Trends in European zoo collections in the 21st century

But I get the impression that in an increasing number of zoos the spreadsheet has become the main collection planning tool, while imo it should just be a method to think about what you want to display.
I don't see how these two sentences contradict each other. A spreadsheet is a fantastic tool when you have hundreds of species to look at. In the past when the goal was just to increase the species count it might not have been of much importance, but nowadays managing a collection needs to be a balancing act. A spreadsheet to collect all the information is more than necessary to make informed decisions looking beyond the mere biological meaning of a species.
From the collection plans that I have had in my hands, there are a lot of variables to weigh the decision to display a species or not that go beyond being part of an EEP or not:
  • The historical and cultural value that that species has for the institution. E.g. Okapi for Antwerp Zoo or the Indian Rhino for Basel.
  • The relation that the species has with the conservation projects the institution conducts, and the in-situ projects are gaining a big importance here. And visitors more and more expect this from a zoo. So if your zoo conducts conservation in the Congo Basin, it is natural that species from this region become more relevant compared to the others in your collection. E.g. Northern Bald Ibis for Vienna Zoo.
  • The use that the species might have for scientific research. E.g. big apes usually score a lot here.
  • The species is a good animal ambassador for visitor activities. E.g Animal talks or animal encounters that can enhance or create a connection between visitors and wildlife - it is here that meerkats, lemurs and others become big stars.
  • How easy the species is to display and/or to mix with other species enhancing the experience of an enclosure.
  • How good that species is as a symbol for an education topic that your zoo wants to pass through. E.g African penguins are good for addressing pollution and overfishing topics or Galapagos tortoise to talk about species evolution.
Perhaps you need to understand that nowadays a collection plan is not just the animals you want to keep and diversity. It is becoming more and more about the functionality of that collection and not its size or diversity, the role that each piece of the collection (each species) plays in the whole picture. So the question is evolving to: Not just having a species for the sake of having it but what this species brings on board and how it increases the value of the institution beyond its number of species" Nowadays creating collection plans is also more and more hand-in-hand with other departments of a zoo, such as financial, educational, scientific and conservation.

Diversity is by itself something with its own value, but it comes at its costs. More species will mean smaller populations of each species, which leads to less resilient populations that suffer big fluctuations and in just a couple of years can be completely gone. Having more unique species also means there will be less knowledge and fewer other institutions from where you can collect knowledge - which also means fewer well-trained keepers to take care of those unique species. I truly believe that if there were more resources out there zoos would love to have more species on display but managing a zoo (which is way more than managing an animal collection) is not an easy task.
 
I don't see how these two sentences contradict each other. A spreadsheet is a fantastic tool when you have hundreds of species to look at. In the past when the goal was just to increase the species count it might not have been of much importance, but nowadays managing a collection needs to be a balancing act. A spreadsheet to collect all the information is more than necessary to make informed decisions looking beyond the mere biological meaning of a species.

I understand it is a fantastic tool, but the output is "just" a score per species which depends on the variables you put in and such tools generally don't account for the uncertainty for the scoring of each variable that is put in. The main issue to me is that the impression I get is that the score is taken as some sort of ground truth, ignoring the uncertainty that surrounds it in the decisions made based on the spreadsheet.

While as you mention there are indeed factors unique to each zoo such as conservation and history, there are plenty of factors that are identical, or at least very similar, between most zoos (EEP & IUCN status as 2 examples). So for some species pairs/groups the end result will always be the same in most zoos. E.g. the choice for a gemsbok or beisa will almost always be beisa unless the zoo has a long history with gemsbok or there is a strong wish for a correctly Southern African themed exhibit (though beisa might be the worse choice in mixed-species exhibits).

As an example, in an ideal world there would maybe be something like 30 holders (a random example not based on any calculation) for 5 related species each. That would mean each species has a reasonably robust population (though crying foul of the ideal numbers, just like basically every species in zoos). But with the current collection planning tools, to me the most likely outcome is that species A gets consistently higher scores (with some variation) and ends up with 90 holders, so the other 4 will have to manage with far less space, forcing species E to be phased out, while BCD can be managed in smaller than optimal numbers.

While there is nothing wrong (and there are a lot of (potential) upsides) with such an approach it does lead to a relatively high level of homogenization, despite the unique quirks per zoo. "The head" understands better than "the heart" that some homogenization is necessary. But I see this homogenization as a risk for the future, as priorities and goals will inevitably change and you have a less diverse base to "pick" from. What if conservation statuses, research priorities etc. change (as they will)?

This is not unique to zoos, but is also something I see in e.g. the management of protected areas too. Where every few decades there is a different trend (be it rewilding, sod-cutting or liming) which has its positives, but also its downsides. But once the downsides become apparent what you are left with is shaped by the trend that came before it. That means everytime your ecosystem goes through a funnel in which the species least adapted to the current management strategy lose out. So you are left with less, despite all the good intentions for the contrary. The only way to avoid that is to use different strategies at different locations. That is a risk I see for the current collection planning too and most zoos ignore that. It is nice for individual zoos to add a scimitar-horned oryx or ring-tailed lemur to their collection and they both have a good story to tell, but the added benefit of another holding for these species for conservation is on the grand scale much smaller compared to more interest in mongoose lemurs and beisa oryx.

I truly believe that if there were more resources out there zoos would love to have more species on display but managing a zoo (which is way more than managing an animal collection) is not an easy task.

I am fully aware managing a zoo is no easy task and I am often glad it is not my job ;). But regardless of the use of spreadsheets, the one thing that still seems to determine most whether a zoo increases or decreases their animal collection (or parts of it) is who is in charge. This might be more apparent in zoos which are not businesses, but are city/region owned and thus less limited to making ends meet. But even in zoos that don't receive subsidies it seems to me that who are the curators and the director mean more than anything else. The differences in willingness seems more important than the financing to me, though both are entwined...
 
