A discussion on the AZA and sustainability
- Thread starter ThylacineAlive
- Start date
This first paragraph summarizes the modern AZA up perfectly. We know that almost all zoos have changed from having a collector's mentality and there's been less species in North American zoos as time has gone by, but those that are left have generally been found in larger, more sustainable numbers. But to see the absolute decimation of so many species is difficult to comprehend, including a lot of 'megafauna'. Asiatic Black Bears, Sun Bears, seemingly every type of macaque except for Japanese Macaques, dozens of other primates and a tremendous number of hoofstock have all disappeared. Poof...gone. In some cases, entire herds of ungulates have been on-show at a zoo and then a few years later they have simply disappeared. It's astounding and depressing at the same time.
For example, I saw a huge herd of Gaur at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in 2008 and when I went back in 2012 they were behind the scenes and have never been on-show since. I saw 20+ Giant Eland at San Diego Zoo Safari Park in 2017 and when I returned in 2023 they were completely gone. A list was compiled by @Nile Hippo Expert and the data illustrates that Asian Elephants have recently been phased out at Greater Vancouver Zoo (2003), San Francisco Zoo (2004), San Diego Zoo Safari Park (2009), Six Flags (2015), Woodland Park Zoo (2015), Fresno Chaffee Zoo (2017) Winston Wildlife Safari (2018), Santa Barbara Zoo (2019), San Diego Zoo (2023), Point Defiance Zoo (2024), and soon Los Angeles Zoo (2025). In addition, Los Angeles, Vancouver, San Francisco, Six Flags, Woodland Park (these first five have phased out BOTH Africans and Asians), Monterey, and Oakland have all eliminated African Elephants in that same time frame (Point Defiance also had them until 1997 and both San Diego parks and Fresno still keep Africans.) There used to be an insane number of Pacific Coast zoos with both species of elephant and now there are so few with even one species. There's literally 40 million people living in California and there's nowhere to see Asian Elephants. There's another 40 million people living in Canada and Asian Elephants are almost gone from my home country as well.
It was especially eye-opening for me when I spent the entire year of 2024 updating my Snowleopard's Mammals: A Lifetime List of Species thread. After a while, the huge amount of work I put into the writing became a sort of elegy for lost species. Time after time, I'd collect the data of when I'd seen a certain type of mangabey or antelope, only for the numbers to dwindle year after year as less zoos held the species. The writing has been on the wall for a long time now and no one in the AZA seems to give a damn. Phased out (or on their way) Woolly Monkeys, Golden-bellied Mangabeys, Giant Eland, Cuvier's Gazelles and a hundred other species? Oh well, too bad.
Snowleopard's Mammals: A Lifetime List of Species
In stark contrast, @lintworm had a somewhat similar thread that analyzed Trends in European zoo collections in the 21st century and he summarized his vast number of findings on page 44 with this statement.
"For most Zoochatters, it was an unexpected fact that between 2000 and 2023 the number of mammal species kept in Europe has been stable. My preliminary analyses indicate that even between 1990 and 2023 there hasn’t been a sizable net change. Zoochatters tend to be pessimistic about the future of rarities in zoos, but the present and (recent) past should give some cause for optimism, right?"
Trends in European zoo collections in the 21st century
My thread showed how fewer and fewer species were being maintained in AZA collections, while his thread had a ton of data that illustrated how European zoos had stable mammal populations. Many were in fact thriving and there hasn't been a list of mass phase-outs as there has been in North America. It's immensely frustrating to see the U.S. zoos become more homogenized, while in Europe there's still so much rich diversity and that has been maintained right up to the present day.
It was certainly a shock for me when I stopped my almost annual U.S. zoo road trips, which I did between 2006 and 2018, and went off to see 120 zoos in Europe and 60 zoos in Asia in recent years. European zoos, in particular, offer up world-class exhibits, primate walk-throughs galore, rich historical buildings and the species diversity is far superior in comparison to the American zoos. If European zoos have traditionally represented the history of zoos, they also now represent the exciting future as well.
