If anything, you sound anti-zoo for suppressing constructive criticism!
Also, if an activist was to find this thread, what would their gained strength be?
A discussion on the AZA and sustainability
- Thread starter ThylacineAlive
- Start date
Also, if an activist was to find this thread, what would their gained strength be?
Some notes since you marked a couple as Provisional but not everything that is - I've added on where applicable and bolded everything with a signature program. Cavendish's Dik-dik and Baird's Tapir are removed as they are not an SSP.
Leaves us with 17 Provisional SSPs to 11 Signature SSPs... and as far as Signatures go, Pygmy Hippo and Malayan Tapir are propped up by Rum Creek, and roughly half the Takin population is at The Wilds.
Leaves us with 17 Provisional SSPs to 11 Signature SSPs... and as far as Signatures go, Pygmy Hippo and Malayan Tapir are propped up by Rum Creek, and roughly half the Takin population is at The Wilds.
So are Baird's Tapir and dik-dik only studbooks again? I know dik-dik was dropped entirely in 2020 but supposedly picked up again in 2023. It is hard to keep track so thank you for the edits!
~Thylo
PercideRolo
Well-Known Member
For montane species Zoos will just have big horn sheep for north america, odad for africa, markhor and takin for asia? wow…,
what about cattle? are african buffalo allowed? do we know how many holders for african bufalo? How do zoos think african hoofstock exhibits can do without african buffalo? They are featured heavily on lots of nature show.
Yes, unfortunately. I had heard there was renewed interest in dik-dik as well but they do not appear to have regained SSP status.
You're welcome! The change in how the SSP's worked really flip-flopped a lot of stuff and sometimes doesn't inherently make sense. Happy to help clear things up where I can!
There are only 4 AZA with African Buffalo and that's been the case for quite some time, so really losing them wouldn't be a hit to African savannas. Most places sub in the more even-tempered Ankole/Watusi for African cattle.
IIRC, the zoos that do have them are really dedicated to having them and are still breeding them.
I do wish more zoos would get African buffalo as they're truly fascinating animals. I get that they're just cows to most people but that's on zoos for not hyping them up
Brookfield expressed interest in getting them in their master plan.
I am totally with you there, they are so cool! Honestly, I prefer seeing them to white rhino, as the rhino have become so common in AZA zoos that I visit.
PeachRadio
New Member
I'm curious, what kind of background does it take to work in zoo management? The types of roles that are currently held by people who aren't so considered with conservation and biodiversity and heterogenous exhibits. How does one work their way up to the ability to direct a zoo in a way that does not prioritize the animals or the alleged mission?
I ask this as someone who is interested in changing careers, moving to San Diego, and going back to school this fall.
Additionally, what could the public do to protest AZA/zoo mismanagement?
I apologize if this isn't the intended direction of this discussion.
I ask this as someone who is interested in changing careers, moving to San Diego, and going back to school this fall.
Additionally, what could the public do to protest AZA/zoo mismanagement?
I apologize if this isn't the intended direction of this discussion.
That’s the problem, the public doesn’t care unless it’s something popular like elephants and big cats. To the public the zoo tends to be that place the school brings you for a field trip or a place to bring the kiddos. Other than the guest pleasers the animals there are just there to be confused for the wrong species, just be dismissed as a mere turtle or deer, and forgotten after the visit. If society cared about zoos and the species diversity sooner then there would have been an uproar against species reductions and trade laws that play a role in said reductions sooner.
PeachRadio
New Member
I think it's also true that the portion of the public that would care just doesn't know what's happening. I certainly didn't. And now that I know, I'm still not sure what I could do about it.
It's funny, I found this forum thread because I was looking up pangolins. I wanted to know if any zoos or sanctuaries in the US were keeping and breeding them.
I'm planning construction of a pangolin costume à la Doloresaurus (Skip to 1:15):
I'm hoping that if I can pull it off, it could bring more public attention to the pangolin trafficking crisis. Maybe even be used in conservation campaigns. Big if. But I'm gonna try it.
There are really two types of people involved with zoo management. Business people and animal people. Ideally you would want both involved in running a zoo. From the animal side its almost
exclusively from working your way up through the ranks. For business people - well almost any
type of successful business record will do.
As far as lack of diversity etc that is not so much a case of "mismanagement" as it is type of management that I (including myself) don't care for. About 40-50 years ago it used to be called
stamp collecting in the zoo world and that sort of fell out of vogue to be replaced with more
realistic immersive type exhibits. Personally I like them both. But having a great variety of
species displayed in a spectacular fashion makes it hard to pay the bills.
There are no easy answers except the bottom line -which is money , money, money.
Its easy to make money if you are a rock star, professional athlete, crooked politician or drug dealer- much harder if you are an ethical zoo dude interested in biodiversity.
