In recent years, the AZA has phased out numerous species as it prioritizes keeping genetically viable populations over smaller populations of many species. While many discussions of this on zoochat are people complaining about the AZA phasing out too many species, I personally believe the real problem is which species they are phasing out. Many of the phase outs have been choosing to prioritize one struggling species over another, such as sloth bears over asiatic black bears, while many have been choosing species that already were in very small numbers. What species do you believe the AZA would be better off phasing out? I'll start with either Malayan or Sumatran Tigers. I believe diversity in zoo collections is important, and because of this believe the AZA would be better off focusing on only two tiger subspecies, allowing more space for other non-tigers. The amurs are the only cold weather tiger and the one with the largest AZA population, meaning one of these two species would be the one to phase out. While some zoos may opt to replace the phase out species with the remaining program, ideally some would choose to use the space on a different Asian species: such as Malayan Tapir, lowland anoa, sloth bear, dhole, or a Caprid species.
Any Species You "Want" The AZA to Phase Out?
- Thread starter 15399
- Start date
Didn't you make a thread a few months ago where you said too many species being phased out was a problem?
Why do you continue to insist that there is something wrong with the decision making processes used to determine which species to manage and which ones not to? You keep trying to come up with solutions or alternative decisions, but I haven't yet seen you actually explain what your evidence or reasoning is that there is a problem to be solved in the first place.
Didn't you make a thread a few months ago where you said too many species being phased out was a problem?
Why do you continue to insist that there is something wrong with the decision making processes used to determine which species to manage and which ones not to? You keep trying to come up with solutions or alternative decisions, but I haven't yet seen you actually explain what your evidence or reasoning is that there is a problem to be solved in the first place.
I did make that thread a few months ago, but since then I have done more research on the topic and understand now that there are currently too many species managed by the AZA and not enough space in zoos to manage all the species currently managed. However, I also simultaneously see that some species, like red panda, ring-tailed lemur, and meerkat, are as common as dirt in zoos and could have a decrease in population and still be viable. Furthermore, there are some very similar species (like my tiger example) in which both species are managed, using a very large amount of space for three tiger subspecies while the programs for many other Asian animals are struggling. If the AZA was to phase out one of the tiger subspecies, more room could be dedicated to the Malayan tapir, sloth bear, or dhole- giving more space to three programs currently struggling. Personally one of the biggest things I like to see in zoos is a diverse collection, with large carnivores, primates, ungulates, small mammals, birds, and herps- as well as seeing animals that I don't see very often at other zoos. In order to achieve this, I believe that the AZA has sometimes picked the wrong species to phase out- particularly amongst caprids. The sichuan takin is now the only Caprid species the AZA still manages, which is unfortunate as this is a fascinating group of animals with many interesting species. I completely understand that the AZA doesn't have the means to manage ten Caprid species, but it would be nice if the AZA took space from other species and dedicated it to caprids- so that maybe three or four species could still be managed instead of one.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
I believe that you may be over-estimating the power AZA has. A species that zoos do not choose to exhibit cannot be managed. A species that is present and has someone willing to volunteer to run the TAG can be managed. AZA leadership has absolutely no say in how member institutions use their facilities; design their exhibits; or what species they exhibit. I have never heard of a grand colloquium of AZA directors parsing which species member institutions will or won't hold... or build exhibits for. AZA is an enabler not a government.
Last edited:
Also "phase out" are not a death sentence. Institutions are absolutely free to manage whatever species they want and potentially breed species that the TAG has determined is not viable. Institutions are also free to move or obtain animals without any say from the AZA. The AZA and TAG only can prescribe certain species they believe would benefit most from a population or more holders. Certain SSPs such as those rated "red" participating institutions are required to comply with recommendations as a part of being AZA accredited but the institution itself can say they no longer want to hold the species if they do not want to comply but I can't think of any instance of that happening.
Personally I love to see the Bharal ( blue sheep ) given life again in a zoo. I've only seen them once at Cincinnati Zoo.
On the contrary, I have been following exhibit issues at San Francisco Zoo, Metropark's Zoo (cleveland, ohio) where AZA voicing concerns of current exhibits of primates are inadequate and need to be updated or given new enclosures with current standards! Memberships continent to exhibit improvements. That's all I'm going to say.
Phase out: naked mole rats! Meerkats hands down! (we seriously need to move and expand far beyond television perspectives clock is ticking). Hunter's Hartebeest needs a serious come back to being saved. And please the current trend in common hippos factories with under water viewing. In following much of this trends, yes the need for truer species gene's is necessary. What is clearer is the exchange of animals one could collect from the wild doesn't seem to be one that a zoo could count on as like back in the day of animal exploitation.
