Does captive breeding distract from real conservation?

It is as pernicious / stupid as the title implies.

Why do we never get titles like Does conservation distract from real captive breeding? Exactly, because that question is as irrelevant as the one above.

If people are not aware something is rare to be conserved they will not care. Simple as that. Hence, the very essence of modern day zoos.
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
It is as pernicious / stupid as the title implies.

Why do we never get titles like Does conservation distract from real captive breeding? Exactly, because that question is as irrelevant as the one above.

If people are not aware something is rare to be conserved they will not care. Simple as that. Hence, the very essence of modern day zoos.
Click to expand...

Yes, the debate that they published does seem to miss the educational point of modern zoos. Nonetheless any attention that these questions can get in the mainstream media is useful I think.
 
It's an odd "debate." No one disagreed. Looks like the Times, or at least the headline writer, wanted to suggest a controversy but had nothing to work with. I was looking for someone to make a case that habitat is being unprotected because money or expertise is going to captive breeding. (I can't imagine how someone would make such a case, let alone prove it, though.)
Waste of a read, IMO
 
Captive breeding is important for conservation. Many reintroduction programs have been very successful because of individual animals being bred in zoos where keepers can control the population to make sure that those being released are genetically stable. One example is the Scimitar-horned Orxy that was reintroduced into Tunisia thanks to Marwell wildlife.

I also agree people will care more about animals that they know are endangered if they have seen these animals up close. Without visiting the zoo as a child the TV would be the only place i would have found out that all these wonderful animals exist and need our help to continue to do so.
 
I think many zoo directors are confused about conservation and are getting their facts from the equivalent of 'The Mickey Mouse Book of Evolution'. While wildlife programmes and books have improved over the years, they still tend to emphasise the well known, large species, rather than mentioning that there are thousands of endangered species, many of which are not kept in any zoo. People like Carl Jones have shown that a species can be saved from a handful of individuals. Generally speaking, about 80 individuals are needed to save a species and about 200 to protect that species for many years. If zoos keep a total of several hundred individuals, it means that they have less space for other species. This is especially true when new enclosures are built, often costing millions of pounds and replacing several enclosures formerly occupied by other species. The zoos then aim to breed the popular species, even though they have already saved the animals from extinction.

About a year or two ago, I used ISIS to determine which species were represented by the largest number of individuals. Some of the animals are not currently at risk and are occupying enclosures that could be used to aid conservation. These include budgerigars (7922), brown rats (5430), greater flamingos (4662), common peafowl (3896), fallow deer (2935) and meerkats (2227), never mind domestic animals.

Some other animals are considered at risk of extinction, but are greatly over-represented in zoos. They include Humboldt penguins (2624), ring-tailed lemurs (2501), chimpanzees (2151), cheetahs (1980), tigers (1666), African grey parrots (1013), Arabian oryxes (869), western gorillas (753) and Asiatic elephants (540). Many of these animals are kept to attract visitors and zoos should be honest with the public about this and not pretend that the animals are being bred for 'conservation purposes', when there is no intention of reintroducing individuals to the wild, even if there were suitable habitat available.

Zoos could save many more species than they do at the moment. Unfortunately, many zoos are cutting the number of species they keep, while spending large sums of money on popular species that they no longer need to breed at the current rate.
 
For (counter) arguments sake:

Dassie rat said:
Many of these animals are kept to attract visitors and zoos should be honest with the public about this and not pretend that the animals are being bred for 'conservation purposes', when there is no intention of reintroducing individuals to the wild, even if there were suitable habitat available.
Click to expand...

To be fair, who (at the moment) is "judge and jury" on whether a particular zoo's animals are the ones (of the hypothetical 80) that are "conservation important"? Is someone going to set up a committee and make the relevant awards?:). Until then they've got a reasonable argument that their animals are for conservation purposes.

Dassie rat said:
Zoos could save many more species than they do at the moment. Unfortunately, many zoos are cutting the number of species they keep, while spending large sums of money on popular species that they no longer need to breed at the current rate.
Click to expand...