Jonathan Petersson
Well-Known Member
Is there a reason former AZA personal would want to work for such a company? From what I have seen and heard seems very far away from what genuine animal and conservation focused people would want to be apart of
$$$ is probably the main reason. Colossal is doing some legitimate research as well, but mostly it is animal adjacent and has cash to pay. The animal world, even the AZA world, is tough, especially on entry level and mid-level management people, long hours and comparatively low pay gets rough after a while.
while SwampDonkey already gave a great primary reason I do have a secondary reason which may come off as a bit speculative.
I know that accredited zoos these days have to focus on what they “should do” rather than what they “could do”. Almost all of us here have known and heard by now that “gone are the days where zoos are a facility where animals were displayed as spectacles”. Zoos are here to take the social responsibility of conservation and not act like some Victorian-era fair where there’s an exciting race to be the first zoo display or breed something.
When you only have a shrinking number of ssp species to work with and don’t want (or can’t afford) to bring in something new, the resulting enclosure won’t really stand out much from other exhibits of its type. If the uniqueness of the exhibits comes from technical features instead of the species (theme, mock rocks, rotational exhibits, overhead chutes), then other zoos will do it and the exhibit won’t be as unique (maybe unless it’s the first one to do it, but you don’t see that in a visit.) To build similar exhibits while working with a limited catalogue of species is just boring. It is like playing Zoo Tycoon or Planet Zoos without mods but with the challenge of working with actual money, animals, staff, and guests. Why go through all of that if your work won’t stand out?
Now working in a gene company (which seems to have actually started to do things instead of just saying “X will be cloned in Y years” over and over again) is somewhat exciting. Sure the process is ethically questionable, and the result will never be authentic, but hey taking part in these bunk projects is taking part in a scientific revolution. This is like taking part in the moon landing or the search for new lands. The work you take part in some billion dollar grift will be more memorable than [name of a donor (high bidder)] Aquarium or [brand name] African Savannah done under your leadership.
To sum it up other than money the excitement of the idea of “breeding extinct animals back” could play a factor in why a former zoo director would want to work at colossal.
I applaud that ThylacineAlive's posts have provided some really good insight into what's causing this phenomenon. While the 'homogenization bad' talking points have been pervasive across ZooChat, I don't think there's any thread that has explored the subject with organization evidence as this one has. I've waffled on opening this thread back up but I think it's a valuable conversation.
This is the part of the post has been haunting me since I read it for the first time. It has prompted so many questions in my mind, and they are hard to ask without sounding as if I am doubting the story. I trust many on this website from the 'zoo world' to know better than me, and this becomes hard to navigate when it feels the 'reliable sources' are not in sync.
For a long time I fully accepted this premise as ideal, and my post history reflected this to a point that now feels embarrassing in light of this new information. The realization that polar bears and hippopotamus will never reach genetic sustainability, in particular, sowed some doubt for me about how these metrics were being used. The emphasis on holders coupled with lack of growth has also made every loss of a holder feel like a negative pull on a population.
This is more of an aside than a comment on ThylacineAlive, but I have to confess this aspect of the hobby - genetics and sustainability - is something that lead to a lot of inner conflict about the hobby and about zoos in general, and created a discomfort that wasn't there before. It contributed to me spending a little less time at facilities and discussing the loss of a member of a rare, phase-out species in the context of "ah, well, they weren't going anywhere anyway" left a bad taste in my mouth. There is a lot of harsh reality in all of this, and a lot of it needs to be accepted as such, but for me it added an uncomfortable texture where I felt guilty and a little ashamed viewing rarer species, and started worrying that holding them was equivalent to a vanity project without sustainability plans. For a while, I felt downright ashamed of Brookfield's pangolin program and the implication people were coming just to see this animal, because I became so convinced that if we didn't reach sustainability, the program was a failure and a waste of resources, and that if a rarity was the draw it simply meant the zoo lacked other value and was subpar in every other way. I would rather not feel that way about what I long considered my home facility. The view in this thread is more positive on the program, but I also felt this was an anecdote worth sharing.
It sounds to me, and I am not familiar with a "proper" zoo structure so please enlighten me otherwise, that somewhere along the line the expectation changed from the idea of a visionary director charting a path for a zoo in tandem with other members of the zoo (Tropic World involved director Rabb working alongside a number of curators) towards the director becoming more of a financial fundraiser figurehead, hiring people to come up with exhibit concepts, and curators sometimes being given more control over species, but who are not ambitious or in charge. (I'm particularly less certain about the curator role in this structure.) This feels like it isn't quite right though.
This is not a defense though - there are "zoo people" who know how to manage money. Stuart Strahl had a background in wildlife conservation and dedicated a lot of his time at Brookfield Zoo to expanding its role as a conservation leadership center (the kind of work that, unfortunately, is invisible to even more educated guests) but was also very involved in helping the zoo with financial conflicts with local government and temporarily downsizing the collection during the recession - a lot of this downsizing was reversed before his tenure ended, or intended to be reversed in future development, and the zoo's stronger financial position helped along the development of Tropical Forests and gave his successor the freedom to develop the Next Century Plan. I'm very proud that both Brookfield and Milwaukee are being led by "zoo people" today and think this is already influencing them in a positive way that I truly sincerely hope can offset some of the losses at some other facilities.