Last edited:
Some things to remember in all this doom and gloom:
-While there are less than there used to be, there are still some zoos and curators within the AZA who are actively working against the current way the AZA is operating and still maintaining many rare species - especially where non-mammals are concerned.
-While much diversity has been lost in the AZA, there's still lots of diversity to be found in many non-AZA zoos. If you want to see some different species, I suggest you check many of them out. Many species you perceive to be rare in the US from an AZA standpoint are actually quite common outside of it still.
-While there are less than there used to be, there are still some zoos and curators within the AZA who are actively working against the current way the AZA is operating and still maintaining many rare species - especially where non-mammals are concerned.
-While much diversity has been lost in the AZA, there's still lots of diversity to be found in many non-AZA zoos. If you want to see some different species, I suggest you check many of them out. Many species you perceive to be rare in the US from an AZA standpoint are actually quite common outside of it still.
Any way to make a list of these? Maybe a different thread, but it could prove valuable to members, I know that I would be interested.
That is certainly the case. Places like Iguanaland, Sylvan Heights, and Wildlife World AZ are stocked with species that are absent or rare in the AZA.
The Bronx Zoo seems to be an exception to the rule in AZA right now. The zoo's director, Jim Breheny, is a real zoo guy who got his start as a volunteer/keeper at the Bronx Zoo itself and worked his way up. He has filled the zoo with the type of curators BnB describes above and has been very public in his disappointment with the AZA's management style in recent years.
The zoo has still lost species over the years, of course, especially as certain populations have died off. Unfortunately, one zoo by itself can't maintain everything, but they're certainly trying when it comes to certain Asian deer, Gaur, chevrotain, most of their rodents, Maleo, and many others.
I'm optimistic for the zoo's future, and to see what they add when World of Darkness opens later this year. That said, Jim won't be director forever and these curators won't be in place forever. I have to say I am nervous for what comes after, but hopefully the WCS has set such a system in place where genuine zoo and animal-nerds continue to drive the collection planning.
~Thylo
While the trend of zoo leadership gradually leaning towards less animal oriented people is unfortunate for collection planning, I can’t say I blame a governing board for choosing that direction. Major zoos especially need people that can handle finances, manage a large team, and schmooze with big donors. To paraphrase something a director who’s a genuine zoo nerd once told me, there are some zoo CEOs that couldn't tell the difference between a kudu and a bongo, but they’re good with money and are skilled at leading a large operation. It’s understandable why someone like that is appealing regardless of their animal knowledge, although ideally leaders could have a background in both business and animal husbandry.
What does surprise me however is to hear that so many curators are not just complicit, but pleased about the phase-out of rare species. At least from my perspective, working to build a sustainable population of an obscure species is something to be proud of. If we aren't challenging ourselves to learn more about breeding/working with a certain species in favor of maintaining the status quo, then what’s the point? I’ve seen zoo visitors be absolutely enamored by species they’ve never heard of before from weird small mammals to vibrant insects. That sums up my general philosophy of what modern zoos should be embracing; bring people in with lions, tigers and bears, keep them coming with aye-ayes, kagus and giant salamanders. Exposing people to species they’ve never heard of can go such a long way in provoking further curiosity about the natural world. If the AZA truly cares about biodiversity in the wild, they should feel obligated to care about biodiversity within their zoos.
Of course, we can’t have it all and cuts have to be made when appropriate. Obviously you can’t blame the AZA for phasing out sun bears or Asian black bears when both of their populations are entirely post-reproductive; not to mention that there are two other tropical bears that actually have a future in the U.S. and need support. On the other hand, giving up on the fishing cat SSP because there are “only” a dozen accredited holders? Incredibly unfortunate. That’s just one example of a program that could be revitalized through collaboration with the private sector and/or imports.
With all of that said, it wouldn't be fair to ignore the zoos which have been making an effort to maintain a diverse collection:
Bronx has already been spoken about both on this thread and countless times in the past for being the one major American zoo that has really stood firm against AZA recommended phase-outs and trends. Opening a nocturnal house in the big 2025 speaks volumes in this regard, especially with nocturnal prosimians being advertised as the headliners. Breheny and all of the curatorial staff have been great, but as noted above, they won’t be in charge forever and there are some question marks about what the zoo’s future will hold. Who knows how long the Wild Asia monorail has left and what will happen to all of those Asian ungulates if/when it ceases operation. For now however, the Bronx has been the single best American zoo when it comes to biodiversity by a decent margin.
