Bronx Zoo Bronx Zoo 2015

[jibster]

So now I'm intrigued. It seems, from what I've heard/read both here and elsewhere, that the reticulated stock in general does not have a pure bloodline (save for perhaps a few), the masai population (as I've always heard) is pure, but the question is about the rothschild's. One statement here was that there were insufficient rothschild's to maintain a pure bloodline, which I can believe, but I can't imagine that there would be a call to manage the subspecies together with the reticulated (pure and hybrid lines) unless the rothschild's population was not pure.

What about the non-AZA population of giraffes? I would imagine that many (if not most) giraffes are managed as generic - but are there any other subspecies of giraffe (of known lineage) present in US outside of AZA collections?

Of course, all of this is complicated by the still somewhat questionable taxonomy of giraffes. Some studies call into question the validity of many traditional giraffe subspecies, some studies suggest that many of the traditional subspecies are really species, the European population of one subspecies has been found to be actually of another subspecies.... Of course, in the end, it's all semantics - whether they're called species or subspecies - but if the relationships among the various populations of giraffes could be clarified, it might make conservation priorities (both ex and in situ) clearer.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

it was Busch Gardens, imported 25 reticulated giraffes from Kenya in 1984. They had 18 giraffes already, which they moved to other zoos before the pure animals arrived.

I just had a look at their website too, and they say they have reticulated giraffes - so they may all still be pure there.

For Busch Gardens I can find 3.14 individuals imported from Kenya in 1984 on the ISB. They have till 2009 allowed at least 2 new immigrant males from other US/AZA zoos to enter into their herd (Rio Grande in 2003 and Fort Wayne in 2008).

All giraffes on the studbook in this category are listed - including the imports - as rothschildi / reticulata. It does NOT MEAN these are hybrids / crossbreeds, just the AZA management category (although personally I do find that highly deplorable given the highly endangered status of both Giraffa reticulata and Giraffa rothschildi in the wild).

Still early days and a little tentative as I only just started my search. I will keep you all posted!

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

So now I'm intrigued. It seems, from what I've heard/read both here and elsewhere, that the reticulated stock in general does not have a pure bloodline (save for perhaps a few), the masai population (as I've always heard) is pure, but the question is about the rothschild's. One statement here was that there were insufficient rothschild's to maintain a pure bloodline, which I can believe, but I can't imagine that there would be a call to manage the subspecies together with the reticulated (pure and hybrid lines) unless the rothschild's population was not pure.

What about the non-AZA population of giraffes? I would imagine that many (if not most) giraffes are managed as generic - but are there any other subspecies of giraffe (of known lineage) present in US outside of AZA collections?

Of course, all of this is complicated by the still somewhat questionable taxonomy of giraffes. Some studies call into question the validity of many traditional giraffe subspecies, some studies suggest that many of the traditional subspecies are really species, the European population of one subspecies has been found to be actually of another subspecies.... Of course, in the end, it's all semantics - whether they're called species or subspecies - but if the relationships among the various populations of giraffes could be clarified, it might make conservation priorities (both ex and in situ) clearer.

AZA giraffe: their retics/roths are managed as one (sadly). Not inferring there are no purebreds as it is. The proportion of generics within the non AZA is probably much higher, although some managers may choose to do differently.

Genetics/taxonomy: it is now well accepted among giraffe scientists that most if not all giraffe subspecies should in fact be treated as full species! For the Eastern Africa arc countries Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania these species specific boundaries are now well defined and documented, including the factors influencing both phenotypically / genetically clearly identifiable different species have been the subject of intensive studies.


NOTE: I would think if we continue around this discussion line a move of this part of the thread further on as this pertains to AZA or more general taxonomy / genetics would be advisable. It is certainly a subject worth discussing / investigating further and has great relevance to the importance and integrity of ex situ populations for conservation management both ex situ and in situ and vice versa.

 

[AmbikaFan]

Saving Wildlife and Wild Places - WCS.org

I think Thylo is right. The wording in this new WCS mission statement is huge news:

Through Conservation Action: WCS will help to conserve ecologically intact wild places in 15 priority terrestrial and marine regions and their wildlife, and reverse the decline of six priority groups of species across their range– elephants, apes, big cats, sharks & rays, whales & dolphins, and tortoises & freshwater turtles. We will also help maintain viable populations of critically endangered species in our zoos and aquarium.

The WCS pledges to "reverse the decline....of elephants." That's dead-on track, couldn't be clearer, and could mean both Asians and Africans.

