San Antonio Zoo San Antonio Zoo News 2014

golden-bellied mangabeys exported to Europe: Four monkeys from San Antonio Zoo shipped to Europe - San Antonio Express-News
Four Mangabey monkeys from the San Antonio Zoo safely arrived in Europe on Wednesday after a 6,000 mile trip.

The highly-threatened, golden-bellied primates are involved in a breeding program at the local zoo and were shipped via DHL on Tuesday to zoos in Hungary, France and the Netherlands to hopefully expand the population worldwide.

The monkeys were shipped in medium-sized wooden crates, a “first class travel experience for the endangered primates,” according to DHL.

There are only 44 Mangabey monkey's in captivity worldwide, according to a press release. Five of which still are at the San Antonio Zoo, said Debbie Vanskyke, a spokeswoman.

A veterinarian from the San Antonio zoo traveled with the two male and two female monkeys to monitor their health and safety, she said.

“Every thing went well, and the monkeys have made it safely to their destination,” Vanskyke said.

The shipping company DHL has transported two giant pandas, nine silverback gorillas, two Sumatran tigers, jaguars, penguins and a panther during the last two years, the release said.

“DHL is committed to supporting projects that serve important social or environmental goals, and this one is a wonderful way to make a real impact on species conservation,” said Mike Parra, CEO of DHL Express U.S. “We are proud to donate our global network and provide our international logistics expertise to ensure these rare primates are delivered safely to their final destination.”
Click to expand...
 
A huge group of egrets and herons have decided to make the zoo home for nesting season. Its created an enormous problem for the zoo. They have been forced to close Tiny Tot Nature Spot and the Riverbank Beach due to the health hazard. They are trying to remove the birds but it could be hard. And the clean up will be even more costly.

San Antonio Zoo dealing with unwelcome guests | News - Home
 
This is very sad, and I am disappointed with this decision. The wild herons and egrets have always been one of the best reasons to visit in the heat of the summer. San Antonio Zoo claims to have an educational mission, but the message they are teaching now is that a little lost revenue from closing the area is more important than the welfare of animals.
 
From that last article:

However she added it seems hypocritical of the zoo to remove the birds in the first place.

"They say that they care for animals, but removing baby nestlings from a nest is not really caring for animals," Nelson said. "We're here to rescue animals, they did not need to be rescued. They were there safe in their nest, with their parents and they weren't causing any harm so they didn't need to be rescued."
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I've been a big defender of the San Antonio Zoo because despite their past failings, they've been working hard to improve. This was a MAJOR step back, and it is indefensible.
 
Just to be partially fair to the zoo... and I agree its and interesting decision for a zoo to make... but they cant take total blame for this. Those who issued the permits knowing exactly what the zoo planned to do needs to accept some of the blame too. If they had said no the zoo wouldnt have been able to do anything because they are protected. Not saying the zoo is blameless but they dont deserve all the anger. It should be spread around.
 
TZFan said:
Not saying the zoo is blameless but they dont deserve all the anger. It should be spread around.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I don't agree. If the birds were nesting over a typical business such as a store or restaurant, I would have no problem with the agency issuing such a permit. Yes, they are protected (as are all native birds in North America), but they are very common. We must balance conservation needs with commercial needs.

But for the zoo, there is no excuse. Their actions are in direct contrast to their publicly stated mission.

Of course, all of this is just my opinion.
 
They could try to turn the bird thing into a publicity and education thing. I recall seeing a sign in the zoo about how they allow migrating birds to nest in their trees, and the Gladys Porter Zoo website advertises that they do the same thing.
 
TheOnlineZoo said:
I understand your point, but I don't agree. If the birds were nesting over a typical business such as a store or restaurant, I would have no problem with the agency issuing such a permit. Yes, they are protected (as are all native birds in North America), but they are very common. We must balance conservation needs with commercial needs.

But for the zoo, there is no excuse. Their actions are in direct contrast to their publicly stated mission.

Of course, all of this is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Zoos say they exist to teach people to respect and love and protect wildlife, and they need to prove that with their actions as well. The egrets were not causing any problems to their animals, just interfering with a non-animal attraction. I don't really mind zoos having playgrounds and the like, but the animals should come first. That's like, the whole point of a zoo.
 
TheMightyOrca said:
Agreed. Zoos say they exist to teach people to respect and love and protect wildlife, and they need to prove that with their actions as well. The egrets were not causing any problems to their animals, just interfering with a non-animal attraction. I don't really mind zoos having playgrounds and the like, but the animals should come first. That's like, the whole point of a zoo.
Click to expand...

I would not say it is as clear cut as that!

There are instances where action like this is warranted (we have in our hometown zoo similar circumstances), e.g. where animal welfare is concerned. I can also imagine that for a visitor attraction (the childrens' playground / concessionary facility within the zoo pooping waterfowl and wading birds is very inconvenient to say the least.

Notwithstanding official conservation legislation / measures, there may thus be reasons for a removal of some nests within the colonies to areas close-by within the zoo where this obviously may disrupt using the playground or concessionary facilities.

Having said that, what I find most disconcerting within the US is the frequent consideration of these measures in situ where endangered species are concerned. The immediate examples of Mexican wolf and other wolf subspecies for that matter within the N.American realm and red wolf, various pronghorn and prarie dog species. The list is unfortunately quite considerable.

Alas I have to admit the situation there is not too unsimilar to what is happening in continental Europe. This is most true for areas where wildlands no longer are the norm and cultivation / cattle areas has more or less taken over.

We obviously need to look at our non urban setting and getting cultivation and other economic activities within non-urban areas within line of good conservation practice ....

Hence, I agree with practice what ye preach! A sustainable future means effective conservation of habitat, wildlands, protected areas, wildlife and plantlife!
 
There are instances where action like this is warranted (we have in our hometown zoo similar circumstances), e.g. where animal welfare is concerned. I can also imagine that for a visitor attraction (the childrens' playground / concessionary facility within the zoo pooping waterfowl and wading birds is very inconvenient to say the least.
Click to expand...

And its a giant public health hazard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top