Last edited:
I understand your point, and it seems that you would wish that some superior entity would keep those 30 holders per species in a perfect balance. One could say that EAZA is that superior entity but the reach that EAZA has is limited (contrary to what most zoochatters might think). And the biology of species also does not favour that perfect balance. Within the example of the oryxes, you can perfectly try to allocate 30 holders for each species, but imagine that it happens that beisa has half of the reproductive outcome of gemsbok and needs to be housed in herds double the size of those of gemsbok. So where are you gonna put all those gemsboks that breed like chickens and live in tiny herds? Should the 15 holders of beisa wait till the population grows enough keeping their enclosures empty? Holder number 12 says that gemsbok is cheaper to keep than beisa. Holder 26 says beisa are not working together with their ostriches and zebras. Holder 4 says that prefers to have scimitar over having its enclosures empty waiting for beisa. Holder 17 can hold 50 gemboks while holder 21 can only have 3. Northern Europeans say that their beisa have higher mortality rates during winter and they prefer musk oxen. Or imagine that you have a reintroduction programme for scimitars for the next 10 years. You will need a surplus of 50 scimitars for that reintroduction programme which means let's breed them like no tomorrow but your previous 30 holders will not be enough. So let's replace a few of those gemsboks and beisa holders for scimitars. The Saudis and the Emiratis have replaced the Europeans and the Americans in the Arabian oryx breeding programme, holding almost 70% of the world's captive population. So what to do? Is it worth keeping your Arabian oryxes when you have needed space for gemsbok and scimitars? Quite complex right?
At the end of the day each zoo decides over its own collection and I doubt any curator or director thinks about whatever species the zoo in the neighbouring city has or whatever species are kept in Scotland or in the French Riviera when I have a zoo to run in Greece. The TAG meetings and the RCPs are the meeting points to try to reach that balance you idealise, but reality is more complex than that and all of these tools are limited.
I usually use the EU as the best analogy to EAZA. We all know the benefits that the EU offers including homogenisation, teamwork and integration but we also know how hard it is to coordinate everyone about every topic. Actually, these complexities are what I find amazing in the zoo world.
 
I understand it is a fantastic tool, but the output is "just" a score per species which depends on the variables you put in and such tools generally don't account for the uncertainty for the scoring of each variable that is put in. The main issue to me is that the impression I get is that the score is taken as some sort of ground truth, ignoring the uncertainty that surrounds it in the decisions made based on the spreadsheet.

While as you mention there are indeed factors unique to each zoo such as conservation and history, there are plenty of factors that are identical, or at least very similar, between most zoos (EEP & IUCN status as 2 examples). So for some species pairs/groups the end result will always be the same in most zoos. E.g. the choice for a gemsbok or beisa will almost always be beisa unless the zoo has a long history with gemsbok or there is a strong wish for a correctly Southern African themed exhibit (though beisa might be the worse choice in mixed-species exhibits).

As an example, in an ideal world there would maybe be something like 30 holders (a random example not based on any calculation) for 5 related species each. That would mean each species has a reasonably robust population (though crying foul of the ideal numbers, just like basically every species in zoos). But with the current collection planning tools, to me the most likely outcome is that species A gets consistently higher scores (with some variation) and ends up with 90 holders, so the other 4 will have to manage with far less space, forcing species E to be phased out, while BCD can be managed in smaller than optimal numbers.

While there is nothing wrong (and there are a lot of (potential) upsides) with such an approach it does lead to a relatively high level of homogenization, despite the unique quirks per zoo. "The head" understands better than "the heart" that some homogenization is necessary. But I see this homogenization as a risk for the future, as priorities and goals will inevitably change and you have a less diverse base to "pick" from. What if conservation statuses, research priorities etc. change (as they will)?

This is not unique to zoos, but is also something I see in e.g. the management of protected areas too. Where every few decades there is a different trend (be it rewilding, sod-cutting or liming) which has its positives, but also its downsides. But once the downsides become apparent what you are left with is shaped by the trend that came before it. That means everytime your ecosystem goes through a funnel in which the species least adapted to the current management strategy lose out. So you are left with less, despite all the good intentions for the contrary. The only way to avoid that is to use different strategies at different locations. That is a risk I see for the current collection planning too and most zoos ignore that. It is nice for individual zoos to add a scimitar-horned oryx or ring-tailed lemur to their collection and they both have a good story to tell, but the added benefit of another holding for these species for conservation is on the grand scale much smaller compared to more interest in mongoose lemurs and beisa oryx.



I am fully aware managing a zoo is no easy task and I am often glad it is not my job ;). But regardless of the use of spreadsheets, the one thing that still seems to determine most whether a zoo increases or decreases their animal collection (or parts of it) is who is in charge. This might be more apparent in zoos which are not businesses, but are city/region owned and thus less limited to making ends meet. But even in zoos that don't receive subsidies it seems to me that who are the curators and the director mean more than anything else. The differences in willingness seems more important than the financing to me, though both are entwined...

It's also true that if there are a lot of individual of a species, is more easy acquire that species. There are two scimitar horned oryx males that a zoo don't know where to put them ? You search for a big antelope ? Have the space for big antelope ? Good news, you are the holder of two scimitar horned oryx.

Also if that zoo is near you, better. You have to pay less. This is why certain species are more common in certain region. For an example : you are an italian zoo and want a generic grass eater ? Well, somehow will appear a banner like click here "Hot nile lecwhe surplus ready to breed near you".

2/3 hour of trip for them, probably already accustomed at the climate and if there are problem you can call the guys that worked with them and talk in your language.

Expecially for not big zoo (for money or notoriety) you work like a midtable football club. You can choice to buy for a role; you can choice to acquire a oryx; the species probably will be choosed by other factors. Also like football club at a certain point you will have stronger relationship and trusted source.
 