To me, it all feels like maybe there needs to be a new look at how zoo leadership should be structured. Should/could zoos have separate directors to handle finances and to handle the collection overall? It seems to me that would be a good way to divide the responsibilities that are necessary without either being ignored, although of course most organizations will want a "chief executive" figure, someone the "buck" can stop with. I feel a bit ignorant to judge the organizational structure from limited knowledge and welcome more insight.
I do think, with hoofstock, there are a lot of complicated factors that come down to a lack of investment and external commitment. No zoo is building a 'Worldwide Antelope Conservation Center' or an 'International Deer Complex' or 'Global Center for Equid Survival' or 'World of Bovids' or so forth. Saint Louis is only a stronghold for hoofstock because the Red Rocks exhibit is what it is; nothing like that would be built today. Very few hoofstock species receive purpose-built exhibits. A great number of species exist largely for the sake of various mixed African Savanna enclosures; for a different example, Chevrotain are typically mixed with birds. I think Okapi are an exception due to their interesting appearance, and Bongo are one of the only antelope I've seen get some focus and the kind of commitment that is visible to guests, partially because they are linked to active reintroduction programs, but even these species are often in habitats themed around more visible and popular species such as gorilla. Safari-style field exhibits, such as those at SDZSP and the upcoming WildCare Park at Saint Louis, are the future but usually rely on mixing species all the same and this approach can't be replicated in traditional zoos.
Hoofstock and birds also tend to be kept in mixed environments which can sometimes pose problems for breeding situations, which I think at times probably contributes to the mixed levels of success for these groups than if there was more willingness at times to construct standalone exhibits for these groups, not to mention I think standalone exhibits can sometimes enhance appreciation for individual species. I don't know if this will sound like a "hot take" but the emphasis on certain kinds of exhibits will influence which species are selected. Walkthrough aviaries are attractive and popular but, for example, limit which bird species can be bred and displayed. African savannas focus on species that thrive in a mixed group setting but limit the ability to bring in species that do not. Why bring in species with more complex needs such as Sable Antelope or Gerenuk when you can simply mix Kudu or wildebeest with zebra?
Biogeographic exhibits also often draw from the same handful of iconic habitats and the same pools of species, but this will of course prioritize charismatic megafauna and often tokenize groups - you might rarely see more than one cervid or small carnivore in a North America section, and almost never multiple suid or gibbon species in an Asian rainforest section despite the fact there are multiple managed species. Why would (no longer present) Bornean bearded pigs succeed if warty pigs and babirusa already 'compete' for space in Asian rainforest settings, when several zoos don't even have an Asian rainforest? Why should a zoo invested in North America and Africa sections introduce babirusa if it won't fit geographically? The focus on certain key biodiversity hubs and biogeographic hot spots will also influence which species are favored overall - Nubian Ibex don't fit neatly into African Savannahs or African rainforests, both of which include charismatic megafauna that might be more attractive than a 'goat rock'.
This sounds like an aside, but this is why I think promotion matters so much - if you're designing a Savannah complex that already costs millions of dollars and your focus is on, say, a large giraffe yard, and want to mix them with something else but don't have an independent interest in separate hoofstock yards, you will probably run with what the TAG tells you and not put any further thought towards it. Those are the species that will have the most holders as long as there aren't dedicated spaces being built for other species.
The Anegada Ground Iguana situation and negative responses from the AZA is entirely news to me and I appreciate any insight into the details, and like the above discussion on the AZA penalizing members for not performing phase-outs, I was under the impression that individual member zoos were allowed to deviate and do their 'own thing' and it's disappointing to hear the central organization would react poorly to individual decisions. I was under the impression the central issue with hoofstock was the issue that private management often do not maintain the sort of genetic diversity that meets AZA standards and do not always maintain pedigree, but as has been discussed, the sustainability standards carry some burden, and some AZA programs for hoofstock have succeeded with relatively few founders. I also recently read in regards to common chimpanzee that some facilities view genetic testing as an extra, unnecessary cost, which I imagine applies to other species as well.
I think the underlying complication is that accredited institutions often seem to be held responsible by the public for the private keepers they may work with, as seen with the Columbus Zoo and how the allegations from the Conservation Game were reported in the media. The public places the onus on zoos to vet private keepers they might work with, but private keepers are not going to want to be held to the standards and oversight of accredited institutions and many are private for exactly that reason. I also know that there is evidence that some of the private institutions the AZA continues to work with have issues that are not public. Sustainability affects this too, as you already know and mentioned in the thread. The expectation of Species Survival Plans and accredited programs is to keep track of origin, provenance and bloodlines, and some private keepers do not do this. The expectations being placed on accredited zoos put them in a bind here where they can look hypocritical and exploitive if they work with anyone who deviates from their standards, but the alternative of raising standards on private keepers reinforces the existing problems. It's a no-win situation for both sides.
