Damian Aspinall: You all know my views on zoos prove me wrong

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Finally, would you rather there were no, for example, Amur leopards or Eastern bongos left than for there to be a large, thriving (albeit genetically limited) population within zoos?

But the problem could be when the final destination of these species is just zoos and there is limited or no concerted effort by zoos to reintroduce populations back into the wild or long-term focus on working towards in-situ management of the species and to mitigate the causes of their decline in the first place.

 

[amur leopard]

But the problem could be when the final destination of these species is just zoos and there is limited or no concerted effort by zoos to reintroduce populations back into the wild or long-term focus on working towards in-situ management of the species and to mitigate the causes of their decline in the first place.

While I see your point, it is quite expensive to reintroduce a species into the wild, especially to an area as secluded as the Primorsky Krai or Central African rainforests. Furthermore, especially in the case of the Eastern bongo, many of these species' countries of origin aren't particularly stable and still do not offer them a safe habitat. In fact, in some cases that is the whole reason why they need to be in captivity in the first place.

In the case of the Amur leopard, their habitat is so remote and inaccessible that we have almost no idea of their numbers - some say as low as 35, some even report 100. The main problem facing wild leopards is revenge killing by farmers when the leopards (and tigers) in the area almost inevitably prey on livestock (Sika deer in this case). Furthermore, North Korea, a country tat used to be home to a stable population of these cats, is not really accessible to conservationists. Therefore, the solution to the problem is education of the people in the region to make them understand that leopards and tigers are essential for healthy habitats in the area.

Conservationists have of course realised this a long time ago and have been working towards achieving this aim of education. However, the important point is that it is a slow process - you cannot just say something and expect it to sink in and people to act on it immediately, especially if it affects their livelihoods negatively, The inhabitants of the region are primarily dependent on deer farming for a living - on average, a farmer loses 5 deer a month to leopards. Conservationists have also tried to react to this by giving farmers $500 a month if they can prove there are leopards in their land.

Finally, the other large problem is forest fires. 22% of Amur leopard territory burns every year. That leads to less land to live off of for the same number of leopard, increased competition and therefore starvation and/or conflict. Therefore fires started by people are also a massive problem.

Those are the two main obstacles and while conservationists are working to educate the region's people and help farmers, it is not a process that is instantaneous and it is still not safe to reintroduce more leopards. Such introductions would result in more competition, especially given the leopards, for now, do not have more space to live than 10 years ago. Their stronghold is in Land of the Leopards National Park in Russia - it has already been established that they are not safe in Northern China or North Korea, and cannot really safely expand Northwards in Russia (towards Vladivostok).

So in conclusion, reintroduction, at least in the case of the Amur leopard and very likely in the case of the Eastern bongo too, is not the way to go. I agree with you that it is a good solution for species such as the Wisent, whose populations seem to be doing well in the protected pockets they have now returned. The other strategy you elude to (in situ captive breeding) would simply be a waste of money and resources, especially since the leopards are bringing in money for their conservation by being held in collections in Europe and NA. The final destination of Amur leopards will not be zoos - there is a very good reason that many zoos haven't attempted anything of the sort and I hope I have competently explained it.

 

[Jurek7]

Reason is not fact i want to consider anything if it is supported by fact including any papers that support that zoos educate the public effectively to support the argument of zoos in the first place.
I have read many to date and none do but if anyone want to send me a paper which provides independent evidence i will happily read it ..and then happily discuss..

Maybe read issues of Zoo biology and browse Pubmed? As a zoo professional you should be able to.

Actually, zoos Howletts and Port Lympne could do more modern education besides animal name plates (which are beautifully painted I accept), too.

Lets deal with facts .. i have said that zoos should phase out of inbred hybrids diseased and non genetically viable animals for a start .. my guess that would be around 70% of animals in zoos .. then phase out of all animals over 20-30 years ... the reason again are 95% of animals in zoos are not critically endangered and of the 45 species of critically endangered mammals only a tiny handful perhaps 5-7 species are actually viable. I do believe keeping any animal in zoos including our own and we have some of the best facilities is cruel or in efficient if you care about the welfare of the animals which I do. hope this helps

Could you name some examples of these non-viable species which should be phased out?

