AZA Animal Exchange

kbaker116

kbaker116

Well-Known Member
I have a couple questions first is there such thing as the AZA Animal Exchange I read a book and it talked about it, it said this monthly TV magazine size booklet had a list of animals, gender, facility name, and price. Does this still exist today? I know they have loans and animals are traded but do they have this. If so how much would a Gorilla, Elephant, or even a Sea Lion cost for a zoo.

Another question with the AZA code of ethics how can zoos get away with giving animals to unaccredited facilities. For instances the Metro Richmond zoo has a Mishmi Takin from the San Diego Zoo, the Tennessee Safari Park has Red River Hogs, Bearded Pigs, Natal Red Duikers, and other ungulates from the San Diego Zoo. The Animal Kingdom zoo has Mandrills and other primate species from the Buffalo Zoo. These animals are relatively new so how do zoos get away with this or is it simply no where else for these animals to go. I don't mean to throw these great facilites under the bus, but I am interested in this topic please post a response.
 
kbaker116 said:
Another question with the AZA code of ethics how can zoos get away with giving animals to unaccredited facilities. For instances the Metro Richmond zoo has a Mishmi Takin from the San Diego Zoo, the Tennessee Safari Park has Red River Hogs, Bearded Pigs, Natal Red Duikers, and other ungulates from the San Diego Zoo. The Animal Kingdom zoo has Mandrills and other primate species from the Buffalo Zoo. These animals are relatively new so how do zoos get away with this or is it simply no where else for these animals to go. I don't mean to throw these great facilites under the bus, but I am interested in this topic please post a response.
Click to expand...

Most of the time it's space reasons. Takin (particularly Mishmi) are near or at capacity in US zoos. Non-AZA accredited facilities aren't bad facilities - they are great places to hold "extra" animals. And someone correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked DAK was accredited.
 
I meant the New Jersey Animal Kingdom Zoo it is a roadside attraction. There are only 8 Mishmi Takins in the U.S. 7 at the Denver Zoo and 1 at the San Diego Zoo they are rare so I don't think space was an issue they should be a high priory.
 
Drills should be a high priority and they are being phased out. Animals that are rare in captivity or highly endangered dont always get "priority." And yes for Mishmi Takin space is an issue because only Denver is holding them in large numbers. San Diego doesn't have any more room for that subspecies because most of their takin space is devoted to Sichuan Takin.
 
kbaker116 said:
I meant the New Jersey Animal Kingdom Zoo it is a roadside attraction. There are only 8 Mishmi Takins in the U.S. 7 at the Denver Zoo and 1 at the San Diego Zoo they are rare so I don't think space was an issue they should be a high priory.
Click to expand...

Such small populations are not viable in the long-term, unless they can receive additional animals then is it worth investing time and money into a species that has no foreseeable future?
 
taun said:
Such small populations are not viable in the long-term, unless they can receive additional animals then is it worth investing time and money into a species that has no foreseeable future?
Click to expand...

This is the very rationale for Taxon Advisory Groups where entire zoological families are reviewed by a selected appointed group of zoo staff. This is what goes on inside the individual zoo regions (of which EAZA, AZA, ARAZPA and ALPZA are the most developed regions).

On top is a the level of WAZA and IUCN's CBSG which brings together scientific/zoo staff involved in captive-breeding operations. WAZA is developing an regulated administration of selected cooperatively managed species which have too small populations within each zoo association region and therefore warrants global management.

To me, the challenge for the coming decade is to gradually move towards global captive species management that is inclusive of all institutions involved with cooperatively managed endangered species breeding or taxon monitoring programmes. Only by this method will relocation of managed species to sometimes unregulated locations be a past tense thing. But remember, many institutions outside the accredition process of the zoo associations are equally involved in valuable captive-breeding operations.

It is only - and here I do have reservations on transfers (not by loan agreements) - that San Diego and some others are rather indiscriminate in that approach - and I particularly deplore the fact that San Diego has literally disposed of a significant number of rare hoofstock to undisclosed and/or unregulated institutions. Another bad example is the demise of the Rare Equid Sanctuary ... No loan agreements on ownership means that zoos no longer have control over where offspring are going and commercial dealings can be made (a gotspe when this concerns CITES appendix I + II or III species, but a legal loophole inside the US).
 
I think zoos must revise their policy of keeping big, self-sustaining populations with 100 or 200 years worth of preserving genetic variability. This means losing many species from breeding plans and all zoos keep exactly the same species. Instead zoos should keep smaller populations of more species. This would allow education in more topics, would sover more endangered species, and would be insurance because nobody knows what species will become endangered in future.

Zoos should also press to change over-strict regulations on transport of zoo animals. They are designed for mass transport of meat and domestic animals, but zoo animals are simply better protected against diseases.

About private holders - there are now more addax and scimitar-horned oryx in private ranches in S USA than in zoos and wild combined. The same is true for some parrots in Europe. Zoos must find some way to use this animals for conservation, instead of pretending they don't exist.
 