While the San Diego parks have suffered some losses lately, they still maintain a level of diversity few zoos can rival, especially when it comes to the number of primates they've held onto. In the case of the zoo, there are just so many enclosures that need to be occupied to where they kinda have to go beyond what’s expected of other facilities. Even so, they’ve recently demonstrated a commitment to certain species that aren't doing especially well right now. They very easily could have been done with fishing cats and maned wolves after their last animals died out, but instead went through the effort of requiring them. The loss of numerous ungulate species at the Safari Park has been a big point of conversation in recent years and justifiably so. At the same time however, they did just acquire nilgiri tahr from a private ranch last year and have reinvigorated their efforts with several species that were previously being phased out (greater kudu, pere david’s deer) while bringing in new breeding males for most of their existing hoofstock herds.
There's also Nashville which has insisted on importing as many rare small carnivores as humanly possible in recent years: fanaloka (already twice bred), yellow-throated marten, ring-tailed vontsira, Javan ferret-badger, etc. They’ve most notably become a prolific breeder of banded palm civets which have started to be dispersed to other facilities. It’s just a crying shame they don’t choose to exhibit at least some of these oddities to give the zoo’s on-show collection something distinct – although we shall see if those douc langur rumors amount to anything… Future plans call for a massive investment in African hoofstock programs as well, which will go a long way for certain species.
Brookfield has also been good at maintaining biodiversity in recent years and making a real thing out of smaller, less flashy species. Most recently the zoo has made a significant investment in greater prairie-chickens, of which they are now the only holder of the subspecies the AZA and the only exhibitor of prairie-chickens in the country. They've also persisted with their pangolin breeding efforts to the point where they are looking to spread out the population to other facilities, as well as picking up a number of undervalued species over the last two years: black-and-rufous sengi, brush-tailed bettong, crested capuchin, yellow-billed stork, Raggiana bird-of-paradise, lots of waterfowl, tanagers, trushes, etc. Do I actually think they’re going to get forest buffalo as the new master plan suggests? No, but I still think it’s promising that it’s even being considered and it leaves to door open for cape buffalo to be added instead, another species in dire need of new holders.
There are other positive signs, such as the recently renewed interest in bush dogs, that keep me optimistic that there are enough directors and curators that still prioritize biodiversity and want to highlight species beyond ones that are already well off.
What does surprise me however is to hear that so many curators are not just complicit, but pleased about the phase-out of rare species. At least from my perspective, working to build a sustainable population of an obscure species is something to be proud of. If we aren't challenging ourselves to learn more about breeding/working with a certain species in favor of maintaining the status quo, then what’s the point? I’ve seen zoo visitors be absolutely enamored by species they’ve never heard of before from weird small mammals to vibrant insects. That sums up my general philosophy of what modern zoos should be embracing; bring people in with lions, tigers and bears, keep them coming with aye-ayes, kagus and giant salamanders. Exposing people to species they’ve never heard of can go such a long way in provoking further curiosity about the natural world. If the AZA truly cares about biodiversity in the wild, they should feel obligated to care about biodiversity within their zoos.
Of course, we can’t have it all and cuts have to be made when appropriate. Obviously you can’t blame the AZA for phasing out sun bears or Asian black bears when both of their populations are entirely post-reproductive; not to mention that there are two other tropical bears that actually have a future in the U.S. and need support. On the other hand, giving up on the fishing cat SSP because there are “only” a dozen accredited holders? Incredibly unfortunate. That’s just one example of a program that could be revitalized through collaboration with the private sector and/or imports.
