And Cabela's, but yes.The exception to the US freshwater fish rule, of course, being Bass Pro Shops.
Are These in Captivity?
- Thread starter MonkeyBat
- Start date
- Status
That's true for both, although I can only recall seeing trout and bass when I've visited. And maybe catfish...
Are there any confirmed Suwanee snapping turtles or South China giant salamanders in captivity? These are relatively new taxonomic splits of animal species long well established in captivity, so it's possible zoos already have them and they have hybridized with their respective main species.
San Diego and Columbus have South African Vervet, C. p. pygerythrus. I highly doubt all three of those monkeys in the species complex are actually kept in the US, as unknown or generic populations are just labeled as whatever.
~Thylo
I saw those 3 in Japan.
drill
Well-Known Member
I think Philly might have the turtle
What makes you say that? I've always recorded their animal was a regular Alligator Snapper.
~Thylo
Zoo Boise also has South African Vervet.
Is there any consensus on Green monkeys kept in AZA zoos?
No. Aside from the three zoos listed above with known SA Vervet, I know of no known pure species in the AZA population.
~Thylo
I’m lucky enough to have seen one, but why are African forest elephants so rare in captivity? There are no breeding programs for them, and their wild habitat has significantly shrunken in the past 15 years. Are there restrictions on their export? The one I saw in Japan was exported from Burkina Faso in the ‘90s.
On a kinda related note, why are some of the more endangered giraffe subspecies so rare or absent in zoos? Are they also restricted from being exported to other continents?
On a kinda related note, why are some of the more endangered giraffe subspecies so rare or absent in zoos? Are they also restricted from being exported to other continents?
At least for Western zoos in the present era, zoo animals are rarely brought in from the wild simply because they are threatened - especially large mammals like elephants and giraffes. This practice is more common for small animals (frogs, insects, etc) that are at immediate threat of extinction if they are not removed from the wild. Most of the megafauna species/subspecies in zoos today are there for historical reasons, not contemporary rationale.
Additionally, captive breeding programs are merely one tool at the disposal of conservationists - and one with significant limits, from available spatial and financial resources to long-term viability. It is more often a last-minute stopgap against extinction, rather than the front-line response.
Most elephants that live in European zoos today go back to animals obtained before CITES agreement came into force in year 1975. We have some newer steppe Africans sourced from culling actions in 90s or from imports by countries that signed CITES later (typical for Eastern Europe), however recently such imports into most of Europe or America are veeeeeery rare or non-exitent. Due to new legislation and also due to stronger backlash of general population, that it´is impossible to import Forest Elephants.
Forest Elephants are not captive bred in Western Africa nor are they legally harvested, so it´s basically impossible to obtain them legally under CITES. Few real or teorethical imports done by shaddy countries akin to China or Cuba or through diplomatic gifts (Japan) will never be numerous enough to start any resembly of sustainable captive population. European (and American) zoos know about it so they never attempt to start such zoo population in current age. It is sad because I think they would be much more suitable for zoo life than steppe elephants. But to stay realistic, it will never happen.
Giraffes are similar example, however it´s not CITES that stops imports, but rather very restrictive animal health laws that are valid in most of Europe and America. Giraffes are ruminants and share a large pallete of pathogens with domestic stock like cows, sheep or horses. It is basically impossible to import them into EU/USA, import permit is impossible to obtain, that is considered too dangerous for farm/agricultural industry by each and every goverment. Only allowed african country of origin is SAR, although still very expensive for export and quarantine. However the South African giraffe subspecies is rather abundand in nature, kept in large numbers in managed parks in SAR, so no need to start ex-situ breeding population.
You can ask why Europe breeds mainly Rotschilds and Reticulate giraffes today, with few Cordofans and tiny Angolans. Answer is pure luck and logistic nets of famous animal dealers of the past. You have to look back in time. Animals imported before WWII came to Europe in many ways, captured and sold by different animals handlers as individuals for high prices, sourced depending where was friendly land to catch them and convenient port to ship them from Africa. Zoos at that time were elated to breed a young or two, zoo mortality was sky high and nobody was interested if two subspecies were bred together, only surviving calf mattered. Today zoo population goes maily to post WWII imports up to 70s when both CITES and modern animal health protection laws were step by step implemented and then imports dried up. Some zoos obtained these late imports with clear wild origin or F1 and started pure subspecies herds. They didn´t look what subspecies were going to be the most endangered in year 2020, they didn´t coordinate between themselves, no zoo associations existed or were just old boy clubs. Zoo directors bought what was avalable at market at those times in larger quantities and that was pure luck.
Last edited:
There are a few bush hyrax (namely at hamerton and some other European zoos) and there are both tree hyrax species at Ostrava zoo
Tree hyraxes are not under CITES and several African countires allow legal catch and export of small batch of wild-caught animals. However, absolutely nobody wants to buy them. Tree hyraxes are nocturnal, small brown large rat-like beings. What zoo of today wants to invest money to import such non-lucrative animals? They are unable to bring in visitors or revenue.
However, few Czech zoos got, by chance, some zoo management people who are into old-time post-stamp zoo collection mentality of ages long past (with some of its negative connotations). One botanist who worked in unimportant arboretum park in impoverished coal-mining region who got a new job by Pilsen Zoo-and-Botanical-Garden, took his private collection of small birds and mammals with him to the new workplace and agreed, to work as both botanist and animal curator to save on salaries in seriously struggling small zoo. One ornitologist and birdwatcher who got only animal-related job by luck as mammal curator at Prague zoo. Take some more people like this, put them into wild 90s in Eastern Europe where zoos were barely surviving and often hastily appointed zoo directors let a lot of creative freedom to their underlings. Shake it. And you get some serious zoo biodiversity.
Well, the Czech Republic having such zoo biodiversity attracts hardcore zoo fans, and I'd like to visit someday with tree hyraxes as one of my target species.
Are rock hyraxes common then because they are diurnal, so easy to see?
Bingo!
Nocturnal houses were a short-lived fade of 60s or 70s in several larger US/European zoos. Most of those dissappeared ever since, usually due to cramped and appaling living condition for its inhabitants and also simple lack of interest by both visitors and younger zoo staff. If capacity for existing nocturnal mammals in zoos shinks, why to bring in new species?
I wouldn't describe nocturnal houses as a short-lived fad. Sure, some (Bronx, Taipei, Antwerp) have closed, but a lot are still standing, such as the epic one at Henry Doorly. When I went to Japan, most medium to large zoos (Ueno, Higashiyama, Asa) had nocturnal houses; in fact, Saitama Children's Zoo just opened or renovated a new nocturnal house last year. And for Bronx and Taipei, reverse lighting exhibits are still around in certain halls, for rodents and nocturnal primates.
- Status