I'm not questioning the legality; I am sure everything is completely legal.
What I was questioning was the suggestion to use conservation funds to import a common zoo animal with no conservation value to the import.
The Australian Rhino Project - South African Import (Discussion)
- Thread starter Zoofan15
- Start date
What I was questioning was the suggestion to use conservation funds to import a common zoo animal with no conservation value to the import.
I would expect so also.
What I have said is that the ZAA TAG would have been convinced of the value of this import before ZAA endorsed it.
Given changing financial circumstances in at least one of the participants I floated the idea that ZAA may provide some financial support to get the project over the line - even though it is not in it's remit to do so. Perhaps a loan from the fund to be repaid later?
The only "value" the TAG would put on importation is that ZAA exists to assist zoos and:
1. Zoos want to exhibit rhinos
2. The current program is failing
3. The only (easiest?) way to revive it is to import animals from the range country
So ZAA agrees to assist the importation process. They are not looking at some intrinsic value, certainly not conservation value.
I doubt there is enough money in the Conservation Fund to fund the importation of the rhino's tails. But more to the point, it would look terrible and would be just wrong.
Just to clarify - my thought that ZAA may offer some financial assistance was based solely on whether assistance is still needed to complete the Orana quarantine facility.
If the project does not have enough money to purchase the animals and freight them to NZ, tails and all, after all this time then it is dead in the water already.
Happy to leave the discussion there. I don't disagree with you and we have had no involvement in this project.
I find that accusation rather beside the reality and a bit disrespectful towards South African authorities. I do not deny there are no issues, but these are related to ineffective protection and lax law enforcement and conservation investment by the South African national authorities (and diddering Ministry of the Environment officials) where it matters and that in later years some within the wildlife biology profession have switch sides to poaching syndicates.
To be fair: the commercialised auction trade for white rhino exports to zoos worldwide was in effect a source of important income for the wildlife management authorities to re-invest in in situ conservation and law enforcement.
I remain wholly pessimistic on the speed of the white rhino import and believe - honestly - it may never happen. To blame the South African exporting Ministry of Environment/CITES Authority for denying export now ...., is a bit short off the stumps ... given that the arrangements for export/import and project was long time before initiated and then no such second thoughts existed on the South African side.
I do agree that local endemic fauna/flora should and in particular the wide array of threatened and endangered species within Austalia could do with alot more ex situ conservation breeding and assistance programs.....
Southern White Rhinoceros - Reproductive Analysis
Ahead of the long awaited imports under Australian Rhino Project, I thought it’d be interesting to analyse the reproduction status of the cows we currently have in the region.
We currently have 25 female Southern white rhinoceros in the region:
Nine cows (red) are likely non-viable breeders. Reasons include assumed non-viability due to age; failure to produce offspring by their late teens; or a significant period of time (10 years or more) has lapsed since the birth of their last calf.
Twelve cows (green) are assumed to be viable breeders at this point in time. Eight of these are proven breeders and have produced a calf in the past decade (year of last birth in brackets). Three of these cows are pre-reproductive (five years of age or under) and there’s no reason of yet to doubt their future viability. One of these cows (aged six years) is an adolescent, with cows typically producing their first calf at 7-8 years.
Four cows (orange) are aged 10-15 years and have yet to produce their first offspring. It would be beneficial for their reproductive state to breed sooner rather than later; though their failure to do so to date is not necessarily indicative of an issue.
All of the facilities below have a bull on site, with the exception of Orana Wildlife Park (who are expected to receive a bull from Hamilton Zoo soon). Hamilton Zoo was reported last year to be on a break from breeding due to representation of their rhinos.
Altina Wildlife Park:
0.1 Mango (2013)
0.1 Tatu (2013)
Auckland Zoo:
0.1 Jamila (2012) 2022
0.1 Nyah (2020)
0.1 Amali (2022)
Australia Zoo:
0.1 Caballe (1995) 2019
0.1 Inyeti (2005) 2018
0.1 Kibibi (2012)
Hamilton Zoo:
0.1 Kito (2000) 2020
0.1 Moesha (1994)
0.1 Imani (2007)
0.1 Zahra (2020)
Monarto Safari Park:
0.1 Umqali (1994) 2020
0.1 Uhura (1996)
0.1 Savannah (2011)
0.1 Carrie (2018)
Orana Wildlife Park:
0.1 Utani (1984)
0.1 Katala (1997)
0.1 Tamu (2002) 2018
Taronga Western Plains Zoo:
0.1 Likwezi (1985)
0.1 Mopani (1996) 2023
Werribee Open Range Zoo:
0.1 Make (1984)
0.1 Letaba (1992)
0.1 Si Si (1996)
0.1 Kipenzi (2013) 2024
Ahead of the long awaited imports under Australian Rhino Project, I thought it’d be interesting to analyse the reproduction status of the cows we currently have in the region.
