AZA Ungulate Updates

Jambo said:
African elephants spring to mind. The US have imported many scheduled to be culled which have now been incorporated into the breeding program.
Click to expand...

It's such a win-win given it saves the animal's life, rods the local area of a problem and introduces fresh genetics from founders into the population. Similar to when half grown Polar bear cubs have been raken in after encroaching on human settlement. While culling of Polar bears is not commonplace, immature bears would not survive long in the wild and so become a dangerous nuisance as they pursue easier options of finding food.
 
tigris115 said:
What if AZA sponsored facilities were set up in range countries so that specific groups of animals could be bred?

Maybe even sponsor capture and roundups of animals like hirola and saiga for breeding into facilities like these.

Sort of like that 1 Sumatran rhino facility but on a bigger scale with more species.

@Kudu21 What do u think?
Click to expand...
I’m not entirely sure I fully understand your idea. Are you suggesting in-situ breeding facilities for these species or in-situ facilities created to serve as holdings for export to facilities in the United States? As @TinoPup has stated, collecting animals from the wild, when there are not outstanding circumstances like those described by @Zoofan15, is not largely viewed as an ethical practice anymore. Both of the species you describe have proven to us during their time in captivity in the past that they are much better suited for in-situ conservation. Dedicated in-situ programs exist for both of these species, and several zoological facilities in the United States do support these projects.
 
Last edited:
tigris115 said:
What if AZA sponsored facilities were set up in range countries so that specific groups of animals could be bred?
Maybe even sponsor capture and roundups of animals like hirola and saiga for breeding into facilities like these.
Click to expand...
TinoPup said:
Taking animals from the wild is really frowned upon now, unless the species is at a critical point.
Click to expand...

Many lower-profile species are still collected in the wild for zoological facilities, particularly birds and ectotherms. That being said, captive breeding is more of a last ditch effort than an upfront conservation tactic most of the time IMO so I'm not sure it would be the most effective method or best use of financial resources. It also doesn't fix any of the systemic problems affecting most endangered species, like habitat loss and overhunting/poaching.
 
Kudu21 said:
I’m not entirely sure I fully understand your idea. Are you suggesting in-situ breeding facilities for these species or in-situ facilities created to serve as holdings for export to facilities in the United States? As @TinoPup has stated, collecting animals from the wild, when there are not outstanding circumstances like those described by @Zoofan15, is not largely viewed as an ethical practice anymore. Both of the species you describe have proven to us during their time in captivity in the past that they are much better suited for in-situ conservation. Dedicated in-situ programs exist for both of these species, and several zoological facilities in the United States do support these projects.
Click to expand...
I was suggesting in-situ breeding facilities for populations of animals that aren't held in AZA or EAZA zoos. That way, you can have as many species reserved as possible.

Tho this is more for animals on the knife's edge like the aformentioned hirola

Apologies for not making myself clear. However, I do think any animals not fit for the wild can be taken into the AZA or EAZA to bolster genepools
 
tigris115 said:
I was suggesting in-situ breeding facilities for populations of animals that aren't held in AZA or EAZA zoos. That way, you can have as many species reserved as possible.

Tho this is more for animals on the knife's edge like the aformentioned hirola

Apologies for not making myself clear. However, I do think any animals not fit for the wild can be taken into the AZA or EAZA to bolster genepools
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification! The viability of such projects are going to be entirely dependent on the species, the location, the political climate, funding availability, etc. With the example of the hirola, hirola have proven to not adapt well to a captive setting, being incredibly high-strung and aggressive. The species is being intensively managed by the Hirola Conservation Program through habitat restoration, cooperation with and support of local pastoralist communities, and relocation efforts in nature conservancies in Kenya, which is a model that has worked really well for this species.
 
Kudu21 said:
Thanks for the clarification! The viability of such projects are going to be entirely dependent on the species, the location, the political climate, funding availability, etc. With the example of the hirola, hirola have proven to not adapt well to a captive setting, being incredibly high-strung and aggressive. The species is being intensively managed by the Hirola Conservation Program through habitat restoration, cooperation with and support of local pastoralist communities, and relocation efforts in nature conservancies in Kenya, which is a model that has worked really well for this species.
Click to expand...
Ok cool. But I do know for a fact that large herbivores are bought into captivity like with the 18 elephants and the glut of white rhino imports from Namibia.
 
tigris115 said:
Ok cool. But I do know for a fact that large herbivores are bought into captivity like with the 18 elephants and the glut of white rhino imports from Namibia.
Click to expand...
These are almost always a result of outstanding circumstances — the elephant imports were a result of the threat of the animals being culled due to extreme drought and overpopulation in Eswatini. Game ranches are big business in both South Africa and Namibia, and these rhinos will be coming from these game ranches and private reserves. Poaching for rhino horn has also been increasing exponentially in Southern Africa, and moving these animals out of these countries also helps to protect them and supplement an assurance population. Elephants and rhinos are also both already present in captivity and are a lot less fragile than antelope or giraffe, so moving them overseas is a lot less risky for the animals and works to supplement an existing population versus founding entirely new ones.
 
Kudu21 said:
These are almost always a result of outstanding circumstances — the elephant imports were a result of the threat of the animals being culled due to extreme drought and overpopulation in Eswatini. Game ranches are big business in both South Africa and Namibia, and these rhinos will be coming from these game ranches and private reserves. Poaching for rhino horn has also been increasing exponentially in Southern Africa, and moving these animals out of these countries also helps to protect them and supplement an assurance population. Elephants and rhinos are also both already present in captivity and are a lot less fragile than antelope or giraffe, so moving them overseas is a lot less risky for the animals and works to supplement an existing population versus founding an entirely new one.
Click to expand...
Ok. Yeah I do recall people saying that giraffe and antelope can be quite risky to transport
 
This was a fascinating read and I really appreciated the insight into the changes to the AZA's management style - like a lot of members, it all sounds very negative at first but the elaboration by Kudu21, Aardwolf, etc shed a lot of light on why this could be a good thing going forward.

From my ill-informed perspective in the last several years I was becoming concerned the emphasis on ssp programs was encouraging homogenization by incentivizing space be dedicated to only organizationally managed species and de incentivizing zoos to focus on rarities which would not enjoy long-term institutional support. Consortium management could hopefully allow for species where there is no organizational interest at a higher level to be managed by the certain facilities that are invested indefinitely, and if there is some success and new holders are needed they could possibly attract more organizational interest. I had some concern for a while the emphasis on SSP was discouraging this kind of experimentation. The July update really encouraged me seeing how they were already adjusting based on needs.

I definitely think changing Species Survival Plan to Species Sustainability Plan would be ideal. It is clear sustainability in captivity is a primary goal now, which is completely valid, but I do think a shift in emphasis for this is needed, especially for cases like the generic giraffe.

This was also a thread I really needed because I honestly did not know new animals were being imported at the levels being discussed here - more elephants, more white rhinoceros, more mountain goats, all good news that makes me feel better about the future of zoos :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top