At the same time, there are many potential benefits. There are species doing well in the private sector where there is no strong reason to exclude them from the AZA, and some phase-out species that have persisted. Hemker Park has a plethora of hoofstock and a few primates phased out from the AZA and seems to act as almost a dumping ground. Another example on my mind recently is Javan langurs. The non-accredited Tanganiyka Wildlife Park seems to be breeding the species in the private sector, and Timbavati Wildlife Park recently acquired them. Within the AZA, the species has long been held in only one AZA collection, the Bronx Zoo, which is down to a single individual. It would be wonderful if they could work together on this, but there are risks of the Bronx appearing too close and "connected" to these facilities which don't match their standards of care.
I am concerned this sounds like I would oppose private-public partnership, and I do not. I want to encourage it. I think it is challenging but I would love to see these challenges overcome and find better solutions. I've known a private reptile keeper and talked to a few private fish keepers, and these are passionate people and even the ones that are rough around the edges can still do good work. Collaboration is what science and conservation should be about whenever possible.
Again, I fear a lot of what I am saying may sound like me trying to "debate" but this is really me seeking out more information and clarification. A lot of this is upending to information on the AZA that was provided to me by some trustworthy sources in the past and it's incredibly disappointing, but that doesn't mean I am trying to place doubt on it with my questions.
I did read on to your later discussion about SSP vs TAG-monitored and studbook cases. It was suggested some time ago to me was that the "Consortium" management option would act to supplant the smaller SSPs that were eliminated by allowing these zoos to collaborate on these smaller populations directly without having to go through the same level of internal regulation and overview as a traditional SSP. There was also discussion that this would allow more freedom for better public-private cooperation. Has this approach failed to yield the results hoped so soon, or are we discussing the failures of the previous approach and are still awaiting how the new one might pan out? The fishing cat example in particular makes me wonder.
That's a very alarming anecdote that should give anyone pause. Was Dan Ashe's position and views on these matters known when he was selected? How did he reach this position if so? Is there a term limit on the position or a method for removal, even if is unlikely to be used? Did the hoofstock keeper describe him this way as a consequence of his leadership (only two years in at the time!) or based on actions known prior to his selection to the position?
This is the big shocker for me. In years and years of discussing "phase-out" species on ZooChat, something I was very passionate about when I was new to this board, I was told several times by multiple members, many with more 'zoo world' experience than me, that zoos were absolutely not punished for refusing to phase out taxa and that it was only a recommendation, and the AZA had no way methods to "enforce" these as rules. This had a big impact on my thinking for a long time and caused me to ease my initial criticism of homogenization and phase-out programs. That someone, let alone someone of Metzler's position and stature, could be intentionally forced out from the organization specifically for refusing the phase-out rules is appalling and challenges so deeply one of the foundational lessons I had taken on this website.
This is the part of the post has been haunting me since I read it for the first time. It has prompted so many questions in my mind, and they are hard to ask without sounding as if I am doubting the story. I trust many on this website from the 'zoo world' to know better than me, and this becomes hard to navigate when it feels the 'reliable sources' are not in sync.
It seems to me that the concept of "genetic metrics" and the relationship with captive sustainability is the root cause of this problem, for better or for worse, and its subsequent negative effects. You may have some insight that the chicken came before the egg, my experience is much lesser, but in my long time on Zoochat I became very familiar with the argument that where similar subspecies exist in captive populations, it is better to phase out many so that one species may prosper. It was often merely stated that the AZA could only "support" one or two members of a group, and therefore would select either the more endangered species if there were multiple viable populations or focus on the most clearly viable captive population. Large, solitary megafauna in particular were suggested to need the maximum possible number of holders to reach sustainability. Emphasis on "number of holders" is part of why I became somewhat fixated on the lack of newer large facilities in the United States - no potential to increase holders. Asiatic black bears were depicted as competitors to sloth bears, taking "resources" that could be going to the other species - although the losses of Asiatic black bear at Henson Robinson, Milwaukee or Lincoln Park Manitowoc have not been shown to help exotic bears, unfortunately. There is also the giraffe situation, where it was long expected zoos would phase out hybrid giraffes and fully transfer to Masai giraffe's pure bloodlines, which is now looking unlikely to ever reach a complete changeover due to genetic factors within the Masai giraffe population, and remains complicated and controversial as seen with the recent hybrid births.I doubt we'll ever reach a complete changeover.
For a long time I fully accepted this premise as ideal, and my post history reflected this to a point that now feels embarrassing in light of this new information. The realization that polar bears and hippopotamus will never reach genetic sustainability, in particular, sowed some doubt for me about how these metrics were being used. The emphasis on holders coupled with lack of growth has also made every loss of a holder feel like a negative pull on a population.