The last line (my emphasis added) virtually commits WCS to get back into holding elephants. I can't think of any way I could be mis-interpreting this. They've named the six species in greatest need and pledge to maintain "viable populations" in their own facilities. That's overwhelmingly good news. The re-entry of WCS into maintaining a captive population is nothing short of Samson entering the fight.

This Samson has worldwide clout that could bring much-needed specimens from the wild. This Samson has huge acreage to utilize on projects it deems worthy. This Samson is again on the case! The more I think about this, I wonder if this was the goal all along, albeit a goal both delayed and intensified by Sandy's destruction of the Aquarium and the palpably-worsening plight of both wild and captive elephant population.

This may be the best elephant news in the world right now!

 

[Chlidonias]

For Busch Gardens I can find 3.14 individuals imported from Kenya in 1984 on the ISB. They have till 2009 allowed at least 2 new immigrant males from other US/AZA zoos to enter into their herd (Rio Grande in 2003 and Fort Wayne in 2008).

there were supposed to have been 25 (five males, the rest females). Perhaps they couldn't get the numbers.

If new males have come in from other zoos then the overall purity of Busch's animals would be called into question, although many would still be the original or descended only from the original imported animals.

 

[Chlidonias]

So now I'm intrigued. It seems, from what I've heard/read both here and elsewhere, that the reticulated stock in general does not have a pure bloodline (save for perhaps a few), the masai population (as I've always heard) is pure, but the question is about the rothschild's. One statement here was that there were insufficient rothschild's to maintain a pure bloodline, which I can believe, but I can't imagine that there would be a call to manage the subspecies together with the reticulated (pure and hybrid lines) unless the rothschild's population was not pure.

the reticulateds and Rothschild's are not kept as separate bloodlines. The management programme for giraffes treats them as generic (retic-roth) because there are too few known pure animals and too many unknowns and hybrids.

Many of the original Rothschild's imported were determined later to be hybrids or potential hybrids.

 

[AmbikaFan]

Saving Wildlife and Wild Places - WCS.org

I've found more and more references to the same commitment in this document. By 2020, they pledge to develop a

A taxonomically diverse and exciting animal collection in our zoos and aquarium, focused on population sustainability and closely aligned with AZA conservation programs and Global Conservation Program initiatives

This seems crystal clear. What's more, they're already putting this into action. Three of the six species populations to reverse are marine species, with plans for extensive renovation and expansion of the Aquarium. And this is WELL underway! The $157 million shark exhibit is 75% completed, due to open in 2016, when the half of the Aquarium ravaged by Sandy will finally re-open too. If this huge project is any indication of WCS's serious of purpose, they could have more significant plans for elephants than we could imagine.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...ound-new-127m-shark-exhibit-article-1.1571425

 

[jibster]

the reticulateds and Rothschild's are not kept as separate bloodlines. The management programme for giraffes treats them as generic (retic-roth) because there are too few known pure animals and too many unknowns and hybrids.

Many of the original Rothschild's imported were determined later to be hybrids or potential hybrids.

Thanks - exactly as I thought. Sad to me that there seems to be little to no interest in establishing a genetically pure line in the US of any giraffes other than Masai, particularly given the small wild population of Rothschild's. I suppose, though, with limited space, I can understand the decision.

 

[jibster]

AZA giraffe: their retics/roths are managed as one (sadly). Not inferring there are no purebreds as it is. The proportion of generics within the non AZA is probably much higher, although some managers may choose to do differently.

Genetics/taxonomy: it is now well accepted among giraffe scientists that most if not all giraffe subspecies should in fact be treated as full species! For the Eastern Africa arc countries Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania these species specific boundaries are now well defined and documented, including the factors influencing both phenotypically / genetically clearly identifiable different species have been the subject of intensive studies.


NOTE: I would think if we continue around this discussion line a move of this part of the thread further on as this pertains to AZA or more general taxonomy / genetics would be advisable. It is certainly a subject worth discussing / investigating further and has great relevance to the importance and integrity of ex situ populations for conservation management both ex situ and in situ and vice versa.

This might indeed be worthy of a separate thread. As to the giraffe issue, I know that some work has been done on East African giraffes, but to my understanding, much still needs to done regarding the populations outside of East Africa before there is any overall consensus as to the taxonomic situation of the giraffe. As to whether or not these population are called species or subspecies, in one sense, it doesn't much matter, but from a conservation standpoint, there are certainly reasons "splitting" the giraffe into many species could be preferable to "lumping."

