Wild-caught animals in zoos
- Thread starter Shirokuma
- Start date
I dont think catching wild individuals should be just frowned upon. So long as the ctahcing is well thought out and planned. For exmaple catching individuals willy nilly can promote poaching by the indigenous people. but whemn planned prperly (such as the capture of california condors) can benefit the species as a whole. This is aprticularly important if there are direct hazards (such as war or a particularly area of forest is being cut down).
Therefore I do support the managed and carefully planned capture of wild individuals to benefit a species over all.
I also think this is what needs to be done to save the ethiopian wolf.
Therefore I do support the managed and carefully planned capture of wild individuals to benefit a species over all.
I also think this is what needs to be done to save the ethiopian wolf.
Blackduiker
Well-Known Member
Blackduiker
Weren't the original Sumatran Rhinos in the recovery program of several decades ago wild caught? And they're is still the possibility of introducing wild caught Mountain Tapirs into the current mix of the inbred captive population. A few new individuals would definitely be a boost to the bloodline and survival of that highly endangered species.
I'm not absolutely sure about the Sumatran Rhinos so maybe someone has that information on hand. I do believe there is an article from the Los Angeles Zoo magazine "Zoo View" from some years ago, since they were participants of that program. I'll look for it in my back issues.
Weren't the original Sumatran Rhinos in the recovery program of several decades ago wild caught? And they're is still the possibility of introducing wild caught Mountain Tapirs into the current mix of the inbred captive population. A few new individuals would definitely be a boost to the bloodline and survival of that highly endangered species.
I'm not absolutely sure about the Sumatran Rhinos so maybe someone has that information on hand. I do believe there is an article from the Los Angeles Zoo magazine "Zoo View" from some years ago, since they were participants of that program. I'll look for it in my back issues.
taun
Well-Known Member
There seems to be certain plans in place for the Sumatran Rhinos but this is being kept under wraps for the time being it seems.
This may include more wild caught animals (They may need to for this program to develop further)
All the Sumatran rhinos were wildcaught as it was a government initiated scheme to try to breed them in captivity. Most of them were caught in pockets of Forest which were being felled for timber I believe. The project was a major failure resulting eventually in the deaths of virtually all the rhinos.
Los Angeles Zoo received 'Emi' the young female who later went on to produce calves at Cincinatti Zoo, where she has just died.
When you are talking about wild caought animals in the zoos you have to divide animals in two groups:
1. Species which are abundant and quite common in the nature: If you take may be 10 animals of any of this species every year to the zoo, nothing happens to the wild population. Probably, 5 from this 10 animals would surely die in the nature because of predation or competition and the rest 5 just make a free place for another individuals. But this will have a real positive effect for the blood in the captivity.
2. Species which are really endangered and have low populations:
The best way to protect them is to catch them and try to rescue them in zoological gardens or in some rescue station right in their home. Because they are just suffernig and dying in the nature or are threaned by the local people and disturbation of country. As Foz mentioned....this is really the only way to ensure the future for Ethipian wolf and many other species.
If you imagin all the species which were succesfully saved from the extinction, how many of them were saved in captivity or semi-captivity and how many in the nature without capturing? Captivity is the most succesful way to save a species or make a prospering reserve population.
I quite support bringing wild animals to zoological gardens. They do it by official way and it is hard to break a byrocracy, so only a really prospering zoos with rescue ideals can afford to bring animals from the wild. And this is the only way how to bring a new species to captivity which is very neccesary today, because most of the zoos have the same species which cover only a small part of species richness (I dotn think about insects or fish...jus in Carnivores or Primates or Faloconiformes...we really have only a minority).
And what you all have against the RSCC? I would like to know what would you say about Gerrald Durrel in a times when he brought plenty of animals (in some almost all their populations) to captivyity. Thanks to his heresy!!
