European surplus animals to the US?

L

Lisa_VHV

Member
Hi everyone!

With the discussion on management euthanasia or 'culling' being 'hot topic' after the death of the Nurnberg baboons, I had this question:

How do zoos who do not use this tool (because of ethical or legal considerations) deal with the surplus animals in their breeding programs? How come some zoos can manage and for some it is vital to use it to manage breeding?

I also heard recently that surplus animals in Europe are often sold/transported to American zoos because there they are using more contraception. Anyone else heard about that?

I believe culling is vital to maintaining healthy populations, but the debate is sometimes confusing. :p

Any examples, thoughts, discussions on the topic, I would find that very interesting. :)
 
Lisa_VHV said:
How do zoos who do not use this tool (because of ethical or legal considerations) deal with the surplus animals in their breeding programs?
Click to expand...

They go out of their way to not produce surplus animals in the first place.

Lisa_VHV said:
How come some zoos can manage and for some it is vital to use it to manage breeding?
Click to expand...

I think you need to rephrase this question, because I'm not altogether certain what you're asking.

Lisa_VHV said:
I also heard recently that surplus animals in Europe are often sold/transported to American zoos because there they are using more contraception. Anyone else heard about that?
Click to expand...

I have never heard of this, although I'm skeptical that it's a common practice. Moving animals cross country is expensive, moving animals across continents is expensive, moving animals across whole oceans is expensive.
 
Shipping European zoo surplus animals to the US is unsustainable. Cost of transport and all export-import red tape makes it prohibitively time-consuming and expensive.

But even if transport from the EU to the US would be comparable to transport from continent to the UK pre-brexit (aka very easy and cheap), it doesnt answer why would US zoos even import unvanted animals? They have their own zoo breeding programs. And their exotic animal sanctuaries also have more than enough to deal with their own unvanted pets etc.
 
The bureaucratic effort and the needed medical checks make exports to the US (and the other way around) very time and work consuming, and thus expensive already aside from the costs for the shipping. Exchanges are done in singular cases with valuable species but not to avoid culling.

Jana, I don't necessarily agree with your second paragraph. The culled animals are not always genetically uninteresting. They are for Europe as zoos are breeding with the same animals again and again, and consequently they are overrepresented in the own breeding programme. But they can definitely be a valuable genetic upgrade for the breeding programme across the pond. Like mentioned above, a lot effort and high costs are connected with it, that's why you certainly don't do this for common species and in higher numbers.
 
Hi all,
I am sorry if my question was unclear. :)

What I was mainly wondering is this: why do some zoos (like Antwerp, Pairi Daiza in Belgium) explicitly state they do not kill surplus animals, while others (including EAZA) say that it is a necessary tool to maintain sustainable populations? I am wondering how 'non-culling' zoos manage to uphold this policy and if there is an increasing pressure to change that policy in the current climate.
 
Lisa_VHV said:
why do some zoos (like Antwerp, Pairi Daiza in Belgium)
Click to expand...

Because they want good PR and to flex on less financially fortunate institutions. Pairi Daiza in particular is the brainchild of millionaire Eric Domb.

Keep in mind, culling is not a particularly bad fate for an animal. Better that than a life stuck in subpar living conditions because the only takers were inexperienced private individuals or unaccredited facilities. You should see where some of Pairi Daiza's surplus stock have ended up.

Lisa_VHV said:
while others (including EAZA) say that it is a necessary tool to maintain sustainable populations?
Click to expand...

Because the EAZA has an actually realistic mindset of being aware not every member has finances, space, or resources to care for every single animal born in their care for the entirety of its natural lifespan. They don't shame their membership for culling, just advise them to look for alternatives first.

Lisa_VHV said:
I am wondering how 'non-culling' zoos manage to uphold this policy
Click to expand...

By housing non-breeding animals, using contraceptives, preventing pregnancy via housing arrangements, and quietly offloading surplus animals outside of the EAZA's membership.
 
Lisa_VHV said:
Hi all,
I am sorry if my question was unclear. :)

What I was mainly wondering is this: why do some zoos (like Antwerp, Pairi Daiza in Belgium) explicitly state they do not kill surplus animals, while others (including EAZA) say that it is a necessary tool to maintain sustainable populations? I am wondering how 'non-culling' zoos manage to uphold this policy and if there is an increasing pressure to change that policy in the current climate.
Click to expand...