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Last I've heard the situation is not as simple as splitting all the subspecies into different species. I think it's time someone point DavidBrown to this thread Or at least get him to post a thread to explain things as best he can.

As for captive populations, as I said, I think it'd make most sense to at least set the hybrids as phase-outs and plan on (eventually) bringing in captive stock of Baringo from Europe. It'd be one thing if giraffes were on species, but they're not, and keeping a hybrid population in captivity has 0 conservation value.

@AmbikaFan, I don't think it's likely that both species are coming to the zoo. While it's entirely possible that they'll keep Asian in Wild Asia Monorail and then build a new complex for African Bush, I'd prefer it if they just built a brand new complex and used it to breed African Bush Elephants (since I believe they have the more viable population set to subspecies level). It'd allow for year-round and prolonged viewing which would definitely increase both profits and visitation. It'd also be cheaper to work with one rather than both and also open up a large space for a new species.

The announcement of wanting to turn their collections into holding more of the endangered species they work with really excites and intrigues me. I'm not necessarily expecting anything like pangolins or the like to come in but I do wonder what's planned. The addition of species like Komodo Dragons and giant tortoises and putting the Malayan Tigers and the Northern New Guinea Giant Softshell Turtles on-exhibit (not that I've seen them yet!) are really good steps in this direction. I do have to wonder if they have any other plans similar to the one they have for Maleo in store for us.

~Thylo

 

[AmbikaFan]

@AmbikaFan, I don't think it's likely that both species are coming to the zoo. While it's entirely possible that they'll keep Asian in Wild Asia Monorail and then build a new complex for African Bush, I'd prefer it if they just built a brand new complex and used it to breed African Bush Elephants (since I believe they have the more viable population set to subspecies level). It'd allow for year-round and prolonged viewing which would definitely increase both profits and visitation. It'd also be cheaper to work with one rather than both and also open up a large space for a new species.

The announcement of wanting to turn their collections into holding more of the endangered species they work with really excites and intrigues me.

~Thylo

LOL Your subconscious word choice here really sums up the current sitution! The current elephant exhibit is so remote and out of mind that it feels as if the Bronx Zoo would be having a new species coming to the zoo. Even we forget they're there when it comes to zoos making meaningful steps toward conservation.

I don't really think they'll begin holding both species either, but the luxurious Aquarium additions/renovations suggest that they are going "whole hog" on this. So I was thinking big. There's so much land currently unused along the Bronx River from the tram to the parking lot, though, that it wouldn't be hard to imagine 15 acres for each species, one on each side of the river. (Then-NZP director Lucy Spelman constantly reminded the public in the planning of Elephant Trails that Asian elephants are quite capable of navigating hilly terrain. In fact, there is a key piece of Elephant Trails--a steep, but direct path from Kandula's yard to the Outpost--that was put on hold as money got tight) They want to bring attention to their chosen flagship species in a big way--and what could be bigger than that?

There is no doubt that WCS has made huge contributions in these same areas overseas for some time now. What's so HUGE about this is they now realize that the American public must experience these animals here for their plight in far-off places to seem important. This is a clear reversal of the "We'll be devoting all of our efforts to conservation of Asian elephants abroad and phasing out our own collection as members die" policy a decade ago. Interestingly, sharks and elephants are really the only "new" emphases, as the others are fairly well-represented within WCS? This suggests, to me at least, they there will be some effort to include more significant numbers of each species at even the smaller zoos to coordinate with the Parks-wide awareness campaign.

I am curious however. To a certain extent, the species chosen are highly visible "flagship" representatives of global conservation, and that has value. Are lions, for instance, or lowland gorillas highly endangered? Or do you imagine a focus/introduction on lesser-known, smaller cats and primates?

I can't believe the press hasn't commented on this document, especially with the issue of elephants so potent here even after 10 years.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Unfortunately a lot of the unused land Bronx has is protected forested areas so I wouldn't imagine they'd be even willing to cut those down for a new exhibit let alone be able to.

The WCS has always worked to protect the lesser known species as well as the widely known ones, it's just their strategy has always been along the lines of: to be able to save the pangolin and the loris, you must first save the tigers who live where they live.

By them putting a primary focus on the more popular species, they've been able to work with the lesser known ones who live in the same regions while still being able to pull public support and funding. This is also why they focus largely are conserving entire regions and habitats instead of just individual species. You use the tiger or the elephant to gain the funds and support to save their habitat, you also save the habitat of the hundreds of other species living alongside them.