Who's to say the current balance might not be the best (and save most species)? It's possible that keeping the popular species leads to more visitors which leads to more funds for in situ projects which leads to more animals being saved. (and that's not considering the practicalities of zoos moving out of popular species which I don't intend to go into here as we have done that debate before).

I'm not saying (for certain) either of the above points are necessarily correct, but I think the perspectives have to be considered.
 
Hello Shorts

I can understand your arguments and I am not saying that zoos have to replace all their popular animals with species that most visitors don't want to see. All I am asking for is some honesty. If a species is represented by over 1,000 captive individuals, it has been saved from extinction. If none of these individuals are destined to return to the wild, there is no real point in continuing to breed them for 'conservation purposes'.

Some collections in zoos are pale reflections of the collections I saw a few decades ago. I saw many species for the first time when I visited Antwerp Zoo in 1982. My last visit was in 2005 and it was almost like a different zoo. The hippo house seemed to replace a huge chunk of the middle of the zoo and the general collection of animals seemed to have been decimated. I can understand the need to improve husbandry for animals and remove cramped, bare enclosures occupied by single animals, but it seems that many zoos are losing the magic they had.

While many visitors pay to see the ABC animals and some of this money helps conservation work in situ, I think the visitors are being misled by the hype. "We must build a multi-million pound enclosure for [gorillas/tigers/elephants/hippos/lions] in order to save them from extinction". The fact that several of these animals have healthy captive populations isn't mentioned. I have read about zoos building great exhibits for a fraction of the prices stated. Last year, I read that it cost £85 to refurbish an enclosure Pallas's cats at the Highland Wildlife Park. A recent post on ZooChat states how much it costs for people to visit zoos, some of which may be pricing themselves out of the market. If zoos spent less on new enclosures and stopped raising prices each year, they could end up with more money that could be used for in situ conservation.

Of course, animal welfare is paramount, but some zoos are wasting incredible sums of money. I attended a talk by Andy Grant in the late 1980s. He proposed spending £30 million on converting London Zoo's Mappin Terraces to a Szechwan experience and £20 million on converting the Stork and Ostrich House to a gorilla exhibit. He didn't mention where the money was going to come from and the zoo was threatened with closure soon afterwards. While 'Gorilla Kingdom' and 'Tiger Territory' are far less expensive, they are still a lot of money for species that are over-represented in zoos and which have far greater breeding success at Port Lympne and Howletts.

It's really a case of honesty and balance. If a zoo keeps tigers to attract customers, does it really matter if they are white tigers? If customers can't tell the difference between a tapir and an anteater, should we really expect them to distinguish different tiger subspecies? As Colin Tudge said, "A tiger is a tiger is a tiger."

Continuing to breed over-represented species does distract from real conservation. Zoos should be concentrating their efforts on breeding smaller endangered species that can be released into the wild, rather than building expensive enclosures for over-represented species and condemning other species to extinction.
 
Thanks, as always, Dassie (or is it Mr. Rat?:))for your well argued reply.

I can see the point you're trying to make and agree that, to avoid any potential criticism, it's important that zoos are seen as honest but I think the problem is that it ultimately boils down to a question of semantics. Even in the scenario you describe it's possible for the zoos to argue they're holding the animals for conservation on the basis that they're a "life boat" for the species in case of extinction in the wild. You may argue the amount of a species held is unnecessary and over prudent but at the end of the day that's only one perspective and I'm sure the zoos can argue their position well too -this would always give them the wiggle room to throw in the "C word".

As you know, from previous discussions, I completely concur that some places seem to spend what seems excessive amounts of money on very average enclosures whilst others seem to create above average enclosures on small budgets. The Giant Panda enclosure at Edinburgh and the conversion of the Polar Bear enclosure for Sun Bears seem good examples of what can be done on small budgets (although necessity might have been a driver of invention there).
 
Dassie rat said:
It's really a case of honesty and balance. If a zoo keeps tigers to attract customers, does it really matter if they are white tigers?
Click to expand...

