Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
Nowhere in my reply to you did I reference wildlife trafficking. Please take this conversation seriously.
AZA to keep "fewer large animals"?
- Thread starter BearMinimum
- Start date
Nowhere in my reply to you did I reference wildlife trafficking. Please take this conversation seriously.
Iguana_Cabana
Well-Known Member
Cant we responsibly breed reptiles etc without making morphs/pet only/inbred? and the book you referenced is about wildlife trafficking
Iguana_Cabana
Well-Known Member
And when I mean private I mean totally non AZA
Wisp O' Mist
Well-Known Member
Organizations and individuals who breed exotic animals for conservationist purposes should not be deliberately breeding for morphs, selling surplus animals into the pet trade, nor inbreeding their stock.
It's not about traditional "smuggling", it's about the secretive exotic animal market that emerged in large part due to American zoos not doing their due diligence when it came rehoming their surplus animals responsibly... for decades.
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
Random thoughts and reflections
Some taxa will lend themselves well to facilities like you describe, either purely dedicated to one taxa, like ICF, or specializing in a group of animals, while also exhibiting other species, like St. Augustine.
Homogenization of collections is a vicious, if somewhat unplanned, cycle. Zoos know that certain animals and experiences are crowd pleasers and gravitate to them, at the expense of other species. Those "shunned' species in turn become less common, which makes the popular ones ever more the "go to" species when other zoos start building new exhibits. The wheel turns, and within a few years, zoo nerds exclaim, "Wait, there used to be _____ at the zoo?!"
Collaboration is key to the long-term sustainability of populations, and that can be strengthened by partnership with non-AZA facilities, private collectors, and hobbyists. It should only be done, however, if it's in a manner that's consistent with the zoo's values and adhering to animal welfare best practices - not just dumping animals that are no longer necessary for an SSP. Every AZA facility is required to have protocol in place for how to responsibly work with non-AZA partners, such as a review process, getting references from other AZA facilities, site visits, etc.
Every zoo needs to have an honest discussion with itself (generally formalized as an Institutional Collection Plan) as to what species it is able to best manage while building an animal collection that adheres to its core goals. In some cases, that will mean phasing some species out in favor of other species. The goal should be to commit to species that you can do well, either by upgrading facilities and holding capacity for those species (going all in, as it were) or phasing out species that won't work for any number of reasons (space, finances, staffing, climate, etc).
Some taxa will lend themselves well to facilities like you describe, either purely dedicated to one taxa, like ICF, or specializing in a group of animals, while also exhibiting other species, like St. Augustine.
Homogenization of collections is a vicious, if somewhat unplanned, cycle. Zoos know that certain animals and experiences are crowd pleasers and gravitate to them, at the expense of other species. Those "shunned' species in turn become less common, which makes the popular ones ever more the "go to" species when other zoos start building new exhibits. The wheel turns, and within a few years, zoo nerds exclaim, "Wait, there used to be _____ at the zoo?!"
Collaboration is key to the long-term sustainability of populations, and that can be strengthened by partnership with non-AZA facilities, private collectors, and hobbyists. It should only be done, however, if it's in a manner that's consistent with the zoo's values and adhering to animal welfare best practices - not just dumping animals that are no longer necessary for an SSP. Every AZA facility is required to have protocol in place for how to responsibly work with non-AZA partners, such as a review process, getting references from other AZA facilities, site visits, etc.
Every zoo needs to have an honest discussion with itself (generally formalized as an Institutional Collection Plan) as to what species it is able to best manage while building an animal collection that adheres to its core goals. In some cases, that will mean phasing some species out in favor of other species. The goal should be to commit to species that you can do well, either by upgrading facilities and holding capacity for those species (going all in, as it were) or phasing out species that won't work for any number of reasons (space, finances, staffing, climate, etc).
Last edited:
Like I said earlier, this is what I consider a niche for specialist facilities for different taxa. The ability to hone in focus like that means certain species can get more love. This is especially apparent for ungulates where facilities like White Oak and The Wilds have done wonders for many species.