With all of that said, it wouldn't be fair to ignore the zoos which have been making an effort to maintain a diverse collection:
Bronx has already been spoken about both on this thread and countless times in the past for being the one major American zoo that has really stood firm against AZA recommended phase-outs and trends. Opening a nocturnal house in the big 2025 speaks volumes in this regard, especially with nocturnal prosimians being advertised as the headliners. Breheny and all of the curatorial staff have been great, but as noted above, they won’t be in charge forever and there are some question marks about what the zoo’s future will hold. Who knows how long the Wild Asia monorail has left and what will happen to all of those Asian ungulates if/when it ceases operation. For now however, the Bronx has been the single best American zoo when it comes to biodiversity by a decent margin.
While the San Diego parks have suffered some losses lately, they still maintain a level of diversity few zoos can rival, especially when it comes to the number of primates they've held onto. In the case of the zoo, there are just so many enclosures that need to be occupied to where they kinda have to go beyond what’s expected of other facilities. Even so, they’ve recently demonstrated a commitment to certain species that aren't doing especially well right now. They very easily could have been done with fishing cats and maned wolves after their last animals died out, but instead went through the effort of requiring them. The loss of numerous ungulate species at the Safari Park has been a big point of conversation in recent years and justifiably so. At the same time however, they did just acquire nilgiri tahr from a private ranch last year and have reinvigorated their efforts with several species that were previously being phased out (greater kudu, pere david’s deer) while bringing in new breeding males for most of their existing hoofstock herds.
There's also Nashville which has insisted on importing as many rare small carnivores as humanly possible in recent years: fanaloka (already twice bred), yellow-throated marten, ring-tailed vontsira, Javan ferret-badger, etc. They’ve most notably become a prolific breeder of banded palm civets which have started to be dispersed to other facilities. It’s just a crying shame they don’t choose to exhibit at least some of these oddities to give the zoo’s on-show collection something distinct – although we shall see if those douc langur rumors amount to anything… Future plans call for a massive investment in African hoofstock programs as well, which will go a long way for certain species.
Brookfield has also been good at maintaining biodiversity in recent years and making a real thing out of smaller, less flashy species. Most recently the zoo has made a significant investment in greater prairie-chickens, of which they are now the only holder of the subspecies the AZA and the only exhibitor of prairie-chickens in the country. They've also persisted with their pangolin breeding efforts to the point where they are looking to spread out the population to other facilities, as well as picking up a number of undervalued species over the last two years: black-and-rufous sengi, brush-tailed bettong, crested capuchin, yellow-billed stork, Raggiana bird-of-paradise, lots of waterfowl, tanagers, trushes, etc. Do I actually think they’re going to get forest buffalo as the new master plan suggests? No, but I still think it’s promising that it’s even being considered and it leaves to door open for cape buffalo to be added instead, another species in dire need of new holders.
There are other positive signs, such as the recently renewed interest in bush dogs, that keep me optimistic that there are enough directors and curators that still prioritize biodiversity and want to highlight species beyond ones that are already well off.
Hey, as long as someone says “exotic pet ownership bad, circus bad” (even if they started keeping animals as an exotic pet owner) they should be allowed to keep as many animals if the type they want, however they want. Why, you might ask? Because they are in the “right side of history for fighting against those evil pet owners and stuff!! /s
Good point. But at least the losses could have been made up with the arrival of new species.
I hate to rain on your parade but the first two are specialist collections, which I assume most generic collections are not interested in. The latter is known for giving animals to Franklin Drive Thru Safari, which wouldn’t really paint a good picture for unaccredited zoos.
The post that I was quoting was talking about zoos that are not AZA but have animals that would be rare in the AZA. I will quote it again:
While Iguanaland and Sylvan Heights are probably the poster children for non-AZA specialist collections, they are also undoubtedly some of the best collections of their kinds in North America. Of course AZA collections that focus on more generic lineups are not interested in these specialists. That's kind of the point, these are the facilities that AZA should be collaborating with, not shunning away from.
As for Wildlife World, the same applies, I was quoting about a non-AZA zoo that hold animals that are rare in AZA zoos; it's not meant to be a commentary on the quality of places that Wildlife World (or other non-AZA places) may sell animals to. Actually, that is one of the reasons even great non-AZA places like Iguanaland are not going to be AZA accredited - they do private sales.
Last edited:
Are there any other Zoos like the Bronx Zoo in terms of Biodiversity of the ones mentioned above?