I understand your point, and it seems that you would wish that some superior entity would keep those 30 holders per species in a perfect balance. One could say that EAZA is that superior entity but the reach that EAZA has is limited (contrary to what most zoochatters might think). And the biology of species also does not favour that perfect balance. Within the example of the oryxes, you can perfectly try to allocate 30 holders for each species, but imagine that it happens that beisa has half of the reproductive outcome of gemsbok and needs to be housed in herds double the size of those of gemsbok. So where are you gonna put all those gemsboks that breed like chickens and live in tiny herds? Should the 15 holders of beisa wait till the population grows enough keeping their enclosures empty? Holder number 12 says that gemsbok is cheaper to keep than beisa. Holder 26 says beisa are not working together with their ostriches and zebras. Holder 4 says that prefers to have scimitar over having its enclosures empty waiting for beisa. Holder 17 can hold 50 gemboks while holder 21 can only have 3. Northern Europeans say that their beisa have higher mortality rates during winter and they prefer musk oxen. Or imagine that you have a reintroduction programme for scimitars for the next 10 years. You will need a surplus of 50 scimitars for that reintroduction programme which means let's breed them like no tomorrow but your previous 30 holders will not be enough. So let's replace a few of those gemsboks and beisa holders for scimitars. The Saudis and the Emiratis have replaced the Europeans and the Americans in the Arabian oryx breeding programme, holding almost 70% of the world's captive population. So what to do? Is it worth keeping your Arabian oryxes when you have needed space for gemsbok and scimitars? Quite complex right?
While it hasn't taken off widespread, a handful of SSPs in US zoos have had luck merging into multi-species management, when you have similar species competing for the same, finite amount of space. For example, instead of being a Sumatran orangutan SSP and a Bornean orangutan SSP, there is simply an orangutan SSP that makes sure both the Sumatran and Bornean populations are sustainable and have enough holders to individually be successful. The same thing is happening with the two red panda species, three spider monkey programs, three gibbon programs, and three tiger subspecies. I don't know if Europe manages any populations the same way, but I imagine this would be a successful management technique for @lintworm's suggestion to balance the separate populations, and is something I'd like to see the AZA expand to other cases where two or more SSPs are competing for the same space.
 
It's also true that if there are a lot of individual of a species, is more easy acquire that species. There are two scimitar horned oryx males that a zoo don't know where to put them ? You search for a big antelope ? Have the space for big antelope ? Good news, you are the holder of two scimitar horned oryx.

Also if that zoo is near you, better. You have to pay less. This is why certain species are more common in certain region. For an example : you are an italian zoo and want a generic grass eater ? Well, somehow will appear a banner like click here "Hot nile lecwhe surplus ready to breed near you".

2/3 hour of trip for them, probably already accustomed at the climate and if there are problem you can call the guys that worked with them and talk in your language.

Expecially for not big zoo (for money or notoriety) you work like a midtable football club. You can choice to buy for a role; you can choice to acquire a oryx; the species probably will be choosed by other factors. Also like football club at a certain point you will have stronger relationship and trusted source.
I definitely couldn't say better. It is a big mistake to assume that all species are equal or that all zoos are equal. I have seen scimitars in top zoological facilities like Marwell, Berlin or Leipzig ad well as places that are just above what could be called a roadside zoo. Of course these individuals in these substandard places are not even part of the EEP. They are not even taken in consideration for the management of the species. That is another error of looking at zootierlist because it does not discriminates between accredited zoos and non-accredited ones. Many of these substandard places do not have the same quality of housing and staff to be even considered as reliable partners for breeding programmes.
 
As an example, in an ideal world there would maybe be something like 30 holders (a random example not based on any calculation) for 5 related species each. That would mean each species has a reasonably robust population (though crying foul of the ideal numbers, just like basically every species in zoos). But with the current collection planning tools, to me the most likely outcome is that species A gets consistently higher scores (with some variation) and ends up with 90 holders, so the other 4 will have to manage with far less space, forcing species E to be phased out, while BCD can be managed in smaller than optimal numbers.

In previous years, before UCSZ (Union of Czech and Slovak zoos) got rendered useless und basically dead thanks to certain zoo director I wont name, it used to run +20 commisions. And each commision was specialised in some group of animals (lets say antelopes or carnivores), basicaly a simple analogue of EAZA TAGs while some commisions were more technical nature (zoo bookkeeping, animal transport, education...). Each commision organised a meet up at least once a year of relevant curators/head keepers/professionals from member zoos (and often hosting relevant people from outside zoo too). For 2 days straight, assembled participants would present their successes, their husbandry mistakes, future tentative plans and run coordinating attempts how to best utilise local zoo network. Unlike TAG decisions "from the top" these were real time negotiations between equals.

Antelope comission would keep a spreadsheed of all antelope individuals in member zoos, inklusive history of last +30 years, and try to both keep all species in viable number in member zoos (usual rule of at least 3 zoos and of them 1 bachelor herd) and at the same time trying to prevent homogenisation especially between nearest zoos. Participants would discuss their current and future neads and available space and all would try to find a compromise acceptable to all. It didnt prevent some lone gunman decisions of individual zoos or species collapses and it tried to good extend respect EAZA decisions. But all in all it helped to differentiate zoo collections to some extent.

And yes, it´s extremely hard to find balance between enough collections keeping the same species that would, among other, allow same-day transfers of surplus aggresive males, unbeuracratic rescue transfer of large dangerous animals after a fire damage and husbandry experience exchange in local language. And at the same time to prevent the already mentoned homogenisation that would decrease interest of visitors to visit more near-by collections within 2h drive (we have too high density of zoo institutions available for a family day trip).
 
Last edited:
While it hasn't taken off widespread, a handful of SSPs in US zoos have had luck merging into multi-species management, when you have similar species competing for the same, finite amount of space. For example, instead of being a Sumatran orangutan SSP and a Bornean orangutan SSP, there is simply an orangutan SSP that makes sure both the Sumatran and Bornean populations are sustainable and have enough holders to individually be successful. The same thing is happening with the two red panda species, three spider monkey programs, three gibbon programs, and three tiger subspecies. I don't know if Europe manages any populations the same way, but I imagine this would be a successful management technique for @lintworm's suggestion to balance the separate populations, and is something I'd like to see the AZA expand to other cases where two or more SSPs are competing for the same space.
I don't see how this would bring any meaningful difference to the EAZA framework since inter communication and cooperation are quite good compared to AZA. I believe that both orangutan EEP coordinators keep close contact with one another and the great ape TAG is there to bring everyone on board and make joint decisions.
 
While it hasn't taken off widespread, a handful of SSPs in US zoos have had luck merging into multi-species management, when you have similar species competing for the same, finite amount of space. For example, instead of being a Sumatran orangutan SSP and a Bornean orangutan SSP, there is simply an orangutan SSP that makes sure both the Sumatran and Bornean populations are sustainable and have enough holders to individually be successful. The same thing is happening with the two red panda species, three spider monkey programs, three gibbon programs, and three tiger subspecies. I don't know if Europe manages any populations the same way, but I imagine this would be a successful management technique for @lintworm's suggestion to balance the separate populations, and is something I'd like to see the AZA expand to other cases where two or more SSPs are competing for the same space.
The EAZA does have studbooks that encapsulate multiple species that are similar. Examples include some taxa of freshwater fish, sea ducks, Cuora box turtles, and rockhopper penguins. However some don’t encapsulate every similar managed species. For example Angolan colobus and guarezas are managed under the same EEP but the King colobus is not.
 
