USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
Is USDA reports a reliable source? After seeing bush dogs return to the Detroit Zoo, I wondered how reliable is this source.
Is USDA Reports a reliable source?
- Thread starter USZOOfan42
- Start date
-
- Tags
- north america usda zoo
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
View them with caution, the inspectors seem to either miss species altogether or write them down wrong.
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
Miss species I can understand, but I have noticed some odd listing like chacoan maras at Toledo (they are Patagonian) so it seems they are pretty reliable with some holes. I highly doubt that they would add a species that isn’t at the zoo that’s not similar to any other species at the zoo. Sub-Species and mix ups are possible (grevys and grants or different maras)
USDA reports show well what general types of animals a facility keeps, but species-level identifications should never be trusted.
@pachyderm pro @nczoofan I'm curious to hear your perspective, though.
biggest_dreamer
Well-Known Member
To an extent. I prefer to try to use it to help corroborate some other source (ZTL or ZooChat or whatever). They’re way too consistent with certain errors to ever take them as a definitive source in and of themselves, though.
As a rule they are fairly reliable as long as you keep a few things in mind.
Biggest thing is they do sometimes go off of what a facility tells them for things like rodents, and I'd be suspicious in IDs for odd rodents at non-AZA especially. Things like crested porcupines are also often screwy. That said, I do know some cases where oddball stuff actually proved true on further research.
Reports do not necessarily include all species at the zoo if it is a focused inspection, which are always noted.
Generally keep an eye out for the occasional odd one, examples being reports with included species being marked as zero present, or sometimes you'll notice a certain inspector tends to be a little goofy with species claimed (usually obvious.) Typically these instances aren't real common.
However, with appropriate caution they are generally a good snapshot of what was present. For several places I am very familiar with I have very rarely noticed any discrepancy between what I know the facility holds compared to the USDA list. They're often more accurate than ZTL for that matter.
Biggest thing is they do sometimes go off of what a facility tells them for things like rodents, and I'd be suspicious in IDs for odd rodents at non-AZA especially. Things like crested porcupines are also often screwy. That said, I do know some cases where oddball stuff actually proved true on further research.
Reports do not necessarily include all species at the zoo if it is a focused inspection, which are always noted.
Generally keep an eye out for the occasional odd one, examples being reports with included species being marked as zero present, or sometimes you'll notice a certain inspector tends to be a little goofy with species claimed (usually obvious.) Typically these instances aren't real common.
However, with appropriate caution they are generally a good snapshot of what was present. For several places I am very familiar with I have very rarely noticed any discrepancy between what I know the facility holds compared to the USDA list. They're often more accurate than ZTL for that matter.
This might be regional then? The ones that come out for Wisconsin zoos are completely atrocious ID wise to the point that I would find ZTL far more trustworthy. Like, we're talking identifying extremely common species as other species that aren't even in captivity in the US.
Examples, out of curiosity?
A couple of examples include listing Bay Beach's* NAROs as Neotropical River Otters and Milwaukee's Tigers as Oncillas.
(*and of course remember that Bay Beach is a facility primarily focusing on native rescues, making this all the more baffling)
And this comes back to my point about using them mindfully - it is true Bay Beach's otters are listed as Neotropical, but only on the 2014 and 2015 reports - they're listed as NARO on every report from then on. Milwaukee's error is a one off, the 2020 report. The Tigers appear to be listed twice in error, once as Oncilla and then again as hybrids. However they're listed correctly on all other reports prior and after. I see no other such errors and the listings remain consistent for both facilities. It's not hard to infer the correct information when looking at the other reports in conjunction. There's no reason to chock the reports as completely unreliable from a one off mistake when literally everything else on the lists matches accordingly.
I would largely agree - but no single report seems to be reliable, only groups of them are.
It's helpful, yes - but as I stated previously I've not generally noticed discrepancies. Known transfers are accurately reflected and they match what I know facilities to hold. The large majority of errors like the ones you pointed out are older, usually prior to 2016. There are still a few complexities (crested porcupines, night monkeys, and such) but those are a nuisance to most of us. It's not any less trustworthy than anywhere else relying on human data entry, and generally they're pretty on point.