@Jurek7: While it would be nice to see more diversity in species in zoos, without self sustaining populations of 100-200 animals, conservation is pointless. While no one likes to think this: zoos are the "ark." They are failsafes for wild populations. If we don't have a self sustaining population and something goes wrong in the wild then we (zoos) could possibly endanger a species even further.
 
ColumbusZoo001 said:
@Jurek7: While it would be nice to see more diversity in species in zoos, without self sustaining populations of 100-200 animals, conservation is pointless. While no one likes to think this: zoos are the "ark." They are failsafes for wild populations. If we don't have a self sustaining population and something goes wrong in the wild then we (zoos) could possibly endanger a species even further.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you.

It's just is a orangutan still a orangutan if there are none left in the wild?

People seem afraid to say this. There is no chance left for orangutans in the wild in the next 10-20 years. Will the orangutans in captivity be used for a reintroduction to the wild. I really doubt the wild will ever return! Not being a pessimist just a realist.
 
Another question with the AZA code of ethics how can zoos get away with giving animals to unaccredited facilities.
Click to expand...

This is what the AZA policies are regarding animal disposition. No where is it stated that AZA accreditated zoos cannot send their animals to non-AZA accreditated zoos:

  1. Dispositions must meet the requirements of all applicable local, state, federal and international regulations and laws.
  2. The Director or Chief Executive Officer of the institution is charged with the final authority and responsibility for the monitoring and implementation of all dispositions.
  3. Any disposition must abide by the Mandatory Standards and General Advisories of the AZA Code of Professional Ethics (see Appendix I). Specifically, "a member shall make every effort to assure that all animals in his/her collection and under his/her care are disposed of in a manner which meets the current disposition standards of the Association and do not find their way into the hands of those not qualified to care for them properly."
  4. Non-domesticated animals shall not be disposed of at animal auctions. Additionally, animals shall not be disposed of to any organization or individual that may use or sell the animal at an animal auction. In transactions with AZA non-members, the recipient must ensure in writing that neither the animal nor its offspring will be disposed of at a wild animal auction or to an individual or organization that allows the hunting of the animal.
  5. Animals shall not be disposed of to organizations or individuals that allow the hunting of these animals or their offspring. This does not apply to individuals or organizations which allow the hunting of only free-ranging game species (indigenous to North America) and established long-introduced species such as, but not limited to, white-tailed deer, quail, rabbit, waterfowl, boar, ring-necked pheasant, chukar, partridge, and trout. AZA distinguishes hunting/fishing for sport from culling for sustainable population management and wildlife conservation purposes.
  6. Attempts by members to circumvent AZA conservation programs in the disposition of SSP animals are detrimental to the Association and its conservation programs. Such action may be detrimental to the species involved and is a violation of the Association's Code of Professional Ethics. All AZA members must work through the SSP program in efforts to deacquisition SSP species and adhere to the AZA Full Participation policy.
  7. Domesticated animals are to be disposed of in a manner consistent with acceptable farm practices and subject to all relevant laws and regulations.
  8. Live specimens may be released within native ranges, subject to all relevant laws and regulations. Releases may be a part of a recovery program and any release must be compatible with the AZA Guidelines for Reintroduction of Animals Born or Held in Captivity, dated June 3, 1992 (Association of Zoos and Aquariums).
  9. Detailed disposition records of all living or dead specimens must be maintained. Where applicable, proper animal identification techniques should be utilized.
  10. It is the obligation of every loaning institution to monitor, at least annually, the conditions of any loaned specimens and the ability of the recipient to provide proper care. If the conditions and care of animals are in violation of the loan agreement, it is the obligation of the loaning institution to recall the animal. Furthermore, an institution's loaning policy must not be in conflict with this A/D Policy.
  11. If live specimens are euthanized, it must be done in accordance with the established policy of the institution and the Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 218 (5): 669-696, 2001).
  12. In dispositions to non-AZA members, the non-AZA member's mission (stated or implied) must not be in conflict with the mission of AZA, or with this A/D Policy.
  13. In dispositions to non-AZA member facilities that are open to the public, the non-AZA member must balance public display, recreation, and entertainment with demonstrated efforts in conservation, education, and science.
  14. In dispositions to non-AZA members, the AZA members must be convinced that the recipient has the expertise, records management practices, financial stability, facilities, and resources required to properly care for and maintain the animals and their offspring. It is recommended that this documentation be kept in the permanent record of the animals at the AZA member institution.
  15. If living animals are sent to a non-AZA member research institution, the institution must be registered under the Animal Welfare Act by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. For international transactions, the receiving facility should be registered by that country's equivalent body with enforcement over animal welfare.
  16. No animal disposition should occur if it would create a health or safety risk (to the animal or humans) or have a negative impact on the conservation of the species.
  17. Inherently dangerous wild animals or invasive species should not be dispositioned to the pet trade or those unqualified to care for them.
  18. Under no circumstances should any primates be dispositioned to a private individual or to the pet trade.
  19. Fish and aquatic invertebrate species that meet ANY of the following are inappropriate to be disposed of to private individuals or the pet trade:
  20. species that grow too large to be housed in a 72-inch long, 180 gallon aquarium (the largest tank commonly sold in retail stores)
  21. species that require extraordinary life support equipment to maintain an appropriate captive environment (e.g., cold water fish and invertebrates)
  22. species deemed invasive (e.g., snakeheads)
  23. species capable of inflicting a serious bite or venomous sting (e.g., piranha, lion fish, blue-ringed octopus)
  24. species of wildlife conservation concern
  25. When dispositioning specimens managed by a PMP, institutions should consult with the PMP manager.
  26. Institutions should consult WCMC-approved RCPs when making disposition decisions.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for posting that okapikpr, I've been wondering myself what the actual guidelines were.
 
