Scimitar, Addax, and Dama Gazelle news

T

Tennessee

Member
I just wanted to update everyone on the new laws concerning these three species in the United States.

"For the past three years the Exotic Wildlife Association has been involved as interveners with Safari Club International in a lawsuit filed by the Humane Society of the United States against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This suit originated as a result of the policy formulated by USF&WS to exempt three U.S. captive bred species (Scimitar Horned Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and Addax) from the Endangered Species Act. It has taken a tremendous amount of time for this case, which was heard in Federal court in Washington D.C., to be settled. The Federal judge has examined the briefs filed by attorneys for both sides and has made his ruling. Without going through all of the legal language in this ruling the result is that the three species or "Three Amigos" as we have commonly referred to them that are born and raised in the United States, will NOT be exempted from their listing on the endangered species list. As a result, these three species will remain on the ESA and be subject to all the restrictions of that act. In the judge's ruling he stated that the USF&WS did not have the authority to exempt animals from the Endangered Species Act."

In other words the commerce for these species is zero which anyone privately breeding these species will definatly get rid of ASAP. There are at least 6,000 Scimitars alone in the United States, where will these animals find a home if nobody wants them anymore? Just wanted to see what others thought about this very concerning issue!
 
I am not for or against hunting ranches and do not send my animals to them or associate myself with them. I was reading an artilce written a few years ago and researching the very concerning issue that has come up.

"Ranched scimitarhorned oryx population went from 32 specimens in 1979 to 2,145 in 1996; addax increased from 2 specimens in 1971 to 1,824 in 1996; and dama gazelle increased from 9 specimens in 1979 to 369 in 2003 (Mungall 2004). These population increases were due mostly to captive breeding at the ranches supplemented with some imported captivebred founder stock. Limited hunting of captivebred specimens facilitated these increases by generating revenue for herd management and the operation of the facility. Ranches also need to manage populations demographically (i.e., age, gender) and genetically (i.e., maximize genetic diversity). Such management may include culling specimens, which may be accomplished through sport hunting. For example, a ranch may need to reduce the number of adult males to achieve the necessary sex ratio for establishing a polygamous breeding group and facilitating the typical breeding behavior of the species. Hunting also provides an economic incentive for private landowners such as ranchers to continue to breed these species and maintain them as a genetic reservoir for future reintroduction or research, and as a repository for excess males from smaller populations, such as those held by zoos"

This is a proven fact that the future of antelope lies in the hands of private owners! To update this article the numbers in a new concensus show 6,000+ scimitars, 3,500 addax, and around 900 dama gazelles in private hands. If we didn't have the private people species such as mhorr/perisan/grants/tommys gazelle, sable, roan, addax, scimitars, ARABIAN ORYX, sitatunga, wildebeest, eland, i could go on for days, they wouldn't exist in our zoos. There is no way to reach the genetic diversity goals with the carrying capacitys of just zoos. Take a look at grants gazelles and arabian oryx in AZA do these numbers really look like a healthy population that can be maintained for the next 5-10 years? The answer is simple NO and is the same for almost all the species.

My question is, "Is there a way that we could work together with these people and major zoos or are we all so nieve and go along with all the animal rights people who have no clue what they are talking about and have no idea how to manage a saftey population in this country?" Also, ask yourself do we want to keep these population viable because lets face it, none of these species are safe in the native lands.

I know zoo ethics goes completly against this but take for example a over represented sable bull in a zoo would live out the rest of his life in a 12 by 12 stall, suffer from arthritis, enjoy nothing in life, and be euthanized at 20 years old because he can't stand up or could this animal be sport hunted on 40,000 acres in texas for $10,000 where as this money could go on to build better situations for the sable in the future population.
 
I've known about the ranch antelope boom for awhile. It made me look at the exotic hunting business a bit differently. They definately do a good job breeding and providing herd scenarios that zoos can't. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way for a rare species to have a foothold on a future is through being profitable. That seems to be the case here. I wonder of any of these ranches have programs in place to release exotic hoofstock back into depleted native regions.
 
Wow, I am surprised at the numbers of animals there.

I think zoos could never maintain 6000 oryx in their facilities. I wonder if these animals are not inbred (or even crossed with other species) and can be really population of conservation value?