Lincoln Park Zoo has not taken this route with exhibits developed after Regenstein African Journey, with the exception of the Pritzker Family Children's Zoo, which opened in 2004 with over ten species. Chimpanzees and gorillas got new exhibits when the Regenstein Center for African Apes opened in 2005. Opening in 2014, the Regenstein Macaque Forest provided an exhibit for Japanese macaques. Two exhibits opened in 2016 for a total of 2 animal species; the Walter Family Arctic Tundra for polar bears, and the Pritzker Penguin Cove for African penguins. The Pepper Family Wildlife Center, an exhibit focused on African lions, opened most recently in 2021. Exhibits for red pandas, snow leopards, and Canadian lynx are also included in the Wildlife Center, but these old exhibits received only minimal changes. That's a total of five major new multimillion dollar exhibits for a total of six species of animals!
The newer exhibits for just a handful of species are a significant contrast with the exhibits that were renovated or opened in the 1990s. The majority of the Zoo's animal collection is housed in the McCormick Bird House that was renovated in 1991 and the Regenstein Small Mammal-Reptile House that opened in 1997. The 1992 renovated Helen Brach Primate House has roughly ten species and no great apes. Opening in 1999, the Kovler Seal Pool has just two species, gray seals and harbor seals. Together, these 1990s exhibits account for almost 90 of the Zoo's over 150 species of animals on display (based off kqpikachu's Lincoln Park Zoo Species List (As of February 2023) [Lincoln Park Zoo] - ZooChat)).
Put into a longer term perspective, the range of animals in Regenstein African Journey might represent an intermediary between the more diverse exhibits concentrating on smaller animals that opened in the 1990s, and the larger exhibits for just a handful of animals that have opened after the Children's Zoo. The Regenstein African Journey has not set a model for subsequent exhibits at the Lincoln Park Zoo to display a range and a diversity of animal species.
It's tough to say what influence Regenstein African Journey has had on other AZA zoos and how they redevelop large animal exhibits. It did receive a 2005 AZA Exhibit Award for Significant Achievement. I am having difficulty thinking of any AZA exhibit that has clearly followed in its footsteps.
A study of note about visitor behavior at Regenstein African Journey is, Influences on Visitor Behavior at a Modern Immersive Zoo Exhibit by Stephen Ross and Katie Gillespie in Zoo Biology 2009, 28(5). I believe that I have read that article before. However, I can no longer easily access the full document.
I fear there may have been some kind of misunderstanding here -- I was not intending to suggest the exhibit had already shown influence over Lincoln Park's further plans or those of other facilities at this time. I was intending to mention it as an example that could make a decent blueprint for future renovations at other facilities, particularly those with large indoor buildings currently holding outdated megafauna dayrooms.
That's correct. Three species were cut from Pepper Family Wildlife Center to expand space for current residents, three carnivores were cut from the former bear line to expand space for polar bears and the new penguin habitat, and six seabirds left the collection when the Penguin-Seabird House was razed and replaced with the macaques. A few birds and small mammals have left the collection in this time as well.
@JVM There was no misunderstanding on my part. When I wrote my previous post I was aware that you did not think that Regenstein African Journey had already had this sort of influence.
Perhaps Elephant Odyssey at the San Diego Zoo was a bit inspired by African Journey. Elephant Odyssey does have some insect and reptile exhibits mixed in with their large mammal displays. When Cleveland Metroparks Zoo renovated their large holding building and outdoor exhibits for elephants in African Elephant Crossing they included an aviary and exhibits for reptiles, naked mole rats, and meerkats. I have not seen these Cleveland exhibits in person, but they do not seem to be of the caliber or commitment as those for small animals in Elephant Odyssey or African Journey.
Regenstein African Journey has been around for over twenty years now and gained some fame by winning Significant Achievement in the AZA exhibit awards. Why haven't more new AZA exhibits followed its blueprint with respect to displaying a range of animal species with renovated exhibits for large mammals? Was Regenstein African Journey unsuccessful? Does it not hold up well twenty years later? Was it underserving of Significant Achievement? Would this type of exhibit complex be as successful today and in the near future?
