Wild Cat Conservation Centre News
- Thread starter Riley
- Start date
Opinions may vary about that.
Agree, it’s hard to articulate but this rubs me the wrong way. Firstly, for a species with such low genetic diversity, I would imagine continuing the insurance population locally would be first priority - I’m not sure if their either of their cubs were excess to the insurance population’s needs? Sending one away seems strange.
Secondly, while rewilding is an amazing and noble effort for any species, the logistics and costs involved for rewilding an African species born in Australia seem to potentially outweigh the benefits - i.e. for rewilding or breed and release Cheetah, I’m not sure an Australian facility is the best option.
Lastly, this may sound strange, but it gives me mixed opinions about what the future of captive Cheetah would be here in Australia. Assuming their Cheetah in Africa continues to succeed, while no doubt amazing, it sets the bar high for any facility in Australia, and will no doubt pose questions from the public and media. I can just imagine the “Why don’t you release your cheetahs? Another place did it” etc.
I don’t mean to downgrade the inherent positivity of this news, it is certainly great to see any rewilding project, I just don’t know if this is the right situation for it. I hope this makes sense!
Not a fan ?
Rewilding is always expensive, but its an important step to take. Once its done and proven it can be done. There isnt really a need to keep doing it. Only in the event that the species collapses. In any case the cheetah was bred here, then sent to a centre where they rewind cheetah.
For me I see it as an important issue for conservation. The big arguments against zoos having insurance populations. What use are they if needed ? If we can breed then send an animal away to be successfully rewilded. Then it validates that species being held in captivity in a global context.
As for the genetics, im not sure what the implications of its genetics for the regional population. There are captive chetah lines that have genetics that would no longer be found in the wild. So for a species where a genetic bottle neck has occurred to such a degree. Moving genetics from captive populations back to wild populations. Actually is important and widens the gene pool. There were cheetah being kept and bred before the population collapsed. Or from areas/populations were local extinction has occurred. Being able to reintroduce these genes back is beneficial.
I don't do "fandom" anywhere very well but I am a moral supporter of the work of B&KB and the WCCC.
Like all adults we do sometimes hold varying opinions on various subjects.
Most people in the zoo industry/wildlife professions know rewilding is possible, i.e. I don’t believe it has to be “proven”. It’s been proven countless times. While I agree there isn’t a necessary need for constant rewilding, unless in cases such as the Cheetahs from Africa taken to India to restart an Asiatic population, what is important to remember is that zoos are under constant scrutiny in the public eye.
People involved in insurance populations know the use and validation is already there. There are countless reasons as to why insurance populations are important, to name one in Australia, geographic separation from wild populations of exotic animals creates an important biosecurity barrier. There is nothing that needs to be “proven” here, only further education to be done to answer such questions.
I simply fear this will open all of us in the industry to countless unneeded comparisons and judgement, which of course, as I said here, can be explained, but it is troublesome.
Would it not help with public perception that insurance populations are viable if we are able to show it can be done? I appreciate the reply and understand what your saying. But education comes from research and demonstrating findings. How can you educate the public if you can't demonstrate reintroduction is a viable practice. Or if in the case of a cheetah where captive populations can increase a species where genetic bottlenecking has occurred. And it is playing a role in species health. Shouldn't it be being used to help wild counter parts as it is intended to do ?
I remember over ten years ago at uni, we would have ecologists, conservations etc talk about conservation (one of my majors was conservation biology). Even back then there was the idea of what use is an insurance population if the animal cannot be reintroduced. Is the species worth saving and taking up space if it is functionally useless from a conservation stand point. When another species is viably able to be reintroduced.
I mean I dont actively work in the zoo industry, however here in Aus we have quite a few reintroduction programs occurring. Is it going to increase scrutiny any more then say zoos releasing orange bellied parrots or regent honey eaters. Or will it help to lessen scrutiny by actively showing it can be done, and there is worth to having x amount of cheetahs held in zoos.
One of the big advertising campaigns for the last 20 years of conservation throughout our open range zoos has been the role they play in reintroducing scimitar horned oryx and prezwalski wild horses back into the wild. Would those species be kept to the same degree or be as popular if they weren't a good news story of conservation?
My perspective is that I see this Cheetah as an ambassador of people’s conservation dollars in the same way captive Cheetah are ambassadors of their wild counterparts.
Many zoo’s in the region support ex situ conservation projects and visitors are told upon visiting that they’ve contributed to conservation by paying admission. It’s a nice idea in theory; but in reality, it’s standard practice and goes in one ear and out the other. The general public are there for a day out first and foremost. Zoos can do all the posts they want about Anatolian shepherd dogs etc. but the vast majority of people aren’t interested.
Rewilding however is dramatic. It’s direct. It inspires people and feeds their imaginations. It sends a positive message about the role captive facilities play that is unmatched. Is this Cheetah of tangible benefit to the wild population? No. But one could argue that was never the point.
Eloquently put as always. I suppose this is a good reminder to public supporting conservation as to what can be accomplished with their support, I just don’t know what the response will be among other zoos here in the region. The pessimist in me envisions everyone trying to one up each other, how likely that is I don’t know.
I can imagine after how some of the public run zoos operate. They won't care, they will be like great for them, and move on. They may even use it to show how them keeping cheetah helps conservation because and Australian cheetah was rewilded.
Announced via Instagram, Emmy has given birth to four Cheetah cubs at the centre. They’re five weeks old, and have been sexed as 2.2. The post also mentions the cubs with undergo the re-wilding process that their older sister Edie participated in.
Last edited:
It’s encouraging to hear of their repeat success in breeding Cheetah. The absence of big cats presumably aids their breeding attempts.
It’s exciting to hear they too will follow in Edie’s footsteps.
Absolutely agree - I’ve only seen the front of the centre, and it’s more built up around it then I expected being out in Wilberforce, but that’s obviously not having too much of an impact on the breeding there. Hopefully they’ll share more of the re-wilding process as it’s undertaken for these cubs, given that it was successful with Edie
What’s exciting is for the male cubs, they’ll be re-wilded as a coalition. Females typically disperse at adolescence, but these brothers will have each other’s ongoing support.
Osedax
Well-Known Member
So they now have 6 clouded leopards? Share some with the rest of the region, why don't they!
Those are the original two animals imported in 2020.