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

[Coelacanth18]

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.

That's a fine opinion to have, but it's important to note that this is a personal preference of yourself and not actually a problem with species management. If you had framed this thread as one where people simply offered their opinions on what species should be prioritized or not based on their own preferences and opinions, that's one thing; it's another thing entirely to claim that something is wrong with the program selection process and needs to be changed.

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.

Yes, there are inbalances between overly common species and smaller, struggling populations. The inbalances can be due to a number of factors and variables regarding demographics, institutional commitment, history in captivity, ease of breeding, availability, etc. Oftentimes populations struggle to grow for reasons other than space availability.

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.

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's response to you about this is pretty much in line with what I was going to say, but I'll offer this alternative explanation in case it helps you make sense of things.

"Space" is determined by demand. If all zoos in AZA collectively want and have room for 300 tigers, then the available space is 300. Programs are chosen and managed based on what space zoos offer to them. If there's room for 3 subspecies of tiger, then that's how many subspecies they can try to manage; eliminating one of the subspecies doesn't automatically allow space to be re-allocated to Malayan tapirs or dholes. More likely (as has been pointed out) it would just lead to increases in one of the other two tiger programs... because zoos demand tigers. The AZA can encourage or advertise struggling species to try and make more space for them, but that's pretty much it; if the demand isn't there, then the space isn't there - and you can only make plans based on the space you actually have to work with. The TAGs can give population targets above or below available space, but this would just be an attempt at encouraging zoos to re-prioritize; it can't be enforced in any way.

In other words: it's not just a math equation. The TAGs can't subtract space from tiger programs and add it to tapir programs, because they can't take a zoo's tigers away and force them to get tapirs instead.

 

[Westcoastperson]

In other words: it's not just a math equation. The TAGs can't subtract space from tiger programs and add it to tapir programs, because they can't take a zoo's tigers away and force them to get tapirs instead.

Zoological equilibrium; if you remove a component of the system it is not replaced by something new, the scales are just adjusted to put it back in balance.
Anyways the problem in North America does not come from the AZA it comes from the public and the zoological trade (not hobby) and their respective cultures. What this community wants cannot be fixed by rules or regulations, it has to be fixed by major shifts in American culture. Americans need to want to learn and the zoos have to understand people want to learn and see something new. We also have to make zoos travel destinations to actually display changes in collections on a public level. So the answer to the problem is much more complex and isn't as simple as an AZA policy change.

 

[TinoPup]

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.

There are no Asian lions in the USA. There is a large population of them in europe; there's 46 current holders on zootierliste. Asian lion also isn't really a valid ssp now, either. It's doesn't make much sense for the US to try and start a new population of them.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Anyways the problem in North America does not come from the AZA it comes from the public and the zoological trade (not hobby) and their respective cultures. What this community wants cannot be fixed by rules or regulations, it has to be fixed by major shifts in American culture. Americans need to want to learn and the zoos have to understand people want to learn and see something new. We also have to make zoos travel destinations to actually display changes in collections on a public level. So the answer to the problem is much more complex and isn't as simple as an AZA policy change.

I still don't see that a problem has been clearly defined...

If the public demand is to see certain species in collections, and zoos are accurately meeting that demand by managing populations of those species instead of different ones, then what exactly is the problem?

 

[Westcoastperson]

I still don't see that a problem has been clearly defined...

If the public demand is to see certain species in collections, and zoos are accurately meeting that demand by managing populations of those species instead of different ones, then what exactly is the problem?

It’s the idea that collections are homogenized. I was implying because I personally think it isn’t as bad of a problem and is slowly being resolved. But I do actively think that making zoos tourist and local oriented does have positive affects on education and homogenization of collections does hurt that but once again I think (slowly) zoos are coming back.

 

[Coelacanth18]

It’s the idea that collections are homogenized.

That just simplifies what exactly you think the problem is, not why you think it's a problem. Why is having fewer species - or mostly well-known and popular species - a problem for collections? (This question is directed at @Neil chace too, if they indeed still believe it to be a problem.)

I do actively think that making zoos tourist and local oriented does have positive affects on education and homogenization of collections does hurt that

I have no idea what you're trying to convey here. Aren't tourist-oriented and local-oriented places two different things? What does orienting a zoo for either one have to do with education, and why does having fewer species undermine education?

I was implying because I personally think it isn’t as bad of a problem and is slowly being resolved.

once again I think (slowly) zoos are coming back.

How is homogenization being "slowly resolved"? The number of mammal and bird species in zoos at least (I suspect herps might be a different situation) has been declining in the modern era; isn't that what the whole "problem" of homogenization is in the first place?

And what do you mean by zoos "coming back"?

 

[Westcoastperson]

That just simplifies what exactly you think the problem is, not why you think it's a problem. Why is having fewer species - or mostly well-known and popular species - a problem for collections? (This question is directed at @Neil chace too, if they indeed still believe it to be a problem.)

I only believe it is a minor problem and I’ll explain more below.