If we can unpack these questions perhaps we can gain some insight into both the future of large animals and smaller ones at AZA zoos.
Perhaps Elephant Odyssey at the San Diego Zoo was a bit inspired by African Journey. Elephant Odyssey does have some insect and reptile exhibits mixed in with their large mammal displays. When Cleveland Metroparks Zoo renovated their large holding building and outdoor exhibits for elephants in African Elephant Crossing they included an aviary and exhibits for reptiles, naked mole rats, and meerkats. I have not seen these Cleveland exhibits in person, but they do not seem to be of the caliber or commitment as those for small animals in Elephant Odyssey or African Journey.
Regenstein African Journey has been around for over twenty years now and gained some fame by winning Significant Achievement in the AZA exhibit awards. Why haven't more new AZA exhibits followed its blueprint with respect to displaying a range of animal species with renovated exhibits for large mammals? Was Regenstein African Journey unsuccessful? Does it not hold up well twenty years later? Was it underserving of Significant Achievement? Would this type of exhibit complex be as successful today and in the near future?
If we can unpack these questions perhaps we can gain some insight into both the future of large animals and smaller ones at AZA zoos.
Regenstein African Journey overall seems to be well received. It's an exhibit that I would personally like to see and I imagine it would be one of the highlights were I to visit the Lincoln Park Zoo. A large part of the appeal for me would be the diversity of species and immersive exhibits.
The criticisms I've seen of Regenstein African Journey are directed to the limited space devoted to the animals, especially the pygmy hippos and the giraffes. This criticism is not limited to Zoochatters. I was searching through Tripadvisor and Google reviews and visitors did mention the limited space to these animals as negative aspects of their experience. The trend of expanding animal spaces and standards means that the exhibits for large animals in African Journey are not as well received now as they would have been when it opened in 2003.
On average, visitors to Regenstein African Journey spend more time at the exhibits of larger animals, especially pygmy hippos and giraffes, than they do at exhibits of smaller animals. Visitor reviews on Tripadvisor and Google are more likely to mention giraffes, rhinos, and hippos than the smaller animals. From these findings, one could argue that the large animals are the most important ones to the visitor experience of African Journey.
Even a popular AZA zoo that receives large donations, like the Lincoln Park Zoo, faces limitations on the development of new exhibits. One way that they can create larger and better spaces for their large charismatic animals is to focus more on them at the expense of smaller species. Theoretically, the Lincoln Park Zoo could have displayed only pygmy hippos and giraffes inside the African Journey building and by doing so have developed bigger and better exhibits for those large animals. Most AZA zoos seem to be following this trend.
Returning to the AZA trends document, if there is increasing concern about the welfare and display of large animals it might drive an increased focus on those large animals. Zoos may be unwilling to completely lose these large species and so pursue them even if it means losing, or not including, other animal species that could be cared for more easily and ethically. Individual zoos may not display the full diversity of large animals available to them, but those large animals that they do have will benefit from an increased allocation of resources directed towards them. Most large animals will not disappear from AZA zoos with this focus on large animals, even with increasing concerns about their welfare, and would face a far lesser danger of disappearing than smaller, especially less charismatic, species.
The criticisms I've seen of Regenstein African Journey are directed to the limited space devoted to the animals, especially the pygmy hippos and the giraffes. This criticism is not limited to Zoochatters. I was searching through Tripadvisor and Google reviews and visitors did mention the limited space to these animals as negative aspects of their experience. The trend of expanding animal spaces and standards means that the exhibits for large animals in African Journey are not as well received now as they would have been when it opened in 2003.
On average, visitors to Regenstein African Journey spend more time at the exhibits of larger animals, especially pygmy hippos and giraffes, than they do at exhibits of smaller animals. Visitor reviews on Tripadvisor and Google are more likely to mention giraffes, rhinos, and hippos than the smaller animals. From these findings, one could argue that the large animals are the most important ones to the visitor experience of African Journey.
Even a popular AZA zoo that receives large donations, like the Lincoln Park Zoo, faces limitations on the development of new exhibits. One way that they can create larger and better spaces for their large charismatic animals is to focus more on them at the expense of smaller species. Theoretically, the Lincoln Park Zoo could have displayed only pygmy hippos and giraffes inside the African Journey building and by doing so have developed bigger and better exhibits for those large animals. Most AZA zoos seem to be following this trend.