1. Species which are abundant and quite common in the nature: If you take may be 10 animals of any of this species every year to the zoo, nothing happens to the wild population. Probably, 5 from this 10 animals would surely die in the nature because of predation or competition and the rest 5 just make a free place for another individuals. But this will have a real positive effect for the blood in the captivity.
2. Species which are really endangered and have low populations:
The best way to protect them is to catch them and try to rescue them in zoological gardens or in some rescue station right in their home. Because they are just suffernig and dying in the nature or are threaned by the local people and disturbation of country. As Foz mentioned....this is really the only way to ensure the future for Ethipian wolf and many other species.
If you imagin all the species which were succesfully saved from the extinction, how many of them were saved in captivity or semi-captivity and how many in the nature without capturing? Captivity is the most succesful way to save a species or make a prospering reserve population.
I quite support bringing wild animals to zoological gardens. They do it by official way and it is hard to break a byrocracy, so only a really prospering zoos with rescue ideals can afford to bring animals from the wild. And this is the only way how to bring a new species to captivity which is very neccesary today, because most of the zoos have the same species which cover only a small part of species richness (I dotn think about insects or fish...jus in Carnivores or Primates or Faloconiformes...we really have only a minority).
And what you all have against the RSCC? I would like to know what would you say about Gerrald Durrel in a times when he brought plenty of animals (in some almost all their populations) to captivyity. Thanks to his heresy!!
Animals come into zoo collections from the wild all the time, and anyone would have to be naive to think otherwise. You can go through all the animal groups from insects to mammals and name plenty of examples.
If you’re including Aquariums under the ‘zoo’ umbrella, then the vast majority of the marine organisms are taken directly from the wild. Relatively speaking, a miniscule number of marine species have or can be bred in captivity, and even amongst freshwater species the number bred in a sustainable long-term manner is tiny. (Go to your local pet store and check out the aquarium fish – the bread-and-butter species like cichlids, characins, cyprinids etc are mostly bred large-scale in fish-farms in Asia, but a huge number of common home-aquarium fish are still wild-caught. Even amongst catfish, one of the more popular groups, only the callichthyids and loricariids are bred commonly and/or commercially). If public aquariums were to only display captive-bred species then 90% of their stock would be the most common of pet store fish.
Among herptiles (reptiles and amphibians) wild-caught specimens are common-place, probably not least because often zoos obtain their stock from the same source as the private hobbyists, the dealers who import or who are supplied by importers. There are many many herptiles that are being bred in captivity, sometimes in very large numbers, but there are equally many many species that have rarely or never been bred and yet are common in collections (both private and public). Small reptile houses may be populated entirely by captive-bred animals but the larger zoos’ ones certainly aren’t.
Among the birds and mammals the “standard” zoo animals aren’t usually coming in from the wild (think lions, tigers, zebras, hippos, antelope, etc) because they breed so readily in captivity (partly the reason they are standard zoo animals!). In fact you could probably name any number of smaller zoos where the entire mammal collection is captive-bred. BUT the less common species are still often wild-caught. Zoos still take pride in having species that other zoos don’t, and these are often from the wild. You often hear of a species being “bred in captivity for the first time” which automatically tells you every other individual ever held in a zoo was taken directly from the wild for exhibition. This is particularly prevalent in birds -- in fact there’s a long thread about the first successful breeding of shoebills on this very forum. Regarding birds also, as in reptiles many smaller birds are obtained from dealers or hobbyists and worldwide the trade in wild-caught birds is staggeringly massive.
Separate issues perhaps are where wild animals are in “rescue” situations, as at the UK’s Monkey World or in rehabilitation centres, and on an entirely different level where wild-caught founders (or additional supporting individuals) are needed for breeding endangered species, the Jersey Zoo being a prime example of this.
Finally, “zoo” is an international word. All the above applies to Western zoos. In for example Asia or Africa, quite often a local zoo’s collection is largely or entirely wild-caught, either directly for the zoo or by way of public donations. Usually there is little or no legislation to prevent this. (As an example, I was at the Lok Kawi Wildlife Park in Sabah, Borneo, the other day and would estimate that two-thirds of their species are from the wild).