I accept that some species in zoos are inbred, because no other individuals exist (european bison, przewalski horse, South Chinese tiger, Spix's macaw). However at least the first two could be reintroduced and live in the wild despite their inbreeding.

Could you give reason why these programs cannot be rescued with addition of more founders or better medical care of supposedly 'diseased' animals? It was done before. Why export Javan gibbons to Indonesia which has local gibbons which can breed and fill the (scant) space left? Why not to import few gibbons from Indonesian zoos, they are slow breeding and this would stop inbreeding for a decade at least?

 

[birdsandbats]

No that's not what i said please read my thread again >..thank you

Lets deal with facts .. i have said that zoos should phase out of inbred hybrids diseased and non genetically viable animals for a start .. my guess that would be around 70% of animals in zoos .. then phase out of all animals over 20-30 years ... the reason again are 95% of animals in zoos are not critically endangered and of the 45 species of critically endangered mammals only a tiny handful perhaps 5-7 species are actually viable. I do believe keeping any animal in zoos including our own and we have some of the best facilities is cruel or in efficient if you care about the welfare of the animals which I do. hope this helps

 

[Ned]

Hello again Damian,


Following your comments about inbreeding in zoo animals, I Had a little read around the subject and found the following article (published in the prestigious Nature journal) which investigates inbreeding and more specifically purging, in captive populations. Whilst it acknowledges the deleterious effects of inbreeding it also, in my view, challenges your inclination to write off inbred zoo populations and suggests that purging in captivity or post captivity, could enable populations to regain genetic vigour.


For your consideration https://www.nature.com/articles/6800923.pdf?origin=ppub


And here’s a merry little article about purging in mountain gorillas, also for your consideration.


Extreme inbreeding is no big deal for mountain gorillas


Of course, this isn’t to say that inbreeding is nothing to be concerned about, but perhaps you over emphasise the doom and gloom of the situation.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

While I see your point, it is quite expensive to reintroduce a species into the wild, especially to an area as secluded as the Primorsky Krai or Central African rainforests. Furthermore, especially in the case of the Eastern bongo, many of these species' countries of origin aren't particularly stable and still do not offer them a safe habitat. In fact, in some cases that is the whole reason why they need to be in captivity in the first place.

In the case of the Amur leopard, their habitat is so remote and inaccessible that we have almost no idea of their numbers - some say as low as 35, some even report 100. The main problem facing wild leopards is revenge killing by farmers when the leopards (and tigers) in the area almost inevitably prey on livestock (Sika deer in this case). Furthermore, North Korea, a country tat used to be home to a stable population of these cats, is not really accessible to conservationists. Therefore, the solution to the problem is education of the people in the region to make them understand that leopards and tigers are essential for healthy habitats in the area.

Conservationists have of course realised this a long time ago and have been working towards achieving this aim of education. However, the important point is that it is a slow process - you cannot just say something and expect it to sink in and people to act on it immediately, especially if it affects their livelihoods negatively, The inhabitants of the region are primarily dependent on deer farming for a living - on average, a farmer loses 5 deer a month to leopards. Conservationists have also tried to react to this by giving farmers $500 a month if they can prove there are leopards in their land.

Finally, the other large problem is forest fires. 22% of Amur leopard territory burns every year. That leads to less land to live off of for the same number of leopard, increased competition and therefore starvation and/or conflict. Therefore fires started by people are also a massive problem.

Those are the two main obstacles and while conservationists are working to educate the region's people and help farmers, it is not a process that is instantaneous and it is still not safe to reintroduce more leopards. Such introductions would result in more competition, especially given the leopards, for now, do not have more space to live than 10 years ago. Their stronghold is in Land of the Leopards National Park in Russia - it has already been established that they are not safe in Northern China or North Korea, and cannot really safely expand Northwards in Russia (towards Vladivostok).

So in conclusion, reintroduction, at least in the case of the Amur leopard and very likely in the case of the Eastern bongo too, is not the way to go. I agree with you that it is a good solution for species such as the Wisent, whose populations seem to be doing well in the protected pockets they have now returned. The other strategy you elude to (in situ captive breeding) would simply be a waste of money and resources, especially since the leopards are bringing in money for their conservation by being held in collections in Europe and NA. The final destination of Amur leopards will not be zoos - there is a very good reason that many zoos haven't attempted anything of the sort and I hope I have competently explained it.

