Animals that need a captive population

Chlidonias said:
Um, these species do have captive breeding programmes...
Click to expand...
Sorry. what I meant to say is that these species should continue to be kept as captive populations so they'll hopefully never go extinct. There need to more Milky Storks in the US than just the one remaining population in New Orleans at San Diego Zoo Global & Audubon's breeding facility. I believe more species could be imported to the US such as Hirolas, Mountain Nyalas, Giant Sables and Greater Adjutants for breeding programs. Sorry if I didn't make it clear in the my earlier post.
 
So, basically, "animals that need a captive population in the US of A"? Why is that?
 
Daktari JG said:
Prezewalski's Gazelle
Dwarf Blue Sheep
Tamaraw (tried but failed, but I don't know any details)
many primates and ambibians as mentioned
Click to expand...

To my understanding, the reason that a captive breeding program didn't work for Tamaraw (Bubalus mindorensis) was a misunderstanding in their husbandary. They needed to be kept solitarily like Anoas (Bubalus depressicornis and Bubalus quarlesi) are. The problem in the case of the Tamaraw was them having been kept in a herd situation which resulted in some aggression. House them like you would anoas, and it could be a very successful program! Some experts have said that it was quite a necessary step to take for their survival.

Mountain anoa (Bubalus quarlesi) are another wild cattle taxon in need of a captive breeding program.

I would like to also see captive breeding programs for Borneo banteng (Bos javanicus lowi) and Burmese banteng (Bos javanicus birmanicus) similar in scope to what is done for Javan banteng (Bos javanicus javanicus), but unfortunately that doesn't seem likely at this time... To my knowledge there are captive individuals of ssp. lowi and ssp. birmanicus but no established well structured captive breeding program. A parallel within the family Cervidae would be Burmese eld's deer (Panolia eldii thamin) having an established captive breeding program outside their home range, whereas the Manipur eld's deer (Panolia eldii eldii) and the Siamese eld's deer (Panolia eldii siamensis) don't.
 
Swampy said:
Countless amphibian species could really benefit from captive populations to prevent total extinction.
Click to expand...

This 100%.

I understand zoos wanting ABC animals to act as umbrellas for other species, but that should make the effort for smaller, less appreciated species even greater and not less. They're the ideal candidates for breeding in zoos. They don't need much space, and they don't need as much food, and the susceptibility of many amphibians to Bd. means even healthy populations in pristine habitat can go extinct, so ex situ populations can be very important, even with some good news of species surviving after outbreaks.

The effort on the part of zoos and aquariums to preserve threatened amphibians ex situ and in situ is not enough, although there are certainly exceptions: The inadequate global zoo response to the amphibian extinction crisis
Only 2.5% of threatened Neotropical amphibians and 3.1% of threatened Indo-Malayan amphibians have breeding programs in zoos? That's way too little effort in my opinion.

Last time I checked, this was the TAG phase in list for AZA zoos for amphibians (It's 2008, so I am not sure if it has been further updated or not):

Phase out species in United States

Less than ten species on that phase-in list! I'm sorry, but that's woefully inadequate. I can understand there not being programs for every amphibian species in existence, but there should be programs for many times more new species of threatened amphibian.

The great thing about smaller species, too, is that although they may not always be visually spectacular, they can often be made relevant exhibits. If you go wade in a pond or lake, fish in a river, or hike through a meadow or some woods, you are most likely to encounter frogs, salamanders, lizards, songbirds, spiders, rodents, dragonflies, butterflies, etc. rather than charismatic megafauna. People need to see the connections between them and the natural world. Make exhibits for small species relevant, either as representations of ecosystems local or international, or have labs where conservation work is done available for viewing in a reptile house or something, so they see that zoos are doing work not just for elephants, lions, tigers, giraffes, gorillas, orangutans, lemurs, etc., but also for the frogs that hop and croak among them, or the reptiles that hide in the leaf litter or soil of their habitats.

Also, many rodents, too. In the western United States and Mexico, threatened kangaroo rats are an example of a group of animals more zoos should tackle: Kangaroo Rats

I would love it if enough of the rediscovered San Quintin kangaroo rats in Baja California were found to make a captive colony.
 