Feel free to tear my post apart
If you’re including Aquariums under the ‘zoo’ umbrella, then the vast majority of the marine organisms are taken directly from the wild. Relatively speaking, a miniscule number of marine species have or can be bred in captivity, and even amongst freshwater species the number bred in a sustainable long-term manner is tiny. (Go to your local pet store and check out the aquarium fish – the bread-and-butter species like cichlids, characins, cyprinids etc are mostly bred large-scale in fish-farms in Asia, but a huge number of common home-aquarium fish are still wild-caught. Even amongst catfish, one of the more popular groups, only the callichthyids and loricariids are bred commonly and/or commercially). If public aquariums were to only display captive-bred species then 90% of their stock would be the most common of pet store fish.
Among herptiles (reptiles and amphibians) wild-caught specimens are common-place, probably not least because often zoos obtain their stock from the same source as the private hobbyists, the dealers who import or who are supplied by importers. There are many many herptiles that are being bred in captivity, sometimes in very large numbers, but there are equally many many species that have rarely or never been bred and yet are common in collections (both private and public). Small reptile houses may be populated entirely by captive-bred animals but the larger zoos’ ones certainly aren’t.
Among the birds and mammals the “standard” zoo animals aren’t usually coming in from the wild (think lions, tigers, zebras, hippos, antelope, etc) because they breed so readily in captivity (partly the reason they are standard zoo animals!). In fact you could probably name any number of smaller zoos where the entire mammal collection is captive-bred. BUT the less common species are still often wild-caught. Zoos still take pride in having species that other zoos don’t, and these are often from the wild. You often hear of a species being “bred in captivity for the first time” which automatically tells you every other individual ever held in a zoo was taken directly from the wild for exhibition. This is particularly prevalent in birds -- in fact there’s a long thread about the first successful breeding of shoebills on this very forum. Regarding birds also, as in reptiles many smaller birds are obtained from dealers or hobbyists and worldwide the trade in wild-caught birds is staggeringly massive.
Separate issues perhaps are where wild animals are in “rescue” situations, as at the UK’s Monkey World or in rehabilitation centres, and on an entirely different level where wild-caught founders (or additional supporting individuals) are needed for breeding endangered species, the Jersey Zoo being a prime example of this.
Finally, “zoo” is an international word. All the above applies to Western zoos. In for example Asia or Africa, quite often a local zoo’s collection is largely or entirely wild-caught, either directly for the zoo or by way of public donations. Usually there is little or no legislation to prevent this. (As an example, I was at the Lok Kawi Wildlife Park in Sabah, Borneo, the other day and would estimate that two-thirds of their species are from the wild).
Feel free to tear my post apart
Just curious, did they have any bornean clouded leopards (Neofelis diardii) - recently designated a distinct species different from the mainland species (N. nebulosa) seen in western zoos?
(btw - the rest of your post is right on and very informative.)
they had one young female Bornean clouded leopard on display which had been confiscated (being kept illegally as a pet in the town of Ranau) and an older male off-display who has only three legs having lost one in a poacher's snare.
I have posted a review of the zoo here: http://www.zoochat.com/249/lok-kawi-review-12-september-2009-a-105387/
I have posted a review of the zoo here: http://www.zoochat.com/249/lok-kawi-review-12-september-2009-a-105387/
Has been tried but was abandoned because Ethiopian government wouldn't give permission. CITES wouldn't present any problems because this species isn't included. CITES still lists mostly 'famous' threatened species but even among them there are several that are missing. E.g. in family Suidae only Pygmy Hog and babirusas are included. No Visayan Warty Pig (IUCN Critically Endangered), Java Warty Pig (IUCN Endangered), Oliver's Warty Pig (IUCN Endangered), etc.