Hi DassieRat - you make some excellent, well argued points on here on this subject, and the debate has good points on either side, so I'm trying to fit myself somewhere in the middle, in that zoos DO use too much of their resources for ABC species that are considered 'saved' and in turn 'throw out' the really endangered species that need captive breeding and general conservation to ensure survival.

However, you mention that the public are drawn in by the hype, which is definately true, but can zoos actually turn that around? Can zoos pysically get the public more interested in the smaller, lesser known species to the point where they will be comfortable with their zoo going out of elephants/rhinos/tigers etc?

Also, to get to your quoted point, I think this definately DOES matter, and it's one of the main points I have to disagree with. If it was purely conservation my standpoint may be different, but white tigers is a case of animal welfare and that, at the end of the day, plays the largest role in enclosure design for me.
 
I think one of the arguments the article doesn't think about is the balance that zoos have to make if they are conservation partners as well as a source of education & entertainment.

The majority of the customers that cross a zoos portals are the general public, not hard core zoo geeks, so they are happy to pay £50+ for a family day out at a good zoo where they can 'look at the funny monkeys' and 'watch the tiger babies play' etc etc - if you asked them instead to give that £50 to help save a lesser known species from extinction in a far flung land they would more than likely laugh in your face. You have to engage them in the campaign as well as give them value for money.

It's a balance always between providing the paying customer with a day of valued entertainment, making sure your education message gets across and hopefully highlighting the plight of the lesser known, critically endangered species that are hanging on by a claw along the way.

The maybe more informed and involved members of that zoo are the ones who generally put their hand in their pocket more for the sake of conservation without necessarily demanding something for their cash.

Anyone who's done any fundraising knows you will always get more cash in from the public selling raffle tickets that you will from just waving a collecting tin under their noses and zoos have to make that balance too.
 
Shorts said:
Even in the scenario you describe it's possible for the zoos to argue they're holding the animals for conservation on the basis that they're a "life boat" for the species in case of extinction in the wild. You may argue the amount of a species held is unnecessary and over prudent but at the end of the day that's only one perspective and I'm sure the zoos can argue their position well too -this would always give them the wiggle room to throw in the "C word".
Click to expand...

Hallo Shorts

Thanks for your comments. I think perhaps the wording of the original question is wrong. "Does captive breeding distract from real conservation?" perhaps should be "Can captive breeding distract from real conservation?" In the case of the field cricket project at London, captive breeding has been an example of real conservation, as many crickets have been released into the wild. In other scenarios, captive breeding can distract from real conservation e.g. lots of baby meerkats and other animals that occupy space that could be occupied by other species. I accept that it is a good idea to spread populations of captive species. I tend to worry about what would happen if the numbats died out at Perth Zoo and whether numbats could be kept in other zoos using food similar to that used for giant anteaters and tamanduas. There are several species only kept at one zoo and these species are very vulnerable, especially as the idea of taking animals from the wild is ethically questionable in most cases.

As regards numbers of individuals, I do think this is a problem. There seems to be an idea that people will come to their senses, the world population of humans will stop rising and that there will be no more habitat destruction and, somehow or other, natural habitats will replace urban environments and large animals will once again return to their natural homes. I think you have to be very, very naive or optimistic to believe this. Things are going to get worse for wildlife and zoos should be saving as many specis as possible, in zoos and in situ, rather than having hundreds of individuals of some species, no matter how charismatic they may be. Othrwise, I tend to agree with your thoughtful comments.
 
Last edited:
Javan Rhino said:
However, you mention that the public are drawn in by the hype, which is definately true, but can zoos actually turn that around? Can zoos pysically get the public more interested in the smaller, lesser known species to the point where they will be comfortable with their zoo going out of elephants/rhinos/tigers etc?

Also, to get to your quoted point, I think this definately DOES matter, and it's one of the main points I have to disagree with. If it was purely conservation my standpoint may be different, but white tigers is a case of animal welfare and that, at the end of the day, plays the largest role in enclosure design for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Javan Rhino for your thoughtful comments. As I said earlier, I think the question should be, "Can captive breeding distract from real conservation?"