ColumbusZoo001 said:
While no one likes to think this: zoos are the "ark." They are failsafes for wild populations. If we don't have a self sustaining population and something goes wrong in the wild then we (zoos) could possibly endanger a species even further.
Click to expand...

I meant that there should be smaller insurance groups for more species.

Because it is hard to predict which animal becomes critically endangered in future. And because, fortunately, after animal was wiped out, situation in the wild often changes for better only after few years or decades, so very big breeding groups aiming for preserving species in zoos for 100s of years are not needed.
 
okapikpr said:
This is what the AZA policies are regarding animal disposition. No where is it stated that AZA accreditated zoos cannot send their animals to non-AZA accreditated zoos:
Click to expand...

That is very true. I have seen some great non-AZA accreditated facilities but I have also seen some really bad ones. What I guess I am trying to point out is that some animals are being put in terrible situations. I am reading a book called Animal Underworld. It was published in 1999 but some of the factors still apply today. For instance roadside zoos and auctions have been seen with many rare and endangered animals. Here's an example.

An Accredited Zoo is flooded with Bongo Antelope and decides to get sell 2 pairs to another zoo. When nobody buys then they go for free. Still no takers and they are sold to a nice Non Accredited Zoo. Later in the year that same Non Accredited Zoo takes all four to an Exotic Animal Auction. They are then sold to a ranch in Texas that provides canned hunting opportunities.

Why does this happen? I think that its wonderful for zoos to breed endangered species but I believe that it shouldn't be done unless there is room in the zoo world for them. Either that or AZA accredits more zoos. I don't know what do you think?

Watch this video to see what I mean.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that if a zoo wants to sell something to a non-accredited facility then an inspection should be performed. It would be good too if they had some way of preventing the animals from being sold to things like hunting preserves and circuses. Zoos should also not be breeding unless they know the animals can go to good homes, not just to attract visitors. On a different note, does anyone know how often elephant families are broken up? I know that is a very stressful ordeal for elephants to go through.
 
elefante said:
I think that if a zoo wants to sell something to a non-accredited facility then an inspection should be performed. It would be good too if they had some way of preventing the animals from being sold to things like hunting preserves and circuses. Zoos should also not be breeding unless they know the animals can go to good homes, not just to attract visitors. On a different note, does anyone know how often elephant families are broken up? I know that is a very stressful ordeal for elephants to go through.
Click to expand...

Glad you agree with me. I am not quite sure about that question you should start a thread asking that. I would think when separating cows they do it in pairs or small groups and moving them that way. For bulls their isn't as much emotion because they leave the herd and go by themselves anyway.
 
I know that separating bull isn't traumatic but with cows it can be extremely traumatic.
 
zebedee101 said:
Animal Kingdom is really a pet store, everything has a price!

http://www.animalkingdomnj.net/
Click to expand...


Animal Kingdom is a pet store and zoo. I guess what I mean to say is that I'm confused by your post. Everything has a price? Rare and Endangered animals shouldn't have a price. They should only be held by people who can respect them and take proper care of them. Animal Kingdom Zoo and Pet Store is not a place for these animals. It is a roadside zoo. Not a place where zoo animal surplus should be placed.
 
kbaker116 said:
Animal Kingdom is a pet store and zoo. I guess what I mean to say is that I'm confused by your post. Everything has a price? Rare and Endangered animals shouldn't have a price. They should only be held by people who can respect them and take proper care of them. Animal Kingdom Zoo and Pet Store is not a place for these animals. It is a roadside zoo. Not a place where zoo animal surplus should be placed.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion and we are in total agreement on all of your points. What I was trying to get across is that unfortunately it seems that the zoo is really just a store front and everything has a price tag on it, even the rare and endangered animals, in my eyes that makes it a store, not a zoo. My english (uk) sometimes doesn't translate to english(usa) as well as I'd like! Animal Kingdom in NJ is a place I have never visited and was suprised to see that they giraffes there. Having lived in NJ for 8 years and worked at an AZA accredited zoo for that time, it was an establishment that I had never heard mentioned. Therefore it doesn't even appear known about to the zoo community. The animal underworld book previously mentioned highlights the issues with surplus zoo stock, especially when new exhibits dictate the loss of other species to make room. It seems that rare and exotic animals are treated as saleable commodities and that if no other accredited zoo wants them they are offered to none accredited zoos and then down the chain to exotic auctions where they can end up in pet stores or canned hunts.
 
The fact that some of them end up in canned hunts is the worst. That is why I sometimes worry when I see something like an addax calf. Will it end up on somebody's wall later?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top