CITES lists species which are endangered and used in trade, or traded species which are not endangered but are similar to endangered species (and the real possibility of substitution exists). Because they are not on the list, one would assume that there is no international trade in Warty Pigs or their products - or at least, no evidence of it. The Red Data Book entry for the three species mentioned certainly make no mention of international trade.
Last edited:
A large percentage of the species on the list Appendices I, II and III have no evidence of international trade and don't look anything like any endangered species. The list by default is preemptive and you don't have to have evidence of any trade or that the species is threatened to have a species included. In the last post I mentioned Pygmy Hog. It is very rare but there is no more evidence of international trade in that species than in the warty pigs. Species like Bengal Fox are not threatened but are still on the list. The real reason why the species are or aren't on the list is how it works. For a species to be on the list the country where the species lives/plant grows or a large percentage of the other countries have to propose the species for the list. The latter has happened in few cases like elephants, rhinos and parrots. That only happens in the absolutely most 'famous' species or groups. Strictly speaking single countries where the species doesn't occur can also propose species on the list but the reality is that except in the most famous cases they then end up not being supported by the required 2/3 majority. All the less famous species are only on the list because the country where the animals/plants originate proposed it and it afterwards was supported by the 2/3 majority. India for example have recommended placing many of their medium and larger mammals on the list. Even species that are not known to be internationally traded or threatened. These are some of the reasons why many in recent years have recommended a new convention with updates to how the CITES list works. Especially because recent years have shown its inability to deal with international trade in reptiles, fish, tarantulas and plants including many very endangered species. Birds now mostly a problem in Asia because of general restrictions (non-CITES) in EU and USA (smuggling still happens but CITES wouldn't change that). Still: I recently read about the very rare Silvery Wood Pigeon. Some of the last evidence of this species are two in aviculture. If I now managed to capture another I could export it to any country where the local legislation didn't stop me. CITES don't list it. CITES only list 7 species from family Columbidae. Compare that to list by birdlife international. Several of those threatened have been or are in aviculture i.e., international trade is known. For people that keep tarantulas Poecilotheria are popular and they are regularly wild caught. IUCN lists one as least concern but all others as either data deficient, vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered. None are listed by CITES (it was proposed including them some time ago but it got rejected).
Sorry, I've just re-read my previous post and found I neglected to emphasize a point - as well as being endangered and used in trade, generally the trade has to be one of the factors contributing to the status (or decline) of the species.
Not wanting to disagree with you, but all those pigeons that are threatened that are not listed on CITES, are you saying they are all threatened by international trade? Just because a species is known in aviculture doesn't necessarily mean the pet trade is a threat. Gouldian Finches are classed as Endangered, and are well-known in aviculture. But they are not listed because the pet trade does not pose a threat to the wild population.
If you feel so strongly about it, maybe you should find out who is representing your country at the CoP next year and lobby them to push for inclusion of Columbiformes and Poecilotheria on Appendix II.
Hix
Not wanting to disagree with you, but all those pigeons that are threatened that are not listed on CITES, are you saying they are all threatened by international trade? Just because a species is known in aviculture doesn't necessarily mean the pet trade is a threat. Gouldian Finches are classed as Endangered, and are well-known in aviculture. But they are not listed because the pet trade does not pose a threat to the wild population.
If you feel so strongly about it, maybe you should find out who is representing your country at the CoP next year and lobby them to push for inclusion of Columbiformes and Poecilotheria on Appendix II.
Hix
Please do feel free to disagree with me. Sometimes people that do are wrong. But sometimes they're right
No of course not all those pigeons are threatened by international trade. But several of them. Especially some Philippine and Indonesian species in Gallicolumba, Ptilinopus and Ducula.