See, I get the desire to maintain rarities but I heard some really suspicious things about how WW ZnA is managed.
Out of curiosity, is this blog post publicly accessible? Would be an interesting read if so.
I think this highlights an important reality to recognize, which is that there are people (including some forum members here) who don't feel comfortable with the practices, care and/or ethos of some unaccredited zoos and therefore don't want to visit them, even if they have rare species that can't be seen at AZA zoos (which do generally hold themselves to a high standard of animal care, whatever their commitment to species diversity may be). Hence part of why it is frustrating for some people that AZA zoos are the ones homogenizing, since those are the facilities they'd prefer to visit.
Of course this is going to vary on a case-by-case basis; for example I had no qualms about visiting Sylvan Heights, as I've heard nor read anything about their animal care or practices being questionable. Ideally this is the same kind of decision-making that AZA professionals should be making for unaccredited zoos and private keepers too - evaluating facilities X and Y, deciding that X maintains acceptable standards and Y does not, and proceeding to collaborate with X and not Y - but it seems like all non-accredited facilities and individuals are increasingly getting lumped together... to the detriment of several captive populations and the diversity of AZA zoos' collections.
flatstingray
Member
I 100% agree on the views expressed in this threat. However, population sustainability (longterm genetics) may require a ballpark number of 500 individuals of minimum viable population size per specie in AZA facilities. Subspecies with currently few individuals would likely require to source more to create a larger genetically sustainable founding stock and then start a breeding program that reaches that 500 individuals goal. Given the ethical and import restrictions, sourcing such animals from the wild will be challenging and a PR nightmare with anti-zoo activists. I would love to such work to be carried out, but idk if most zoos aside of the mentioned ones (Nashville, Bronx, etc..) would dare to go such lengths.
Hoofstock, big cats and mammals have a rough path ahead, but at least reptiles, amphibians, and birds biodiversity in captivity will likely still thrive. While not the best, I believe a bright pathway for the future will be that private individuals morph into NGO/private institutions (even with all the legal hurdles and costs) and become part of the AZA "Accredited Related Facilities", like Pinola Conservancy, Turtle Survival Center, etc... Insititutions that actively search to have such biodiversity represented/protected in their collection and also work with Zoos, Universities, Private Individuals, Fieldwork, Research... just sadly arent all available for the general public to visit.
Hoofstock, big cats and mammals have a rough path ahead, but at least reptiles, amphibians, and birds biodiversity in captivity will likely still thrive. While not the best, I believe a bright pathway for the future will be that private individuals morph into NGO/private institutions (even with all the legal hurdles and costs) and become part of the AZA "Accredited Related Facilities", like Pinola Conservancy, Turtle Survival Center, etc... Insititutions that actively search to have such biodiversity represented/protected in their collection and also work with Zoos, Universities, Private Individuals, Fieldwork, Research... just sadly arent all available for the general public to visit.
One slight correction: Fossil Rim does display their Attwater's Prairie-Chickens. You are correct in that, to my knowledge, Brookfield is the only zoo displaying the pinnatus subspecies.
The Fishing Cat phase-out decision I find particularly frustrating because there are plenty of animals available to bring in from European zoos. There is no reason an internationally collaborated program cannot be managed. Bronx and San Diego's Geladas are managed as part of EAZA's EEP for the species, for instance.
San Diego is an interesting case. They forced out Steve Metzler, hired non-zoo/animal people to run the organization, and started phasing out hoofstock like crazy before taking a sudden u-turn under a new curator at the safari park and doubling-back. The addition of Nilgiri Tahr is fantastic, as is the renewed interest in Greater Kudu, Pere David's Deer, and some others. I could be mistaken as it's been a couple of years since I've heard any updates, but I believe most of the park's deer remained on the chopping block other than the aforementioned species. Most of the Barasingha herd was shipped out of AZA entirely a few years ago, a big blow to that struggling program. I believe they no longer are breeding Bactrian Deer either, another particularly big blow for a species with such few holders but a very stable population compared to most species. At least they sent their remaining breeding-aged Gaur to Bronx instead of outside the AZA. I think they're abandoning Aoudad, but I've heard they're doubling-down on Nubian Ibex. It's a real mixed-bag there and I'm optimistic about the future of the collection.
