I'd imagine that a sign being removed is ample enough proof to move in to "former", unless someone has proof that it is behind the scenes.
Zootierliste Goes Worldwide
- Thread starter Animal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- zootierliste
Well that blog post would be proof they still have a mongoose lemur. I still standby that *unless additional proof can be given* that the animal is behind-the-scenes, it is reasonable to shift it to former, if the initial proof given was "signed, seen". I never said that no animals are ever moved behind-the-scenes, as that would certainly be absurd, however I don't think it is "very often" either for the majority of zoos.
Unless you have proof that they *have* gone, it is always best to initially place them into "current" no matter how long ago your visit was - if you were the first person to start populating the listings for a given collection, and your only visit was a few years ago, it would be rather silly to default to assuming every single species you saw was a former listing
No - it is precisely that sort of thinking which has led to UK collections in particular having a bit of a bad reputation for being inaccurate on ZTL, due to the number of people who have defaulted to assuming if a species is no longer signposted or listed on the website it *must* be gone
This is certainly not the way to go! It is a bit of a grey area when a holding is moved into former solely based on repeat visits. In general it is best to just add another source (month+year of visit not signed, not seen). If no proof is added that the animal is still behind the scenes someone often moves it to former after 2-3 years of visits without any sighting. Of course if there is confirmation a species is gone, either from a keeper or another source the holding should be moved asap.
No - it is precisely that sort of thinking which has led to UK collections in particular having a bit of a bad reputation for being inaccurate on ZTL, due to the number of people who have defaulted to assuming if a species is no longer signposted or listed on the website it *must* be gone
Wouldn't it be more inaccurate assuming everything moves behind-the-scenes than assuming a species is no longer in the collection? I know for certain at least at my few local zoos that I am extremely familiar with, it is rare for individuals to be moved from exhibit to behind-the-scenes (except for seasonally for some warm-weather animals), so if that's what the assumption is then there will certainly eventually be a number of incorrect listings as "current" that are no longer in the collection.
No, especially with birds and ectotherms such rotations are quite common and many zoos have ample space behind the scenes. As @TeaLovingDave wrote it is this where most errors in the UK are/were made. Not only led it to more errors, it also soured honest contributors who kept on moving species back to current (leading them to contribute less....). If you are an expert on the zoo and you can know beyond any reasonable doubt the species in question is gone, that is a somewhat different matter. But in most cases adding a not signed, not seen note is far superior as that also informs other users of the status and is an incentive for others to double check these holdings.
Everyone should check the details of a listing for each species if they really want to know whether or not the species is present and viewable. Having looked through the European collections for a while now, I've learned to check each listing of a particular species to determine how good one's chances of actually seeing a particular species at the various locations they are kept at is.
As birdsandbats said, at least a former holding is fair, but in my experience, when he posts a new photo and tags the facility, most of the time the facility replies or posts it in their story or posts it with him: I know for a fact that the Italian facilities he tags do state if the species is still present at the collection and Plzen is always reposting in their story, so I believe at least them have the species (but this is Plzen we're talking, so basically a mapped down Middle Earth for European and not Zoo enthusiasts
They aren't always recent photos, though; he reposts stuff, and sometimes takes a while to process and share new things. He's also not always correct on how he IDs an animal, both as an outright ID or using outdated names.
As for bts/gone, a big example for me of this would be the sand cat at Philly. They formally left the zoo years ago, but USDA was still showing one. On here it was assumed that it was erroneous, but I eventually confirmed with a keeper in-person that an old one was behind the scenes (and rarely even seen by the keepers). It was old, and shy, so there was no point in sending it elsewhere to be on exhibit.
I was just thinking a minute ago: USDA reports could be a good way to confirm if an individual is behind-the-scenes and/or if it left the collection, at least as far as mammals and birds are concerned. Granted, there are the occasional mistakes, but if a species is no longer listed on the most recent USDA reports, that's pretty good proof that it is no longer present.
iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
Thanks all! This was helpful for me. And also answered another question I was starting to have, which was the relative value of adding additional citations/proof for animals that someone else may have already put in. (never deleting, but adding to). Sounds like this can still be beneficial if I'm able to reconfirm something is still there in 2024 that someone else had seen in 2022, for example.
A note to this - keep in mind that sometimes focused reports are done for a certain species or section of a facility, and so sometimes the most recent list is not complete. This is uncommon and always noted in the report as a focused inspection, just something to keep an eye out for. It's usually obvious but just so people are aware.
USDA is a useful tool though, when using recent reports to confirm holdings, I've spotted a large number of errors that way.
Almost always noted. Every now and then there's a weird one, too; it was LA, I think, that was missing basically all of their carnivores a few years ago. They're usually pretty obvious though, yeah.
I believe that many here are overestimating the validity of European ZTL. The ZTL is a good overall overview but it's far away from being perfect. And this is something one has to accept. Many of the problems addressed here occurs for European zoos too (mainly smaller one)
The best way for unclear subspecies is iMo to list the species as generic and add something like "subspecies unknown" to the basic information of the holder. At least this is my practice for unclear ones.
In generell ZTL is only as good as the people who participate on it. It was clear that the worldwide update won't be a 100 meter sprint. It will be an exhausting marathon.
The best way for unclear subspecies is iMo to list the species as generic and add something like "subspecies unknown" to the basic information of the holder. At least this is my practice for unclear ones.
In generell ZTL is only as good as the people who participate on it. It was clear that the worldwide update won't be a 100 meter sprint. It will be an exhausting marathon.
I was actually saying this kind of thing the other day to some fellow nerds on a zoo outing. There does seem to be an idea that the European Zootierliste entries are somehow infallibly accurate, which they can't ever really be. Some zoos are visited more than others. Some have more things offshow. Some have higher turnover of animal species. A big, often-visited zoo with a keen and knowledgeable local nerd will be more accurate than a small zoo that no nerds live near. The European Zootierliste entries have all the same problems the rest of the world does, but they're on a much lesser scale as it's had longer for them to get ironed out. As such they're not as noticeably chaotic and less likely to mislead. It's not a paragon of accuracy and of course it doesn't claim to be - any user-sourced data comes with caveats. It's as good as the information put in allows it to be - a solid guide, not a definitive record.
The rest of the world entries will catch up, it'll just take time.
@Animal Is there a best time in the week to email in species photos for Zootierliste? I've noticed that sometimes when I email species photos to the admins, they get added within a few hours, but other times, they don't get added until many days later, but usually within the week. Also, does a single admin add all the photos, or is responsibility shared among several admins? Thank you very much.
Speaking of countries that are not often visited: I'll be going to Suriname next month and taking stock there.
You've already listed the Suriname Bird paradise and the Sloth Sanctuary, but I do see that the Paramaribo zoo (the only "real" zoo of Suriname) isn't listed