I have no idea what you're trying to convey here. Aren't tourist-oriented and local-oriented places two different things? What does orienting a zoo for either one have to do with education, and why does having fewer species undermine education?

Disneyland, millions of people come from all around the world to visit Disneyland, but it is also still a theme park for local Californians. San Diego zoo is another, it’s a major tourist attraction for San Diego but still serves as the community zoo for locals. As for why that’s important, well the educational power of one zoo is great, you are educating people who live near that zoo on the species held at that zoo. When those people travel to another city you have another to chance to educate them on something different. The tourists can say “well that’s very interesting my local zoo has African Elephants but the Asian elephants at this zoo are also very interesting”. Or what if someone lives in a small town and visits a city with a big zoo. If you can get them to visit that zoo you have opened their eyes to a world of life they have never known seen in person and teach them topics they might have never heard about. Back to tourism though, if every zoo has the same or close to the same collection then you get less done, sure there will still be new things to be taught but it won’t be as significant. That is why Zoo tourism and zoos having significantly different collections is so important.

How is homogenization being "slowly resolved"? The number of mammal and bird species in zoos at least (I suspect herps might be a different situation) has been declining in the modern era; isn't that what the whole "problem" of homogenization is in the first place?

And what do you mean by zoos "coming back"?

Well I see two ways in which zoos are bringing back rarer species. Both San Diego and Los Angeles had a many births recently, Los Angeles has had a few Chinese Goral births and San Diego has had Ibex, Egyptian Vulture, and Milky Stork births. The other way is Living Deserts new African section, which will include multiple pelican and vulture species, two species of mongoose, and a few rarer African ungulates (including a breeding pair of black rhinos). Both show that zoos are interested in holding and breeding rarer species. And while it seems like the AZA has been phasing out so many species as multiple people have said here before that will never stop zoos from continuing their bloodlines. There has been a decline but with so many zoos actively starting to publicly promote species like vultures and gorals (both I have seen promoted on social media) I truly believe things will get better for some areas.

 

[Therabu]

I had made a post on a French forum for ungulates and by comparing EAZA and AZA populations. As phase-out for AZA I had previously suggested :
- Alpine and Siberian ibex (no conservation role, small population)
- Western tur (too small population)
- Sitatunga (small population, competing with other marsh of forest antelopes, no conservation value, and significative population in EAZA)
- Nilgaï (no conservation value, large populations in private hands, EAZA and local zoos, competition with Asian deer species)
- Arabian oryx (to be discussed, but large groups were brought back in home countries and several rewilding project, would allow to dedicate more space to endangered Saharan species)
- Gemsbok (no conservation value, to replace by addax, scmittar-horned or fringe-eared oryx)
- Red lechwe (present in Europe in larger numbers) and Uganda kob (too small population) to be phased out and replaced by Nile Lechwe
- Grant's gazelle, to be discussed. The population is not quite big and remain only near-threteaned (but that could worsen quickly). If space dedicated to other desert species is sufficient that could be nice to keep but that should not be the priority.
- Red-fronted gazelle (I think it is already phased-out isnt'it ?)
- Springbock (no conservation value, large herds in private hands, subspecies taxonomic uncertainty) and competition for space with endangered species such as Soemmering, Speke or red-necked gazelle.
- Przewalski horse : I know this one may lead to debate. Population held in EAZA is currently large and it is common to send animals to native countries for repopulation purpose. I do not know how much the American population is related to the others and how it could participate to the comeback of the specie but I am not aware of direct contribution. Maybe that could free up some space for Persian onagers (despite small population size) or African wild ass for which captive breeding may be important in the future.
- Of course plains zebra need be reduced significantly to allow space increase for other endangered equids or bovids
- Taiga musk deer population should be reunited with the European one in one continent or another for sustaibaility purpose. Population size seems to be even on both side of the ocean but importation regulation seems to hamper this move.
- White-lipped deer : why not keeping it but if there is lack of institutional interest from American zoos, better send some interesting unrelated animals to Europe where population seems to be slowly growing.

The case of the tiger subspecies is also interesting. Malayan tiger is in dire need of ex-situ insurance population and in Europe, there is not enough animals and breeding possibilities. I would be in favour of sending valuable breeders to the US so that AZA could really focus on this subspecie. That might mean a downscale in the Sumatran tiger breeding efforts and this may be an issue. Despite thriving populations in Europe and a few valuable individuals in Oceania, I do not know if there is enough space to build a sufficiently large Sumatran tiger population for insurance purpose. I don't have a definitive answer to this question and do not know if there is actually a good one !

 

[Zooplantman]

...if every zoo has the same or close to the same collection then you get less done, sure there will still be new things to be taught but it won’t be as significant. .

That is simply assumption without evidence.
One could equally assert that in education "say it, say it again and then say it again."

 

[15399]

That just simplifies what exactly you think the problem is, not why you think it's a problem. Why is having fewer species - or mostly well-known and popular species - a problem for collections? (This question is directed at @Neil chace too, if they indeed still believe it to be a problem.)