In previous years, before UCSZ (Union of Czech and Slovak zoos) got rendered useless und basically dead thanks to certain zoo director I wont name, it used to run +20 commisions. And each commision was specialised in some group of animals (lets say antelopes or carnivores), basicaly a simple analogue of EAZA TAGs while some commisions were more technical nature (zoo bookkeeping, animal transport, education...). Each commision organised a meet up at least once a year of relevant curators/head keepers/professionals from member zoos (and often hosting relevant people from outside zoo too). For 2 days straight, assembled participants would present their successes, their husbandry mistakes, future tentative plans and run coordinating attempts how to best utilise local zoo network. Unlike TAG decisions "from the top" these were real time negotiations between equals.

Antelope comission would keep a spreadsheed of all antelope individuals in member zoos, inklusive history of last +30 years, and try to both keep all species in viable number in member zoos (usual rule of at least 3 zoos and of them 1 bachelor herd) and at the same time trying to prevent homogenisation especially between nearest zoos. Participants would discuss their current and future neads and available space and all would try to find a compromise acceptable to all. It didnt prevent some lone gunman decisions of individual zoos or species collapses and it tried to good extend respect EAZA decisions. But all in all it helped to differentiate zoo collections to some extent.

And yes, it´s extremely hard to find balance between enough collections keeping the same species that would, among other, allow same-day transfers of surplus aggresive males, unbeuracratic rescue transfer of large dangerous animals after a fire damage and husbandry experience exchange in local language. And at the same time to prevent the already mentoned homogenisation that would decrease interest of visitors to visit more near-by collections within 2h drive (we have too high density of zoo institutions available for a family day trip).
I'm not sure what is your point here, but you just made a portrait of the EAZA TAGs workshops with the exception that these occur less often, but for that you have the anual meeting of each TAG at the annual EAZA conference.
 
So the EAZA dictatorship is just a rumour that walks around, but it is just a rumour.

I never said EAZA is a dictatorship so don't put words in my mouth, but I have to agree with @lintworm that there is a level of soft power...

I just said that the trend is currently shifting towards having EEP for pretty much everything, even when the species doesn't really need it (hello meerkat, ring-tailed lemur, and red kangaroo) and put a lot of other species to MON - do not obtain or MON - phase-out for no apparent reason.

With this also comes a certain level of hypocrisy on EAZAs side. Take New Guinea echidna, EAZA was displeased (to put it nicely) that the import of these happened, but now when the species started to breed, with some zoos even repeating the success, it's suddenly okay to make them EEP? Malagasy carnivores are almost the same case.

Also the awesome new(? I don't know how old it is, but certainly there is more emphasis on it in the last two years) policy of non-EAZA zoos paying fee to be part of EEP...why do we even need to play this "elite club" card? Especially in a situation where some EEPs urgently seek new holders and there is just no interest within EAZA members...so why can't we use proven "lesser" zoos as holding facilities, and that way help them grow while at the same time, help ourselves massively with capacities, instead of breed and cull or contraception?

Don't get me wrong, I value a lot of stuff EAZA offers and the good that can come from it. But with good always comes bad as well and no institution should ever be immune to criticism. Especially when it comes to wasting valuable time and human resources (not so much money, luckily)

n previous years, before UCSZ (Union of Czech and Slovak zoos) got rendered useless und basically dead thanks to certain zoo director I wont name, it used to run +20 commisions
Commissions still work and with a bit of love, I have a feeling that some of them may actually survive even a potential Union disbanding...

I'm not sure what is your point here
Jana just described to lintworm, that as far as hoofstock goes, on national level, our zoos were close to what he describes as the "ideal scenario"
 
I never said EAZA is a dictatorship so don't put words in my mouth, but I have to agree with @lintworm that there is a level of soft power...
I am sorry if you read it that way, but it was not my intention to suggest that you said that. But the general way EAZA is referred in this forum is like if EAZA is working against the interest of everyone, which I do not agree. But every organisation must indeed have space for criticism, but criticism that fits within the knowledge of how the organisation works. It is easy to point fingers when you are outside and you do not see all the complexities that go around.
I just said that the trend is currently shifting towards having EEP for pretty much everything, even when the species doesn't really need it (hello meerkat, ring-tailed lemur, and red kangaroo) and put a lot of other species to MON - do not obtain or MON - phase-out for no apparent reason.
Do you know what an EEP is for? If you think it is only for endangered species you are very mistaken. With the implementation of the new EEP framework, EEPs became more than just breeding. The meerkat EEP was created to precisely manage the situation to open more space for other small carnivores, e.g. mongeese. Not all species are managed for conservation breeding purposes, some are for display or education purposes. E.g. all the least concerned songbirds that were the face of the "silence forest" campaign. EEPs also promote research and improvements in their species' husbandry. It is like a platform for cooperation.
Also the awesome new(? I don't know how old it is, but certainly there is more emphasis on it in the last two years) policy of non-EAZA zoos paying fee to be part of EEP...why do we even need to play this "elite club" card? Especially in a situation where some EEPs urgently seek new holders and there is just no interest among EAZA members...so why can't we use proven "lesser" zoos as holding facilities, and that way help them grow while at the same time, help ourselves massively with capacities, instead of breed and cull or contraception?
Do you know that the work done by EEP coordinators and by the EAZA office staff is not done for free? Members already pay their memberships and allocate free paid hours from their staff to let them run the EEPs. Yes, no EEP coordinator is paid for that job. Your boss must give you time within your normal working hours to work for the EEP.
What non-member zoos pay is just a symbolic value. 500 euros per year per EEP is not really that much and you are supporting the work that the others do which includes office time to manage the programme and visits to your location to inspect your husbandry standards. It is not really an elite club in the strict sense of the word. Membership is based on the number of visitors you have per year, so a smaller zoo pays a lower membership. I simply know many small zoo owners who do not really care about EAZA, its standards and all the conservation stuff. It is just their little business and they can run it with meerkats and ring-tails that are not even part of the EEP. As I mentioned before I even know a "roadside" zoo that has scimitar oryxes and addaxes. But of course, those animals are not part of their EEPs. Probably were surplus animals that found their way out of the programme.
 