Returning to the AZA trends document, if there is increasing concern about the welfare and display of large animals it might drive an increased focus on those large animals. Zoos may be unwilling to completely lose these large species and so pursue them even if it means losing, or not including, other animal species that could be cared for more easily and ethically. Individual zoos may not display the full diversity of large animals available to them, but those large animals that they do have will benefit from an increased allocation of resources directed towards them. Most large animals will not disappear from AZA zoos with this focus on large animals, even with increasing concerns about their welfare, and would face a far lesser danger of disappearing than smaller, especially less charismatic, species.
This is the irony of the situation that I somewhat fear - that the focus on the welfare and sensitivity of certain species is, in fact, contributing even further to making these species a greater focus for both zoos and visitors.
This is my other concern. I think a zoo that could theoretically hold three hundred smaller animals or a few large animals will naturally select the latter option. The more space taken up by popular megafauna, the more less charismatic species become expendable. This is well understandable to a point, but I worry it may not be sustainable over time.
Where Fewer Deer and Antelope Play
One important distinction that I neglected to make in my earlier posts here is that the situation for Bovidae (the antelope) and Cervidae (the deer) in AZA facilities is very different than that for other large mammals. The trend has been for the Bovidae and Cervidae to be significant space losers in AZA zoos.
This trend has been in evidence for a while now. The 2014 AZA ungulate TAG mid-year meetings made mention of a loss of nearly 1,000 spaces for antelope alone since the 1999 space surveys (2014 Midyear Meeting - presentations — AZA Ungulates). The Bison, Buffalo, Cattle, and Camelid TAG warned of significant lack of interest that threatened the sustainability of these bovid populations. The Cervid TAG Update had a graph that appears to show a loss of a third of cervid spaces from 2005-2013. Things haven't improved in the past ten years since those updates.
There are only a handful of Bovidae and Cervidae exhibits that AZA zoos seem interested in. Those exhibits for large species include:
1. Peaceful species that can mix well with other species, especially giraffes and or zebras, in large open African exhibits
2. Bongo antelope
3. Yellow-backed duiker to mix with bongos or okapis
4. American bison
5. Elk for displays of native wildlife, or mixed with bison
6. Takin for Asian exhibits
7. A species that does well in the local climatic conditions. Like Rocky Mountain goats in northwestern zoos and Arabian oryx in the southwest. This is more so the case where the climate poses some limitations on the effective husbandry of other species.
8. Domestic goats, cows, and sheep for children's zoos
There are of course some exceptions. There is a dedicated exhibit for sable antelope in the Scott African Grasslands at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo.
The lack of quantity of spaces for large Bovidae and Cervidae and the limited variety of exhibits that AZA zoos are interested in will challenge the sustainability of these populations. Were it not for a handful of facilities with a lot of space and large holdings, most notably the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, many Bovidae and Cervidae populations would be very small and unsustainable in AZA zoos. Working with AZA accredited related facilities will help zoos maintain some of these ungulate populations. Even with this help, the diversity of Bovidae and Cervidae species will likely continue to decrease in AZA facilities.
Increasing concern about animal welfare may actually exacerbate the unsustainability of Bovidae and Cervidae populations. Visitors like to see hoofstock in large herds. Watching competitive matches between males might be entertaining, but when it results in serious injuries or deaths the North American zoo-going public will become upset. Separating males requires a larger quantity of individual spaces and may make the public concerned about the loneliness of separated males. There is now increased scrutiny and criticism about zoos sending excess male animals to facilities outside of the AZA with poorer standards. For those species that cannot be kept in bachelor herds, managing male Bovidae and Cervidae animals to high welfare standards is challenging and may threaten the long-term viability of some species within AZA.
Welfare concerns in mixed-species exhibits pose additional limitations to Bovidae and Cervidae populations. No AZA zoo wants their animals to be seriously injured or killed from interspecific aggression or accidents. A single bad incident can be enough to dissuade zoos from experimenting with mixed species exhibits and to remove one or more species from mixed-species displays.