This is more of an aside than a comment on ThylacineAlive, but I have to confess this aspect of the hobby - genetics and sustainability - is something that lead to a lot of inner conflict about the hobby and about zoos in general, and created a discomfort that wasn't there before. It contributed to me spending a little less time at facilities and discussing the loss of a member of a rare, phase-out species in the context of "ah, well, they weren't going anywhere anyway" left a bad taste in my mouth. There is a lot of harsh reality in all of this, and a lot of it needs to be accepted as such, but for me it added an uncomfortable texture where I felt guilty and a little ashamed viewing rarer species, and started worrying that holding them was equivalent to a vanity project without sustainability plans. For a while, I felt downright ashamed of Brookfield's pangolin program and the implication people were coming just to see this animal, because I became so convinced that if we didn't reach sustainability, the program was a failure and a waste of resources, and that if a rarity was the draw it simply meant the zoo lacked other value and was subpar in every other way. I would rather not feel that way about what I long considered my home facility. The view in this thread is more positive on the program, but I also felt this was an anecdote worth sharing.
My understanding is that this often occurs for financial purposes - where a non-zoo person is placed in charge to bring a facility that is having financial problems back into a financially viable position, so that theoretically that money can be used to reinvigorate the animal collection later, possibly by a successor who may be more focused elsewhere. I know it has once been mentioned this was the case with some of San Diego's leadership. There was a discussion that the Safari Park, in particular, was not financially viable for a long time and only recently turned that around? Based on the Metzler anecdote, it sounds there was needless to say a lot of downside to this approach, which is really unfortunate to hear.
It sounds to me, and I am not familiar with a "proper" zoo structure so please enlighten me otherwise, that somewhere along the line the expectation changed from the idea of a visionary director charting a path for a zoo in tandem with other members of the zoo (Tropic World involved director Rabb working alongside a number of curators) towards the director becoming more of a financial fundraiser figurehead, hiring people to come up with exhibit concepts, and curators sometimes being given more control over species, but who are not ambitious or in charge. (I'm particularly less certain about the curator role in this structure.) This feels like it isn't quite right though.
This is not a defense though - there are "zoo people" who know how to manage money. Stuart Strahl had a background in wildlife conservation and dedicated a lot of his time at Brookfield Zoo to expanding its role as a conservation leadership center (the kind of work that, unfortunately, is invisible to even more educated guests) but was also very involved in helping the zoo with financial conflicts with local government and temporarily downsizing the collection during the recession - a lot of this downsizing was reversed before his tenure ended, or intended to be reversed in future development, and the zoo's stronger financial position helped along the development of Tropical Forests and gave his successor the freedom to develop the Next Century Plan. I'm very proud that both Brookfield and Milwaukee are being led by "zoo people" today and think this is already influencing them in a positive way that I truly sincerely hope can offset some of the losses at some other facilities.
To me, it all feels like maybe there needs to be a new look at how zoo leadership should be structured. Should/could zoos have separate directors to handle finances and to handle the collection overall? It seems to me that would be a good way to divide the responsibilities that are necessary without either being ignored, although of course most organizations will want a "chief executive" figure, someone the "buck" can stop with. I feel a bit ignorant to judge the organizational structure from limited knowledge and welcome more insight.
I think you've hit on something major here by bringing up the internal promotion aspect, and I think it's much more significant than many would like to think. We have the luxury of being well-informed (and I try to be open and humble that most of you are far, far, far better-informed than me) but you can be fully qualified to join a zoological institution and not be. I am very close friends with someone who has studied biology, a very intelligent and wonderful person, but they are not necessarily informed on the taxonomy of species of monkey and antelope, or on the finer details of a pangolin. It's not hard to imagine someone who is interested in a career in the field who will need guidance from the TAG programs and when told a species is aging, inbred and non-viable - okay, we'll accept that answer and move on. Why construct a costly, purpose-built habitat for Indian Gaur if you're being told the species is already dying out and may need to be replaced in a decade? It makes more sense to pursue an active or emerging program, or something already popular that can fundraise more money.
I do think, with hoofstock, there are a lot of complicated factors that come down to a lack of investment and external commitment. No zoo is building a 'Worldwide Antelope Conservation Center' or an 'International Deer Complex' or 'Global Center for Equid Survival' or 'World of Bovids' or so forth. Saint Louis is only a stronghold for hoofstock because the Red Rocks exhibit is what it is; nothing like that would be built today. Very few hoofstock species receive purpose-built exhibits. A great number of species exist largely for the sake of various mixed African Savanna enclosures; for a different example, Chevrotain are typically mixed with birds. I think Okapi are an exception due to their interesting appearance, and Bongo are one of the only antelope I've seen get some focus and the kind of commitment that is visible to guests, partially because they are linked to active reintroduction programs, but even these species are often in habitats themed around more visible and popular species such as gorilla. Safari-style field exhibits, such as those at SDZSP and the upcoming WildCare Park at Saint Louis, are the future but usually rely on mixing species all the same and this approach can't be replicated in traditional zoos.