~Thylo

 

[ZooElephantMan]

If this plan is all about 2020, it seems that they wouldn't be able to make a new elephant exhibit at the Bronx zoo in 4 years. But maybe I am just really bad at timelines. They could've started the planning a while ago which would make it more possible in the time "limit".

 

[jibster]

I don't really think they'll begin holding both species either, but the luxurious Aquarium additions/renovations suggest that they are going "whole hog" on this. So I was thinking big. There's so much land currently unused along the Bronx River from the tram to the parking lot, though, that it wouldn't be hard to imagine 15 acres for each species, one on each side of the river. (Then-NZP director Lucy Spelman constantly reminded the public in the planning of Elephant Trails that Asian elephants are quite capable of navigating hilly terrain. In fact, there is a key piece of Elephant Trails--a steep, but direct path from Kandula's yard to the Outpost--that was put on hold as money got tight) They want to bring attention to their chosen flagship species in a big way--and what could be bigger than that?

There is no doubt that WCS has made huge contributions in these same areas overseas for some time now. What's so HUGE about this is they now realize that the American public must experience these animals here for their plight in far-off places to seem important. This is a clear reversal of the "We'll be devoting all of our efforts to conservation of Asian elephants abroad and phasing out our own collection as members die" policy a decade ago. Interestingly, sharks and elephants are really the only "new" emphases, as the others are fairly well-represented within WCS? This suggests, to me at least, they there will be some effort to include more significant numbers of each species at even the smaller zoos to coordinate with the Parks-wide awareness campaign.

I am curious however. To a certain extent, the species chosen are highly visible "flagship" representatives of global conservation, and that has value. Are lions, for instance, or lowland gorillas highly endangered? Or do you imagine a focus/introduction on lesser-known, smaller cats and primates?

I can't believe the press hasn't commented on this document, especially with the issue of elephants so potent here even after 10 years.

As much as I'd love to see another zoo increase its elephant holdings to two of the three extant species (I think we can count out any zoos getting forest elephants in the foreseeable future), I wouldn't hold my breath for the Bronx zoo to do so. The language in their recent announcements does suggest that there may be some more money pouring into the zoo in the near future, but anything along the lines of a double elephant exhibit is probably outside the scope of anything we could hope for. I'm not convinced that the zoo will even rejuvenate and expand its Asian program yet. Of course, the one good thing is that the Bronx never really does anything halfway - it goes all in when it commits to a new exhibit. So when (and if) a new elephant exhibit comes, I would expect it to be great. The empty land behind the aquatic bird house (the acronym for those exhibits was RARE I believe, with the giant birds section and the old pelican lake also no longer in use) would be a great way to use highly accessible an visible space for a large elephant exhibit (as many have pointed out).

Of course, given the dearth of breeding age Asians that are not already in locations, it may be difficult to populate such an exhibit. In that case, may I humbly request that the zoo figure out something to do with its two recently emptied buildings (the Monkey House and World of Darkness) and maybe even bring back some of the diversity lost in the closures over the last two decades?

Finally, ambika, you asked about the conservation status of some of the chaismatic flagship species, specifically lions and western lowland gorillas. According to the IUCN, lions are vulnerable, while western lowland gorillas are critically endangered. Lions are still relatively common in some protected areas, but numbers are dropping precipitously in others (and there's little hope that the species will persist in many unprotected areas). Western lowland gorillas are present in higher numbers (I believe) that any of the other 4 gorilla subspecies (two of the others are also considered critically endangered: Mountain and Cross river gorillas, while the eastern lowland is the only subspecies classified as endangered), but given the bushmeat crisis, Ebola, and the ever-present threat of habitat destruction, have declined so quickly as to warrant a listing as critically endangered.
Both species are great examples of charismatic, well-loved species that can serve to highlight the plight of other species that share their habitats, hence both (particularly the gorilla) being the focus of so many zoos' recent (or renovated) exhibits.

 

[bigfoot410]

jibster, I have to say I agree with you. The WCS redesign is great for the idea of focus on what will be in the collections of the Bronx Zoo and the other WCS institutions. However; I am not 100% hopeful elephants will be a part of it, at least for now. Another keystone conservation animal are dolphins/whales and I know the aquarium is not getting belugas or bottlenosed dolphins back. At the aquarium whales and dolphins in NY Seascape will be the focus. I can see the elephant campaign being done the same way- elephant conservation discussed in current Asian and African areas, possibly with no elephants.