Back in the distant past the Lincoln Park Zoo had Asian Lions. Be hard pressed to even find a zoo in the states that still maintains this species. Rest in peace asian lion, glad I was able to see them so sorry they are not worthy.
This is an entirely different matter, and a good thing in my book. What is being discussed is how much say the AZA has on which species enter and leave AZA zoos, not pressures to renovate outdated enclosures. To an extent, I'd say the AZA almost has a responsibility to push these zoos into renovating enclosures that are inadequate for their occupants.
Sorry for the double post but this is also really quite a convoluted and odd post. I'd agree that meerkats are perhaps no longer the most intriguing animals from my point of view, but phasing out a species is related to genetic viability of the captive population, not how much they are annoying a small community of zoo-goers. If zoos continue to make money off the backs of meerkats and mole rats, great! They're cheap to maintain and bring in lots of income to be spent on other, perhaps rarer or more interesting animals! Great!
Hirolas are not an option for Western zoos. Whatever you are trying to say about underwater viewing for hippos is unrelated to the thread topic. And yes, the days of bringing large numbers of all sorts of wildlife from Africa and Asia are over, which is just one of the reasons why no Hirola will be setting foot on European or North American soil in the near future.
Last edited:
If you think that’s going to stop zoos from exhibiting tigers your wrong. If you take away one species of tiger all that’s gonna happen is equilibrium, zoos will start breeding and importing more of those two species of tigers to account for the loss of the other species. And even if AZA gets rid of their SSP some zoos are going to keep breeding them. Tigers are big ABC animals and so even if you get rid of them and some how forbid zoos from using them they will just be replaced by some other big charismatic Asian animal like Orangutans or Snow Leopards. Your not going to incentivize zoos to bring in rarer species by getting rid of charismatic ones, you get rarer species to be exhibited with those charismatic species. Suggest to zoos to use Malayan tigers to anchor an exhibit that also has Malayan tapirs and lowland anoa and dhole. And zoos know this is how they have to exhibit rare species because if you just have a path with tapirs anoas and dholes nobody is going to be interested, add a tiger and the area becomes a hotspot where guests stop and look at some of the rarer species before seeing the tigers.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
I feel there is a terrible lack of understanding of what AZA is and how it functions .
AZA cannot "get rid" of any species in any zoo at any time on any planet in any alternative universe. That is not what AZA is.
I'm not really sure what this has to do with what I said or if it has anything to do with AZA.
I realise it's my third post on the matter, but you have to understand that there is a healthy and genetically viable population of Asiatic lions in Europe - the Asiatic lion captive population in North America was never viable, and so they ruled it to be a sensible species to phase out of the continent. Having multiple, separated captive populations of the same subspecies can actually be unhelpful towards the ex situ conservation of that species.
You seem however to be criticising the fact that you cannot see Asiatic lions in NA anymore more than the logic behind the phase-out anyway.
Thats why I said even if they could because they can’t. I didn’t go in depth into those technical issues in the original post because they were already brought up. But yes the AZA can’t explicitly get rid of species, I was explaining why getting rid of ABC species wouldn’t be a way to solve any issues even if the AZA could get rid of species. Sorry if I should have worded the original post a little better.
Perhaps the first animals to go are the hybrids and animals without a pure heritage.
If the animals are not part of a reintroduction programme, then zoos should consider that species should take precedence over subspecies.
If the animals are not part of a reintroduction programme, then zoos should consider that species should take precedence over subspecies.
I do agree that AZA Zoos should avoid managing hybrid populations. I know this has happened in a few cases recently, such as with hybrid tigers and leopards being phased out. I really hope that hybrid giraffes follow suit, and that the AZA only manages sub specific giraffes, such as the masai giraffe.
The AZA still manages the generic giraffe population because the Masai giraffe population isn't big enough yet for all zoos to have them so generic giraffes are kind of like a placeholder in zoos that want giraffes but are still waiting for purebred Masai giraffes to become more available. I'm sure in 20-30 years from now, the generic population will start to dwindle as the Masai population continues to gradually rise.
So the AZA is definitely trying to phase out the generics but it will take some time since the Masai population has a slow growth rate.
Definitely good to hear, and one thing that is good about giraffes is that they mix easily. I know the AZA's ungulate TAG encourages zoos to mix giraffes with other hoofstock so that zoos don't use large areas of land purely for giraffes. Unfortunately not all zoos follow this reccomendation (like Roger Williams or Buffalo Zoos), but ideally all giraffes will be kept with other, rarer ungulates in the future.