Hoofstock and birds also tend to be kept in mixed environments which can sometimes pose problems for breeding situations, which I think at times probably contributes to the mixed levels of success for these groups than if there was more willingness at times to construct standalone exhibits for these groups, not to mention I think standalone exhibits can sometimes enhance appreciation for individual species. I don't know if this will sound like a "hot take" but the emphasis on certain kinds of exhibits will influence which species are selected. Walkthrough aviaries are attractive and popular but, for example, limit which bird species can be bred and displayed. African savannas focus on species that thrive in a mixed group setting but limit the ability to bring in species that do not. Why bring in species with more complex needs such as Sable Antelope or Gerenuk when you can simply mix Kudu or wildebeest with zebra?
Biogeographic exhibits also often draw from the same handful of iconic habitats and the same pools of species, but this will of course prioritize charismatic megafauna and often tokenize groups - you might rarely see more than one cervid or small carnivore in a North America section, and almost never multiple suid or gibbon species in an Asian rainforest section despite the fact there are multiple managed species. Why would (no longer present) Bornean bearded pigs succeed if warty pigs and babirusa already 'compete' for space in Asian rainforest settings, when several zoos don't even have an Asian rainforest? Why should a zoo invested in North America and Africa sections introduce babirusa if it won't fit geographically? The focus on certain key biodiversity hubs and biogeographic hot spots will also influence which species are favored overall - Nubian Ibex don't fit neatly into African Savannahs or African rainforests, both of which include charismatic megafauna that might be more attractive than a 'goat rock'.
This sounds like an aside, but this is why I think promotion matters so much - if you're designing a Savannah complex that already costs millions of dollars and your focus is on, say, a large giraffe yard, and want to mix them with something else but don't have an independent interest in separate hoofstock yards, you will probably run with what the TAG tells you and not put any further thought towards it. Those are the species that will have the most holders as long as there aren't dedicated spaces being built for other species.
I agree that there is nuance, gray area and complications when it comes to working with private keepers, a lot of which is complicated by the expectations of the public and marketing.
The Anegada Ground Iguana situation and negative responses from the AZA is entirely news to me and I appreciate any insight into the details, and like the above discussion on the AZA penalizing members for not performing phase-outs, I was under the impression that individual member zoos were allowed to deviate and do their 'own thing' and it's disappointing to hear the central organization would react poorly to individual decisions. I was under the impression the central issue with hoofstock was the issue that private management often do not maintain the sort of genetic diversity that meets AZA standards and do not always maintain pedigree, but as has been discussed, the sustainability standards carry some burden, and some AZA programs for hoofstock have succeeded with relatively few founders. I also recently read in regards to common chimpanzee that some facilities view genetic testing as an extra, unnecessary cost, which I imagine applies to other species as well.
I think the underlying complication is that accredited institutions often seem to be held responsible by the public for the private keepers they may work with, as seen with the Columbus Zoo and how the allegations from the Conservation Game were reported in the media. The public places the onus on zoos to vet private keepers they might work with, but private keepers are not going to want to be held to the standards and oversight of accredited institutions and many are private for exactly that reason. I also know that there is evidence that some of the private institutions the AZA continues to work with have issues that are not public. Sustainability affects this too, as you already know and mentioned in the thread. The expectation of Species Survival Plans and accredited programs is to keep track of origin, provenance and bloodlines, and some private keepers do not do this. The expectations being placed on accredited zoos put them in a bind here where they can look hypocritical and exploitive if they work with anyone who deviates from their standards, but the alternative of raising standards on private keepers reinforces the existing problems. It's a no-win situation for both sides.
At the same time, there are many potential benefits. There are species doing well in the private sector where there is no strong reason to exclude them from the AZA, and some phase-out species that have persisted. Hemker Park has a plethora of hoofstock and a few primates phased out from the AZA and seems to act as almost a dumping ground. Another example on my mind recently is Javan langurs. The non-accredited Tanganiyka Wildlife Park seems to be breeding the species in the private sector, and Timbavati Wildlife Park recently acquired them. Within the AZA, the species has long been held in only one AZA collection, the Bronx Zoo, which is down to a single individual. It would be wonderful if they could work together on this, but there are risks of the Bronx appearing too close and "connected" to these facilities which don't match their standards of care.
I am concerned this sounds like I would oppose private-public partnership, and I do not. I want to encourage it. I think it is challenging but I would love to see these challenges overcome and find better solutions. I've known a private reptile keeper and talked to a few private fish keepers, and these are passionate people and even the ones that are rough around the edges can still do good work. Collaboration is what science and conservation should be about whenever possible.