I tend to think a lot could be done with the way animals are arranged and the accompanying educational material. I have seen many visitors wander from enclosure to enclosure, as though they were in an art gallery. Once they see the animal, they move on to the next enclosure. While they may see a lot of species, I wonder how much they learn about animals. One of the most interesting exhibits I've seen was the Tonkean macaques at Strasbourg Zoo. To be honest, I wasn't expecting any unusual species in a free zoo, but I'd never seen Tonkean macaques before. The enclosure itself was very ordinary, but I was interested in the interactions between the different monkeys and how they reacted to the social hierarchy. I think active animals are generally more interesting than an animal dozing in the back of an enclosure. There were times when I thought that London Zoo could have replaced a giant panda with a large black-and-white cushion and most customers would have been none the wiser.

On my first visit to Antwerp Zoo, the reptile house included a dark corridor. At the end of this was a Komodo dragon, a species that was relatively rare in zoos in 1982. The corridor gave impact to the display. As regards lesser known species, I wonder if zoos could use computer graphics, films, museum specimens etc to illustrate why the animals are interesting. For example, why not show an aye-aye next to a striped possum to show an example of convergent evolution? Alternatively, why not have a display of skinks from those with well developed legs to legless species as an example of development? I wondered why London never highlighted the fact it had the only captive Nduk eagle owls - surely a notice "These are the only examples of these owls in any zoo in the world" would interest somebody. Plzen Zoo has several captive species unique to itself, but it doesn't highlight these either. I don't know if there would be increased security issues, but it was only after I visited Plzen that I realised that the dusky pademelons were the only ones in captivity, according to ISIS. I didn't think I recognised this wallaby, but it is an attractive one and I think it's a great pity that some wallabies were kept in zoos without any plans of breeding them, but are now extinct.

I am not advocating zoos going out of all ABC species. The RSCC at Sandwich wasn't that successful, despite its interesting species. Unfortunately, many visitors show little interest in species that are not ABCs, so it's a case of balance, with zoos coordinating their stock, so that ABCs are not kept in zoos that are close together e.g. in Howletts, London, Port Lympne and Chessington, especially if some of these zoos are far better at keeping some species than are others.

I agree with you about the white tigers. I have read books that include white tigers and black panthers as endangered species. I understand about the genetic defects and the fact that there are animal welfare issues involved with white tigers. I used them as an example because they are popular with the public and the fact that ordinary coloured tigers are unlikely to be part of a reintroduction programme, apart from a project in South Africa. I don't like seeing animals in distress and I can't condone animals showing stereotypical behaviour in bare enclosures. One of my worst zoo experiences was a stump-tailed macaque at Broxbourne Zoo. While the Zoo admitted that it should have been kept off show, I still did not like seeing it picking lumps of flesh out of one of its cheeks. I tend to agree with the Aspinall policy of allowing the animals to go off show and while I have been upset by not seeing certain species, especially when the Nocturnal House was closed on my visit to Taronga, visitors do not have the right to see animals that want seclusion. This is especially true of animals that may be suffering from psychological problems. When one of the male gorillas died at London Zoo, this seemed to have a profound effect on the females and I wondered if it would have been better to allow them access to indoor enclosures, rather than having visitors banging on the glass and laughing at them, which, unfortunately, is quite a common way for visitors to behave.
 
karoocheetah said:
The majority of the customers that cross a zoos portals are the general public, not hard core zoo geeks, so they are happy to pay £50+ for a family day out at a good zoo where they can 'look at the funny monkeys' and 'watch the tiger babies play' etc etc - if you asked them instead to give that £50 to help save a lesser known species from extinction in a far flung land they would more than likely laugh in your face. You have to engage them in the campaign as well as give them value for money.

It's a balance always between providing the paying customer with a day of valued entertainment, making sure your education message gets across and hopefully highlighting the plight of the lesser known, critically endangered species that are hanging on by a claw along the way.

