Adapting to a Crisis — Addressing the Sustainability Crisis in the AZA

[Kudu21]

The AZA’s newsletter has published an interesting article on addressing the sustainability crisis within the AZA and up-coming changes to the SSP programs, with input from TAG leaders across a variety of taxa:

Adapting to a Crisis

 

[TinoPup]

The AZA’s newsletter has published an interesting article on addressing the sustainability crisis within the AZA and up-coming changes to the SSP programs, with input from TAG leaders across a variety of taxa:

Adapting to a Crisis

What an odd article, given much of the "sustainability crisis" has been created *by* the AZA's change in management.

 

[nczoofan]

What an odd article, given much of the "sustainability crisis" has been created *by* the AZA's change in management.

I don’t think that’s entirely true. Under the system AZA’s been using for years many species were still not sustainable. This was especially seen with ungulates and has been litigated en masse on this site. But the fact is many species were existing with support of just a handful of zoos, and a few dozen individual animals. Thats not a great situation for most species and that can be seen in declines in genetic diversity (which in many species can impact negatively impact survival). Simply in certain tag’s too many species were competing for too little spaces and after decades of a lack of movement (and often negative movement) in other programs, something had to give.

Looking outside ungulates though sustainability of population may be more interesting now with more global species management programs (babirusa, bonobo,…) or working closer with the private sector (turtles and tortoises), or even looking at breeding more sharks in AZA facilities (to reduce dependency on wild caught animals).

 

[DevinL]

There are so many interesting discussion points in that article, but it's hard to pull them apart!

It seems like one of the big changes they're proposing to improve sustainability is for the SSP program species to be a better reflection of species that institutions are interested and committed to caring for. "Rather than focusing primarily on a species’ status in the wild... the new plan will also take into account practical measures, such as what animals are the AZA member facilities interested in? What are they willing to commit resources to? How much space does the population need? Is it challenging to care for?".

SSPs are already a reflection of multiple selection criteria, directly or indirectly, including exhibition value. There are many SSPs for Least Concern animals that have high perceived exhibition value. Red kangaroos and meerkats are both currently SSP animals because of their popularity - not because of their Least Concern conservation status.

There seem to be very few species that the majority of AZA zoos are very interested in. That list would be much smaller than the current list of SSPs. Many of those popular species already have large SSP populations, like lions and giraffes.

There are a few species of very popular animals that zoos are interested in that have small or unsustainable SSP populations, and those programs are facing challenges that can not be solved just by increasing spaces. A good example is polar bears. Factors limiting polar bear reproduction in AZA zoos has been covered well on this site on other threads, such as 'North American Polar Bear Reproduction'. There are many AZA zoos with spaces originally designed for polar bears, like Maryland Zoo, that no longer hold that species mainly because of limited animal availability.

 

[Great Argus]

There are a few species of very popular animals that zoos are interested in that have small or unsustainable SSP populations, and those programs are facing challenges that can not be solved just by increasing spaces.

A fair handful of species that will retain SSP status are suffering from this problem. Other external factors are involved that will ultimately make or break the SSP. Polar Bears are a good example, but there are others.

Masai Giraffe - I've heard tell the low founder population has caused genetic diversity issues, and it is starting to affect the population negatively. We seem to be losing more calves than we are gaining, just recently both Masai births resulted in calves that didn't make it long. Imports from Europe are impossible as there are no Masai in Europe. Time will tell but things may be difficult.

Okapi - Word on the street is every female in the US population is needed to breed right now. Things are salvageable but there needs to be effort put in asap.

Black Rhino - seems to be holding for now but interest is lower for them than for White and Indian. Need more female calves too.

Asian Elephant - EEHV is destroying the population, and there is sadly very little that seems to be able to be done. We are increasingly left with an aging population that will not be able to support itself at all in another decade. Doesn't help the species suffers from bad PR no thanks to aras. It is widely rumored that most places remodeling or building new Asian Elephant exhibits are making them functional for Indian Rhino - that signals the species is not in a good place.

African Elephant - also not in a good position, though the one potential saving grace is the resistance to EEHV. However more facilities than just Omaha need to step up to the plate on breeding if the species is going to have a chance.

 

[ZooElephantMan]

Masai Giraffe - I've heard tell the low founder population has caused genetic diversity issues, and it is starting to affect the population negatively. We seem to be losing more calves than we are gaining, just recently both Masai births resulted in calves that didn't make it long. Imports from Europe are impossible as there are no Masai in Europe. Time will tell but things may be difficult.

Wow, that’s alarming, I knew that elephants and polar bears were really struggling, but hadn’t heard about giraffes before. How do you foresee the situation playing out? If the Masai giraffe population has low genetic diversity, will the US eventually have to rely purely on generics / hybrids? Or will those ultimately have to be phased out too, leaving the country giraffe-less?

