'Pinning' of Crane & Rothschilds Mynah eggs by UK Zoos

[duffey]

I have been informed by a friend who works for a UK Zoo that all UK Zoos who are members of BEAZA &/or Studbooks have been instructed to 'pin' (pierce) eggs of Crane species and Rothschilds Mynahs once a specific allocation of eggs is reached.

Could BEAZA - or any other Zoo - please clarify the situation with an explanation?

It is apparently not the first time these instructions have been issued - it appears to have been ongoing for a number of years.

The reasoning (if it can be called such) is that the Zoos wish to restrict the number of birds bred to those required by the Zoos and restrict the number of birds going into the private sector. I personally know of private keepers of Cranes in Europe who, individually, breed more Cranes than the entire UK Zoo system.

How many other species are subject to 'breeding restrictions'?

Perhaps one of the members of the Form can contribute more information?

 

[IanRRobinson]

Sad if it's true. I'd also argue that Rothschild's Mynah/Bali Starling is a classic case of an animal whose problems in the wild would go if there were enough birds in legitimate trade to make bird smuggling rings in Indonesia uneconomic.

 

[Chlidonias]

restricting the numbers of animals bred to individual animals makes perfect sense. Why churn out genetically inferior or unnecessary stock just for the sake of breeding them? I really doubt the reason is so that private keepers can't have them (!): much more likely is that controlling the genetic stock of the birds is much more important than private holders being able to breed loads of unnecessary animals (i.e. over-represented genetically, or inbred through lack of unrelated stock) -- which would in fact be creating a problem rather than being part of a conservation solution. [Note, I'm not talking about proper private breeding programmes, I'm talking about over-represented animals going from zoos into the private sector and then being bred from simply to create more unnecessary animals]

How many other species are subject to 'breeding restrictions'?

all animals in zoos are or should be subject to breeding restrictions. That's the whole point of breeding programmes!

 

[Chlidonias]

I'd also argue that Rothschild's Mynah/Bali Starling is a classic case of an animal whose problems in the wild would go if there were enough birds in legitimate trade to make bird smuggling rings in Indonesia uneconomic.

in the case of the Bali mynah that isn't the case I'm afraid. You could swamp the market with captive-bred birds and the wild birds would still get poached. Its an easy way for poor people to make even a little bit of money, and unfortunately a wild-caught bird is deemed more valuable to some people locally than a captive-bred one.

 

[Stefka]

restricting the numbers of animals bred to individual animals makes perfect sense. Why churn out genetically inferior or unnecessary stock just for the sake of breeding them? I really doubt the reason is so that private keepers can't have them (!): much more likely is that controlling the genetic stock of the birds is much more important than private holders being able to breed loads of unnecessary animals (i.e. over-represented genetically, or inbred through lack of unrelated stock) -- which would in fact be creating a problem rather than being part of a conservation solution. [Note, I'm not talking about proper private breeding programmes, I'm talking about over-represented animals going from zoos into the private sector and then being bred from simply to create more unnecessary animals]


all animals in zoos are or should be subject to breeding restrictions. That's the whole point of breeding programmes!

Totally agree with everything you wrote, could not have said it better!

 

[zoogiraffe]

@ duffey what are you on about BEAZA for I have never heard of this I have on the other hand heard of BIAZA!!!!!

 

[khakibob]

It makes sense if its to cull out defects,but to reduce the numbers avaliable to private collections is hardly consistent with conservation.
Isn't "life boat theory" about dispersing populations to prevent loss beacuse of a single event in one or a few captive programs?
Private collections have always been a source for zoos.Is this to be a one way door now?
How sustainable will that be especially if "ethics" prevent the acquiring of new genetics from the wild?

Cheers Khakibob

 

[MRJ]

It makes sense if its to cull out defects,but to reduce the numbers avaliable to private collections is hardly consistent with conservation.
Isn't "life boat theory" about dispersing populations to prevent loss beacuse of a single event in one or a few captive programs?
Private collections have always been a source for zoos.Is this to be a one way door now?
How sustainable will that be especially if "ethics" prevent the acquiring of new genetics from the wild?

Cheers Khakibob

Complex issues.

Firstly each zoo will have it's own policy regarding dealing with private individuals. This may or may not be influenced by their regional association or by local laws. But it must be said that most western zoos are unlikely to want to look as though they are in the business of breeding animals for the pet market.

Secondly the program manager will not be trying to control breeding to reduce the flow of birds to the private market.

In each program there are a limited number of spaces available and within that number of spaces the program manager has to try to maximise the genetic variation. To do that program participants have to agree to follow the directions of the program manager as to which birds are bred and agree to transfer birds from one institution to another without recompense amd as directed.

If zoos breed birds they have been asked not to then those birds have to be moved on outside the program. Such birds could be placed in the private market but see my first point.

Private individuals could be involved in programs but too frequently the following scenarios arise:

- I like that bird I'm not transferring it.
- That bird is worth $1000 I'm not giving it to a zoo free of charge.
- I'll breed what I want not what I'm told to.
- I sold those birds as I'm no longer interested in birds, too bad they were part of the program.

