I do have some contacts (I guess you do to) and don't know of *any* cases where European zoos made a serious attempt for black-footed ferret after it became well-established in captivity in North America. Do you know any? This provides some good guidelines, but it is obviously near-impossible to prove that no one has tried. From what I can understand it would be a lot of work, but probably not entirely impossible (comparable to sea otter). However, this amount of work is probably more than any European zoo would be willing to use on a species that most zoo visitors would see as "just another ferret". This places it in a distinctly different category than e.g. Californian condor and numbat, which belong firmly in the "impossible" category. No matter how much energy the non-native zoo spent on getting Californian condor/numbat from their native zoos it wouldn't happen.
Yes, I have some contacts too. And no, as I already wrote, I do not have any evidence for a serious attempt to import black-footed ferrets to European Zoos. All I have heart were rumors. But you also know that the zoo world isn't homogeneously and that some directors still love collecting rare animals, so this rumors doesn't seem to me completely fantasy.
True, and today is definitely what is relevant today. Not a randomly chosen past. In this case c. 10+ years ago.
Yes and no. It is relevant for today, because the prohibition/ban had and has effects until the presence sometimes. There might be a self-sustaining population in Western Zoos for a lot of species that are now disapeared or remain in just a few numbers therefore.
It has already happened with several species during the last decade or so, including Antillean manatee, red-backed bearded saki, turquoise tanager (several other tanagers kept in Europe are of Guianan origin too, sometimes passing through private aviculture before ending in zoos), pompadour cotinga (as far as I know not yet bred in captivity anywhere, probably because of the males' unusual display flight that require a lot of space), Guianan cock-of-the-rock and calfbird. This involves zoos in France, UK and the Netherlands, but also a few other European countries. In this case Zootierliste provides the details for the mammals, but less for the birds.
Not that I don't believe you, but zootierliste shows just 1 import for red-backed bearded sakis in the current keepings, that doesn't make it a real evidence for a "relatively easy" way to get them from Guyana.
Anyway, I will give the responsible persons at my local zoo your "recommandation", maybe they didn't knew it.
Unfortunately, I don't have to ask anyone. The example I mentioned with bird DNA was not random. I've been involved with field research and also had to get samples through all the red tape. It's a serious pain, resulting in wasted money and time that could be used on research instead. I do understand it with certain plant samples where major medicine companies have tricked them in the past and earned huge sums. I really don't understand why a small blood sample from a bird used strictly to establish its taxonomic position should cause that many problems. But they covered everything in the law: Living animals, stuffed animals, small samples.
Totally agree.
It is true that smugling continues in South America, but the stricter laws of some countries have definitely had an effect too. It hasn't disappeared completely and remains a serious problem for certain species, but for others like the red-fronted, blue-throated and Lear's macaw it has worked. Anti-poaching measures combined with habitat protection have halted or reversed their declines. Rampant habitat destruction is a big problem in both South America and southeast Asia, but overall illegal trade in wild animals is far worse in southeast Asia than South America.
Agree too, that all those efforts were good and necessary. But we can debate about how strong the effects has been or are. You can find weekly (and sometimes daily) articles in the newspapers about smuggled monkeys, birds, reptiles and other animals from South American countries (as well as from Asia and Africa too, agree).
What bothers me with the stronger restrictions is the point, that there are no exceptions for serious zoos OR exceptions are hard (= complicated and time wasted paperwork) to get for them (mostly - term okay?
).
Definitely not and I never claimed that. However, it means that if they wanted to show one of those species, they wouldn't even have to ask a European country to send some. There are tough Europeans laws, but the few species from this continent that are of larger interest to zoos were generally already well-established in captivity (or introduced to the wild in countries where not native) long before these laws came. Zoos of other continents can avoid dealing with many of the European wildlife protection laws for this simple reason. This is the striking difference compared to many animals of e.g. Australia.
Okay, know I see what you mean. True.
I simply noted that it would be very difficult if a North American zoo tried. However, that in was not the primary point I was trying to make when I mentioned this species. There is only a small and infrequently breeding captive population in Europe; not really any surplus to send abroad. Well, we could catch one. They're very common throughout most of Europe and it certainly wouldn't hurt the population to catch some and send to a North America zoo. However, this would be completely illegal in all EU countries. Europe has laws that prevent the exact same things zoochatters sometimes complain about e.g. Australia or Brazil preventing. In the same way the position of the captive Iberian lynx in Spain/Portugal is similar to the position of the captive Californian condor in USA, which is similar to the captive numbat in Australia. If another West European country had a comparable species it would be the exact same.
In summary, the laws on export of living native wildlife in USA, Western Europe, Australia and Brazil actually have many similarities. I'm not saying that this is good (or bad), but simply point out that people often like to complain about the laws of other countries. Forgetting that the law in their own country is quite similar.
The most striking difference are not in exports, but in imports: Australia and New Zealand have extremely tough import laws. This is mainly a problem for their own zoos. Not zoos elsewhere.
As I already wrote: I don't think that (most
) European countries does it better and your examples just doesn't came to my mind. Furthermore, I can absolutely see good reasons for a export prohibition for some species (while for others I can't).
And when we are talking about the "presence" so strongly: The captive population of the Californian condor has NOW reached a point, where an export to a zoo at another continent is not only possible, but also meaningful (possible diseases!). Zoos in Southern Spain or Portugal would be perfect for that by the way.
The numbers of the numbat are - as far as I know - too low for that (and I never mentioned this species in this debate).
On the other hand - yes: If the numbers of Iberian lynx are high enough, also other serious zoos in the world should be able to get them.