From a North American perspective, Bovids are a really interesting group because while we are seeing a massive decrease in diversity and holdings in major accredited zoos, we have many private facilities, safaris, and ranches popping up that have many of these species in quite large numbers.

Cattle and allies - Bovinae
# Species kept 1-1-2000: 15
# Species kept currently: 14 (-1)
# Species gained: -
# Species lost: 1


This subfamily contains the largest members of the family, but is more diverse than cattle only. It also includes 2 antelope groups from Asia and Africa respectively. The vast majority of species shows a surprising stability in the number of holders this century, despite plenty of changes for single zoos.

full

@Therabu The number of lesser kudu has remained stable, though the loss of long-term breeding groups poses a risk for the future.

Species lost

Chowsingha - Tetracerus quadricornis B5*
These unique antelope are the only wild species that can sport 4 horns and is thus also commonly known as the four-horned antelope or chousingha. Apart from that they look like the most generic antelope-deer imaginable. In recent decades this has always been a rarity with (breeding) groups in Zoo Berlin, both Parisian zoos and in the Aspinall parks. They have in recent history been kept from 1977-2009. Until the 1990s and the early 2000s there was regular breeding in Howletts Wild Animal Park and both Parisian zoos, but never in Berlin. The final animal of this unique species passed away in the Menagerie/ Jardin des Plantes in Paris in 2009

full

@Maguari Some of the final individuals of this almost duiker-like bovids in Paris at the start of the century

Species gaining popularity

Bongo - Tragelaphus eurycerus
These beautiful forest antelopes were one of the most prized ungulates in the 1970s and were mostly kept in prestigious larger zoos. With nearly 50 European holdings it is slowly becoming one of the more commonly kept ungulates. Apart from their beauty, the critically endangered status of the mountain bongo (ssp. isaaci), which is kept in Europe, makes it an interesting addition for many zoos. Whereas American bongo have found their way back to Kenya for a re-introduction program, I haven't heard of any European bongo going that direction.

full

@hmb_zoo The days of bongo as rarity are all but over

Species losing popularity

Gaur - Bos gaurus
This is the heaviest member of the family and they can have a temper, so zoos that want this species generally invest in a heavily fortified (and hence more expensive) enclosure, except if you are Parc Animalier de Bouillon…. That in combination with needing heating in winter makes this not the easiest cow to keep and just like the banteng (Bos javanicus) there has been a struggle to find new holders. The TAG has now decided to phase out gaur entirely, to free up space for banteng. This hasn’t yet resulted in a notable decline in gaur holders (or an increase in banteng holders), but most zoos slowly let gaur die out by keeping them in single sex groups. Not so Zoo Zlin-Lesna, Czechia, which don’t want their 2019 gaur import from India go to waste and together with Cabarceno they continue breeding. Because of these 2 zoos there is a good chance gaur will remain in Europe for the foreseeable future.

Nilgai - Bosephalus tragocamelus
These large and stocky Asian antelope have long been a staple of many zoos. They are hardy and easy to breed, so were widespread in the 20th century in big and small zoos. This century the number of holders of this least concern species has been significantly reduced. Hoofstock aren’t a priority and nilgai are an easy phase-out. They are still a widespread feature in Indian mixed species enclosures, often with blackbuck and axis deer though. But they are also readily mixed with other deer and even rhinoceroses. In such mixed-species exhibits they will likely have a secure spot for the future.

full

@Rhino00 Not dead yet! Not all EAZA zoos have decided phasing out gaurs is a good idea

Dead ends

Mountain anoa - Bubalus quarlesi B5*
While the species status of the mountain anoa is still called in question, it is 100% clear that this species will disappear from Europe soon. The European population was always small and inbred as it was mainly kept in Zoo Berlin and Zoo Krefeld, which were the only zoos with regular breeding results. But in the end the population slowly died out and there is currently only a single animal remaining in Zoo Krefeld, which is not the youngest one either.

full

@Pyrrhula Mountain anoa "Idris" in Zoo Krefeld, when you are on first name terms with a rarity, you often know it is the last one standing

Progress
21/22 orders completed
100/106 families completed
543-552 species present in 2000
560-563 species present in 2023
221-232 species gained this century
213-217 species lost this century
The spiral-horned antelopes are probably one of the most stable ungulate groups in American collections, overall. Common eland and greater kudu are still very much "savanna staples", and bongo are also quite common. Lowland nyala have probably seen the greatest increase in popularity in this group in recent years, with sitatunga spreading out a little more as well. The lesser kudu population is stable, but it has not seen much growth beyond its traditional devoted holders. That just leaves the giant eland and harnessed bushbuck as the dead-ends of this group in American collections.

Similarly as to Europe, nilgai have all but vanished from major collections in North American zoos, as very few zoos now include exhibits for large hoofstock in their Asian exhibits. They are, however, still wildly popular in the private sector.

Wild cattle are also doing quite poorly in American zoos. American bison as the national mammal of the United States are ever popular; however, the other species are just barely hanging on. Similar to the Burmese brow-antlered deer, efforts were made in the past decade to promote Javan banteng and lowland anoa in American collections; however, anoa have instead seen a decrease in holders and banteng have plateaued in major collections (they have spread quite rapidly in the private sector, however). Cape buffalo are clinging on at their few but dedicated holders, and a new consortium is being developed for the taxon. Gaur, of course, were marked for phase-out in favor for banteng but are still being bred in considerable number by the Bronx Zoo, whether this will be enough to reinvigorate interest is yet to be determined.