Simply put - there is no clear heading that would be followed by 100% of European or EAZA zoos. Issue of culling (or not) of zoo animals is viewed through lens of personal ethics and differs from zoo to zoo and also betwen countries / cultural regions. It is basically question of what is more valuable to be protected - right to life of each individual animal or future well-being of whole zoo populations.

If you want to read arguments of "pro-culling" site in this argument, you can try these 3 articles written by Olomouc zoo´s zoologist to educate general population. (they are in Czech but just auto-translate them).
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
 
Wisp O' Mist said:
Because they want good PR and to flex on less financially fortunate institutions. Pairi Daiza in particular is the brainchild of millionaire Eric Domb.

Keep in mind, culling is not a particularly bad fate for an animal. Better that than a life stuck in subpar living conditions because the only takers were inexperienced private individuals or unaccredited facilities. You should see where some of Pairi Daiza's surplus stock have ended up.

By housing non-breeding animals, using contraceptives, preventing pregnancy via housing arrangements, and quietly offloading surplus animals outside of the EAZA's membership.
Click to expand...

Really? Interesting, do you have some examples of where this surplus stock has been transferred to?

Ah yeah, there are some alternatives indeed, I also read that in EAZA position on population management from 2023. This last option, is it forbidden?
 
Lisa_VHV said:
Really? Interesting, do you have some examples of where this surplus stock has been transferred to?

Ah yeah, there are some alternatives indeed, I also read that in EAZA position on population management from 2023. This last option, is it forbidden?
Click to expand...

In the past it was more common to sell surplus animals to private holders. This is not well liked today. EAZA often doesn't want to give EEP animals to non EAZA institutions, which of course limits the capacity a lot.

With forbidden you mean culling? Every country in Europe has own laws. In Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Switzerland it certainly is easier to cull than in countries like Germany or Western Europe with higher standards regarding animal rights. A former zoo director and every employee who took part in it were convicted for a violation against the animal protection law when they culled tiger cubs after researches found out that they were hybrids.
 
Pongo said:
In the past it was more common to sell surplus animals to private holders. This is not well liked today. EAZA often doesn't want to give EEP animals to non EAZA institutions, which of course limits the capacity a lot.

With forbidden you mean culling? Every country in Europe has own laws. In Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Switzerland it certainly is easier to cull than in countries like Germany or Western Europe with higher standards regarding animal rights. A former zoo director and every employee who took part in it were convicted for a violation against the animal protection law when they culled tiger cubs after researches found out that they were hybrids.
Click to expand...

Ah, interesting, thanks.

No, I was not sure if EAZA policy allows for animals to be sold to private owners with lower standards.
 
Lisa_VHV said:
No, I was not sure if EAZA policy allows for animals to be sold to private owners with lower standards.
Click to expand...

Didn't you think to, I dunno, reach out to the EAZA and ask them what their surplus disposal policies are before you started asking questions here?

Or just reading through their rulebook, I'm sure there's a copy floating around online somewhere.
 
Private breeders can take part in EEPs but it is very complicated and i know no current cases. I know there have been some in the past not always positive though. For non EEP species it happens more also depending on the taxa. I've had and have animals that were born in EAZA zoos and animals of me went to EAZA zoos. I also got animals through non EAZA organisations whose parents were born within an EAZA zoo. For non EEP animals it really depends on the zoo itself on how strict they check what are the conditions at the private holder. By example i had to send pictures of the enclosure for some animals.
 
Not directly related, but the major force harming conservation in Europe turns to be bureaucracy.

It looks like whenever one asks about some conservation project, like sending surplus animals outside the EU, the answer is 'the laws grew so complicated that it is impossible for us'.
 
Jurek7 said:
Not directly related, but the major force harming conservation in Europe turns to be bureaucracy.

It looks like whenever one asks about some conservation project, like sending surplus animals outside the EU, the answer is 'the laws grew so complicated that it is impossible for us'.
Click to expand...

Well, of course there's more paperwork attached to it and it's a comfortable excuse of course, but let me put it like this: if you want to import an animal the paperwork is still the same but it is done as necessity...
 
Pongo said:
Well, of course there's more paperwork attached to it and it's a comfortable excuse of course, but let me put it like this: if you want to import an animal the paperwork is still the same but it is done as necessity...
Click to expand...

And although there are some exceptions where imports are really difficult to achieve, we do see if institutions want they often succeed, but the complaining about bureaucracy seems popular with a certain generation within the community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top