What groups of animals are "obligatory" for zoos?

[lintworm]

I don't think any animal is essential for a zoos. TP Berlin does just fine without any great apes, Nuremberg, Frankfurt, Plzen and others are doing fine without Elephants. Prague is fine without hippo, Zurich fine without Giraffe and Ostrava more than fine without Rhino.

The only thing a zoo really needs is to be different in a way compared to the local competition and the collection doesn't really matter then, though some charismatic species that have wider appeal should be present. Which species those are isn't really important, except from a theming point of view... A zoo like Bern works just fine with mostly European species and doesn't need exotic megafauna, but to be an interesting zoo for the public they do need some charismatic species, which are Bear, Wolf, Wisent, Leopard, Puffin and Seal in their case.

A good zoo can create lasting memories from a good enclosure with crabs or dung beetles. Thus without spending millions on pandas, that are frankly less unique than a good invertebrate enclosure....

 

[FBBird]

I don't think any animal is essential for a zoos. TP Berlin does just fine without any great apes, Nuremberg, Frankfurt, Plzen and others are doing fine without Elephants. Prague is fine without hippo, Zurich fine without Giraffe and Ostrava more than fine without Rhino.

The only thing a zoo really needs is to be different in a way compared to the local competition and the collection doesn't really matter then, though some charismatic species that have wider appeal should be present. Which species those are isn't really important, except from a theming point of view... A zoo like Bern works just fine with mostly European species and doesn't need exotic megafauna, but to be an interesting zoo for the public they do need some charismatic species, which are Bear, Wolf, Wisent, Leopard, Puffin and Seal in their case.

A good zoo can create lasting memories from a good enclosure with crabs or dung beetles. Thus without spending millions on pandas, that are frankly less unique than a good invertebrate enclosure....

Totally agree. What you do, is to present an animal, with the right setting and interpretive material to show how wonderful it is. As you say, it doesn't have to be a panda. Think Jewel Wasp, Tentacled Snake, Edwards' Pheasant, Naked Mole Rat.....
It's all in the 'promotion' -- not very many years ago, it was only animal people that had ever heard of a Meerkat. The same job can be done for any species.

 

[agnmeln]

Any species of bear is always a massive highlight for me, but I have visited nice zoos without any bear species, so of course it isn’t essential.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Any species of bear is always a massive highlight for me, but I have visited nice zoos without any bear species, so of course it isn’t essential.

Go for it - your top three zoos which contained no bears

 

[agnmeln]

Go for it - your top three zoos which contained no bears

I’m not really one for top 10s, top 5s or top 3s considering that I have probably only visited less than 40 zoos in total and even out of that small number I can still barely remember accurately when trying to recall exactly which ones they were, but off the top of my head, I very much enjoy my regular visits to Blackpool Zoo and my recent trip to Knowsley Safari Park was also really pleasant.

 

[Haliaeetus]

Totally agree. What you do, is to present an animal, with the right setting and interpretive material to show how wonderful it is. As you say, it doesn't have to be a panda. Think Jewel Wasp, Tentacled Snake, Edwards' Pheasant, Naked Mole Rat.....
It's all in the 'promotion' -- not very many years ago, it was only animal people that had ever heard of a Meerkat. The same job can be done for any species.

Please, not Jewel Wasps.
They are so cruel for the cockroaches !

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

Tbh, the most glaring lack of iconic species I’ve seen (besides obvious ones like marsupials) is canids. Any ideas on why?

 

[JVM]

I think this is an interesting thread. I'm taking a look at the list.

- I definitely think having a member of Panthera is a requirement for any non-natives facility in the USA. There are a good number of small zoos that still have a tiger or a lion. You'd be hard-pressed to find a large zoo without them.

- I think canids are becoming less ubiquitous, unfortunately. Denver presently has none. Milwaukee only has fennecs but no larger species. Many smal zoos hold canids though so they are still extremely common.

- I'm not sure you need multiples but an ungulate is definitely needed. I would specifically say camels and zebras are largely necessary.

- Bears, definitely, although I slightly prefer when it was multiple species.

- Eagle or hawk, sure.

- This is one of the places you're specific that I'm not sure you need to be. Milwaukee, Lincoln Park and Brookfield have all at times not held owl, but they all have held Tawny Frogmouth pretty often, so perhaps a flat-faced funny-looking bird of prey is enough.

- Lincoln Park and Milwauke only have Old World vultures, Brookfield has New World, Denver has both. I think you can just say 'vultures' and it won't matter for continent.

- Callitrichids, yeah, agreed.

- I'll give Old World Monkeys, but I debated it. I think they're less ubiquitous but maybe still edge it. Like vultures, I don't think most visitors care about old or new world, and like bears I think we've slipped from multiple species to many zoos holding a couple choice species in this niche.

- Not sure multiple are needed.

- Not sure multiple are needed, although most zoos do have multiple.

