Animals that need a captive population

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...
Numbats are easy to keep so long as you have a continuous supply of large numbers of termites.
 
Daktari JG said:
Perhaps I have a misunderstanding
Its my understanding that Australian critters can be exported if they are captive bred. Is that incorrect?
Click to expand...
You are correct with the conditions that they are going into bona fide zoos and not private collections, and in the case of certain high profile species an "Ambassador agreement" is required.
 
FunkyGibbon said:
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).
Click to expand...

This is unfortunately complicated by the fact that the vast majority in such countries have different priorities. Lookin from a short term perspective conservation is a luxury that can be given attention when you are able to feed your family and send your children to school on a daily basis. These people have no room for long-term perspective where environmental protection can enhance livelihoods. When you look at what ecosystem services are important to people in Europe compared to Africa, the focus in Europe is much more on regulating climate change, leisure and the focus in Africa is very much about direct material benefits like crops, livestock or wood. The people who care about wildlife are the ones getting an income from wildlife based tourism and also their first priority is having enough income. This all plays on a small scale, but when you look at national scales developing nations often take great pride in their landscapes and wildlife. So the scope is there, but it won't work without a pathway out of poverty and increased education levels.
 
As @Carl Jones implied with his post earlier this thread, establishing a breeding program in the natural range of an animal is more effective than establishing it outside the range in another country or continent. There are a number of reasons for this:
  • The animals are kept in climatic conditions they evolved in, and can be provided with natural foods. This also saves money in that there is for instance no need to provide expensive heating or cooling.
  • There is the possibility of meta-population management, increasing the chance of maintaining a higher level of genetic diversity across both the wild and captive population and increasing the "wildness" of the captive population.
  • There is the possibility of using captive techniques that fall short of actual breeding, such as head-starting and ranching.
  • When the facility is in a "third world" country there is of course the possibility of a substantial reduction of costs, for instance we support a keeper position in a facility in Indonesia, for a cost that is less than 10% of the cost of a keeper position here in Australia.
  • Programs can be linked to community engagement programs which themselves can be even more vital to the species survival
The problem is most zoos are unwilling to keep the numbers of animals required for a successful conservation breeding program, even when places are available across a number of zoos.

Possibly the best thing zoos in North America and Europe can do is to support species recovery and habitat protection programs in range countries, and I fully admit that many do so very effectively already.
 
FunkyGibbon said:
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).
Click to expand...

Let me ask you, why the offence? Is it on behalf of politically unstable, developing countries?

Or is it that as a Briton, you are just a bit annoyed that an Australian suggests your country has nothing particularly practical to offer in terms of conservation of Australian native species?
 
lintworm said:
This is unfortunately complicated by the fact that the vast majority in such countries have different priorities. Lookin from a short term perspective conservation is a luxury that can be given attention when you are able to feed your family and send your children to school on a daily basis. These people have no room for long-term perspective where environmental protection can enhance livelihoods. When you look at what ecosystem services are important to people in Europe compared to Africa, the focus in Europe is much more on regulating climate change, leisure and the focus in Africa is very much about direct material benefits like crops, livestock or wood. The people who care about wildlife are the ones getting an income from wildlife based tourism and also their first priority is having enough income. This all plays on a small scale, but when you look at national scales developing nations often take great pride in their landscapes and wildlife. So the scope is there, but it won't work without a pathway out of poverty and increased education levels.
Click to expand...

All true, but collaboration between zoos from different countries can improve things in spite of this. For example, when Rotterdam sent gorillas to Shanghai there were conditions attached, conditions that no doubt included welfare components. Obviously those conditions did nothing to change how people in Shanghai felt about exhibit design, but presumably public demand for gorillas was partly what drove Shanghai to seek the gorillas in the first place.

For another thing, quite often problems you see in 'developing' zoos revolve around husbandry as much as they do a lack of financial oomph. More collaboration would ameliorate this as well.
 
Dassie rat said:
I think they could. Much of Australia is desert and meerkats could adapt to the conditions.
Click to expand...

In the scenario that meerkats were to hypothetically escape and somehow become established in Australia I could see them being perceived as another one of those popular "cutesy" invasive species that no one wants to cull or erradicate.

