species selection goes beyond generics. For instance, the AZA has programs for three Gibbon species, with the lar gibbon and siamang both having a very large number of holders. If even seven or eight holders of each species decided to keep, say, mueller's or Javan gibbons instead, the AZA would be able to take on a fourth Gibbon species. This could also apply to when there is one successful program and one for a similar species struggling, like with chimpanzees and bonobos. Ideally, two or so Chimp holders would switch to bonobos as that SSP is on desperate need of new holders.
iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
I guess I can understand if a zoo is really, truly, honestly, using every available inch of space to try to make habitats better, and so has to cut down on the number of animals to make that happen. But if they're going to claim that's what they're doing, then I want to actually see that. Not just empty habitats or new playgrounds or whole sections of land left undeveloped (or previously used land now left to just sit there).
Similarly, if a regional association has really, truly, honestly, tried everything it can and has no choice but to say they can't manage a species/subspecies, then I can accept that. But if it's merely that they've boxed themselves into an artificial corner with other rules, then I'm a little less patient.
I also get the sense that the focus on conservation breeding has meant that a lot of animals have been moved off-exhibit or behind the scenes. I understand that as a temporary strategy. But at some point, shouldn't the next generation of exhibit designers be actively and urgently pursuing design strategies that can make the animals not feel exposed, while still allowing people to see them in some fashion? (I'm thinking one-way glass, sound proofing, etc., so that the animals wouldn't even know the guests are there).
Incidentally, I don't really see the issue being conservation vs. exhibition/display. I see it more as finding all of the other things that are actually taking precedence over both conservation and display, and working collaboratively to address those.
Similarly, if a regional association has really, truly, honestly, tried everything it can and has no choice but to say they can't manage a species/subspecies, then I can accept that. But if it's merely that they've boxed themselves into an artificial corner with other rules, then I'm a little less patient.
I also get the sense that the focus on conservation breeding has meant that a lot of animals have been moved off-exhibit or behind the scenes. I understand that as a temporary strategy. But at some point, shouldn't the next generation of exhibit designers be actively and urgently pursuing design strategies that can make the animals not feel exposed, while still allowing people to see them in some fashion? (I'm thinking one-way glass, sound proofing, etc., so that the animals wouldn't even know the guests are there).
Incidentally, I don't really see the issue being conservation vs. exhibition/display. I see it more as finding all of the other things that are actually taking precedence over both conservation and display, and working collaboratively to address those.
Another forum mentions species being kept in more than 1 enclosure in the same zoo. Surely, these animals should be moved off-exhibit or behind the scenes, rather than the only specimens of a species, especially if this is rarely kept in zoos. I remember reading about the time Edinburgh Zoo had 8 meerkat exhibits. Surely this would be boring for even the most avid meerkat enthusiast.
Well, if there are more pairs imported and we manage to breed them all successfully, they can certainly hold well on its own, although the issue will be that many current keepers of other phalangeriformes won't have facility available to hold bear cuscus, so new holders will have to be found.
I mean we have to face the truth, other cuscuses are in a not-so-good situation in Europe as well, in this case, you are kind of looking to find one-eyed king among the blind...
I would very much like for zoos to not go this way...Because if the exception goes through, the lawmakers will have immediately much stronger farm lobby on their shoulders, trying to get the same treatment. Ok some of the laws could be possibly slightly altered to make the process faster but that's it and I am willing to sacrifice all the African hoofstock imports to Europe for that...
I am not complaining about THE number, I'm complaining that there even is A number... I don't care if the number is 15, 20, or 50, but by setting the number EAZA willingly sets themselves to a position, where after some years pass, there will be only these 22 species (okay it will be 24, we all know that no one will remove sugar gliders and red-necked wallabies
) present in Europe and there will be little to none option to bring in others...why do we have to limit ourselves? Ok, I don't want to see zoos doing one-time import attempts of different species for fun without a proper base for founding an ex-situ population either. But there are other mechanics how to prevent this, without limiting diversity.What makes it worse is that 1/4 of these species are currently not properly kept in Europe (in case it wasn't very clear from my first post)...
Bilby? For how much longer we'll have to wait?
Long-beaked echidna? C'mon, we're too old for fairy tales...
Bear cuscus? One actively breeding pair? What a great base for an EEP!
That joint-opossum EEP (with 3 of mentioned species pretty much absent)? What is the point...
You say that even 22 is "quite a substantial number to manage"...well, do we really need to manage everything? Some species work quite good as they are and the last thing they need is some overly motivated person trying to tinker with it because the EEP coordinator gotta coordinate...
And oftentimes it sounds like they are just looking for an excuse to not bother with them anymore. Can't help but EAZA's Banteng/Gaur decision still feel to me like they just look into ZIMS and said: "Well, we have more Bantengs and we like them more anyways, so Gaur can go to hell."
Or apparently recent attempt of Felid TAG to phase-out jaguarundi...why would you phase out a completely unique South-American felid? (I didn't hear it directly as I am so far too small of a person to go to TAG meetings, but I have it from a very good source I am willing to trust...)