I agree with Anniella. Zoos should do more to differentiate between in-situ and ex-situ conservation. There is no real point in having thousands of individuals of some large species if they can never be reintroduced into the wild. The money spent on new enclosures for large animals would be better spent preserving natural habitats and prevent extinction of many more species. Zoos should be saving many more small species and using them in reintroduction, rather than replicating large ABC species across the world and allowing smaller species to become extinct.
 
The 'Endangered Animals Dictionary', Alligator Books Ltd (2007) is a children's book but has an interesting list of animals, some of which need a captive population:
Addax, Amami rabbit, American crocodile, Andean mountain cat, Apollo butterfly, Aye-aye, Bactrian camel, Eastern barred bandicoot, Bighorn sheep, Black rhinoceros, Black soft-shelled turtle, Blue whale, California condor, Cheetah, Chimpanzee, Chinchilla, Chinese river dolphin, Coelacanth, Crested gibbon, Leopard darter, Russian desman, Devil'sHole pupfish,Dhole, Harpy eagle, Long-beaked echidna, African elephant, Asian elephant, Peregrine falcon, Black-footed ferret, Flightless cormorant, Fossa, Ganges dolphin, Gharial, Giant armadillo, Giant otter, Giant panda, Golden frog, Mountain gorilla, Hawksbill turtle, Hermes copper butterfly, Hispaniolan solenodon, Hispid hare, Hyacinth macaw, Iberian lynx, Ibex, Grand Cayman blue iguana, Indri, Jaguar, Japanese crane, Kakapo, Key deer, Kinkajou, Kiwi, Knysna seahorse, Lake Victoria cichlid, Leadbeater's possum, Lesser panda, Long-footed potoroo, West Indian manatee, Southern marsupial mole, Caspian desert monitor, Mediterranean monk seal, New Zealand dolphin, Night parrot, Northern bald ibis, Northern right whale, Ocelot, Orang-utan, Oriental white stork, Arabian oryx, Brown pelican, Galapagos penguin, Platypus, Proboscis monkey, Pronghorn, Przewalski's horse, Quagga, Queen Alexandra's birdwing butterfly, Resplendent quetzal, red-kneed tarantula, Red wolf, Proserpine rock wallaby, Rodriguez fruit bat, Ruffed lemur, Sable, Monk saki, Sea otter, Brazilian three-toed sloth, Snow leopard, Steller's sea lion, Sun bear, Golden lion tamarin, mountain tapir, Tiger, Northern bluefin tuna, Bald uakari,Vaquita, Vicuna, Volcano rabbit, Votsota, White-collared mangabey, Whooping crane,Wisent, Woolly spider monkey, Xenopoecilus (Sarasin's minnow), Yak, Yellow-throated marten, Zapata wren, Grevy's zebra
 
There was a discussion already that modern conservation authorities are grown in the past decades and imagine zoos as cages from the 1980s.

Therefore on one side, zoos are blamed for not preserving enough endangered species. On the other side, an endangered species usually (no matter if any other conservation is designed or effective) first has ban on official imports and exports, making it impossible for zoos to obtain founder animals. Which is a catch-22 situation.
 
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding
Dassie rat said:
I think there's something wrong when more Australian zoos have meerkats than numbats, but numbats can't be exported. I'm also worried about what would happen if captive meerkats escaped.
Click to expand...

Its my understanding that Australian critters can be exported if they are captive bred. Is that incorrect?

Here is an article on the amphibian crisis, speaking to Dassie Rat (and others ) point
on saving smaller species
https://earther.gizmodo.com/more-than-1-000-amphibians-we-barely-know-could-soon-va-1834550682
 
So I was looking at the latest 2018-2020 update of the '25 Most Endangered Primates' list and found a rather interesting thing - the report recommends that the EAZA start up a captive-breeding programme for the white-thighed colobus Colobus vellerosus. Not only that but it specifically name-drops two zoos that should be involved, namely Zoo Duisburg (because they run the current king colobus EEP) and Barcelona Zoo (which runs the EEP for the white-naped mangabey - a species sympatric with the colobus). I don't recall ever seeing a captive breeding recommendation actually naming the zoos that should be involved before.

The document with the 25 most endangered primates is included below - the mention of the colobus breeding programme is in the last paragraph for the species, on page 39:

Primates in Peril | Bristol Zoo
 
As for a specific group of animals, I would say the monkey-faced bats of the Pacific, both those of the Solomon Islands, as well as the Fijian monkey-faced bat of the genus Mirimiri. None are in captivity, and they tend to be rarely seen in the wild.
 