About culling - the fact of life is that most deer, wild sheep and such animals are hunted. I see above no argument that ranched antelopes live somehow worse lives than native whitetail deer.
 
It is rather unfair this piece of litigation and legislatiion has come to pass. The EWA - for aridland antelopes - had already signed a memorandum of understanding with the Sahara Conservation Fund to start contributing to the reintroduction projects for scimitars, addax and the various gazelle species.

Another added benefit of the EWA is that the association has far more available rangeland for endangered species conservation than most zoos could ever dream of. It is no surprise EWA members manage populations of scimitars, addax and gazelles well into their 1,000's.

Whereas, I have some reservations with the potential commercialism involved, I put the EWA on the same level as wildlife ranches in eastern and southern Africa. These are actually contributing to wildlife conservation directly, by providing for a hybrid management of marginal rangelands for both agriculture/livestock farming and wildlife ranching.

Hence, I see nothing intrinsically wrong with EWA. Just look at their shared information on the WWW-web.
 
Jurek7 said:
Wow, I am surprised at the numbers of animals there.

I think zoos could never maintain 6000 oryx in their facilities. I wonder if these animals are not inbred (or even crossed with other species) and can be really population of conservation value?

About culling - the fact of life is that most deer, wild sheep and such animals are hunted. I see above no argument that ranched antelopes live somehow worse lives than native whitetail deer.
Click to expand...


Yes, i do think they are of conservation value. Just google pictures of specimens on these texas ranches and private lands across america. They may not be able to track their sire and dam on any studbooks but just take a look of their numbers flourishing, large bodied horns, strong contrasting colors, proportional builds, etc. These are all characteristics of healthy none inbred stock. Inbred animals tend to have a tendency to carry small "dinky horns", odd shapes, non proportional bodies, small bodies, and/or deformities. You can tell from the millions of pictures and personal sightings none of these animals have these characteristics.

As far as private individuals contributing to sending animals back to their native lands take a look at the federal register. "Between October 2003 and March 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Management Authority issued CITES permits for the export of U.S. captive-bred scimitar-horned oryx (45 specimens), addax (90 specimens), and dama gazelle (70 specimens) to the United Arab Emirates for captive
breeding. Most of these specimens were captive-bred on U.S. ranches."
So yes, these ranchers are contributing to the ongoing conservation. I haven't seen the AZA shipping out their antelope collections to conservation efforts in other countries like this.
 
I would make this distinction: the shipment - you remarked on - to the UAE should not be billed as for conservation purposes, but perhaps for captive-breeding with an eventual potential conservation component. They are not range countries for the species you mentioned, and their shipment outside US is only allowed under strict terms with international CITES legislation (exemption for captive-breeding operations ... I suspect).

I would also not make much more of a fuss re. genetics of a source population. In any reintroduction effort - and I for one should know - genetics play a vital role in securing a stable, healthy, viable in situ population for a reintroducee species. So, I would not take ... prime body condition ... as an indication for the perceived true fitness of the individual hoofstock you are looking at (when visiting an EWA ranch).

However, the EWA has signed a MOU with the Sahara Conservation Fund for an out shipment of a first batch of scimitar-horned oryx to Northern Africa for reintroduction purposes. It is as yet in the embryonic stages of development, but I would expect 2009/2010 will be a likely start date. Part of that effort should and undoubtedly will - if not the US authorities, the in situ range countries will insist on that - have genetic, vet and general fitness screening as part of the whole reintroduction process.

If the IUCN guidelines - of which the above listed items are part - are not observed to their fullest realistic potential the chances of failure for that particular reintroduction effort will grow exponentionally.

Suffice again, I applaud that organisation like EWA and ranchers committed to hybrid land management for livestock and (exotic) wildlife exist!
 
so i take it that large bodies, superior horn growth, and a population that has grown exponentially is not an indicator of a healthy viable non-inbred population?

Yes, the exports to the UAE were not a direct conservation effort to put them into the wild as of yet. I just described it as the AZA did when they sent the bongo "back to africa" when they really gave them to the same ranch 20-30 years after they bought them off the same ranch for huge prices of 40,000+ per animal but they advertised as back to the wilds of africa and introducing an animal that is extict from the Aberdares and Mount Kenya. Isn't this the same thing? I read an article that there was a healthy population already on the mountains. Guess they didn't do their research.
 