We currently have 25 female Southern white rhinoceros in the region:
Nine cows (red) are likely non-viable breeders. Reasons include assumed non-viability due to age; failure to produce offspring by their late teens; or a significant period of time (10 years or more) has lapsed since the birth of their last calf.
Twelve cows (green) are assumed to be viable breeders at this point in time. Eight of these are proven breeders and have produced a calf in the past decade (year of last birth in brackets). Three of these cows are pre-reproductive (five years of age or under) and there’s no reason of yet to doubt their future viability. One of these cows (aged six years) is an adolescent, with cows typically producing their first calf at 7-8 years.
Four cows (orange) are aged 10-15 years and have yet to produce their first offspring. It would be beneficial for their reproductive state to breed sooner rather than later; though their failure to do so to date is not necessarily indicative of an issue.
All of the facilities below have a bull on site, with the exception of Orana Wildlife Park (who are expected to receive a bull from Hamilton Zoo soon). Hamilton Zoo was reported last year to be on a break from breeding due to representation of their rhinos.
Altina Wildlife Park:
0.1 Mango (2013)
0.1 Tatu (2013)
Auckland Zoo:
0.1 Jamila (2012) 2022
0.1 Nyah (2020)
0.1 Amali (2022)
Australia Zoo:
0.1 Caballe (1995) 2019
0.1 Inyeti (2005) 2018
0.1 Kibibi (2012)
Hamilton Zoo:
0.1 Kito (2000) 2020
0.1 Moesha (1994)
0.1 Imani (2007)
0.1 Zahra (2020)
Monarto Safari Park:
0.1 Umqali (1994) 2020
0.1 Uhura (1996)
0.1 Savannah (2011)
0.1 Carrie (2018)
Orana Wildlife Park:
0.1 Utani (1984)
0.1 Katala (1997)
0.1 Tamu (2002) 2018
Taronga Western Plains Zoo:
0.1 Likwezi (1985)
0.1 Mopani (1996) 2023
Werribee Open Range Zoo:
0.1 Make (1984)
0.1 Letaba (1992)
0.1 Si Si (1996)
0.1 Kipenzi (2013) 2024
Sorry, I missed your message earlier.
Specifically, about Australia, given the tyranny of distance, restrictive quarantine, and the failure to maintain viable zoo populations, which combined is basically what this thread is about.
However, Durrell long ago came to the realisation that conservation breeding programs are best conducted largely within the natural range, if possible.
"Many, many examples" are you talking about reintroduction programs? If so, I'd like to hear about them.
Im assuming you'd already be fairly failure since you are part of at least one ?
Either way, white rhino ant the species to have this fight over. Not when poaching has decimated some wild populations. A captive breeder not long ago released 300 white rhino into I think it was Kruger to help bolster the parks numbers after poaching and drought have taken there toll. That in and of itself proves that captive populations for this species are needed and viable. While we are far away. If we had a healthy breeding program over producing calves it would be very easy to send them back and reintroduce back into the wild/game reserves.
Durrell is also one of the main idealists of zoos having an insurance population for if conservation in a wild range fails.
What does this sentence mean?
Your post supports my view - conservation money for white rhinos should be spent on in-range captive breeding and supporting the suppression of poaching. I don’t know what evidence you have that moving 300 rhino calves around the world would be either inexpensive, successful, or cost effective as a conservation program.
That is the problem with trying to be pithy, meaning can become obscure. I meant Durrell the organisation rather than Durrell the man. Given he died almost 30 years ago it is pretty hard to knok Gerald Durrell he would think today. I do know that the organisation regards in-range breeding programs as the best option, and held that position when I did a course there in 1996.
Like @Chlidonias I can’t understand your first sentence, but I do know failure is how we learn.
The first sentence is supposed to say familiar, but for some reason auto correct change it to failure
.Im not disagreeing with you that in range conservation isnt good. But in the case of white rhino, I would like to see the Durrel organisations view point on it. Even they are not naive enough to expect in range conservation to fix up governmental failures and damage done by droughts and the famines they cause. For this particular species expensive ex situ conservation is warranted and one that can be used to directly repopulate wild populations if needed. Literally that main reasons zoos carry on about their conservation efforts.