I am hopeful with the renewed focus that possibly another great ape species will come to the zoo, hopefully in a brand new exhibit area. I agree the old World of Darkness, Monkey House and unused African Plain and Rare Animal Range areas should be redeveloped. I am very very curious to hear what will be the next major renovation. I am going to the zoo tomorrow so I will report anything new I see.

 

[ZooElephantMan]

I think another great ape species, hippos, and possibly more bear species would be really cool at the bronx zoo. Any hippo species would be especially cool since there aren't any in New York at all.

Also, I think it would be cool for the the Bronx zoo to redo their zoo map to one similar to those of SDZ, LA zoo, and Tampa Lowry park zoo. Since Bronx is really big and has a lot to see, and I think the current map makes it look like there is a lot of empty space in places where there actually are animals. Its really hard to get a good grasp of what everything is since the visuals are really small, and so you have to pay more attention and read everything.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I think the main difference between their plans with Marine life and them keeping elephants is that the zoo has the room and ability to care for elephants, while none of the facilities can handle dolphins or whales.

I'd love it if Bonobo or Sumatran Orangutan could be brought to the zoo but I can't see where they'd put them. I suppose you could split a bit of the gorilla enclosure off (the area that they never use) and add Bonobo there. I'd certainly like to see some more hoofstock come to the zoo as well as the return of Cheetahs. What I'd really love to see for African Plains is a new Lion enclosure and giraffe house with a larger indoor space but I'm not sure how feasible that is. As I said before Rare Animal Range could be a perfect spot for an eventual elephant complex but if not maybe a North American could work. I know Queens already does North and South America but being the flagship zoo for the WCS I've always felt Bronx should more strongly incorporate those regions. It'd be cool to highlight some of the natives that live along and in the Bronx River, too. Not quite sure what they could do with World of Darkness and the Monkey House aside from reopening them as what they previously were (not that I'd have a problem with that).

Not sure where another bear species could go, though once Tundra dies I have a sad feeling Polar Bears might not be returning to the zoo so that space would be free. If the zoo filled in the moat, added glass viewing, and replaced the concrete with natural substrate that enclosure could be quite nice for Sloth Bear or Sun Bear (or even more Polar Bears). I suppose Sloth or Sun Bears could replace Yuri the Amur Tiger in the monorail but personally I'd love it if maybe Chinese Dholes took that spot up. It'd fit well into the zoo's plan as that's a highly endangered species they've worked with in India that also has a growing breeding program in the US. As for hippos, I've always imagined a mix of Pygmy Hippos, duikers, and maybe sitatunga would be a nice addition to CGF in that unused gorilla portion, though now I think Bonobos would be better matches. If they refilled the pool, the rhino enclosure at the Zoo Center could be really good for a couple Common Hippos. The problem is the indoor area. It's quite small and doesn't have much room to grow.

Now of course, we're all just wildly speculating here. The zoo could be planning a lot of what we're saying, or none of it at all! Perhaps we should all step back a minute and just see what happens or at least make a new thread for a discussion such as this so not to flood the news thread with our hopes and dreams for the zoo

I hate Smithsonian's new map! The old one was really great and detailed but this new one is so vague and odd. Lowry Park's isn't too bad but I still liked their old one better, too. Cincinnati and Roger William's maps are good ones, though personally I do love the WCS collections' style the best.

~Thylo

 

[ZooElephantMan]

Not the national zoo's map, San Diego zoos map.

I agree that the national zoos OLD map was really really good.

Maybe I would like the WCS maps more if they outlined the shapes of enclosures.

 

[dcpandafan]

I hate Smithsonian's new map! The old one was really great and detailed but this new one is so vague and odd. Lowry Park's isn't too bad but I still liked their old one better, too. Cincinnati and Roger William's maps are good ones, though personally I do love the WCS collections' style the best.

~Thylo

The national zoos current map isn't that bad and it's actually just a recycled idea as well.

Current

Old

Not many people know this but the current symbol for the Cheetah conservation station is actually the old jaguar symbol.

Here's the last map the zoo had.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Not the national zoo's map, San Diego zoos map.

I agree that the national zoos OLD map was really really good.

Maybe I would like the WCS maps more if they outlined the shapes of enclosures.

Oh sorry I read that as SNZ, not SDZ. San Diego's isn't too bad, though I still prefer the current map. Yeah I could possibly go with some outlines like RWPZ's map does.

@DCPandaFan, See I still prefer their last map. It looked nice and it gave a pretty good idea of what the zoo held in each exhibit. The new one (which seems even less detailed than that really old one) only tells you what each exhibit is and gives only one example of a species held there.

~Thylo