Hi Tennessee,

Healthy look is not a safe way to tell that animal is not inbred nor a hybrid.

However, I think that most or all desert antelopes on ranches are of conservation value, but EWA could make sure of it. For example, trace the origin of the founder animals and exchange breeders.

The plan to send EWA antelopes to North Africa is very interesting, I would welcome a follow up how it is going on!
 
Yes, healthy populations can't be told from a visual aspect. I'm sure someone who has this mentality has never raised stock in their lives! Leave it to the aza to fill a room full of geneticist, population managers, PhDs etc to screw up a population lol. Talk of mK values and genetic diversity has driven nearly every population to extinction in AZA. I believe the only hoofed species capable of attaining a 90% or higher genetic diversity line is Grevy Zebra.

Kifaru Bwana have you ever heard of genetic bottle neck? One would know this term if one was a in charge of a population. They will show distinctive problems visually ie. cuviers gazelle. They went through this in the late 80 and into the 90s. They literally bred the population out of the genetic bottle neck. If one took your mentality no gazelle species would be maintained in captivity, example most gazelle species were attained from 2 or 3 individuals whose mean kinship was probably already compromised.

So stick with mK values, gene diversity and listen to geneticist as nearly every species of hoofstock is on the way out the door towards extinction in the realm of aza zoos. Anyone who had any conception towards population management would clearly state AZA has no clue what there doing in this aspect.

Take a quick look at the population viability analysis that aza has been doing on different species...it clearly shows my indications.

So in closing large bodied, healthy, breeding exponentially populations are clearly essence of a healthy genetic population. Ranchers know far more about population viability than a zoo manager will ever conceive.
 
That's a loaded argument that shows only your aversion for a process that you don't agree with. I can only assume that your disagreements are derived from the opinion that the AZA has made it difficult for zoos to work with private owners. People upset with this are often the ones cutting down the AZA, its programs, and its zoos.

The only thing ranchers know is how to keep a herd alive in their lifetime. Most could care less what happens to the herd after they die. There is little to no incentive for a ranch to maintain their herd for long-term sustainability.

The population mangers associated with the AZA do know what they're doing. If you want to blame something for your distaste - blame the politics, not the process. Doing otherwise, only encourages the spread of ignorance.
 
Last edited:
Ignorance is the only thing you have in your argument. AZA is reading out tithe private sector if you had a clue what you were talking about. Have you been to an antelope tag caprid tag cervid tag etc meeting. Everyone is saying there is no possible way to attain sustainability without the private sector. You must know what your talking about before preaching....


Texas has 6000 head of scimitars so I would say there population might be around just alittle while. AZA on the other hand has published documents proving there is no way they can attain sustainability in albeit a few species. This is documented look it up.

Coming from someone with a name "gerenuk" I'm suprised this mentality coming from you. The population vibility analysis 2014 clearly depicts a dark picture for the population in the us. With or without imports there is no way to attain a 90% genetic viability in 100 years. The population has averaged 25 deaths and 22 births the last 10 years...are you familiar with green yellow red ssp? If so, ho many antelope are in green? How many cattle?( there is no species survival plan in aza now) how many equine species are green? Grevy zebra is the only one. How many cervid species are in mane gable populations? None and if you don't know that you have read the cervid RCP 2014.

No your argument was full of holes, keep trying I love challenges and debates. Especially when you say the AZA makes it hard for private entities to deal with them. That's hilarious! More animals are sent into the private sector than to aza recipients. More animals are acquired from the private sector than from there own sector. Ask any population manager, if you want specimens....go to the private sector. That what everyone will tell you.

Now your rebuttal...expert lol
 
This is why I think it would be nice to have more safari parks accredited by the AZA. It's a place for some of these animals to live without being shot on hunting preserves. I'm not against fair chase hunting but hunting behind a fence is very unpalatable to me.
 
The reality is the antelope tag and caprid tag are encouraging working with the private sector. The cattle tag basically gave up years ago and said do whatever you want of which they did now the anoa are basically all held in private along with gaur banteng wisent cape and Congo buffs. The avian tags are all encouraging collaboration with privates.

So where is the rebuttal that aza is pushing away from the private sector? Read the taxon reports and regional collection plans....published by AZA. AZA wants to jump on the wagon of success with private ranchers. Private ranchers seem to have more push in pull in the name of conservation than AZA. Example being ranchers have challenged amended and defeated there counter parts and have changed federal endangered species laws recently!

