Any Species You "Want" The AZA to Phase Out?

[JVM]

I'm interpreting this as basically zoos don't exist, by that wording. Any way of better clarifying? Fewest possible holders for the fewest possible species basically runs into nothing.

I apologize for using such imprecise terminology. I do not know how many zoos have how many spaces to hold each groups of animals that might be relevant. There are conversations on zoochat quite frequently about how species can only be supported by a certain, limited number of holders and that this is why species are often phased out. I am working under an assumption the amount of possible holders for each group of animals will decrease, not increase, which seems to be in line with the current trends that rightfully prioritize better welfare for fewer spaces.

Zoos exist, and I assume they will continue to exist, but I am assuming that most facilities, on average, will house an amount of species below their current count in the future - fewer holders, fewer species. I am not working with hard, exact numbers to say exactly where the bottom values are; but I am not assuming the AZA will suddenly say we have room for more tapirs than we ever did before.

You are correct to say the 'fewest' could easily be interpreted as zero, and I hope it is understandable when I say that was not my intent.

The tiger lump had more to do with politics than any sort of genetic evidence really. It was mostly China, Russia etc. wanting less status to be given to their individual subspecies so they could justify putting less into their conservation. At least from what I've read, there's hardly any genetic evidence backing the lump and if anything the evidence suggests Sunda and Mainland tiger could potentially be separate species. Overall, I'm most convinced by the old state of affairs, with a single species and 6 extant subspecies, but admittedly would have to read up a bit more to form a fully educated view.

I have truly not heard this perspective before at all, so this was enlightening information and I appreciate you sharing it with me. In spite of how trollish my previous post was I am certainly still open to new information like this.

Mountain tapir are endangered. But either way, your second statement contradicts what you've said before in a way. You recognise there is limited space and that all tapir species are endangered, so what exactly is the problem? Baird's has an ok population in the US, lowland is doing great and Malayan isn't looking too bad either last I checked?

If this were a matter of personal feelings, I would love to see all four tapirs, but I feel that the responsible thing is to set that aside. The mountain tapir is being phased out of the AZA as it already is; any argument one could make against me did not persuade them already. I worked under the assumption that there would at some point be less space for tapirs, which would suggest another species would have to go.

If you don't agree with the view, you don't need to post it, particularly if the only intention is to tone down the earlier takes .

I don't want anything to be phased out exactly, but in light of recent conversations with a few friends about the limited holders available for multiple animals of interest, I felt I should take this question more seriously. I am concerned that phase-outs of this nature will occur regardless of my feelings on the matter at some point. The homogenization of zoos feels like an inevitability and a necessity and if that trend continues, it will force choices like these down the line. I cannot hope that every threatened animal I like will be supported indefinitely.

Thank you all for being fairly respectful, I recognize my post probably sounded trollish but my concern is genuine.

 

[Great Argus]

I apologize for using such imprecise terminology. I do not know how many zoos have how many spaces to hold each groups of animals that might be relevant. There are conversations on zoochat quite frequently about how species can only be supported by a certain, limited number of holders and that this is why species are often phased out. I am working under an assumption the amount of possible holders for each group of animals will decrease, not increase, which seems to be in line with the current trends that rightfully prioritize better welfare for fewer spaces.

Zoos exist, and I assume they will continue to exist, but I am assuming that most facilities, on average, will house an amount of species below their current count in the future - fewer holders, fewer species. I am not working with hard, exact numbers to say exactly where the bottom values are; but I am not assuming the AZA will suddenly say we have room for more tapirs than we ever did before.

You are correct to say the 'fewest' could easily be interpreted as zero, and I hope it is understandable when I say that was not my intent

Thank you for the clarification.

The mountain tapir is being phased out of the AZA as it already is; any argument one could make against me did not persuade them already.

The population is not self sustaining and there was not really sufficient interest to bother importing any that might be available.

I worked under the assumption that there would at some point be less space for tapirs, which would suggest another species would have to go.

South American Tapir is not managed by AZA, they are basically phase out. They are more numerous in non-AZA nowadays. The AZA is focusing on Baird's and Malayan.

The homogenization of zoos feels like an inevitability and a necessity and if that trend continues, it will force choices like these down the line.

It is to a fair degree as taking species from the wild is increasingly frowned upon, species that are low in numbers or struggling to maintain a population will likely be gone sooner or later. The AZA is setting priority on a smaller group of species as well, the species that are doing well or particularly need attention.