I agree with everything you have written here about the case of the Amur leopard.

However, I still don't think it answers the question that if the eventual reintroduction to the wild is not an option for species and if zoos are not truly working in-situ with a species or its habitat to mitigate population declines then can that ever really be called conservation ? or is it just the stasis of a species in captivity while it slides towards functional extinction in the wild ?

You cannot just place a species in an enclosure, aquarium or terrarium in a zoo and even breed it in captivity to produce an insurance population and call it ex-situ conservation without there also being an in-situ conservation effort to complement this. The two are not mutually exclusive concepts as conservation is holistic.

Take some of the species examples I gave in one of my comments above to Damian.

Consider the axolotl in Mexico, zoos do play an important supporting role for the ex-situ conservation of this species. However, the truly significant detail is whether that the species remains extant and ecologically functional in its wild state in the Xochimilco lake ecosystem.

The focus for the conservation of the axolotl now has to centre on in-situ work to ensure that there are canals left to reintroduce the species to that are managed in such a way that impacts such as invasive species, pollution and overexploitation are mitigated.

The same may be said with the golden poison frog in Colombia. This species can be held and captive bred ex-situ within terrariums in the reptile houses of zoos all across the world but the frontline of the battle (which zoos must play their part to contributing towards if they are to justify their use of the word "conservation") has to be in ensuring that the species does not go extinct in the Chocó Rainforest which is being deforested for logging, cattle ranching, mining and agricultural (and narcotic) crops.

The focus of conservation for this species of poison dart frog has to therefore be very much "boots on the ground" with dealing directly with the root socio-economic causes that are the drivers of this deforestation in the aftermath of a civil war that has lasted almost a century.

 

[MarkinTex]

Even if this is correct why cannot these species be saved in situ in small sanctuaries like we are doing in Java with Gibbon and Langurs and also even if some species have to be put in captivity which is arguably a tiny handful it simply does not justify the thousands of species kept in zoos.

"Small sanctuaries." I'm trying to imagine what that would look like for the fish species I mentioned, Yangtze sturgeon and desert pupfishes.

Yangtze sturgeon were historically found in the Yangtze and Yellow rivers. They are being stocked in the Yangtzee now, but its pretty much a put-and-take fishery as they don't breed there anymore, pollution and damming of these rivers have made this impossible. They don't just need clean water, in the wild they need to undergo a migration, which means they need a long river to move in, something a "small sanctuary" can't provide them. You also don't want to introduce them to another different long clean river in China (assuming you could find one), because they would be a foreign species in a different ecosystem which they might throw out of balance. In captivity, however, they can be stimulated to breed. So that answers your question about why they cannot be saved "in situ in small sanctuaries"

Regarding endangered desert pupfishes, many of these species were adapted to and native to spring-fed ponds and cienagas (desert wetlands) scattered around the American Southwest, one species to a pond, and sometimes a species might only be found in a single pond. A lot of these water bodies have had their water quality severely degraded by land use and groundwater drawdown. Several species of pupfish can't survive in their native spring anymore, so what "in situ small sanctuary" are you going to put them? In another spring? Great, which one? Most of the ones that are suitable for pupfish already have a pupfish species in them, and if you introduce a new one the two species will likely hybridize, and you will lose two species at the same time.


As far as them being "just a handful that does not justify the thousands of species being kept in zoos," I already addressed your main philosophical arguments in my second post in this thread.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Where are you getting the '45 species' from? There are 48 critically endangered species/subspecies in Europe alone, and likely far more across the globe where zoos tend to exhibit a more local collection.
Also, what are the 5-7 species you refer to here, and why are the others not viable? Finally, would you rather there were no, for example, Amur leopards or Eastern bongos left than for there to be a large, thriving (albeit genetically limited) population within zoos?