You're absolutely right about zoo organizations often needing a businessman/woman in a position of authority to keep the places running. I don't refute that at all. I just don't see why that has to come at the expense of the collections. Those individuals simply should not be put in charge of managing the living collection then. Let someone else do that, someone who cares and knows what the hell they're talking about.
~Thylo
So where's Steve Metzler now?
Edit: Googled it and he's now with Colossal Biosciences.
Oh no...
He was originally from Sudan, Qatar probably explains the private listing in his records. He has had multiple cubs however, and they have had cubs themselves. Two of his sons were imported with him to the US. Basically all of his descendants are still alive and present in the AZA at numerous zoos, many in breeding situations.
And even they aren't looking great long term...
It's a difficult line to straddle - often people skilled at running corporations are not animal people, sometimes leading to unfortunate consequences on the collection. Trade offs can be an issue, as already mentioned in thread. Equally there is sometimes a decent degree of incompetence (San Francisco's mess comes to mind), which is equally unfortunate.
My understanding is a number of AZA staff now work for Colossal instead - likely pays better and they were frustrated with the AZA.
To add to the general conversation at hand, in many cases subspecies are no longer being managed to pure lines for sake of genetic diversity. It's becoming a real pitfall trap that is significantly starting to impact managed populations. I am aware of species where under current guidelines literally half the population is not recommended to breed because of unknown parentage. There is a strong possibility this will bottleneck these populations if the genetically valuable pairings don't work out. In the same vein there is a significant push to always know parentage for sake of genetic diversity, which has resulted in attempted crackdown on unmanaged breeding flocks. However, in many cases the facilities propping up these populations are the ones not trying to force pairings and letting flocks do their thing. I am genuinely concerned for the sustainability of numerous bird programs if this attempted "forced pairing" continues.
I also find it somewhat hypocritical to be pushing for genetic diversity when they continue to pursue breeding Takin, Polar Bear, and California Condor, all of whom have rather limited founders. I'm not saying they shouldn't breed them, but rather why crunch some species unnecessarily when you're openly supporting species that are more limited?
I have lamented the loss of diversity in zoos for sometime now. I can understand the reasons for it though. Its almost impossible to conceive that most zoos can survive without public dollars and
most times those public dollars come with uncaring oversight as to diversity. Given that though
I think an unwillingness to deal with non aza entities is both short sighted and self defeating.
I can certainly understand not wanting to deal with dealers who have no scruples, but certainly
that can't apply to a large number of animal collectors or collections. If one of the goals of
zoos is to save as many species as possible (and I sincerely believe that it is) then
there should be a more of an all (most of?) the above as potential solutions. Government,
zoos, NGOs, and private collections and individuals.
Although the potential for abuse is of course a huge concern, I think there should be more
flexibility (with lots of oversight and coordination) for taking animals out of the wild.
For many species-particularly hoof stock - taking even up to 100 individuals a year would
present as an almost imperceptible blimp on their numbers. For rarer species limited numbers
could present much greater opportunities for later reintroduction.
most times those public dollars come with uncaring oversight as to diversity. Given that though
I think an unwillingness to deal with non aza entities is both short sighted and self defeating.
I can certainly understand not wanting to deal with dealers who have no scruples, but certainly
that can't apply to a large number of animal collectors or collections. If one of the goals of
zoos is to save as many species as possible (and I sincerely believe that it is) then
there should be a more of an all (most of?) the above as potential solutions. Government,
zoos, NGOs, and private collections and individuals.
Although the potential for abuse is of course a huge concern, I think there should be more
flexibility (with lots of oversight and coordination) for taking animals out of the wild.
For many species-particularly hoof stock - taking even up to 100 individuals a year would
present as an almost imperceptible blimp on their numbers. For rarer species limited numbers
could present much greater opportunities for later reintroduction.