 

[amur leopard]

I don't want anything to be phased out exactly, but in light of recent conversations with a few friends about the limited holders available for multiple animals of interest, I felt I should take this question more seriously. I am concerned that phase-outs of this nature will occur regardless of my feelings on the matter at some point. The homogenization of zoos feels like an inevitability and a necessity and if that trend continues, it will force choices like these down the line. I cannot hope that every threatened animal I like will be supported indefinitely.

I feel as if this is partly true from an American perspective, but intensely pessimistic from a worldwide perspective. Homogenisation is by no means inevitable, and zoos will continue to have varied collections, it just might be a bit more streamlined in the future. Zoos don't just work in ex situ conservation, they are also sites for education and research. If complete homogenisation were to take place, their status as a place for research and to an extent education would be essentially void and it would all but defeat the point of zoos. Certainly in Europe we are not seeing widespread loss of species, with many interesting acquisitions in recent years.

 

[Great Argus]

with many interesting acquisitions in recent years.

The US has had its fair share of acquisitions as well, how many of those stick around long term remains to be seen of course. But we are gaining species, even if many of them are not particularly prominent ones. The AZA is not the end all in terms of collections, and several places still play ball with various rarities.

 

[JVM]

I feel as if this is partly true from an American perspective, but intensely pessimistic from a worldwide perspective. Homogenisation is by no means inevitable, and zoos will continue to have varied collections, it just might be a bit more streamlined in the future. Zoos don't just work in ex situ conservation, they are also sites for education and research. If complete homogenisation were to take place, their status as a place for research and to an extent education would be essentially void and it would all but defeat the point of zoos. Certainly in Europe we are not seeing widespread loss of species, with many interesting acquisitions in recent years.

Thank you for some insight into the situation in Europe and worldwide, it is appreciated and encouraging.

 

[birdsandbats]

In general any species marked 'Least Concern' should probably be phased out completely for something more endangered whenever possible.

I have never been bothered by meerkats but realizing how low their conservation value is I have to agree it would make sense to phase them out of collections in favor of a more threatened mongoose species.

Polar bears are proving difficult to breed and I don't think it is worth continuing the failed program or multimillion dollar renovations for them; that said, while some zoos are replacing them with grizzlies, they are also fairly stable and do not need to be held in zoos either.

Common hippopotamus have also been a focus of multimillion dollar renovations but are low conservation need, while the smaller pygmy hippopotamus is much less needy and much more threatened and should replace them as they are phased out.

There is no need for a Malayan Tiger plan. The other two tiger plans are sufficient to cover both subspecies and the space for tigers in institutions, although sunda tigers may warrant priority for replacing the former malayan individuals.

Some zoos still hold the Brazilian lowland tapir which is absolutely unnecessary, and in some cases they still breed. The endangered Baird's tapir is much preferable.

All elephant spaces should be redirected towards either Asian or African elephant; there is no use devoting resources to both when they are very difficult to breed successfully as it is and demand a massive investment.

Plains Zebra and hybrid giraffe should be allowed to die out; I am aware the latter is being held by many zoos due to the waiting list for masai giraffe and I understand that but it feels remiss to not mention it.

Guereza should be replaced by Angolan colobus, of course.

You do not that there are far more holders of Baird's Tapir than of Lowland, right? And that Lowland is also Vulnerable?

 

[TinoPup]

You do not that there are far more holders of Baird's Tapir than of Lowland, right? And that Lowland is also Vulnerable?

Baird's, Brazilian, and Malayan all have 19-20 holders each.

 

[birdsandbats]

Baird's, Brazilian, and Malayan all have 19-20 holders each.

Has Brazilian increased in the last few years, then?

 

[15399]

Has Brazilian increased in the last few years, then?

Brazilian Tapir are just mostly kept in non-AZA facilities, many of which are less visited than those keeping malayan or baird's tapirs.

 

[JVM]

You do not that there are far more holders of Baird's Tapir than of Lowland, right? And that Lowland is also Vulnerable?

I have been asked this already and clarified that I am aware.

The AZA is actually already recommending both Lowland and Mountain tapir be phased out in the interest in focusing on the Baird's tapir. I am still hoping to see a Mountain before they get phased out.

 

[TinoPup]

Has Brazilian increased in the last few years, then?

I included non-AZA in that, sorry. Brazilian is more common outside of AZA, and some have Baird's. Malayan (and mountain, obviously) are the ones who are really only AZA.