Collaborative efforts between the private and AZA realm are in their infancy but they are there and it will be very interesting to see the future towards their relationship.
 
Have any of these populations gone feral in Texas? I know nilgai have done so. With that many animals managed in the state, I'd be more surprised if they hadn't managed to establish wild herds. My guess is that while there may one day cease to be exotic antelopes on ranches, they will still have a presence in the very desert-antelope friendly countryside.
 
Yes I have been to meetings, and I read all the documents. I made assumptions about your opinions, not the reality of the situation - I don't think that the AZA is preventing relationships with the private sector (I should have written opinion, not fact - that's a big typo). I am fully aware of the SSP structure, how ungulates are managed in this country, and the problems they face. I have no problem with exotic animals in the private sector.

But this is what I have a problem with. Most opinions I hear from the private sector honestly believe that the AZA is collectively against transactions between AZA institutions and private owners. I've heard beliefs that the AZA is ruining everything. I have a problem with people that believe, this and with those that are against population management because it is different. I feel that the new SSP structure is a great way to involve private holders that want to participate in managed programs w/o having to be accredited.

Now the biggest problem with the private sector is sustainability, and I'm not talking about genetics. Its finances and long-term planning are the issue. Lets take a fictional private owner, call him Bill. Bill is successful with breeding bushbuck and holds 50% of the American captive population. Bill soon learns that he has cancer and can no longer afford to maintain his ranch. What happens now? Bill's kids have no interest in ranches. Only one still lives nearby, but has problems with financial debt and certainly can't take on the ranch. Zoos can't hold many more bushbuck, and if Bill's holding 50% of the population is there much interest in the private sector? (though Bill could just be a bushbuck hoarder)

Zoos are designed for long-term commitments (whether they actually commit to individual species is a political/management problem). Private owners rarely seem to have a plan beyond their own demise for their collections. Canyon Colorado, ABRC in Loxahatchee, Catskills, even White Oak are examples of this.

Also when its comes to sustainability, I'm not completely convinced that the 90% genetic diversity Rx given to all taxa is necessary. Biology is extremely complex and random. Though I do understand it would take forever to figure out the minimal genetic diversity for all taxa - half would probably be extinct by the time that research is finished. So I can respect the policy for what its worth, but I won't preach like scripture.
 
"Most ranchers could careless what happens to their herds after they die".
Wow are you serious? These animals have more of an intrinsic value for a private owner than for a zoo curator. That's like saying a ranchers doesn't care what happens to their land after they die. Good lord they devote their lives and open their wallets towards preserving the animals. Zoo curators do so only because it's a job. How many zoo curators privately fund importation of new founders or semen? Have you ever seen a curator write a check in the name of conservation...no. How bout a zoo director(most make a hefty 6 figures)....but no they don't.

I would whole hearted say ranchers and private preserve owners have more interest and better intentions than any zoo because they invest more and have more to loose. If a zoo loses a species to attrition they just replace it private entities want to sustain and grow because in essence these are assets and must be preserved.

All to often I hear zoos phase out so that more room can be made for a more endangered or similar species with better long term population results. Example AZA gave up on the southern black rhino so that more space can be made for eastern blacks. Well that's great for the private sector as they will reap the benefits without importation costs but have you seen the black rhino population in africa!?!?!? Zoos devote millions towards exhibits for the public benefit. Zoos need to maximize their own resources. If they can drop millions on importing the animals and new exhibits they can easily buy rural land outside their cities for breeding farms. It takes some guard rail fencing and a barn for a rhino breeding facility. Most zoos are city owned so they can easily acquire unused property and the guard rail would be attained minimally from road construction. So it doesn't take much for zoos to have a expanded rhino breeding source within themselves. Yet this seems to be too much so phase out a species that is on the brink of extinction....we all need to get our priorities in order
 
Tennessee said:
"Most ranchers could careless what happens to their herds after they die".
Wow are you serious? These animals have more of an intrinsic value for a private owner than for a zoo curator. That's like saying a ranchers doesn't care what happens to their land after they die. Good lord they devote their lives and open their wallets towards preserving the animals. Zoo curators do so only because it's a job. How many zoo curators privately fund importation of new founders or semen? Have you ever seen a curator write a check in the name of conservation...no. How bout a zoo director(most make a hefty 6 figures)....but no they don't.