- I have only seen large macaws in one of the five zoos I've visited; at least four of them have parrots, but Lincoln Park has spent time without and I'm not sure Milwaukee has any?

- Estrildid finches are definitely not a major, necessary group.

- This is way too vague to define. I would count flamingos, cranes and ratites separately. I don't think having ratites cancels out interest in flamingos, for sure. Brookfield has survived without flamingos for decades but almost every other zoo seems to have some.

- I might separate porcupines out of funny-looking large rodents?

- Lizards for sure, not sure if agamid is a neccessity.

- I'm a little too dumb with birds to judge "higher landfowl" but most zoos I've been to have held kookaburra.

- Funny-looking mid-sized carnivoran is fair.

- I would separate sloths out as well from other Xenarthrans. I don't think the presence of sloth cancels out visitors who want anteater or armadillo.

- This one really surprised me! You don't need wallaby if you have kangaroo! You just need 1 hopping marsupial

- I would again separate this out. I don't think a lot of visitors even realize otters are weasel-like carnivorans. They like otters separately from other weasel-like carnivorans because the semi-aquatic nature is a huge part of the appeal.

- Yeah, pigs, good one.

- A crocodilian will do fine. Lincoln Park, Brookfield and Denver have gone periods without any alligators, but do have crocodiles.

- Constricting snake is a good one.

- Tortoise or box turtle is a good one.

 

[elefante]

In this thread, I noted that some animals are almost ubiquitous as zoo animals (at least in zoos that call themselves zoos), but are split between multiple species, making no particular species ubiquitous. However it seems like some groups of animals are absolutely required for a zoo to be a zoo, even if the particular member is an open question. Based on what I've seen, I think that the following constitute the minimum set of obligatory animals, the groups of animals which are almost universally present in zoos.

1. Member of the cat family, preferably Panthera spp.
2. Member of the dog family
3. Multiple species of even-toed ungulates
4. Bear
   
5. Member of the hawk family (usually an eagle)
   
6. Owl
   
7. New World vulture
   
8. Callitrichid primates (marmosets and/or tamarins)
9. Old World monkey
10. Multiple species of landfowl
11. Multiple species of waterfowl
12. Parrots, ideally large macaws
    
13. Estrildid finches
    
14. Funny-looking large birds (eg. flamingos, cranes, emus)
15. Funny-looking large rodents (eg. porcupines, capybaras, maras)
16. Funny-looking agamid lizard
17. Funny-looking non-passerine member of the higher landfowl (usually a laughing kookaburra)
18. Funny-looking mid-sized carnivoran (eg. skunks, raccoons, coatis)
    
19. Xenarthran (ie. funny-looking South American mammal)
20. Wallaby
    
21. Weasel-like carnivoran (usually an Asian small-clawed otter)
22. Member of the pig family
23. Member of the alligator family
24. Constricting snake
    
25. Tortoise or box turtle

Zoos in Massachusetts are much less likely to have primates since those are hard to get licenses for, but the Lupa Zoo I believe has all of the animals I listed as does the Capital of Texas Zoo. I've seen people complain that both the Austin Zoo and Christenson Zoo aren't "real zoos," but both of these have most of the animals I listed and the Austin Zoo violated their own rules on procurement to get a pair of funny-looking large rodents.

Many places which aren't even called zoos and which have completely different missions also have a large set of these. For example: the overlap between my list and the species native to Central Texas almost describes the Austin Nature and Science Center outside of the "Small Wonders" building.

That said: the absence of most of the birds and reptiles I listed I don't think would have visitors complaining it's not a zoo; they're just ways for zoos to have a variety of animals cheaply. Honorable mentions go to pigeons, corvids, squirrels, poison dart frogs, and tree frogs, all of which are incredibly common in zoos and other animal collections, likely for the same reason.

But I'm not trying to determine not what animals whose absence people would complain about, we already have threads on ABC species for that. I'm trying to figure out which groups of animals seem to constitute the common denominator among zoos, including the species which are probably included for the visitors' own good. (I'm going to do a Fantasy Zoo challenge thread on this later, but I'm genuinely interested in the question as well.)

So what do y'all think? What constitutes the minimum set of animals the typical zoo feels obligated to have?

This is pretty accurate. I'd add charismatic African ungulates. Giraffes and zebras are practically mandatory (I think I've been to two zoos without giraffes and three without zebras) and one African antelope to either make a savanna or African area.

 

[JVM]

This is pretty accurate. I'd add charismatic African ungulates. Giraffes and zebras are practically mandatory (I think I've been to two zoos without giraffes and three without zebras) and one African antelope to either make a savanna or African area.

I realize this may be a significant outlier, but if it is worth mentioning, Lincoln Park Zoo has not held any antelope or gazelle in several years. Waterbuck was the last member of the family held, although I think as late as the nineties we had four or five kinds.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

I think this is an interesting thread. I'm taking a look at the list.