Large antelopes - Hippotragini, Alcelaphini & Reduncini
# Species kept 1-1-2000: 15
# Species kept currently: 15
# Species gained: -
# Species lost: -


A subjective group that contains 3 tribes (or subfamilies depending on your view) which contain a diverse set of mostly larger antelope that occur mostly in Africa. This group contains anything from gnu to oryx and from reedbuck to hartebeest. No species have been lost (yet) this century, but in the 2000s the bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) was phased out in Europe in favour of the extremely similar blesbok (Damaliscus pygargus phillipsi). Bontebok are still kept in the US, which was part of the deal. Whereas the majority of this species has been stable, a small decrease in the number of holders of Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) is notable. This poster boy for ex situ conservation was always relatively uncommon in Europe, but has seen a net decrease from some 21 holders to 16 this century.

full

@Jogy The phasing-out of bontebok around the start of this century made sense and the very similar blesbok are doing fine, with a recent expansion in the UK

Species gaining popularity

Beisa oryx - Oryx beisa
This used to be a rarely kept species, but in recent years demand has surged to the extent that zoos are even happy to take on bachelor groups, so that not a single male ends up as a lion's dinner. This is still very much an uncommon species though. While this species is endangered, their temperament doesn't make it the easiest antelope for a savanna type of mix, but the IUCN status matters a lot these days for many zoos.

Nile lechwe - Kobus megaceros
This endangered antelope long had a stronghold in Italy, but was quite rare outside of it. That has changed in recent decades and the species is making a reappearance across much of the continent. Depending on where you are it is still a rarity, but it isn’t unlikely this lechwe will be coming to a place near you soon.

Scimitar-horned oryx- Oryx dammah
As one of two mammal species listed as extinct in the wild, before being downlisted to Endangered this month, it is no surprise it is a zoo staple for zoos wanting to participate in conservation. An already sizable zoo population has continued to expand and with over 80 holders this is now one of the most common antelope in European zoos. Reintroduction programmes for this species are under way, so this attractive antelope makes for an easy poster boy if you want to say you care about conservation.

full

@Therabu Long a French and Prague speciality, beisa are now spreading to new pastures

Species losing popularity

Mountain reedbuck - Redunca fulvorufula
These are the only reedbuck to be currently kept in Europe, but their future hangs very much in the balance. It has never been a common species, but it is currently only kept and bred in Tierpark Berlin and Zoo Dvur Kralove. Both zoos still seem invested and until 2022 there have been successful breeding events, so there is some hope still, but the situation is vulnerable and the trend is negative.

full

@Kaelio Some successful breeding in Tierpark Berlin the past years is the only thing that hasn't completely doomed mountain reedbuck yet


Dead ends

Hartebeest - Alcelaphus buselaphus
Despite being an African staple and an instantly recognizable species (or multiple), hartebeest have never really caught on in zoos, with only Kaama hartebeest (ssp caama) kept in recent decades. Throughout the 21st century the number of individuals has always been tiny and in 2005 down to only 5 females. That year both Burgers’ Zoo and Erlebnis-Zoo Hannover imported 2 males from the US, the remnant of their stock, and for a few years both zoos had successful breeding groups. But around 2010 disaster struck with Burgers’ Zoo losing both females (1 pregnant and the other dying while giving birth), so they were down to 2 males and kept the species until 2013. Hannover decided to send their remaining animals to Wroclaw in 2011, but only the male arrived alive. This male has been the single representative of this species in Europe for over a decade and probably won’t last many more years.

full

@KevinB Kaama hartebeest always were a rarity, they couldn't demonstrate the fast population growth that is sometimes seen in the wild

Progress
21/22 orders completed
100/106 families completed
558-567 species present in 2000
575-578 species present in 2023
221-232 species gained this century
213-217 species lost this century

For Hippotragini, we have seen a decrease in popularity of the Arabian oryx as this species has been reintroduced to the wild and the conservation efforts have shifted towards in-situ conservation and facilities within its natural range. Scimitar-horned oryx and addax both remain widely popular in both major collections and the private sector. Gemsbok, sable, and roan remain with much smaller but rather stable populations. Of course, these three species are well known for their ill-tempers and short fuses, which has likely stifled their growth in collections only looking to showcase hoofstock in smaller mixed-species savanna settings. The beisa oryx has all but vanished from public collections, while the fringe-eared oryx clings on at its three dedicated facilities.

Alcelaphini is tribe from this group that has done the worst in American collections. In this century, we lost the hartebeest, hirola, and topi from public collections, and all remaining blesbok have been shuffled off into the private sector in favor of the more striking and more conservation dependent bontebok. Bontebok have been largely stable, with any gains and losses mostly balancing each other out.

Reduncini has seen the loss of the rhebok and the Uganda kob and defassa waterbuck come to a dead end in American collections. The red lechwe has been actively phased out of accredited facilities, but they are still widely popular in private facilities, and the ellipsen waterbuck remains stable overall. The interesting case for this group is the Nile lechwe. There is only one other antelope species that has seen a more rapid increase in popularity in recent years; however, they have proven very difficult to maintain in traditional American zoo settings. Several facilities that have gone into the species have swiftly gone out of them when they prove to be too fractious or the bachelor herds they were given begin to break down.

Smaller antelopes - Aepycerotini, Cephalophini, Nesotragini, Oreotragini, Antilopini
# Species kept 1-1-2000: 17
# Species kept currently: 13 (-4)
# Species gained: 3
# Species lost: 7


This group contains mostly small(ish) antelopes from Africa and Asia and is incredibly diverse. With a few exceptions these smaller species are however generally less common than the large antelopes seen in the previous post. As a small note: Zootierliste lists Maxwell’s duiker until at least 2001 for Artis, Amsterdam, but these are most likely all blue duiker X Maxwell’s duiker hybrids and were listed at the time as blue duiker. The last hybrid of that line died in 2010 in Zoo Antwerp.

full

@Therabu Blue duiker have remained a rare antelope throughout this century, though all hybrid animals are now gone and the population consists solely of the congica subspecies

Species gained

Gerenuk - Litocranius walleri B4*
After being lost from Europe for decades, Tierpark Berlin imported this species from the USA in 2013. Over the past 10 years 6.6 animals were imported to Berlin, but despite regular breeding, the population has remained stable, due to relatively high losses. It is thus uncertain whether a long term population can be maintained of this unique antelope.

full

@amur leopard Gerenuk remain limited to the German capital for now
Species gained but lost

Royal antelope - Nesotragus pygmaeus A1
This tiny antelope was only kept very briefly in Europe, a single animal already died in quarantine in Poznan Nowe Zoo in 2004.