A major concern for the welfare of captive large animals has been adequate enclosure space. Exhibits for Bovidae and Cervidae tend to be fairly large relative to that for other animals. That has the double disadvantage of being difficult to accommodate where space at the zoo is limited and makes them more likely to be replaced by more charismatic large animals that need a lot of space.
The future for many species of Bovidae and Cervidae in AZA zoos seems far more challenging and uncertain than that for more charismatic large animals. Bongo, American bison, and a handful of others will remain and do well. Overall, in the near future, you will probably see fewer deer and antelope play in AZA zoos.
One important distinction that I neglected to make in my earlier posts here is that the situation for Bovidae (the antelope) and Cervidae (the deer) in AZA facilities is very different than that for other large mammals. The trend has been for the Bovidae and Cervidae to be significant space losers in AZA zoos.
This trend has been in evidence for a while now. The 2014 AZA ungulate TAG mid-year meetings made mention of a loss of nearly 1,000 spaces for antelope alone since the 1999 space surveys (2014 Midyear Meeting - presentations — AZA Ungulates). The Bison, Buffalo, Cattle, and Camelid TAG warned of significant lack of interest that threatened the sustainability of these bovid populations. The Cervid TAG Update had a graph that appears to show a loss of a third of cervid spaces from 2005-2013. Things haven't improved in the past ten years since those updates.
There are only a handful of Bovidae and Cervidae exhibits that AZA zoos seem interested in. Those exhibits for large species include:
1. Peaceful species that can mix well with other species, especially giraffes and or zebras, in large open African exhibits
2. Bongo antelope
3. Yellow-backed duiker to mix with bongos or okapis
4. American bison
5. Elk for displays of native wildlife, or mixed with bison
6. Takin for Asian exhibits
7. A species that does well in the local climatic conditions. Like Rocky Mountain goats in northwestern zoos and Arabian oryx in the southwest. This is more so the case where the climate poses some limitations on the effective husbandry of other species.
8. Domestic goats, cows, and sheep for children's zoos
There are of course some exceptions. There is a dedicated exhibit for sable antelope in the Scott African Grasslands at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo.
The lack of quantity of spaces for large Bovidae and Cervidae and the limited variety of exhibits that AZA zoos are interested in will challenge the sustainability of these populations. Were it not for a handful of facilities with a lot of space and large holdings, most notably the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, many Bovidae and Cervidae populations would be very small and unsustainable in AZA zoos. Working with AZA accredited related facilities will help zoos maintain some of these ungulate populations. Even with this help, the diversity of Bovidae and Cervidae species will likely continue to decrease in AZA facilities.
Increasing concern about animal welfare may actually exacerbate the unsustainability of Bovidae and Cervidae populations. Visitors like to see hoofstock in large herds. Watching competitive matches between males might be entertaining, but when it results in serious injuries or deaths the North American zoo-going public will become upset. Separating males requires a larger quantity of individual spaces and may make the public concerned about the loneliness of separated males. There is now increased scrutiny and criticism about zoos sending excess male animals to facilities outside of the AZA with poorer standards. For those species that cannot be kept in bachelor herds, managing male Bovidae and Cervidae animals to high welfare standards is challenging and may threaten the long-term viability of some species within AZA.
Welfare concerns in mixed-species exhibits pose additional limitations to Bovidae and Cervidae populations. No AZA zoo wants their animals to be seriously injured or killed from interspecific aggression or accidents. A single bad incident can be enough to dissuade zoos from experimenting with mixed species exhibits and to remove one or more species from mixed-species displays.
A major concern for the welfare of captive large animals has been adequate enclosure space. Exhibits for Bovidae and Cervidae tend to be fairly large relative to that for other animals. That has the double disadvantage of being difficult to accommodate where space at the zoo is limited and makes them more likely to be replaced by more charismatic large animals that need a lot of space.