I can well imagine animal rights activists rallying to "protect them" and there would probably be lots of public outrage over any attempt to get rid of them especially considering their standing in pop culture.

What a nightmare / disaster that would be , I hope it never happens.
 
Last edited:
Dassie rat said:
I think there's something wrong when more Australian zoos have meerkats than numbats
Click to expand...

Why? More British zoos have Meerkats, than have Scottish Wildcats, Pine Martens or Polecats. Why should there be a difference? All zoos, Brit or Aussie have to keep the turnstiles clicking; without that all the high ideals can't be paid for.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
In the scenario that meerkats were to hypothetically escape and somehow become established in Australia I could see them being perceived as another one of those popular "cutesy" invasive species that no one wants to cull or erradicate.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Australians take a slighly more relaxed approach with culling Foxes and Cats being quite a common thing...
 
MRJ said:
As @Carl Jones implied with his post earlier this thread, establishing a breeding program in the natural range of an animal is more effective than establishing it outside the range in another country or continent
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you seem to be objectively wrong.

I know only a handful successful breeding programs for rare species in tropical countries (I mean Latin America, Africa and South Asia outside Singapore and China). Even these usually involve species which breed in Northern zoos too, and, in fact, husbandry was first developed in Europe or North America. One of few exceptions I can think of are pygmy hog in India, Galapagos tortoises and Puerto Rican Amazon in Puerto Rico.

Since animals from virtually every tropical bird and mammal species appear in local zoos as rescues, there should be gazillion of breeding programs by now.

The fact is: low funding, lack of trained staff and lack of infrastructure trump similar climate and low cost.

Any diehard conservationist could count himself/herself - it should be possible to get objective numbers of such breeding programs or reintroductions worldwide and compare.
 
lintworm said:
To be fair, Australians take a slighly more relaxed approach with culling Foxes and Cats being quite a common thing...
Click to expand...

Yes , true, I was going to mention something to that effect. Nevertheless, even with the Australian love of the fauna of their continent there is still evidently a highly vocal animal rights subculture/ lobby who vehemently oppose the culling of invasives.

Also, in these times of social media and the internet the news can get out to animal rights activists of both the active and armchair kind worldwide who are just itching for any excuse to feel "morally outraged" (although tellingly they don't seem to feel so indignant about biodiversity loss or species extinctions caused by cats/ foxes etc.).

For example, the proposed plan to cull feral cats in the Australian outback has led to a lot of PETA backlashes and even "celebrity" criticism from Morrissey, Ricky Gervais, Bridgette Bardot etc.
 
Last edited:
Jurek7 said:
Unfortunately, you seem to be objectively wrong.

I know only a handful successful breeding programs for rare species in tropical countries (I mean Latin America, Africa and South Asia outside Singapore and China). Even these usually involve species which breed in Northern zoos too, and, in fact, husbandry was first developed in Europe or North America. One of few exceptions I can think of are pygmy hog in India, Galapagos tortoises and Puerto Rican Amazon in Puerto Rico.

Since animals from virtually every tropical bird and mammal species appear in local zoos as rescues, there should be gazillion of breeding programs by now.

The fact is: low funding, lack of trained staff and lack of infrastructure trump similar climate and low cost.

Any diehard conservationist could count himself/herself - it should be possible to get objective numbers of such breeding programs or reintroductions worldwide and compare.
Click to expand...
You have missed the point. I am not suggesting that we should rely on these countries to self fund these programs (although there are successful cases where this happens). Rather I am arguing that “northern” zoos should be supplying all the things you correctly identify as lacking.

I have been listening to zoos “talk the talk” and waiting for them to “walk the walk” on conservation breeding for the last 50 years now, and with some notable exceptions it has not happened. Most breeding programs in zoos are about maintaining that species in zoos, not about their conservation in the wild.
 
toothlessjaws said:
Let me ask you, why the offence? Is it on behalf of politically unstable, developing countries?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not offended at all. I'm just suggesting that 'an external country stepping in' will often be unwelcome due to various historical perceptions or facts. Given the absolute necessity of the support of local people for conservation efforts, I think it's a point worth making.​

toothlessjaws said:
Or is it that as a Briton, you are just a bit annoyed that an Australian suggests your country has nothing particularly practical to offer in terms of conservation of Australian native species?
Click to expand...