We counted 45 critically endangered species in European zoos (all my views are based on European zoos as this ia what we have studied) The others species are not viable following our studies because of disease hybridisation inbred or genetically unviable. The species we thought did not fit that catergory were Gorillas Eastern Black Rhino Sumatran Orang-utan possibly Bornean as well but there is a hybrid issue here ...Mountain Bongo Cotton Top Tamarin although fairly high inbreeding European Mink and Negros Warty Pig possibly but not enough info at this stage ..
if you would like further evidence of this study please call Amos Courage at Port Lympne who can provide for you ..hope you find this helpful
and I would always prefer that we protect these animals in situ semi captive or captive if necessary

 

[Damian Aspinall]

"Small sanctuaries." I'm trying to imagine what that would look like for the fish species I mentioned, Yangtze sturgeon and desert pupfishes.

Yangtze sturgeon were historically found in the Yangtze and Yellow rivers. They are being stocked in the Yangtzee now, but its pretty much a put-and-take fishery as they don't breed there anymore, pollution and damming of these rivers have made this impossible. They don't just need clean water, in the wild they need to undergo a migration, which means they need a long river to move in, something a "small sanctuary" can't provide them. You also don't want to introduce them to another different long clean river in China (assuming you could find one), because they would be a foreign species in a different ecosystem which they might throw out of balance. In captivity, however, they can be stimulated to breed. So that answers your question about why they cannot be saved "in situ in small sanctuaries"

Regarding endangered desert pupfishes, many of these species were adapted to and native to spring-fed ponds and cienagas (desert wetlands) scattered around the American Southwest, one species to a pond, and sometimes a species might only be found in a single pond. A lot of these water bodies have had their water quality severely degraded by land use and groundwater drawdown. Several species of pupfish can't survive in their native spring anymore, so what "in situ small sanctuary" are you going to put them? In another spring? Great, which one? Most of the ones that are suitable for pupfish already have a pupfish species in them, and if you introduce a new one the two species will likely hybridize, and you will lose two species at the same time.

Sorry but fish is not me expertise at all so cannot comment really but would point out if they can be saved in zoos around the world why can't they be saved in captivity in situ ? I would be interested to understand that
Thank you

 

[birdsandbats]

Sorry but fish is not me expertise at all so cannot comment really but would point out if they can be saved in zoos around the world why can't they be saved in captivity in situ ? I would be interested to understand that
Thank you

That is LITERALLY what that post explains!!!

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

"Small sanctuaries." I'm trying to imagine what that would look like for the fish species I mentioned, Yangtze sturgeon and desert pupfishes.

Yangtze sturgeon were historically found in the Yangtze and Yellow rivers. They are being stocked in the Yangtzee now, but its pretty much a put-and-take fishery as they don't breed there anymore, pollution and damming of these rivers have made this impossible. They don't just need clean water, in the wild they need to undergo a migration, which means they need a long river to move in, something a "small sanctuary" can't provide them. You also don't want to introduce them to another different long clean river in China (assuming you could find one), because they would be a foreign species in a different ecosystem which they might throw out of balance. In captivity, however, they can be stimulated to breed. So that answers your question about why they cannot be saved "in situ in small sanctuaries"

Regarding endangered desert pupfishes, many of these species were adapted to and native to spring-fed ponds and cienagas (desert wetlands) scattered around the American Southwest, one species to a pond, and sometimes a species might only be found in a single pond. A lot of these water bodies have had their water quality severely degraded by land use and groundwater drawdown. Several species of pupfish can't survive in their native spring anymore, so what "in situ small sanctuary" are you going to put them? In another spring? Great, which one? Most of the ones that are suitable for pupfish already have a pupfish species in them, and if you introduce a new one the two species will likely hybridize, and you will lose two species at the same time.


As far as them being "just a handful that does not justify the thousands of species being kept in zoos," I already addressed your main philosophical arguments in my second post in this thread.

That is a very good point @MarkinTex !

It is actually why I raised the example of the Potosi pupfish in one of my earlier comments to Damian. As you point out in your wider example, this species is one of the desert pupfish that is extinct in the wild and cannot be reintroduced to its former habitat in Mexico as this does not exist anymore.

It is therefore dependent on either:

1. Perpetuation of ex-situ populations in captivity which is functional extinction anyway.

2. A new and artificial habitat created in-situ which is difficult to attempt anyway, conditions difficult to replicate and this basically a form of captivity itself.

3. Assisted colonization of an existing habitat with suitable environmental conditions present attempted and this could have knock on negative effects on other endemic species already present.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

That is LITERALLY what that post explains!!!