The future for many species of Bovidae and Cervidae in AZA zoos seems far more challenging and uncertain than that for more charismatic large animals. Bongo, American bison, and a handful of others will remain and do well. Overall, in the near future, you will probably see fewer deer and antelope play in AZA zoos.
The sheer number of species around rather guaranteed this when the shift to sustainable populations occurred following heavy restrictions on imports. It became a choice of focus on what was viable or lose most of them over time. There simply is not the space within the AZA to maintain the majority of current hoofstock at secure levels. There has been some movement in larger zoos building satellite breeding facilities which hopefully will open more spaces for some hoofstock.
Incidents are extremely common with mixed hoofstock, especially when zebra are involved. It does hamper spaces at times. Though in other cases the mix probably shouldn't have been attempted anyway (Nyala with Pygmy Hippo)...
One thing you haven't addressed here is the primary reason for the decline of deer - space is an issue but that's not what damaged the holdings. Deer unfortunately have a worse reason of disease - Chronic Wasting Disease to be precise. Due to regulations enacted to help prevent spread of this nasty disease, moving deer across state lines has become difficult to virtually impossible. The incredible difficulty in moving surplus animals or bringing in new blood has basically crippled the majority of the deer populations. Only the couple of populations most worth it to the facilities are holding on because of the restrictions.
I'm not going to dispute anything you've said, however I think there's an overwhelming opinion on Zoo Chat that more species diversity amongst zoos is a good thing, and I question as it relates to ungulates whether that is truly the right approach. I know countless AZA zoos that in totality are smaller than a single paddock at San Diego Zoo Safari Park or The Wilds. To any of these zoos, investing in an antelope species means setting aside a relatively large amount of space for a relatively simple exhibit of a species most visitors aren't going to pay much attention to.
By all means, I absolutely agree that zoos should be displaying a wide diversity of species including ungulates, but if I was the director of a small zoo I probably wouldn't want to invest large amounts of space into an antelope or deer exhibit when that same space could instead be used for multiple smaller mammals, a reptile house, or an indoor rainforest. Most smaller zoos only have the space for a select few larger mammals, and it makes sense to use those spaces for the animals visitors expect to see (e.g., big cats, bears, large primates) and not for something that's "just another deer". That isn't to say there aren't small or medium sized zoos that take a different approach and do maintain substantial ungulate diversity, such as Buffalo Zoo, but I'd imagine that's the exception and not the rule.
If large amounts of ungulate diversity is desired in US zoos, the best course of action would likely be to save the sable and roan antelope, gemsbok, bongo, etc., for the facilities able to display large herds (e.g., San Diego Zoo Safari Park, The Wilds, Bronx Zoo, etc.), but then make a concerted effort AZA-wide to increase the populations for smaller species that are more solitary, better for smaller zoos, and in many cases able to be mixed into aviaries, primate exhibits, red panda exhibits, etc. I can easily imagine a world where every red panda exhibit duplicates as a Reeve's muntjac or tufted deer exhibit, where indoor Rainforest aviaries also feature blue or red-flanked duikers, where babirusa are prominently featured in tropical Asian exhibits, and where Speke's or slender-horned gazelles are the top choices for African savannas. I also suspect this sort of ungulate diversity is a lot more attainable than displaying spiral-horned antelopes in small zoos, and a lot more preferrable from an animal welfare perspective too.
I agree with you that trying to retain the current diversity of large species of Cervidae and Bovidae species would not be the right approach for AZA zoos. It would be sad to see them go, but space and resources are too limited to keep them all. I discussed them because their fate is significantly different from those of the other large animals in AZA zoos.
I think we need to challenge all the talk about charismatic large animals disappearing from AZA zoos, including that in the AZA Trends document. It's not like that isn't happening at all, but it ignores that other groups of animal populations are facing much more significant challenges in AZA zoos. These population changes are much harder to track and garner less attention than elephants or polar bears. I bet @snowleopard could tell you how many AZA zoos have lost elephants or polar bears off the top of his head! Yes, there are quite a few, but how does that compare to the loss of Cervidae and Bovidae? How are the AZA populations of Asian monkeys doing? What are we at greater risk of losing, Asian elephants or Asian monkeys? What about birds and reptiles?