Nashville Zoo Nashville Zoo News 2025
- Thread starter Milwaukee Man
- Start date
The zoo has acquired a pair of Javan ferret badgers. They are now the only holder in North America and one of only four worldwide. Unfortunately, they will be kept off-show just like all of Nashville's other small carnivore rarities.
Nashville Zoo on Instagram: "It’s Peanut Butter Jelly time - literally! Peanut Butter and Jelly, our Javan ferret badgers, have been briefly living in the nursery at the HCA Healthcare Veterinary Center and will soon move to their permanent behind-the-scenes home at the Zoo."
Nashville Zoo on Instagram: "It’s Peanut Butter Jelly time - literally! Peanut Butter and Jelly, our Javan ferret badgers, have been briefly living in the nursery at the HCA Healthcare Veterinary Center and will soon move to their permanent behind-the-scenes home at the Zoo."
I really am wondering what is the point of this…
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
Could it be possible that some of these animals will eventually go into the rumored Southeast Asian complex? A good chunk of the behind-the-scenes collection is from the region, plus exhibits for orangutans, clouded leopards, hornbills, and maybe douc langurs are slated to be a part of it. To me, it would make sense to move at least offspring or a breeding pair of civets, binturongs, etc., especially to make space or even increase public awareness.
Nashville seems to be emphasizing breeding over display - they hold multiple pairs of Giant Anteater yet do not display the species. Their programs as a whole have been rather successful. Though that doesn't particularly explain acquiring a pair of rare animals that really can't set up a healthy population.
Other than the tiny founder population Great Argus mentioned my main gripe is how these ferret-badgers (and their kits if they ever breed) are and will be displayed on social media.
I have already brought my thoughts about animal ambassadors in the AZA before, but I will reiterate it again for those who don’t know. I think animal ambassadors delegitimize the message that these animals are still wild animals despite being brought to stages or being walked around the zoo grounds on a harness. One could argue that these animals have sharp claws and teeth and could hurt people but domesticated animals can also bite, scratch and get defensive so I am not convinced by that counter argument. I also am skeptical of the educational benefits of such handlings, which could be warped by critics of zoos as if normal displays aren’t good enough to teach the public, therefore zoos have failed to educate the public.
Breeding is a sound reason on why these animals are kept bts. I also get that these posts provide some sort of transparency, which is I always appreciate when zoos don’t keep things in the dark. But I don’t see how making cutesy wutesy social media posts of the offspring of these animals seemingly kept away from their mothers some of which surrounded by blankets, plush toys and other props won’t give the general audience the wrong message. I wouldn’t be astonished if such posts were being made by an unaccredited facility, but when this is done by a member of the AZA, then I will be scratching my head.
Finally, call me pessimistic but even if the founding population was large enough, I could see the attempt at making a sustainable population failing due to lack of interest from other zoos with the AZA.
The current optics give off the vibe that one of the higher-ups at Nashville is using the zoo as a bit of a 'private' collection for some species they are fond of. I'm under the impression that BTS enclosures are almost always worse than those viewable to the public, so I'm not at all happy with this situation.
As I understand it, the zoo's director has a fondness for obscure/unusual species and enjoys bringing in rarities when available. It is rather presumptuous however to criticize the off-exhibit spaces without knowing what they actually look like. I'd also give them the benefit of the doubt and imagine they also aren't just hoarding species for the sake of it. There's reasons for some of these decisions we likely aren't privy to. For example, Bronx has expressed interest in expanding the ring-tailed vontsira population to additional collections in the U.S. and so far Nashville has been the only taker (according to zootierliste they have around nine individuals). It's entirely possible that these acquisitions are being done to encourage other facilities to take on similar species.
For those of interest, species the zoo currently keeps off-show include but are not limited to: okapi, bongo, springbok, yellow-backed duiker, giant anteater, aardvark, caracal, Palawan binturong, banded palm civet, yellow-throated marten, Javan ferret badger, spotted fanaloka, ring-tailed vontsira, king vulture, wreathed hornbill, tawny frogmouth and others. Some of these are ambassadors who are occasionally viewable, while others are permanently off-show for breeding. I imagine most of those hoofstock will eventually be viewable as the African Safari project continues to develop.