Again, I fear a lot of what I am saying may sound like me trying to "debate" but this is really me seeking out more information and clarification. A lot of this is upending to information on the AZA that was provided to me by some trustworthy sources in the past and it's incredibly disappointing, but that doesn't mean I am trying to place doubt on it with my questions.
This is the biggest issue the AZA is getting itself stuck on. Higher management is pushing to maintain genetic diversity as high as possible, even if it means ending up with generic populations. Binturongs and Ocelots are both now being paired across subspecies to preserve genetic diversity - yet I'm not aware of any known issues that were starting to arise. 63% of the American Flamingo population is recommended to only breed for exhibit needs while they try to create a known pedigree population - meanwhile the "pedigreed" flocks are barely reproducing at all. Most of them are in too small of a flock or something isn't working.
Meanwhile they're still pushing species like Takin which has a relatively low genetic diversity metric.
This is inherently true - there are roughly 150 "traditional" zoo accredited facilities in the US depending on how you what you want to consider one. Space for large animals is somewhat limited, and when you have multiple contenders (say the half dozen bear species) it can start getting cramped. 150 zoos divided by 6 is only 25 slots each. Now some zoos have multiple species of bear and others none at all, so it's obviously a lot more complex than that. But the reality is space is an issue for larger species.
There are currently 288 SSP programs, a decidedly small fraction of the total number of species held by AZA zoos. The reality is there are far more non-SSP species present than there are SSP species, and there's no need to feel guilty about rarer species. San Diego Zoo alone had well over double that 288 earlier this year and there's a lot of SSP species they don't hold.
The slight irony being the AZA wanted to push Banteng instead - which as I understand it was no better off in terms of population numbers or genetics. A toss up ultimately, but I suspect Gaur may now have the upper hand.
And yet many common species in the AZA are sourced from private keepers - chinchilla, Ostrich, Red-eyed Treefrog, Eastern Blue-tongued Skink, and others are simply "readily and ethically available." For that matter Southern Tamandua and Kinkajou are still almost completely reliant on confiscations and donations, breeding is virtually nil. Last I was aware European Legless Lizards were still almost entirely imported, often from the wild. The SSP is bordering desperate on placing spider monkeys from all the confiscations at the southern border, breeding is unneeded.
Also worth noting there are plenty of SSP's where bloodlines are poorly known, yet they are retained on SSP status.
A lot of species are doing better in the private sector than they are in the AZA, particularly on the hoofstock, bird, and reptile fronts. There are several cases where breeding has seen far better success in the private sector.
One other comment though not mentioned in your post - we often tend to think of facilities propping up species as Gaur at Bronx or Koala at San Diego, small and not expected to do a whole lot. The reality is a quite a few of the SSP programs are bolstered by a single holder. If Rum Creek quit working with the AZA Pygmy Hippo would fall to a studbook and be pressed to hang on. Duke Lemur Center is critical to Coquerel's Sifaka. The SeaWorlds hold the significant majority of the King and Gentoo Penguins. St. Augustine remains the backbone of the all crocodilian TAG programs. DWA is a significant holder to multiple bird programs. A lot of more limited scope SSPs have a champion facility, and should that facility ever falter the species, the SSP could potentially fall apart.
The takin situation is such a mystery to me. Caprid and most exotic Asian hoofstock programs seem to be doing poorly, even some attractive and well-known species, but takin in spite of that, their own obscurity, and low genetic diversity, seem to have spread somewhat rapidly from when ZooChat still considered them a rarity, and seem to be the 'token' hoofed animal for new Asia developments. There must be some behind the scenes reason - perhaps easy to work with? - because they fly in the face of a lot of trends.
I wasn't aware of the American flamingo situation. It seems well-known and acknowledged at most facilities that larger flocks are helpful for breeding and this is why more and more zoos seem to be displaying multiple flamingo species at the same time in mixed flocks. It seems like it would be a no-brainer to centralize the pedigreed flock together for stimulation.
This is what really worries me -- exhibit standards for megafauna have climbed in the last few decades and some major zoos are still catching up to developments from this period. If these standards continue to climb, and I expect they will, we will continue to reduce our holding capacity to care for these animals. Fewer individuals needing more space may bode poorly for overall captive populations over time, and will force more non-ABC species into difficult positions. If a zoo determines giraffes need double the space, they will have to eliminate other species. Brookfield and Lincoln Park both phased out Andean spectacled bears to expand their polar bear exhibits, contributing to the crunch they are under; a lot of other historic bear lines underwent this, making them an easy example. This in no way meant to be a defense of poor exhibit design and bad welfare, but it is a reason I feel the lack of new facilities is a problem.
I do really appreciate this thought.
I have a guess as to why but I'd be curious why you personally think Gaur have the upper hand?
Of these, I was only aware of Ostrich and had suspicions about spider monkeys and chinchilla. Interesting to hear about Tamandua and Kinkajou, both species I am fond of.