Having said that I know that 20 years ago there were a number of private people in the European Bali Starling program and that was working quite successfully, I hope that is still the case.
-

 

[chuck]

actual it is true that they restrict birds from raiseing young and the offspring from the general public. They don't relize that each bird that is represented or hatch supplies genetic diversity. So restricting Bali Mynahs in the private sector has caused them to disappear in the private sector, besides the Endangered Species Permits for the USA. I remember when you used to buy from the zoos you could buy them from the private sector for 175.00 because they breed easy now people are asking for help from the zoos to broaden there blood lines and the zoos say no. So to me that is selfishness on the part of the zoos.

 

[chuck]

Complex issues.

Firstly each zoo will have it's own policy regarding dealing with private individuals. This may or may not be influenced by their regional association or by local laws. But it must be said that most western zoos are unlikely to want to look as though they are in the business of breeding animals for the pet market.

Secondly the program manager will not be trying to control breeding to reduce the flow of birds to the private market.

In each program there are a limited number of spaces available and within that number of spaces the program manager has to try to maximise the genetic variation. To do that program participants have to agree to follow the directions of the program manager as to which birds are bred and agree to transfer birds from one institution to another without recompense amd as directed.

If zoos breed birds they have been asked not to then those birds have to be moved on outside the program. Such birds could be placed in the private market but see my first point.

Private individuals could be involved in programs but too frequently the following scenarios arise:

- I like that bird I'm not transferring it.
- That bird is worth $1000 I'm not giving it to a zoo free of charge.
- I'll breed what I want not what I'm told to.
- I sold those birds as I'm no longer interested in birds, too bad they were part of the program.

Having said that I know that 20 years ago there were a number of private people in the European Bali Starling program and that was working quite successfully, I hope that is still the case.
-

Also I would like to mention that when the zoos started this program for the Bali Mynah they refused to allow birds outside the program to become involved in it in the USA calling these birds trash instead of allowing them in and doing genetic testing. Personal the private sectors has breed more species than the zoos and even the zoos have gotten there stock from the private sector which kinds of makes them not in the best interest of the species. Exsample the Laysan Teal population is quoted as coming from a single pregnant female that was left on the island after it destruction. All Laysan Teals are all related to there core, if a bird can survive hatching and being reared it is not inferior genetics.

 

[chuck]

I have been informed by a friend who works for a UK Zoo that all UK Zoos who are members of BEAZA &/or Studbooks have been instructed to 'pin' (pierce) eggs of Crane species and Rothschilds Mynahs once a specific allocation of eggs is reached.

Could BEAZA - or any other Zoo - please clarify the situation with an explanation?

It is apparently not the first time these instructions have been issued - it appears to have been ongoing for a number of years.

The reasoning (if it can be called such) is that the Zoos wish to restrict the number of birds bred to those required by the Zoos and restrict the number of birds going into the private sector. I personally know of private keepers of Cranes in Europe who, individually, breed more Cranes than the entire UK Zoo system.

How many other species are subject to 'breeding restrictions'?

Perhaps one of the members of the Form can contribute more information?

I would also like to mentioned that the Oregon zoo had stopped the production of there pair of Hadada Ibis from reproducing a few times before by limiting nesting materials and destroying the nest, than in 2009 they allowed them to final produce talk about being mean to this pair of birds since they had being trying to nest for a few years do you think that if there was excess offspring that they couldn't find people to work with them in the private sector. I think the stance that some of the zoos and organizations are actual working against different species than helping them.

 

[chuck]

Totally agree with everything you wrote, could not have said it better!

I guess if that is the case than all Spix's Macaws are genetic inferior and should not be allowed to reproduce since the private sector did not have many pairs to begin with and the guy that produced the most offspring from the Philippines I heard started with one pair and had raised them to 3rd generation before selling them to the guy in the middle east which is also doing a great job with them.

 

[khakibob]

Complex issues.


Private individuals could be involved in programs but too frequently the following scenarios arise:

- I like that bird I'm not transferring it.
- That bird is worth $1000 I'm not giving it to a zoo free of charge.
- I'll breed what I want not what I'm told to.
- I sold those birds as I'm no longer interested in birds, too bad they were part of the program.

Having said that I know that 20 years ago there were a number of private people in the European Bali Starling program and that was working quite successfully, I hope that is still the case.
-

Some examples in Aus were private collections just of hoofstock have added to the diversity in zoo's in recent times would be Bison,Persian fallow,orix,addax,elk.
The only self sustaining captive herds of the above including nilgai, moluccan rusa, sambar ,etc in this country are privately owned.
Private owners have always supported the concept of zoos & no doubt will continue to do so.The one way door which now exists could not be beneficial to sustaining this relationship & generosity.

Policy on bio diversity/breeding/dispersal seems to be driven by the Greens adgendas rather than maintaining diversity & preventing localised extinctions.
Self sustaining populations in private ownership are important.
Zoo's have always & will continue to be a consumer of animals from private collections,this does not have to bee seen as a negative.
It should be seen as a positive & these relationships nourished.

Cheers Khakibob