Even though zoos are tourist attractions, their number one priority should still be conservation. Unfortunately many of the phase out species are not in line with what conservation priorities should be. Take a look at gazelles, for instance. The Thompson's Gazelle is a least concern species, with minimal conservation value. The Thompson's Gazelle is also the most common gazelle species in AZA zoos. Other gazelle species, like the Speke's and Soemmerring's Gazelles, are both more endangered and have much smaller populations- which in the case of Speke's and Soemmerring's Gazelles lead to them losing their SSPs this year. While a phase out may sometimes be necessary to keep other programs alive, I feel that the AZA (or its member zoos) aren't properly prioritizing conservation in what species it keeps and leading to some species with real-world conservation value to be ignored and struggling- while programs with no conservation value, such as the thompsons gazelle or the meerkat, are thriving.

 

[Dassie rat]

Perhaps zoos should be phasing out species of least concern to conservation.

 

[felis silvestris]

I would say eventually they should phase out elephants since they need so much space to roam

 

[Westcoastperson]

That is simply assumption without evidence.
One could equally assert that in education "say it, say it again and then say it again."

My thought behind it was if zoos have the same amount of space there will be different iterations of exhibits and in that there could be different learning opportunities. You expand the amount of learning opportunities the further collections start to look less like eachother. Like sure you get a lot of learning opportunities from two exhibits that both focus on Indonesia, but if you do one on Indonesia and another on Manchuria you have taught visiting guests about two diverse parts of Asia. I would say that’s a reasonable assumption.

 

[Julio C Castro]

Even though zoos are tourist attractions, their number one priority should still be conservation. Unfortunately many of the phase out species are not in line with what conservation priorities should be. Take a look at gazelles, for instance. The Thompson's Gazelle is a least concern species, with minimal conservation value. The Thompson's Gazelle is also the most common gazelle species in AZA zoos. Other gazelle species, like the Speke's and Soemmerring's Gazelles, are both more endangered and have much smaller populations- which in the case of Speke's and Soemmerring's Gazelles lead to them losing their SSPs this year. While a phase out may sometimes be necessary to keep other programs alive, I feel that the AZA (or its member zoos) aren't properly prioritizing conservation in what species it keeps and leading to some species with real-world conservation value to be ignored and struggling- while programs with no conservation value, such as the thompsons gazelle or the meerkat, are thriving.

I could be very wrong in saying this or not properly paraphrasing it but I think that those mentioned, Speke’s and Soemmerring’s Gazelle, won’t qualify under the new SSP program structure but doesn’t mean that they lost the SSP completely. It’s up to each institution to decide how committed they are to that particular specie and the likelihood to continue said program. At least that’s my impression from various hoofstock threads/discussions on here as well as reading the slide presentation from this years mid year meetings posted on AZA Ungulates.

 

[Zooplantman]

My thought behind it was if zoos have the same amount of space there will be different iterations of exhibits and in that there could be different learning opportunities. You expand the amount of learning opportunities the further collections start to look less like eachother. Like sure you get a lot of learning opportunities from two exhibits that both focus on Indonesia, but if you do one on Indonesia and another on Manchuria you have taught visiting guests about two diverse parts of Asia. I would say that’s a reasonable assumption.

So, in short, what several posters are suggesting is that AZA become more of a Central Zoo Authority, running all zoos as an integrated organization.... whether mega-zoos like San Diego or small local zoos like the New York State Zoo.
How would that work?
Would there be financial sharing as well to fund these coordinated plans?
Would individual zoos retain any independence? What would that look like?

 

[Dassie rat]

I think that zoos should co-ordinate their collections, so that the same species are not kept in zoos near each other.

 

[Westcoastperson]

So, in short, what several posters are suggesting is that AZA become more of a Central Zoo Authority, running all zoos as an integrated organization.... whether mega-zoos like San Diego or small local zoos like the New York State Zoo.
How would that work?
Would there be financial sharing as well to fund these coordinated plans?
Would individual zoos retain any independence? What would that look like?

No I am not at all suggesting that. I said earlier the AZA should never have that kind of power. what I am saying is we should give zoos the species to create sections that are noticeably different from others zoos. I am not saying that has to be enforced in anyway. What I have been suggesting is not a policy change and I’ve said that. I am suggesting culture shifts, shifts in what species are held and how zoos should view rarer species. Zoos should want to hold rare species and they should be prideful about holding those rarer species. They should promote them on social media and advertise them along with their ABC animals. And that’s why I said the problem is slowly being resolved because zoos have been highlighting their rarer species recently.

What this community wants cannot be fixed by rules or regulations,

I said all of this in earlier posts so just go back and read those please.

 

[Zooplantman]

No I am not at all suggesting that. I said earlier the AZA should never have that kind of power. what I am saying is we should give zoos the species to create sections that are noticeably different from others zoos..

And who is "we"?

 

[Westcoastperson]

And who is "we"?

Sorry I use we to represent a unified people even the ones with no power. Example “we Americans need to save Cuba” normal Americans can’t fix that it’s just a representation of our unity as a group.

 

[amur leopard]

So who is 'giving zoos species'? I don't follow...