I presume all on zoochat care deeply about saving animals from extinction and do what they can with their resources. Several of those in above belong on Appendix I rather than Appendix II. But I would never recommend placing all Columbiformes on any Appendix of CITES. Far from it. But more than the 7 species that are there now. Of the 7 they have now they could remove Nicobar Pigeon if it was up to me. It's widespread, only near threatened by IUCN and now breed fairly well in captivity. But the problem with getting more of those threatened Gallicolumba, Ptilinopus and Ducula or the tarantulas Poecilotheria on the list is what I described in my last post. I am not native to the country of any of those and any presure I could exsert on an east Asian country is negligible. They are not 'famous' animals that many people care deeply about like whales or parrots. They are not big winners for politicians to spend time on. This leaves them in a tit for tat political game that has little to do with conservation. This is exactly one of the points that has been raised with CITES. I tried to described this in last post but perhaps it was not clear. CITES is generally effective when dealing with big famous animals but much less when dealing with smaller 'not famous' species. It would therefore be an ineffective way of using ones time and resources if trying to get those exact species listed under the current rules as there are many others just like those. What is better is to lobby for a new convention with updates to how the CITES list works to make it more efficient in dealing with the less famous animals and plants. As I said in last post this has already been proposed and is moving forward. Slowly but still forward.
If developing better techniques some of the rarer Poecilotheria could be good for a serious captive breeding programme but I can understand if some zoos wouldn't want them because they're fast and much more venomous than most tarantulas.
Just a piece of history, this is how it was done 1938 - an Italian animal-collecting expedition to Somalia ( Italian spoken but very intresting movie ! ) :
Caccia grossa Spedizione organizzata dalla 1^ mostra triennale delle terre d'oltremare sotto gli auspici del Ministero dell'Africa italiana.
Caccia grossa Spedizione organizzata dalla 1^ mostra triennale delle terre d'oltremare sotto gli auspici del Ministero dell'Africa italiana.
The vast majority of marine fish in zoos and public aquariums are wild caught. Some easily-bred species, like Ocellaris/Percula Clownfish, Royal Gramma, Banggai/Pyjama Cardinalfish, Epaulette/Bamboo Shark, Zebra Shark, and some rays may be captive bred, but captive breeding of most marine fish species exhibited in public aquariums is still unknown. As such, these animals must be captured from the wild.
The same is true of many marine invertebrates, although great progress has been made in the culturing of sea jellies, giant clams, cephalopods, and many crustaceans. Corals are often cultivated for aquariums - much like a plant, new coral colonies can be grown from cuttings from a parent colony.
The same is true of many marine invertebrates, although great progress has been made in the culturing of sea jellies, giant clams, cephalopods, and many crustaceans. Corals are often cultivated for aquariums - much like a plant, new coral colonies can be grown from cuttings from a parent colony.
This front has been advancing by leaps and bounds in the last few years, and a great many species have now been bred. Many species are now regularly available captive bred and a lot of others are sporadically available. Been good to see the hobby really stepping up to the plate.
splendens
Well-Known Member
Not an expert on this but for aquarium species there are collectors such as cairns marine which most hopefully try to stay more sustainable but some do come from the trade or confiscations. The aquariums near me (Monterey bay, California Academy of Sciences) collect some species like the academy or many like monterey, themselves (well MBARI does and the Academy's scientists do). At lest in the 1990s the Monterey Bay aquarium had divers collect the species such as sheepshead and anemones et cetera and almost all native species were wild caught or rescued. They also have a system to acclimate wild rockfish to surface pressure. For some rockfish and the great whites they relied on fishermen. I would believe this is pretty sustainable as they are not catching larger numbers and for longer living species they are sometimes released after a period of time. Some of the species in the academy were collected from reefs. They are one of the only places permitted to take corals from the phillipines. They only take smaller frags and propogate them. Most of the time they collect species for science and sometimes put live specimens on display including newly discovered deep water reef fish. Collecting these specimens are pretty necessary for science and small scale would probably keep this from being unsustainable.
The Sunfish in particular are released after they reach a certain size. I think a couple larger species occasionally are too.
Most deep reef species are little caught anyways, due to the difficulty involved. Also relatively few can afford the high prices charged for many such deep reef fish.