The maybe more informed and involved members of that zoo are the ones who generally put their hand in their pocket more for the sake of conservation without necessarily demanding something for their cash.

Anyone who's done any fundraising knows you will always get more cash in from the public selling raffle tickets that you will from just waving a collecting tin under their noses and zoos have to make that balance too.
Click to expand...

Thanks Karoo Cheetah for your enlightened comments.

When I had my interview to be a zoo volunteer, I was told that the 4 main aims of a zoo were education, entertainment, conservation and scientific research. I was expected to place these in order of importance and justify my choices. It was not an easy task, but I understand that zoos need to have a balance. There is a tendency to link zoos with children and, while books are showing an increased number of species, there is still a tendency to be more interested in large animals, rather than small ones. Despite this, I have seen children more interested in a grey squirrels running down a path than in the exotic animal in a nearby enclosure. I still remember Hubert, the 5 year-old boy who liked tapirs and knew the names of various extinct platypuses, such as Obdurodon. Another boy, Oscar, who I met last year had an animal book open at a double page spread of pacas, hutias and related species - hardly ABC animals, but an indication that obscure species needn't be overlooked.

Once again, it's a question of balance by zoos having a few animals that people expect to see and several obscure animals that make an impact. I visited Plzen last year. This zoo has the largest number of mammal species not found in any other zoo. Despite this, I doubt if many visitors would be interested in several species of spiny mice that look practically identical. Perhaps one species with audio-visual information about how the spines protect the mouse and how they mouse can dislocate part of its tail would be of more interest. Similarly, taking more care in choosing animals and providing films, museum specimens etc could interest more visitors. A personal gripe is the enclosure of various species of fish etc that look practically identical, so that only a specialist would distinguish them. What is the point for the average visitor? I would have thought it would be better to show diversity in an exhibit e.g. a tank containing various fish that looked totally different from each other and then noting how they fed, behaved etc.

A few years ago, I visited Shepreth and I was impressed by the fact that there was a lot of information about animal conservation charities, including animals not kept at Shepreth. While it may be easier to encourage people to save a species that is kept in a zoo, zoos can use displays to highlight conservation issues e.g. the displays of Philippine animals at Berlin Zoo in 2007. Many people want to save whales, despite relatively few captive specimens.

I agree with you about the raffles. It seems that many charities are paying people to phone up supporters for more money, while other charities get more money from chuggers than they would get by rattling a collecting tin. Even though there is little chance of winning the raffle, the fact that you have some chance of making back the money you gave to a charity is more likely to make you contribute more than if there is no chance at all e.g. by putting money in a tin.
 
When did "captive breeding" become the sole right of zoo's?

There are many capive breeding program's in private hands holding much larger populations & greater diversity than zoo's.

The only problem I see with zoo's & captive breeding programs in the future, is the zoo's pandering to public opinion & politics, & not on the actual objective of conservation & restoration.Do we want actual conservation,or just a warm fuzzy feeling?

Zoo's need to realise the value of partnerships with other stakeholders,set their own performance goals, measure outcomes,& adapt as required.Maybe take a look at what the folks with large blocks of land are achieving with ex situ conservation/restoration,& work together.

Cheers Khakibob
 
Thanks Khakibob

This makes a lot of sense. About 15-18 years ago, I saw details of 2 6-bedroom houses in East London. One was £35,000 and the other was £40,000. I thought that they could have been converted to conservation centres for small animals. About 11 years ago, I went to an off-show room in Berlin Tierpark. It contained mouse-like dormice, short-tailed opossums and various other small mammals. A 6-bedroom house could have been used to keep many more species and would have been a fraction of the cost of many new zoo enclosures. I think this may help balance the demands between ABCs and the species that Zoochatters prefer to see. A species can be conserved without being on show.

Liaising with other organisations could aid conservation, especially if it gave the space needed for large groups that couldn't be housed within a zoo and it could also allow for more natural behaviour, that would be required for reintroduction. It could also safeguard fields from development, although care would need to be taken about how the animals would affect the local wildlife, but this is the case when zoos and safari parks open, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top