Dassie rat said:
I think there's something wrong when more Australian zoos have meerkats than numbats, but numbats can't be exported. I'm also worried about what would happen if captive meerkats escaped.
Click to expand...

Agree. Fortunately the situation has begun to improve dramatically in Australia, after the Christmas island pipistrelle went extinct the zoos got a bit of a wakeup call and are now doing a much, much better job with natives (and given we some of have the most shameful extinction rates in the world, not a moment too soon). Zoos like Zoos Victoria (which operates Melbourne, Werribee and most importantly Healesville zoos) have made a commitment not to allow any native species go extinct on their watch. Since this commitment was made around 30 species of invertebrates, birds, reptiles frogs and small mammals have had intervention from the zoo with really practical hands-on conservation initiatives that include zoo-based captive breeding. its been overwhelmingly successful.

I also agree that red-tape designed to protect animals can actually become counter productive. unless laws are enforced, they only apply to those who abide by them. Poachers and illegal loggers therefore continue to operate unrestricted whilst those trying to preserve the species are caught up in years of bureaucracy.

But, in the case of Australian animals - I have to say I disagree. Its not in the best interest of numbats to be exported to UK, just as its not in the interest of Puffins or Scottish wildcats to have a CBP set up in Australia. Nor does Canada need Australia's help with Polar Bears or does France need offer a helping hand to New Zealand's tuataras. The truth is we are all stable wealthy, developed countries and we should and can be looking after our own. We simply don't need each others help with our respective native species and its a waste of resources to do so.

Developing countries on the other hand often do not have the resources to save endangered animals or develop CBP's. They are also often politically unstable. And therefore wildlife from these places that can benefit from an external country stepping in and creating them a zoo-based insurance population. This is where we need to improve. to start taking the same level of concern and care for sun bear and lion-tailed macaque management as we do with black-footed ferrets or Califiornia condors or mountain pygmy possum.
 
toothlessjaws said:
But, in the case of Australian animals - I have to say I disagree. Its not in the best interest of numbats to be exported to UK, just as its not in the interest of Puffins or Scottish wildcats to have a CBP set up in Australia. Nor does Canada need Australia's help with Polar Bears or does France need offer a helping hand to New Zealand's tuataras. The truth is we are all stable wealthy, developed countries and we should and can be looking after our own. We simply don't need each others help with our respective native species and its a waste of resources to do so.
Click to expand...

That is not completely true. Up to a certain degree you need back-up populations which are spatially well away from the others, so that if something goes wrong in one, a chance that is always there, you don't lose all animals. Fortunately a country like Australia is big enough on its own, but it is not necessarily a bad thing to have some more stock further away.
 
amur leopard said:
All the red colobuses :(
Click to expand...

I believe having read somewhere that was actually tried at some point some decades ago, and that the animals couldn't be maintained in good health due to their specialized leaf diets - and possibly stress as well - and all died fairly quickly.

Perhaps with modern-day understanding of nutrition it could work out better, but feeding specialists remain a challenge for zoos. For example the proboscis monkey, also a specialized leaf eater, has so far failed to be maintained in captivity long-term outside of South East Asia.
 
Nauru Reed-warbler and Kiritimati Reed-warbler (both outside of where they are native to, obviously).
 
Last edited:
toothlessjaws said:
Developing countries on the other hand often do not have the resources to save endangered animals or develop CBP's. They are also often politically unstable. And therefore wildlife from these places that can benefit from an external country stepping in and creating them a zoo-based insurance population. This is where we need to improve. to start taking the same level of concern and care for sun bear and lion-tailed macaque management as we do with black-footed ferrets or Califiornia condors or mountain pygmy possum.
Click to expand...

The problem with this paragraph is that, while true, it is rather patronising. In this context, it actually makes sense to have a global approach to zoo populations generally, so there isn't a sense that some countries can be trusted to look after their native wildlife and others can't.

Of course, another benefit would be to raise the standards of zoos in developing countries, as well as creating more of a sense of conservation camaraderie, and less of a feeling of lecturing (whilst avoiding the trap of false equivalency).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top