- I think canids are becoming less ubiquitous, unfortunately. Denver presently has none. Milwaukee only has fennecs but no larger species. Many smal zoos hold canids though so they are still extremely common.

- Bears, definitely, although I slightly prefer when it was multiple species.

Honestly, IMO bears are in the same situation as canids. Both are becoming far less ubiquitous

 

[Aardwolf]

Though some species are being phased out, at this moment we do have all living bear species in the US, and all have been bred with some regularity- neither of those statements have ever been true of canids

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

Though some species are being phased out, at this moment we do have all living bear species in the US, and all have been bred with some regularity- neither of those statements have ever been true of canids

True, but they're decreasing in the amount held at zoos individually. It seems zoos have gone from having multiple to 1 or 2 species or none at all.

 

[Aardwolf]

True, but they're decreasing in the amount held at zoos individually. It seems zoos have gone from having multiple to 1 or 2 species or none at all.

That’s in keeping with the general trend of realizing how much more space bears should have (all animals, really, but especially bears). A space that would comfortably house 4-5 bear exhibits in the 1950s is maybe big enough for one now… maybe

 

[JVM]

Honestly, IMO bears are in the same situation as canids. Both are becoming far less ubiquitous

Are there zoos that are dropping bears completely or lacking them that are not otherwise limited theme? Genuinely asking. My thought process for canids is that I know of multiple large zoos that are not keeping any major canid species right now, but I don't know of any zoos completely lacking bears right now.

There's definitely been a change in that most zoos are now supporting one or two choice species rather than three or four, and I think it's probable that within twenty years, we'll have lost three or even four bear species, but most visitors should be able to see some kind of bear.

The good news about canids is I don't think we'll lose the canids we have right now. The programs seem to be doing OK. We might lose bush dogs at some point I expect but they are common in captivity elsewhere so an easier loss to overcome than many.

 

[WalkingAgnatha]

living bear species in the US, and all have been bred with some regularity- neither of those statements have ever been true of canids

There's also a lot less bear species compared to canids! (Especially considering how many canids that I dont think we'll ever seen in an overseas zoo soon, eg. Darwin's fox, the multitude of foxes [unless more private imports occur], etc. I don't know if the number of canid species zoos have compared to the 8 bear species is larger or greater although.

 

[birdsandbats]

And I really don't think the US will still have all of the bear species very soon - aren't Giant Pandas supposed to be gone before the end of next year? And we're probably looking at the loss of Asian Black Bear and Sun Bear over the next couple decades.

 

[dillotest0]

And I really don't think the US will still have all of the bear species very soon - aren't Giant Pandas supposed to be gone before the end of next year? And we're probably looking at the loss of Asian Black Bear and Sun Bear over the next couple decades.

I think the UK's position of having the full eight will be over soon also as Edinburgh's pandas are repatriated.
There are however a few moon bears and American black bears; and sun bears are doing quite well for the most part.
Sloth bears have a future of uncertainty...

 

[dillotest0]

Though to talk about canids...
I think part of the problem may be that they have quite a few of the same problems as small cats. Bush dogs naturally are fond of bushes, as are maned wolves and jackals. Small foxes can be quite showy, but given that many of them aren't endangered many zoo directors don't see great incentive to add them to the collection. Some do, however.
Painted dogs can also be reclusive; and on hot days are quite lazy; for as aesthetically and ecologically interesting as they are.
I think in my experience fennecs are the most common species of small canid; though even then they face a few dilemmas. I think part of the problem is that many zoos these days don't really intend on investing in either a nocturne or desert exhibit, so fennecs have no placement in most major zoos. Though somehow they are more popular in small establishments.
Wolves are popular with the public - but for most zoos even within the United States only one species, the Gray Wolf, is popular and charismatic enough for most directors to bother obtaining. And even then to have wolves you need to plant a wolf wood most of the time, which requires investment and patience for maximal effect.

 

[Aardwolf]

And I really don't think the US will still have all of the bear species very soon - aren't Giant Pandas supposed to be gone before the end of next year? And we're probably looking at the loss of Asian Black Bear and Sun Bear over the next couple decades.

Yes, as I mentioned we are phasing out some species, and yes, as was mentioned, there are 4-5 times as many species of canid as that of bear. My point was that bears have been historically represented and kept in zoos to a degree and extent which has not been the case of any carnivore family. Even 50 years ago, it was not odd for a zoo to have 7 of the 8 species in their collection.

Even the bear species that are phasing out of the US are established in zoos elsewhere in the world. None of this has ever been true for canids, which have always been less commonly kept and less commonly bred

Pandas are an odd situation. Yes, the US will be panda free in a short time - but whereas with most large mammals I feel like that would be the end of them in US zoos, with pandas there is always the option of them being acquired again from China in the future, even after an absence of some years.