This is something I've been wondering a lot about recently, especially since I read that bit about chimpanzee genetics and some of the comments in the "Zootierliste in America" thread. This is exactly where the AZA runs the risk of looking like they can't follow their own rules.
I knew Duke was a powerhouse and you had mentioned Rum Creek and DWA before, but it's new for me to hear about SeaWorld and St. Augustine's roles. It does interest me how champion facilities seem to prop up a lot of the programs at the end of the day, and part of me feels this is a positive for allowing these facilities to specialize, hone in their focus and enrich the AZA at large with their efforts, and gives them room sometimes to experiment a little with species' husbandry to perfect it, but as you point out, you also run a huge risk that if any of these champion facilities falter, it could have a domino effect.
In addition, prolific breeding at one location in the past can cause problems down the line - Brookfield once had an excellent polar bear breeding program and it may have been too successful as now a lot of the population is related to their lineage.
They're hardy and fairly straight forwards from my understanding, but not fully sure how they got to where they are now either.
Consolidation would benefit breeding, but also makes tracking and pairing birds a good bit harder. It's doable and facilities are managing - but when the population is more than 2000 birds strong with a number of wild born birds still present, I feel harping about inbreeding and genetics is a tad blown out of proportion. The chances of Denver and Tampa managing to breed their small pedigreed flocks are not high.
This example is the nail on the head to the problem more so than space requirements going up. Grizzly Bear, American Black Bear, Bobcat, Cougar, Striped Skunk, and NARO are taking up a tremendous amount of space that could be used for more endangered carnivores. Rescued wildlife needs places to go, but it's coming at the heavy expense of filling space.
There absolutely was some losses with the need to increase spaces for species like bears and elephants, and it was a necessary move. However there is still lots of spaces, just occupied. It irks me we're breeding NARO and pretty much dropped everything else. There is at least a push to get Giant Otter established better.
Populations are roughly equivalent afaik, and Bronx is currently pretty committed to them. The Banteng population is more all over the place. Could go either way really.
Yeah it's confusing from an onlooker standpoint. A lot of funky decisions that are hard to understand sometimes.
St. Augustine is a major holder for all the crocodilian programs, and often the primary breeder. They participate in a lot of other SSP's as well, but are most notable for the crocs. They also have "croc school", a periodic training event where staff can get hands on experience with various aspects of crocodilian husbandry.
The SeaWorlds are a lot more involved than a lot of people realize. The subantarctic penguins are championed by them, and were responsible for getting most of those populations off the ground to begin with. They also do a lot of pinniped work, and maintain a good chunk of the Harbor Seal and California Sea Lion population between the three of them. Additionally Orlando in particular participate in a lot of AZA programs - I count 55 SSP and studbook species off their May USDA, so when you add herps and fish in gives them a pretty high count indeed.
I see what you mean better now, thank you for elaborating.
I see what you mean, especially in regards to otters. The NARO/ASCO combination is exceedingly popular in zoos, and it's hard to justify a third species. Toledo being forced to switch from spot-necked to NARO is one of the more awkward cases I've seen where the habitat was clearly intended for an exotic species. It's also unfortunate that neither spot-necked otters or Cape clawless otters were successful when African regions are ubiquitous and otters are very popular and attractive animals. I am hopeful for Giant otters to spread as they are very charismatic.
Bears seem to be a particularly complicated example. I often use polar bears as an example because they are popular with the public and endangered, but also doing very poorly in captivity and extremely resource-intensive - they are actually one of my favorites but I think they represent the complicated ethics of maintaining a captive population well. Most zoos I'm familiar with have experienced complications with bears. Notably in regards to the topic of rescues, Denver had intentions to stick with polar bear but was forced to convert their polar bear exhibit for grizzlies when the existing grizzly habitat as inadequate and there was supposedly an inability to place their grizzlies anywhere else, forcing a fast track. Henson Robinson switched from Asiatic black to American black, which often comes to mind as the perception is Asiatic black compete with other tropical species but here the space went to more rescues from a temperate region instead.
Yeah, my speculation was that Bronx's commitment to the Gaur may eventually outstrip a patchwork dedication to Banteng by other facilities holding them in smaller numbers, but that was more of a guess. It looks like Banteng are only held in two traditional zoos and two of the breeding safari park-style locations. I had no clue that Banteng were as rare as they were actually; for some reason I thought they had a few holders more.
I'm honestly not sure there's a more challenging group of animals to make popular and interesting than wild cattle - banteng, anoa and gaur all seem to struggle - but I would think banteng would be the most difficult to catch on as the anoa and gaur have size extremity for their appeal.
Very cool. I was aware of their participation and "croc school" but hadn't really thought of it in the big picture. It's cool to think of them as a support system for zoos' crocodilian programs.
That's fascinating. SeaWorld is so often reduced these days to the cetacean collection it's easy to forget how much of a role they play in promoting other marine life.