Not even a little annoyed, indeed it hadn't occurred to me to read your initial message in that way. I think you make a good point about allocation of resources, although again, I think there is a slightly more ephemeral argument to be made that says that working together, even when it's not strictly necessary, can engender the kind of global spirit that is crucial for other conservation efforts. After all, the last thing we want is British people only caring about what happens on these shores.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Yes , true, I was going to mention something to that effect. Nevertheless, even with the Australian love of the fauna of their continent there is still evidently a highly vocal animal rights subculture/ lobby who vehemently oppose the culling of invasives.

Also, in these times of social media and the internet the news can get out to animal rights activists of both the active and armchair kind worldwide who are just itching for any excuse to feel "morally outraged" (although tellingly they don't seem to feel so indignant about biodiversity loss or species extinctions caused by cats/ foxes etc.).

For example, the proposed plan to cull feral cats in the Australian outback has led to a lot of PETA backlashes and even "celebrity" criticism from Morrissey, Ricky Gervais, Bridgette Bardot etc.
Click to expand...
I am constantly amazed when this issue comes at the depth of support for feral culling in the Australian community. I am always a little afraid when these things flair up and I go on line I would see a stream of anti-culling but it is always the other way. Don't see what Bridgette Bardot thinks making much difference any time soon.
 
Last edited:
It is strange that some celebrities complain about how various animal species are facing extinction, but are against taking action against the animals involved in causing the extinction. I remember stories about people releasing American minks from UK fur farms. I wonder if the same people are now concerned about the decline of water voles in some areas.
 
MRJ said:
I am constantly amazed when this issue comes at the depth of support for feral culling in the Australian community. I am always a little afraid when these things flair up and I go on line I would see a stream of anti-culling but it is always the other way. Don't see what Bridgette Bardot thinks making much difference any time soon.
Click to expand...

I know that there is a lot of support for the erradication of invasives in Australia and New Zealand and that does inspire confidence that these kind of conservation interventions have the potential to work.

But I also think we live in a time of soundbites , social media, celebrity culture and manufactured moral outrage so a good many people worldwide (Of course the people that ultimately matter in these cases are the Australians / New Zealanders though) are less and less inclined to hear out the sound scientific rationale of why we need to cull or erradicate invasive species.

But I also think that the backlash reveals some areas where conservationists desperately need to make improvements in terms of outreach and engagement with the public. The cynic in me also thinks that it would help to deploy similar tactics as those used by the Animal rights groups and to get celebrities who back these measures on board to be more vocal about their support (If that would even be possible).
 
Dassie rat said:
It is strange that some celebrities complain about how various animal species are facing extinction, but are against taking action against the animals involved in causing the extinction. I remember stories about people releasing American minks from UK fur farms. I wonder if the same people are now concerned about the decline of water voles in some areas.
Click to expand...

I think that this reveals the inherent difficulty that the human brain has to process and assimilate information about complex situations. The difference being that a feral cat or mink is an individual furry animal which can easily be identified with as the "underdog" whereas the ecological damage caused by this animal to biodiversity is seen through a more abstract and indifferent lens and (for most) fails to tug on the heartstrings.

These kind of things are evidently already being done by conservationists but the key is to raise awareness through highlighting the species that are impacted and their plight so that the watervole/ bilby / bandicoot etc. becomes salient and causes an emotional ( or cultural) tie with the public that counters the propaganda of the animal rights groups.
 
I can understand that people prefer some animals rather than others, but this can cause problems when it comes to conservation. Hedgehogs are becoming rarer in the UK, but hedgehogs introduced to Scottish islands have led to a decline in ground-nesting bird numbers.
Similarly, there don't seem to be many people complaining against the eradication of introduced cane toads in Australia, but the idea of killing cats (another non-native species) appals many people. Cats and cane toads have a negative impact on many native animals, but "nice, fluffy pussy cats" have a far better 'aah' factor than "horrible toads".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top