I understand that but it does not explain why you could not do exactly what you would do in a zoo in Germany for example in situ .. you must be able to with the right support and knowledge ...
I can also understand if that was really impossible then perhaps a zoo may be able to do this but that alone does not justify all the other species in zoos which is what this thread is about.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

That is a very good point @MarkinTex !

It is actually why I raised the example of the Potosi pupfish in one of my earlier comments to Damian. As you point out in your wider example, this species is one of the desert pupfish that is extinct in the wild and cannot be reintroduced to its former habitat in Mexico as this does not exist anymore.

It is therefore dependent on ex-situ populations in captivity or a new and artificial habitat created or assisted colonization of an existing habitat with suitable conditions attempted and all of these options pose risks and challenges.

Guys i am no expert on fish but all i am saying that any species that end up in a zoo should go through a proper process of justification to do that which certainly does not happen at the moment.
This may or may not be a good case study however my preference is always always look to do that captive alternative in situ first as it inevitably is better for the species in the most cases.

 

[birdsandbats]

I understand that but it does not explain why you could not do exactly what you would do in a zoo in Germany for example in situ .. you must be able to with the right support and knowledge ...
I can also understand if that was really impossible then perhaps a zoo may be able to do this but that alone does not justify all the other species in zoos which is what this thread is about.

Have you even read that post?! Right now there's NOTHING we can do for those species in-situ!

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Guys i am no expert on fish but all i am saying that any species that end up in a zoo should go through a proper process of justification to do that which certainly does not happen at the moment.
This may or may not be a good case study however my preference is always always look to do that captive alternative in situ first as it inevitably is better for the species in the most cases.

Yes, I know and I agree with you that in-situ is always a better option and should be attempted first before resorting to ex-situ in zoos.

However, this is my point Damian that when it comes to smaller taxa like insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles and small bird and mammals there really often is a need for ex-situ and these often adapt well to these environments.

The Potosi pupfish is an extreme example of a species with nowhere left to go at present other than captivity but yes of course with most species there should be a process that ascertains whether it is necessary to establish the species ex-situ and that this should be the last resort.

 

[Damian Aspinall]

Have you even read that post?! Right now there's NOTHING we can do for those species in-situ!

I have indeed and i would love to help to see if we can do anything for this species in Situ.
Many many times people have me these things are impossible and sometimes they are not.
A fresh pair of eyes is sometimes a useful thing. Anyway we are here to help ..Thank you for your comment. I will also add of course even if this is correct it does not prove the benefit of zoos .

 

[MarkinTex]

I understand that but it does not explain why you could not do exactly what you would do in a zoo in Germany for example in situ .. you must be able to with the right support and knowledge ...
I can also understand if that was really impossible then perhaps a zoo may be able to do this but that alone does not justify all the other species in zoos which is what this thread is about.

Well, a lot of endangered fish species are raised in hatcheries very close to their native habitat, rather than in aquaria thousands of miles away. And once those hatchlings get to fingerling size, some of them can sometimes be released into the wild. But if they aren't successfully breeding in the wild, you're going to have to keep doing that over and over to keep a population of adults in the wild, which means you are also going to have to keep a breeding population in captivity to supply more fingerlings. And whether your hatchery is in a public aquarium in Berlin or a more utilitarian hatchery right along the banks of the Yangtze, when it comes down to it, you still have to have fish living in captivity in tanks/ponds. Similarly, whether you're managing gibbons and langurs in a large roomy naturalistic enclosure at the San Diego Zoo or in a small sanctuary in Java with presumably fences to keep out predators and poachers, you're still sequestering and controlling the movements of these animals. So I have to wonder if your problem with zoos is really that these animals are kept from roaming free, or if it is that the public is allowed to pay to come and see them while they are kept from roaming free?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

whether you're managing gibbons and langurs in a large roomy naturalistic enclosure at the San Diego Zoo or in a small sanctuary in Java with presumably fences to keep out predators and poachers, you're still sequestering and controlling the movements of these animals. So I have to wonder if your problem with zoos is really that these animals are kept from roaming free, or if it is that the public is allowed to pay to come and see them while they are kept from roaming free?

I do agree with most of what you've said in your comment about fish species.