Absolutely, I agree. It is IMO perfectly acceptable and absolutely applaudable that a zoo facility like Nashville Zoo maintains species of conservation concern off-exhibit and allows these the privacy and husbandry requirements to pair, mate and breed and expand their populations in US zoos in off site/off exhibit special accomodation.
Hence, I think / feel it is perfectly fine that some species one will never see on exhibit for the zoo visiting public to see. Goodness forbid..., that zoos would be disallowed to do so ..., as IMO off exhibit space is also an essential part of a modern ex situ conservation breeding facility and nay .... any zoo to properly function. I thus am completely at odds and disagree with some Zoochat poster(s) to speak out otherwise....
I am making those presumptions
It may be a pessimistic way to look at things, but I think the economic incentive is generally just not there to have top tier accommodations bts. Yes, a huge portion of exhibit expenses goes into non-animal welfare related areas (Decorative features, guest spaces, etc.), but animals can breed quite well in even subpar conditions at times, so without further evidence I'll stick with my admittedly pessimistic assumptions.
I don't disagree with this, I just think the long list of off-exhibit species is a bit extreme and frustrating. Some of these species also have very limited founding populations so the long-term viability seems questionable at best. Yes, breeding is quite important and should take preference at times, pangolin and many herp species being prime examples, but still, welfare and guest experiences could be argued to be just as important as operational directives for zoos. (Interestingly enough, the places with the most pangolin success often end up displaying them as well anyway)
Well that sounds better than just having a single breeding pair. I just hope that:
1) The animals don’t ever used as animal ambassadors.
2) The offspring never get separated from their mothers unless it’s extremely necessary and in case that happens the zoo never makes baby update posts especially using props
3) The potential breeding program actually gets successful and not fumble due to lack of institutional interest from other zoos.
I don’t disagree with animals kept behind the scenes for breeding purposes. Hell, there’s no such thing as enough space for any breeding program, so the studbook may as go with what they got.
But I don’t think it would be wise to use space that could otherwise be beneficial for an SSP species to import a tiny founding population of a species whose offspring are fated to be animal ambassadors.
Even if Nashville manages to import more Javan ferret-badgers, which I wouldn’t oppose for genetic diversity purposes, does it mean anything if no other zoo cares to offer space to these hypothetical offspring of these ferret-badgers? After all the AZA is famous for being a bastion for obscure small nocturnal mammals
.
Yeah, I definitely think Ringtail, White-nosed Coati, or ASCO would inherently be more beneficial to the general populations.
Any small mammal really, other than about a select dozen. Everything else is pretty much just falling into captive extinction over here.
To my knowledge, the Nashville Zoo has imported six small carnivore species that were previously absent from North American collections accredited by the AZA. I am not pretending to know what the reasons are for acquiring these animals, but I think three of the additions are easily justifiable.
The binturongs are subspecies whitei unlike the generic animals that make up a majority of the North American captive population. The Memphis Zoo I believe it was also participated in the original import so it is not like the Nashville Zoo's efforts with Palawan binturongs are completely unsupported. When it is possible like with binturongs, maintaining "pure" populations should definitely be prioritized over generic ones.
The Bronx Zoo has repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to ring-tailed vontsiras, and was holding them long before the Nashville Zoo was. Obviously two zoos cannot sustainably maintain a population of any mammal species long-term (with a few exceptions, of course) by themselves but with a second institution's support like the Bronx Zoo has now, it is a whole lot easier to kickstart a new population.
The banded palm civets have been breeding fairly regularly in Nashville and many of the offspring have been distributed to other zoos. This species was all but gone from North American collections prior to the Nashville Zoo's acquisition of a breeding pair, and now there are a few major zoos that hold an individual.
The ferret-badgers, Javan yellow-throated martens, and spotted fanalokas are more perplexing additions, but I wouldn’t say that there is any issue at all with the Nashville Zoo having them and breeding them. We actually don't even know where the ferret-badgers came, do we? Correct me if I'm wrong. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if these two came from the Flying Fox Conservation Fund in Chicago. That organization originally received their ferret-badgers from somewhere in Europe but they aren't listed on their most recent USDA inspection report, which is from last April. It seems possible that the Nashville and Chicago animals are the same pair.