Yeah, Steve went from SDZSP to Dallas with the vision of revitalizing their hoofstock collection, but was sadly pushed away from there by non-animal centric administration, too. After that I lost what little touch I had with him but I know he went to operate one of the newer Texas safari parks (whatever one Virginia owns; Zoofari?) before surprisingly taking a job at Colossal Biosciences.. Oddly, he's not the only zoo person I know of who left the AZA and ended up at Colossal.
~Thylo
I know in recent years, Bronx has opposed the forced pairing mentality. With their Crested Wood Partridges, for instance, they allow them to breed freely in flocks without worrying too much about who is who. The result is they have a ton of partridges now.
Slender-Horned Gazelle has literally three founders. I've never considered the genetic diversity claim to be legitimate unless the population is actually failing with a high infant mortality rate as a result. The AZA manages so many species with far more limited genetics than those they phase-out for "genetic diversity".
~Thylo
And how many of these two dozen mammal species and three dozen bird species will be endangered? And how many of these species will specifically depend on American zoos for their preservation?
I'm going to disobey your direct orders and ask what is the issue with Aldabrachelys?
The Japanese macaque population has also declined significantly. I know that a few holders have even temporarily halted breeding.
Certain clades are still losing diversity in European zoos, but those trends are just off-offset as a whole by other clades, typically those of smaller mammals. Many of the species that balance the trends are also coming from Australian zoos, so the acquisition of those species poses far less conservation value than does maintaining the species that are being phased out.
The Bronx Zoo is a given, and so are the Nashville (South American lizards, small carnivores, etcetera) and San Diego (less so now than they used to) zoos to a lesser extent. The Brookfield Zoo has demonstrated an incredible commitment to their pangolin population, and they've acquired a few other notable species in recent years too. There are lots of zoos that have been doing what they want in terms of reptiles; among them, the Fort Worth, Sedgwick County, and Dallas zoos have also been diversifying their bird collections. Zoo Miami is still working with duikers, giant eland, and a few other species, although their hoofstock collection is clearly declining overall. The Detroit, Houston, San Antonio, and Memphis zoos are working with some species against recommendations, as well.
I am hopeful that Keith Lovett was hired from the Buttonwood Park Zoo to ensure that the Bronx Zoo will continue their role of fighting the Association of Zoos and Aquariums on many species, whether as Breheny’s successor or continuing in his current position. He greatly diversified the New Bedford zoo’s collection, acquiring seven small primates in his tenure there as well as tens of waterfowl species so he clearly has a passion for housing uncommon animals.
What has Buttonwood Park Zoo done so far?And how many of these two dozen mammal species and three dozen bird species will be endangered? And how many of these species will specifically depend on American zoos for their preservation?
I'm going to disobey your direct orders and ask what is the issue with Aldabrachelys?
The Japanese macaque population has also declined significantly. I know that a few holders have even temporarily halted breeding.
Certain clades are still losing diversity in European zoos, but those trends are just off-offset as a whole by other clades, typically those of smaller mammals. Many of the species that balance the trends are also coming from Australian zoos, so the acquisition of those species poses far less conservation value than does maintaining the species that are being phased out.
The Bronx Zoo is a given, and so are the Nashville (South American lizards, small carnivores, etcetera) and San Diego (less so now than they used to) zoos to a lesser extent. The Brookfield Zoo has demonstrated an incredible commitment to their pangolin population, and they've acquired a few other notable species in recent years too. There are lots of zoos that have been doing what they want in terms of reptiles; among them, the Fort Worth, Sedgwick County, and Dallas zoos have also been diversifying their bird collections. Zoo Miami is still working with duikers, giant eland, and a few other species, although their hoofstock collection is clearly declining overall. The Detroit, Houston, San Antonio, and Memphis zoos are working with some species against recommendations, as well.
I am hopeful that Keith Lovett was hired from the Buttonwood Park Zoo to ensure that the Bronx Zoo will continue their role of fighting the Association of Zoos and Aquariums on many species, whether as Breheny’s successor or continuing in his current position. He greatly diversified the New Bedford zoo’s collection, acquiring seven small primates in his tenure there as well as tens of waterfowl species so he clearly has a passion for housing uncommon animals.