 

[Great Argus]

Wow, that’s alarming, I knew that elephants and polar bears were really struggling, but hadn’t heard about giraffes before. How do you foresee the situation playing out? If the Masai giraffe population has low genetic diversity, will the US eventually have to rely purely on generics / hybrids? Or will those ultimately have to be phased out too, leaving the country giraffe-less?

It could go either way right now - there are still a decent number of young females being born but we need continued surviving calves on the ground. For the time being Masai seems to be holding and they are slowly increasing still, but the genetic bottleneck the population suffered is causing problems. Generic giraffes are not being actively phased out because there are not enough Masai to be actively filling spaces. Masai will hopefully hang on, and certainly isn't in as much trouble as Polar Bear or Asian Elephant, but there is cause for concern.
Generic giraffe is numerous outside the AZA so we will not lose those.

 

[Jurek7]

I can see some better options.

Instead of getting rid of endangered animals, AZA can promote better use of space in zoos. Most American zoos poorly manage their space. Only about a third of an average zoo is actually used for animal exhibits. Well designed zoos use much more, almost like a jigsaw puzzle. Ways to create space include:
- making use of unused parcels of land
- putting areas of trees, ponds and sloping ground into animal exhibits, possibly as green islands
- checking if non-animal attractions like plazas and flowerbeds really pay for their existence in terms of additional visitors,
- cutting domestic animals, zoo farms, and native animals. If zoos must choose priorities, maybe a zoo should not get rid of black rhinos but leave cows? Those topics can be taught to children in wildlife centres or petting farms.
- making 'uninteresting' animals more interesting by novel displays. Deer and caprids, for example, are good for feeding by the public, something which zoo visitors do even against the rules.

Second is: AZA can try lobbying for change of laws prohibiting movement of animals, for making an exception for zoos. These laws were designed for large-scale movement of meat and farm animals. Zoo animals don't create similar veterinary risk, because they are very few, don't mix with farm and meat product chain and are extremely closely monitored. Zoos can sensibly call for an extemption, for example at the next update of the law. Lobbying can use popularity of zoo animals and saving endangered species. And AZA has a good chance to win.

 

[birdsandbats]

Zoo that want to better utilize their space should take inspiration from Ochsner Park Zoo, a tiny zoo that has absolutely mastered efficient use of space.

 

[Aardwolf]

Okay, but here's my take - space isn't *really* the limiting resource. Every zoo has physical space that, if they wanted to, they could tuck more exhibits into. My zoo could probably triple its animal collection if it built up all the available space. The limiting resource is the zookeeper.

All of those animals that we'd want to add need keepers, and staff are the biggest expense of the zoo. They need salaries (which, we've seen discussed elsewhere, are already too low), health insurance, etc. The animal:keeper ratio is also much lower than it was ten or twenty years ago, certainly than it was fifty. Animals have larger, more intricate enclosures which take longer to service. More training and enrichment, so each animal takes more keeper time. Even with greatly reduced numbers of exhibits and animals than they would have seen years ago, many keepers today are still stretched very thin without sufficient coverage and redundancy.

And, unlike construction costs, keeper costs aren't a one-and-done expense. You can have a boom year or get a huge grant and build all sorts of exhibits, and then those are paid for. Keepers have to be paid every year, ideally getting salary increases along the way.

That, in my opinion, is what prevents zoos from growing and expanding collections.

 

[SwampDonkey]

I can see some better options.

Instead of getting rid of endangered animals, AZA can promote better use of space in zoos. Most American zoos poorly manage their space. Only about a third of an average zoo is actually used for animal exhibits. Well designed zoos use much more, almost like a jigsaw puzzle. Ways to create space include:
- making use of unused parcels of land
- putting areas of trees, ponds and sloping ground into animal exhibits, possibly as green islands
- checking if non-animal attractions like plazas and flowerbeds really pay for their existence in terms of additional visitors,
- cutting domestic animals, zoo farms, and native animals. If zoos must choose priorities, maybe a zoo should not get rid of black rhinos but leave cows? Those topics can be taught to children in wildlife centres or petting farms.

Please do not take this as me being rude or mean to you, just take it as an opposing viewpoint.

I honestly don't want to go to a zoo that is chock full of habitats taking every or most spaces of land. There is great value in having a zoo be for animals and plants, hence why many zoos are both zoos and botanical gardens. On the contrary, I think zoos should make a more concentrated effort on using their plantings and landscaping to educate people about and propagate botanicals.

Plaza space and flower beds make a zoo worth visiting. You need open space to gather and to use for any number of reasons. Flower beds make a zoo appealing to the eye and are needed to fill space that is really not appropriate for animals. Flowers and gardens can and should also be used to enhance the nature and green space of a zoo.

Domestics and zoo farms are important for families, which are a prime target of zoos. Yes families could go to a specific separate petting zoo facility, but there are not that many of those and cities are not going to build a separate petting zoo. Domestics help complete the picture of animals, some being wild and some being domestics. There is great value in children, and adults, making the connection with an animal by touching them, or being able to compare them to their wild counterpart.