I completely agree with you when it comes to animal ambassadors. Their purpose, to connect people with wildlife on a deeper level so that people might care more, is important, but personally, I think they are usually ineffective. The connection with the animal ambassador will be a memory cherished to some degree, but most often not inspire people to care more and do more, something that is honestly so much more difficult to achieve than facilitating a 30 minute connection with an animal. And as you said, how they are handled generally sends the wrong message about zoos in several different ways.
Well, to be fair, of the zoo's two most recent posts that have also been linked on this thread, only in the second are there pictures of a newborn animal separated from her mother and with blankets and stuffed animals. It is my understanding that most if not all clouded leopards born at AZA zoos in recent times were or are hand-raised. I believe this is because hand-raising cubs is considered the most effective measure to prevent them when they are grown from killing their prospective mates during intended breeding interactions.
I generally agree that the Nashville Zoo would be overall more impactful if they held species whose captive populations are struggling (unless of course their unique species end up just as common in zoos as other species, which is admittedly very unlikely). Where I disagree is with two of the species you mentioned as being examples of species that could be taken on instead.
Asian small-clawed otters are considerably more expensive than other small mammals. The costs of maintaining a suitable enclosure for otters, whether it is publicly accessible or not, is significantly higher than it is for other many mammals because they are aquatic and thus need pools and filtration systems. Their diets are also more expensive.
I've been told in the past that there aren't enough ringtails in breeding situations for the population to get much bigger. If that is true, then the problems the population is having would probably be best resolved by the zoos currently holding ringtails opting to manage breeding pairs instead of single or related individuals.
You are much more informed than I am, so please correct me if I am mistaken.
My understanding was those animals have died - maybe that's wrong but I don't know that it's likely.
An animal at SDZ, one at Memphis, and one/two at Brights do not a population make - Nashville is keeping the species around but it's not exactly taking off.
Last I was aware there was no semblance of pure subspecies being maintained in the Binturong SSP whatsoever, so bit of a moot point there.
True, but I don't particularly suspect money is an object with Nashville given the propensity to aquire rare species and holding all kinds of animals bts. Also given the absurd number of places holding NARO, the cost shouldn't be that bad.
Ringtails are low on the population yes, although currently more than half the holding facilities have pairs and more occasionally come in through rehabbers. Being a small nocturnal carnivore, it seems like a species that would be right up Nashville's alley.
Jonathan Petersson
Well-Known Member
Echoing Great Argus statement about the AZA Binturong program, the SSP is being managed without subspecies in mind and so the current whitei individuals are now being breed with non-subspecific animals deeming the pure import somewhat unnecessary other than to boost genetic diversity of the SSP.
Is Nashville’s pure binturong the animal ambassador they always show on instagram?
They had a pair of Palawan and no generic last I was aware, so it should be yes.
Wilbur and Willow are the Palawan pair. However, I believe the zoo has acquired another male and female that were born in 2024. I am not sure what subspecies they are.
Last edited:
That's true. What we are seeing though is that other zoos have an interest in the species. There certainly isn't enough genetic diversity in North America as of now for there to be a sustainable population but this could change. Maybe I'm just being too optimistic though.
Funding likely is not that much of an issue for the Nashville Zoo but I don't think that necessarily means they can (or can't) afford Asian small-clawed otters. If the cost isn't an issue, and you're right that it probably isn't, there undoubtedly is some reason, whether we would agree with it or not, as for why they have acquired all of these rare small carnivores, but we don't know what that reason is.
There are a lot of zoos with North American river otters, I would even say too many, but this is because they are very popular. They are still comparatively expensive amongst the small mammals available to zoos, but their popularity with the general public makes them worth it.
I had not realized the offspring of the imported whitei individuals were being actively integrated into the general population but I'm not surprised because that was what the Species Survival Plan coordinator had been pushing for.
The Nashville Zoo and the other zoo they initially worked with to import the binturongs were not doing so to diversify the non-subspecific North American gene pool. Their intention was, and maybe still is, to establish a "pure" population of the whitei subspecies in North America.