I doubt Durrell has a viewpoint on white rhinos.
I will repeat. White rhinos are Near Threatened. The zoos don't claim to be holding them for conservation (except for one holder some time back) and the ZAA program is not a conservation program. If we were talking about the Critically Endangered black rhinos, then your comments might be justified. But I can't understand why you want to insist this is a conservation program.
Australian zoos are interested in them because they are the easiest rhino to obtain and the easiest to keep. That is fine, but that is all it is.
I gathered that, but still don't know what you are talking about.
Not sure that species need to be on the verge of extinction to warrant conservational action. It seems narrow sighted to wait until that point. If such an iconic megafauna is under any kind of threat, I think it is far better for there to be some sort of captive population or plan for recovery, as opposed to completely losing another megafauna species to extinction.
Additionally, the IUCN assessment for the White Rhino (or any species) is not a be all and end all. Basing everything off that is unreliable, and I’m sure ZAA, zoos, and the Rhino Project take much more into consideration.
Overall, I don’t think this is something to be discounted so easily, when it is one of the most innovative and exciting projects for such a targeted species. Early action is better than no action.
Really? Personally, I would have thought the more than 43,200 species classified as Threatened with extinction might take priority. But, heck, that is just me.
Don’t know why you’re so pessimistic about this. Of course those species warrant action, no one is denying that.
But we have to take all things into consideration:
- White Rhinos are a charismatic megafauna that are culturally and ecologically significant.
- All species of Rhino are under considerable threat, and are declining.
- This case presents an opportunity to enhance an existing captive population, furthering a safety net, where many megafauna have not had the luxury.
Major facilities are not going to play catch up with every single of those 43,200 species on the verge of extinction. In a perfect world, they would. But they can’t.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating a win here for a species that represents one of the most poached and trafficked groups of animals worldwide.
Not pessimistic or optimistic. Rather indifferent, bemused, and with a sense of deja-vu. I came into this thread because of a suggestion that ZAA conservation funds should be used to subsidise this program, but every time I think I am finished, somebody pops up to tell me what a great conservation program it is.
Then why not black rhino? Equally charismatic, and actually endangered.
Sigh. I guess they will free up some spaces on the African farm they are coming from.
As I said, I really don't have an opinion on importing the rhinos, if that is what the zoos want to do. And by all means feel free to celebrate if that gives you joy.
Just don't spend conservation money on it.
If your qualm is with ZAA money, then I agree. This is an import to be undertaken by zoos, ZAA should not and historically has not (to my knowledge) pitched in financially for zoo imports or anything similar. I completely agree ZAA should save their funds.
I fully believe conservation funds should be saved for emergencies and dire cases. I just don’t like the vitriol and put-downs when this is a project with a lot of potential. In regards to Black Rhinos - I believe they are harder to source, and while some are here in Australia, I think the position they are in now relates to the Rhino Project.
Would we not be kicking ourselves if White Rhinos end up in a similar position decades later, regretting not furthering their safety net? And who knows, the Project could expand to Black Rhinos as well.
Overall, I think there is a quite harmful nature when it comes to discussions surrounding conservation. No one should be trying to one-up another, and celebrating wins is important. If initiatives like this can stop cases such as the Northern White Rhino from happening, and isn’t a clear misuse of public funds/resources, I think infighting and elitism among conservationists harms the overall cause. Conservation is a global effort, after all.
ZooNews2024
Well-Known Member
Yes, I now see that you specifically meant Australia; thank you for the clarification.
But - you said 'breeding programmes' first, and have now changed it to 'reintroduction programmes' with defining either. I referred to the former in my reply to your first post, and as a loose definition, I would still think there are many breeding programmes which have been successful - basically ANY species which has a self-sustaining captive population ex situ, from budgerigars to tigers. Perhaps many thousands and too many, and too obvious, to attempt to list here.
Last edited:
To take your example of budgerigars. Yes, there are obviously self-sustaining populations in captivity (or human-sustained, perhaps better). However, the benefactors of these breeding programs are the owners of the birds, not the wild population. Fortunately, the wild population of budgies does not need help.
There are obviously breeding programs in zoos. Many are sustainable, many are not. This leads to species coming and going from zoos, a frequent topic of discussion on this site. Still, even the successful ones primarily benefit zoos.
The problem for Australian zoos is a lack of spaces, due to the comparatively small number of zoos in Australia compared to Europe or North America. This makes it very difficult to establish sustainable populations and is compounded by the cost and difficulties of import and export.
Sorry, my mind obviously switched to reintroductions while writing my reply.
Last edited: