Exotics vs. Natives

Sun Wukong

Sun Wukong

Well-Known Member
A subject brought up in various subjects before: should modern zoos specialise more on displaying animals native to the country the individual zoos is located at? Or are "exotic" animals still needed to get the visitors in?

In some aspects, the situation differs from country to country: an African surely has plenty of the popular megafauna as native animals, may they be lions, elephants or giraffes (though he/she surely appretiates the "exotic" factor of say a Brown bear or a tiger at the local zoo). Australian/NZ zoos have native species like koalas, salties, kiwis or kangaroos odd, "dangerous" or cute enough to get the visitors into the zoo -and, as one user mentioned before- an Australian zoo is somehow expected by tourists to have these "typical animals". However, I assume that native Australians/NZs surely like seeing animals like bears or zebras exotic to them in the zoo than being presented the bush turkey or possum they have in their backyard at home for free.
The situation is similar in South America and most parts of Asia, but differs in the zoo-rich countries of North America, partly Russia and Europe; especially in the case of the latter, native species are usually not too popular and scarcely presented in zoos. While most European or North American zoos always have a few local species in their collection, it's usually always the same few: wolves, bears, bobcats/lynx, deer (mostly forms/subspecies of the Red Deer as well as fallow deer), a few owls/birds of prey, ibex, bison/wisent. There are a few zoos or "wildparks" that specialise in keeping the native species, but usually they end up with the ones mentioned above and, in the case of Europeans, adding domestic animals and North American species. There are many reasons for this, especially in regard to the European fauna:
-a lack of popular megavertebrates and animals with "show qualities"
-a certain lack of coloration (especially notable in the case of many European smaller animals)
-increased difficulty considering husbandry: many European wild animals tend to be difficult when it comes to feeding, enclosures, habitat recreation, veterinary aspects etc.
-a lack of interest by the public ("not exotic enough")/ good presentation
-a lack of touristic interest, maybe? ;) I haven't heard of any tourist looking for capercaillies, European Hamsters or Great Bustards in an European zoo (excluding certain zoo-fans). The only thing going into that direction were visitors at Scandinavian zoos complaining if moose were not displayed...

Popular media seems to have taken notice of that; the following sketch is from an Austrian comedy duo making fun of an Austrian Alpenzoo, a zoo specialized in keeping European Wildlife (see Innsbruck Alpenzoo). For those who do not speak German: the protagonist is angrily complaining that the native animals in his Alpenzoo are boring and not interesting enough for the public ("Stupid Golden eagles & drunken chamois"). He marvels at the sight of a cockatoo he saw in a zoo in Miami and envies Berlin zoo for having Knut-which prompts him to the idea of misusing long-term philosophy students to get the visitors in...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Remembers old joke about student, chimp and a lion. ;)

I think normal zoos and native animal parks are both OK. One will not replace another.

People will always want to see exotic animals, and local deer and buzzards will always break legs and land in local wildlife parks. ;)
 
Believe it or not-native wildlife also has the tendency to flock into the zoo's veterinary clincs now and then due to broken limbs, poisoning etc...;)
 
I know in the case of Auckland Zoo (New Zealand) there has been a trend towards showing natives over time... Why..?

Tourism - The Government will almost blindly support anything that may increase tourism...

Conservation - NZ is the most deforestated country in the world with over 90% gone, and almost every species in New Zealand in endangered, threatened or vulnerable...

The zoo seems be increasing its collection of natives and moving towards only keeping endangered exotics, breeding both when instructed by ARAZPA, which personally I believe makes a zoological institution much move defendable...

My personal opinion... I enjoy seeing the natives at my zoo, I get a better understanding of the fauna in my country that I can't get out of a book, but I still definitely enjoy seeing exotics...
 
If you consider the fact that NZ was covered in 98% bush and we now have only 8% left we are in fact the country that has the most of its original forests gone...

We are also in the top of 5 countries for pollution/waste per head of population...

We have amongst the highest rate of extinction IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD..! Within the next 100 years a full 50% of native species will be extinct...

I find it suprising that as a New Zealander and on this forum you don't know this...
 
As far as I'm concerned I go to A ZOO FOR exotics. As you mentioned I can see all the kangaroos, possums and cockatoos I like in my own backyard.
In Australia also there is a plethora of native animal parka that have only native fauna, I can think of 6 within 1 hours drive from where I live in Brisbane. Also a lot of people cannot travel overseas to safaris in Africa, orang ivisits in Indonesia etc.
There wil always be a lace for natives in zoos but I don't think that they should be the dominant feature.
 
It would mean a huge change in UK zoos.

To quote David Attenborough: "Can you imagine London Zoo without Giraffes?"
This quote was about London zoo only focussing on endangered species when faced with closure, but this quote can also be applied to this topic.

The majority of British wildlife is small (badgers, foxes, otters) and would never take the place of some of the popular exotics that the majority of zoos hold.
 
NZ Jeremy said:
If you consider the fact that NZ was covered in 98% bush and we now have only 8% left we are in fact the country that has the most of its original forests gone...

We are also in the top of 5 countries for pollution/waste per head of population...

We have amongst the highest rate of extinction IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD..! Within the next 100 years a full 50% of native species will be extinct...

I find it suprising that as a New Zealander and on this forum you don't know this...
Click to expand...

actually I am well aware of the problems in NZ, I would dare say far more than you are through my work with DoC and MaF Biosecurity. To take just two obvious examples of deforestation from other parts of the world, the UK has lost 90% of its forest cover in the last 5000 years and 45% of the remaining "natural" woodlands since 1945. Cambodia has gone from a 90% forest cover in 1970 to 3.1% today.

How wide is your time-frame for deforestation in NZ? When Europeans arrived the country most certainly wasn't 98% forested, probably in fact only about 60% forested. When the Maori arrived c.800 years ago the islands were probably almost entirely forested but is this relevant to today's conservation ethic? I would say not really.

And how much of the animal kingdom do you encompass with your "a full 50% will be extinct" within the next 100 years? I'm assuming you have read this somewhere, but it is in all likelihood completely wrong (even assuming that all native species have even been described, which they haven't: a whole new endemic family of flies was discovered just a couple of years ago -- by my brother as it happens :-)). What criteria were used for determining how species would fare, what effects were responsible for supposed extinctions-to-be, etc etc. Its a pretty bald statement without facts to back it up.
 
Last edited:
90% since human settlement...

I forgot to insert the word avian between native and species...

I took the largest estimate of 98% some believe before Maori Settlement NZ was only 80%...

Up to 95% of our wetlands are gone...

I don't understand the point your trying to make, do you disagree that NZ is one of the worst in the world when it comes to the destruction of our environment in the last 150 years..?

I believe we are and that is why I am all for more NZ natives in zoos...
 
I go to zoos to see anmals I can not see at home. This is both native animals that do not occur where I live, and exotic animals.

For the NZ ers I have heard that the Kiwi will be extinct in 50 years and Kia numbers are also falling. What is their real situation as these are the two best known NZ species.
 
there are about 3000 kea in the wild, far short of the pre-European numbers, almost entirely due to the wholesale destruction of them from the bounty days (when farmers were accusing them of killing huge numbers of sheep). They are now completely protected of course.

The extinction date of kiwi is bandied about all the time. It is quite likely they will become extinct (either totally or effectively) on the main islands in the not-too-distant future but NZ has many offshore islands on which they will survive: the kiwi is unlikely to become totally extinct. However there are six types of kiwi of which two (the Okarito and Haast kiwi) have total populations of around 150-250 birds. They will be the first to go to the wall. The little spotted kiwi has about 1700 or so, and being the smallest species is now extinct on the mainland and has been since probably the 1970s on the South Island and the late 1800s on the North. It has a relatively stable population on the islands on which it is found. The great spotted has around 17,000 individuals and is declining rapidly; the southern brown has about 20,000 and is pretty secure on Stewart Island, not so much so in Fiordland; the North Island brown has about 25,000 birds. All species that are still found on the main islands are severely threatened by introduced predators (especially mustelids, cats and dogs), with a chick mortality rate of around 95% -- this is the main cause of their predicament, and there is really little that can be done about the numbers of mammalian predators now found in NZ. However saving the kiwi is a prime concern for several conservation groups. If we can't save our national bird then it won't say much for NZ will it.
 
In consideration of that little remark of mine, a question to all You Non-Europeans/Non-Americans: imagine Yourself as a tourist visiting an European or North American zoo; do You expect this zoo to keep certain native animal species? If so, which?
 
If I wereever to go to Scotland I would go the the Highland wildlife park to see native Scottish fauna.
 
like jay said, most locals visit the zoo to see exotics, most tourists visit to see natives. there is a definate crossover however and being a city boy, i still very much enjoy seeing the more unusual natives such as tasmanian devils and echidnas at the zoo. zoos can contribute more practically to the conservation of native species and so i fully support zoos increasing a focus on their own wildlife. but obviously, we wil always expect to see a sizeable collection of exotics as well. if we can manage these exotic programs effectively and ethically, i see a good zoo as being one that finds a nice balance of both. new zealands species may seem boring to new zealanders, being almost exclusively birds, giant bugs and small reptiles, but as an australian its probably the section of auckland zoo i would spend the most time at if i went.
 
i was always miffed by the lack of British wildife exhibits in British zoos. as an australian interested in wildlife visiting the UK there were a number of species i would liked to have seen but didnt get the chance to, including hedgehogs, badgers and red squirrel.
with such a fascinating natural heritage and amazing stories i had expected at least one zoo to have a good 'british' exhibit. sadly there were none.
so in answer to your question sun wukong i do believe that if a foreign tourist visiting the UK or Europe is as much of an animal lover that they forfeit a day to go to the zoo then i think there would be some expectation that British wildlife would be showcased.
 
The reason why You find hardly any British (or Scottish) native wildlife in those zoos is simple, if You take a look at the local wildlife presented in the UK: the largest predatory mammal is the Red Fox, the largest mammal the Red Deer, followed by Roe deer; others have been wiped out (bear, wolf) or have become really rare like the Scottish Wildcat (which looks to most visitors a lot like their pet tabby...). While weasels are usually hard to spot, hedgehogs, badgers or martens are usually nocturnal, and I doubt that a zoo will build a nocturnal house for animals that are, as already partly adopted to city life, an almost common sight for native Brits or Scots. Local bats or shrews are hard or rather impossible to be nourished properly over a longer time period, and local rats, mice or voles are simply "vermin" to most people. British birdwatchers might rather be tempted to go outdoors than to the zoo to see the local avifauna. Beside that, there are a few reptiles, newts and toads, some introduced exotic species, seals and cetacea-and that's largely it.
So if the Highland Wildlife Park doesn't manage to aquire Nessie or an ABC ("Alien Big Cat") ;) , I'm afraid their largest and "most impressive" animals kept will be a herd of Scottish Highland cattle, some Red Deer and Golden Eagles...
Fauna of Scotland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Back to my former question: which species in particular would You expect?
 
Last edited:
sun wukong, you see, i dont think that the mammals being nocturnal is good enough reason for not keeping them. here in australia up to two thirds of every major zoo collection is made up of native fauna and the majority of our mammals are nocturnal.
just one major exhibit would be enough for me, at say, the london zoo. it could be in the form of a major aviary, (designed, for benifit of our australian members, on say the creatures of the wollemi concept) with bridges spanning ponds for otters, and maybe even beavers.....a simulated earthbank with badgers....free ranging hedgehogs and squirrels, an aviary within an aviary for some form of predatory bird in it or even scottish wild cats and all around birds flying about freely, ranging from goldfinches to grebes. such an exhibit could trace the link between human settlements and natural heritage, interpreting this would be fantastic.....
Britain isnt really known for its wildlife in the way continents such as Africa and Australia are, but in fact it has some of the most fascinating species in the world. UK zoos are leading the international zoo community in many regards such as research and linking ex-situ to in-situ conservation, but they also need to showcase their own fauna too.
when it comes to the display of indigenous fauna Australian zoos lead the way, but this is a combination of factors including the origins of Australian zoos as acclimitisation societies/curiousity grounds and our longstanding quarantine rules. nonetheless, other zoos around the world would do well to follow our example. conservation begins at home
 
That's an intriguing idea Glyn!

It would have to be at London Zoo because of the tourist appeal. I also have the thought now, that the Clore Pavillion could've been turned into a British building.

- Have badgers, hedgehogs, moles, foxes, wildcats, bats and other nocturnal animals in the basement in new enclosures.
- Have british small mammals (voles, shrews, dormice, rats etc) in the vivariums on the ground floor.
- Use what is the outdoor marmoset enclosure for red squirrels.
- Use some vivariums for native amphibians, sand lizards, adders and grass snakes.
- Turn the area which is now a rainforest into a lakeside area, which could be seperated into otters and beavers which is viewable from the basement.
- One of the current outdoor areas could be created for rabbits and/or hares.
- Allow free-flying birds inside.
- Create outdoor aviaries for birds of prey.
- Perhaps enlarge some of the vivariums for weasels, pine martens, polecats and stoats.
- Just outside, exhibits for Grey Squirrels, American Mink, Wallabies Chinese Water Deer and Muntjac could be built to show the impact of feral animals in the UK.

this covers the majority of animal groups in the UK, with the exceptions of pinnipeds, cetacians and the native deer.

If anyone has plans for the clore building, could you send them to me. I've got an urge to see if this plan is possible ;)
 
Last edited:
Chester Zoo's Europe on the Edge Aviary is pretty good, but thats not strictly British.

At London the Snowdon Aviary could become something similar- but I think Europe in general would be a more common theme than strictly British (particularly as they'd want to include Waldrapp Ibis no doubt). Their waterfowl pond is European too, with Greater Flamingo, Pelicans, Red Breasted Geese and Cormorant.

I think our most important wildlife is definitely the wildlife of our coast (Britain is a very important place for seabirds especially). I'd love to see a zoo or aquarium dress that up (maybe living coast does, I don't know?). Have a big exhibit for harbour seal with underwater viewing, and otter and diving duck exhibits (eider, long-tailed duck, smew etc) both with underwater viewing. Have aquaria with fish and things, maybe touch pools for kids and a number of walkthrough aviaries. (Say one cliff aviary with puffins and razorbills, one saltmarsh one with ruff and avocet and maybe a Hebridean aviary with chough, lapwings, corncrake and rock dove.) Some land animals, such as Hebridean sheep etc could displayed alongside that. Maybe the final thing would be a bit like a british version of Bristol's Penguin and Fur Seal Coast. An exhibit about British Seas could also carry a very strong conservation message. I would love our local attraction, The Deep, to create something like that in the next part of their development, but I would say they are too short of space now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top