I would whole hearted say ranchers and private preserve owners have more interest and better intentions than any zoo because they invest more and have more to loose. If a zoo loses a species to attrition they just replace it private entities want to sustain and grow because in essence these are assets and must be preserved.

All to often I hear zoos phase out so that more room can be made for a more endangered or similar species with better long term population results. Example AZA gave up on the southern black rhino so that more space can be made for eastern blacks. Well that's great for the private sector as they will reap the benefits without importation costs but have you seen the black rhino population in africa!?!?!? Zoos devote millions towards exhibits for the public benefit. Zoos need to maximize their own resources. If they can drop millions on importing the animals and new exhibits they can easily buy rural land outside their cities for breeding farms. It takes some guard rail fencing and a barn for a rhino breeding facility. Most zoos are city owned so they can easily acquire unused property and the guard rail would be attained minimally from road construction. So it doesn't take much for zoos to have a expanded rhino breeding source within themselves. Yet this seems to be too much so phase out a species that is on the brink of extinction....we all need to get our priorities in order
Click to expand...


The last paragraph is such a great point, couldn't have said it better myself.
 
Your argument for the private sector is a great one. There has been many instances in the rise of great conservation centers and 10 to 20 years there fall is even greater. For that I have no argument for or idea how to stop these facilities demise.

One idea is an animal having a intrinsic value will ultimately be saved. If they have a value to someone, someone will save it. Alberta game farm catskill and canyon Colorado closed but private owners saw a value in their assets and ultimately they went to the highest bidder. Some went into the right hands and those three facilities instilled a growing population in the private sector and as long as they have value they will be cared for.

This is a touchy subject but the legalization of rhino horn could save their populations. Look at the white rhino in South Africa. Private ranchers saved them and look at what they bring in South Africa! 150,000 US for breeding cows, that is something those rhino ranchers will make sure are around for generations to come. They have a huge value and if they legalize the trade in rhino horn then the white rhino has another renewable resource of which the rancher can utilize. This will mean more value in the animal and more return for the rancher which all of them will expand their operations which will only bring more sustainability to white rhinos. Many of these ranchers are devoting armed forces toward their protection. I believe if the other species were pulled out of their native ranges and privately owned it would put an end to their demise. The examples are all there in history. Species that were pulled into the private sector were saved and these miniscul wild population left in their native states met or are meeting their demise ie northern white rhino, western black rhino, hirola, western giant eland. Many wanted to keep the arabian oryx in their range country and prioritize insitu conservation. Thankfully sheiks pulled out all they could zoos did they same and they collaborated their efforts. Ultimately the private ranchers seized there efforts and grabbed as many as they could from zoo surplus now their population is the only sustainable group.
 
Last edited:
I am serious. How do private owners ensure a future (multiple generations) for their land and animal collection?

Zoo curators don't make tons of money and its not an easy vocation to get into. Zoos don't just pick someone off a street and employ them -its not "just a job". Their investment is their time, because they can't financially support a big project. Zoo director, of larger zoos, are a different story and yes they do donate money to conservation - look though the financial supports of many NGO reports and you will find zoo directors among those names. I'm not going to go to much into this because its not that relevant, but apparently touchy for you.

So what's wrong with phasing out species. Why do poorly with two similar (sub)species, when you can do well with one species? Postage stamp zoos are gone in America, and tough decisions need to be made to sustain some species into the future. Let's use your southern black rhino scenario. How is the private sector going to do any better with them? There were a handful of private owners involved with the project at its beginning. But they kept producing primarily males and had nutrition issues. Even Brad Kelly took some in, but got rid of them once he found out how much trouble they were to keep. Shoot, white oak hasn't produced a calf since 2005 and they are supposed to be one of the leaders in rhino husbandry. So how would you do any better?

Off-site breeding facilities I agree can be an answer, but its more expensive for a zoo to do it. Zoos generally pay their staff more and provide more benefits than private owners. Zoos also have higher standards for infrastructure, facilities, and animal health (but that doesn't mean its required). Zoos, like you mentioned, are generally city owned and are held to a lot more scrutiny and accountability than private owners. These are the reasons why private owners can have an advantage over zoos when it comes to managing certain taxa, including ungulates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top