Red-flanked duiker - Cephalophus rufilatus A3*
Bioparc Valencia imported 2.1 animals from Los Angeles Zoo in 2009 and bred the species once. But that didn’t mean that a population could be established and the final animal died in 2015-2016.

full

@Flyer.Nick Red-flanked duiker remain limited to North America for now

Species lost

Klipspringer - Oreotragus oreotragus C5*
Zoo Frankfurt kept and bred this species from 1959-2018, but apart from Zoo Napoli in the 20th century it was the only European zoo breeding this species. In recent decades multiple zoos have kept offspring from Frankfurt, but nowhere was any breeding achieved. The final animal died in Bioparc Valencia in 2022, being born in Frankfurt in 1996.

Heuglin’s gazelle - Eudorcas tilonura A?
This species was in recent decades only kept in Zoo Warsaw, where the final animal died in 2010. It is unclear when the Warsaw holding started and how successful it was.

Arabian gazelle - Gazella arabica C5*
Based on imports from Yemen this species was successfully maintained for decades in a few UK zoos. But in the 21st century breeding ceased and the final animal died in Blackpool Zoo in 2015.

Cavendish’s dik-dik - Madoqua cavendishi A4
At the time this species was thought to be conspecific with the Kirk’s dikdik and the only reference to this species are 2 females acquired by Diergaarde Blijdorp, Rotterdam, in 1996. One animal lived only shortly, the other died in 2008.

Saiga - Saiga tatarica D5*
These tapir antelope have long been a popular curiosity for zoos and many zoos have attempted to keep this species, though only Zoo Cologne had any long term “success” between 1976-2009. The only other holder this century was Zoopark Chomutov in Czechia, until 2004. Being easily stressed and susceptible to disease many zoos could breed this species, but could not outpace all the deaths. The breeding group in Cologne got a visit from a fox, which meant the end of all females, and the final male died in 2009.

full

@KevinB Europe's final saiga living in Cologne until 2009.

Species gaining popularity

Kirk’s dik-dik - Madoqua kirkii
This is probably the bovid that has seen the largest number of new holders this century. From being a rarity which was mainly bred in Erlebnis-Zoo Hannover in the 1990s it has gained a strong foothold on the continent and now has over 80 holders. This is now the go-to small antelope and is used as stand in for duikers in some places. They can also be easily mixed with birds, so their versatility and their funny noses will have helped. Few bovids can look as “cute” as these ones.

Dama gazelle - Nanger dama
The main selling point of these beautiful antelope is that they are critically endangered. While the red-necked subspecies (ruficollis) is now gone from Europe, the Mhor subspecies (mhor) is gaining ground quickly in recent years and has gone from a rarely kept antelope to what could be the next big thing in antelope country. Zoos are increasingly adding this gazelle to their collection as replacement for less endangered antelope. The red-necked gazelle was always a rarity in Europe, with at max a few breeding groups of (mostly?) American descent. The annihilation of the Leipzig group by sending them to Safaripark Hodenhagen at the start of the century was the beginning of the end. This subspecies (or genetically more likely: colour morph) was phased-out in favour of Mhor gazelle, of which all species derive from a few animals imported to Almeria in 1971.

Natal red duiker - Cephalophora natalensis
This is a relative newcomer on the European zoo scene, as the species was first kept by Zoo Dresden in 1996. At the turn of the century this animal was kept in Zoo Berlin and in Zoo Dresden, but boomed quickly afterwards. High inbreeding does have it’s disadvantages and the boom is now a small bust. But the species is still kept and bred in roughly 10 different zoos, so it is in much better shape looking at the numbers compared to 2000. Whether this species can be maintained long term is something of a question mark though with only 3 founders.

Yellow-backed duiker - Cephalophus silvicultor
The current population of this species is also relatively new, with the first recent holding starting in 1999 in Zoo Wuppertal. It looked as if the species would die out again, but in recent years multiple zoos have imported animals from the USA and this year saw the first breeding result. So there is a possibility this species could gain ground in the future in Europe too.

Cuvier’s gazelle - Gazella cuvieri
While still a rarity, this species is now more widely kept then ever before in Europe. The Parque de Rescate de Fauna Sahariana in Almeria, Spain, has kept and bred this species since 1975. This century multiple zoos have acquired the species from there and at least 2 other zoos have bred these vulnerable antelope too. Given this species is EEP managed, I expect to see a further increase in the coming years. There is plenty of source material in Almeria, which keeps close to 100 of these gazelles.

full

@hmb_zoo Kirk's dikdik are a dry scrub species that have adapted perfectly to any savanna or rainforest habitat in zoos

Species losing popularity

Springbok - Antidorcas marsupialis
This was long one of the most common gazelle-like animals in Europe with multiple safari parks and zoos maintaining large breeding groups. In recent years interest has declined, which will likely accelerate with the EAZA decision to phase-out the species in favour of endangered gazelles. That move doesn’t seem to make any sense to me given that the gazelles that should replace springbok aren’t generally kept in the large mixed-species exhibits in which springbok are often found. So less springbok doesn’t necessarily mean more room for others. As one of the most typical antelope of Southern Africa it would also be a shame to lose them and fortunately breeding is still going on in 4 zoos including the Reserve Africaine de Sigean, France, which has a group of 75 springbok.

Goitered gazelle - Gazella subgutturosa
This Asian gazelle is having a hard time in zoos, with foxes, stress and disinterest being their main nemeses. With Zoo Karlsruhe and Zoo Helsinki there are fortunately 2 hardcore breeders and Tierpark Goerlitz, Germany, and Safaripark Beekse Bergen, Hilvarenbeek, the Netherlands, are also actively breeding the species in recent years. So there is still plenty of opportunity for these vulnerable small antelopes.

full

@Julio C Castro Springbok and Thomson's gazelle are the most common and easily recognizable "gazelle" of their region, but both are having a tough time in Europe

Dead ends

Slender-horned gazelle - Gazella leptoceros
Always a great rarity in Europe, Dierenpark Planckendael in Mechelen, Belgium, has maintained a breeding group from 1987 to the late 2010s. In the early 2010s things looked quite bright and 3.3 animals were even sent to Zoo Landau, Germany, to set up a second breeding group. But that didn’t work out and the group in Planckendael was decimated around 2016 with only a single animal remaining now. So it is only a matter of time before we will lose this gazelle from Europe.

full

@twilighter Slender-horned gazelle in Europe were a typical boom-and-bust species showing how fragile rare species can be in captivity

Progress
21/22 orders completed
101/106 families completed
604-614 species present in 2000
614-618 species present in 2023
224-235 species gained this century
220-224 species lost this century


(note corrected number of species present in 2000/2023, apparently I still haven't learned to add numbers properly)

This group is one that has seen a very similar level of variability in American collections as it has apparently seen in European collections. I do not think there has been another group of ungulates that has seen the level of boom and bust in popularity trends that this group has seen. We have both lost a great number of taxa (and are still in the process of losing more) and simultaneously seen one taxon become the most rapidly expanding ungulate species on the continent -- the blue duiker. Hopefully, this is a trend that sticks, as other members of this group that have seen rapid increases in popularity (albeit not to this scale), like the black duiker, royal antelope, and steenbok, have since all but vanished, with the last royal antelope dying within the last year and a half and the black duiker and steenbok populations now looking like dead-ends. All the while, Kirk's dik-dik had been in steady decline over the past decade but are now appearing to have the beginning of a renaissance, with increased breeding success and survivability of offspring and an increase in holders, and Grant's gazelles were all but completely phased out of accredited facilities, and then the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle brings in a breeding group. The bay duiker is another wild card, with a handful of dedicated facilities having more success breeding this unmanaged taxon than the SSPs were having breeding managed black and red-flanked duikers. While some taxa are holding strong, like the addra gazelle, impala, Thomson's gazelle, and yellow-backed duiker, most are in a more precarious position. Klipspringers, slender-horned and Speke's gazelles, red-flanked duikers, and springbok have all seen a recent, slight increase in popularity; however, the fragility of the springbok and gazelles has proven difficult to manage, and creating pairs of klipspringers that actually want to breed with each other has proven difficult. The red-flanked duiker program has seen a lot of ups and downs (the population took a major hit when the black duiker suddenly became very popular in the mid-2000s), so hopefully this upward trend continues. Still other species sit in a very precarious position. The Soemmerring's gazelle population is being single-handedly supported by the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance in cooperation with private facilities now that St. Louis has shipped out all of their females. The gerenuk population has been a rollercoaster ride throughout the 21st century, with cycles of booms and busts. This species is incredibly fractious, easily breakable, and prone to birthing complications and neglectful dams. It is honestly a miracle that the population has survived this long, and I do not think it will ever not be a ticking time bomb. As such, I very much do not expect the European population to survive long-term.
 
Last edited:
The meerkat EEP was created to precisely manage the situation to open more space for other small carnivores, e.g. mongeese.

I somehow doubt that this will have the desired affect. Look at the lemurs and the further growth of the ring tailed lemur.
 
I somehow doubt that this will have the desired affect. Look at the lemurs and the further growth of the ring tailed lemur.
Wrong comparison. I do not know what the goals of the ring-tailed lemur EEP are, nor did I ever say it had the same purpose as the meerkat one.
 
I have seen scimitars in top zoological facilities like Marwell, Berlin or Leipzig ad well as places that are just above what could be called a roadside zoo. Of course these individuals in these substandard places are not even part of the EEP.

As I mentioned before I even know a "roadside" zoo that has scimitar oryxes and addaxes. But of course, those animals are not part of their EEPs. Probably were surplus animals that found their way out of the programme.

Which leads to the interesting question of which of the following non-EAZA collections you are accusing of being a substandard "roadside zoo" which "[does] not have the same quality of housing and staff to be even considered as [a] reliable partner for breeding programmes" given the fact that none are mentioned in the list of zoological collections you have visited posted previously:

  • Zoo du Bois dAtilly
  • Planète Sauvage
  • Safari Park Lago Maggiore
  • Europaradise Parque Zoológico

I think there's always scope to criticise collections one hasn't visited yet (although there's definitely a lot of merit in seeing a place to judge for oneself) but making digs at the quality of the staff working at them is probably unwise for someone who - as your profile and prior posts have stated - is a student who wants to own a zoo one day!

For the same reason it's also probably not a good idea to aim remarks like

It is easy to point fingers when you are outside and you do not see all the complexities that go around.

Do you know what an EEP is for?

Do you know that the work done by EEP coordinators and by the EAZA office staff is not done for free?

...at someone who actually *is* a zoo professional working at an EAZA member collection :P
 
Which leads to the interesting question of which of the following non-EAZA collections you are accusing of being a substandard "roadside zoo" which "[does] not have the same quality of housing and staff to be even considered as [a] reliable partner for breeding programmes" given the fact that none are mentioned in the list of zoological collections you have visited posted previously:

  • Zoo du Bois dAtilly
  • Planète Sauvage
  • Safari Park Lago Maggiore
  • Europaradise Parque Zoológico

I think there's always scope to criticise collections one hasn't visited yet (although there's definitely a lot of merit in seeing a place to judge for oneself) but making digs at the quality of the staff working at them is probably unwise for someone who - as your profile and prior posts have stated - is a student who wants to own a zoo one day!

For the same reason it's also probably not a good idea to aim remarks like







...at someone who actually *is* a zoo professional working at an EAZA member collection :p
You do not need to visit a zoo to know what happens there.
Thank you for taking the time to do a nice biographical summary of my person at Zoochat. Fortunately, my life and experiences are not limited to what goes around in this forum.
 
You do not need to visit a zoo to know what happens there.

The point is that you explicitly claimed to have visited the collection in question ;)

"I have seen scimitars in top zoological facilities like Marwell, Berlin or Leipzig ad well as places that are just above what could be called a roadside zoo. Of course these individuals in these substandard places are not even part of the EEP."

And even so my point about collections being fair game, but the personal quality of the people there being less so, stands.
 
The point is that you explicitly claimed to have visited the collection in question ;)

"I have seen scimitars in top zoological facilities like Marwell, Berlin or Leipzig ad well as places that are just above what could be called a roadside zoo. Of course these individuals in these substandard places are not even part of the EEP."
I have seen does not mean I have visited. It is an expression that can also mean "I am aware of", "I know there are" or even "I have seen footage/media" among other things. And I mean, I just picked the example of the scimitar to express a point (As I could have done with any other random species), but it is not the absolute example for everything.
 
Back
Top