However, I think it is important to mention that (for purposes like captive breeding, improvement of chances of successful reintroduction or translocation etc) primates wherever and whenever possible are indeed better suited to being kept in captive breeding facilities in-situ within the country of species occurence rather than ex-situ in zoos.

 

[Dassie rat]

There are various websites that list animals commonly kept in zoos.

List of 15 Most Popular Zoo Animals with Pictures | Way2info.com gives a list of the 15 commonest zoo animals, possibly in Indian zoos: 1 Giraffe; 2 monkey; 3 tiger; 4 elephant; 5 rhinoceros; 6 deer; 7 red panda; 8 peafowl; 9 lion; 10 zebras; 11 gorilla and other primates; 12 snakes; 13 crocodile; 14 fishes; 15 kangaroo

10 Most Common Zoo Animals – List Sigma: 1 Tiger 2 Lion 3 Ring-tailed lemur 4 Goat 5 Meerkat 6 Blue and yellow macaw 7 Giraffe 8 Common peafowl 9 Boa constrictor 10 Emu

Mehdi (What are the most common species kept in zoos) gave the following list for European zoos: African pygmy goat (779 holders); blue peafowl (776); fallow deer (719); domestic guinea pig (no specific breed, 541); domestic budgerigar (511); emu (497); European eagle-owl (481); meerkat (476); red-necked wallaby (467); blue-and-gold macaw (462)

Danny (What are the most common species kept in zoos) said the following native mammals occur in 20+ Australian zoos: Short-beaked echidna; Tasmanian devil; koala; southern hairy-nosed wombat; common wombat; western grey kangaroo; eastern grey kangaroo; red kangaroo; red-necked wallaby; swamp wallaby; common brushtail possum; dingo
Danny said the following exotic mammals occur in 10+ Australian zoos: Common zebra (mixture of hybrids, pure Chapman's and pure Grant's); dromedary camel; llamas and alpacas; fallow deer; giraffe (hybrids and Rothschild's); domestic water buffalo; blackbuck; ring-tailed lemur; cottontop tamarin; common marmoset; pygmy marmoset; black-capped capuchin; African lion (hybrid and white/Kruger lion); tiger (primarily Sumatran, with some hybrids); cheetah (mostly South African?); serval; Asiatic small-clawed otter; meerkat; Nepalese red panda

Komodo (What are the most common species kept in zoos) listed the following South American animals being common in zoos in Chile and Argentina: puma; jaguar; laminoids (alpaca, guanaco, llama and vicuña); culpeo; pudu (at least in Chile); mara; rhea; Chilean Flamingo; coypu; Humboldt Penguin; South American sea lion; black-chested buzzard-eagle; Andean condor; tapir; maned wolf; capybara; armadillo; agouti; degu; chinchilla; black-necked and Coscoroba swans; upland and ashy-headed geese; black-faced ibis; burrowing parrot; monk parakeet; tegus; Yacare caiman; feral goats from Juan Fernandez islands are common in petting zoos from Chile; toucan; scarlet ibis; Amazon parrot; capuchins, woolly, howler, spider and squirrel monkeys; macaws (blue and yellow, scarlet and green-winged); anteater; kelp gull; yellow and red-footed tortoises
Komodo listed the following exotic animals being common in zoos in Chile and Argentina: lion (hybrids and white Kruger); tiger (labelled as "Bengal", probably intraspecific hybrids); brown bear; meerkat; plains zebra (hybrids and Burchell's); giraffes (hybrids, South African);
hippopotamus; African and Asian elephants; dromedary and Bactrian camels; fallow and red deer; ring-tailed lemur; black and white ruffed lemur; Hamadryas baboon; mandrill; vervet monkey; chimpanzee; crested Porcupine; red kangaroo; wallaby; emu; ostrich; cockatoos (sulphur-crested and cockatiels); mute and black swans; peafowl; guineafowl; sacred ibis; red-eared slider

The animals appearing most often include giraffes, tigers, zebras, peafowl, lions, emus, blue-and-yellow macaws, ring-tailed lemurs and meerkats.

Top 10 species fighting extinction with the help of zoos – in pictures gives a list of animals that zoos are trying to save from extinction: Blue-crowned laughing thrush; mountain chicken frog; white-clawed crayfish; Amur leopard; Potosi pupfish; Partula snails; blue-eyed black lemur; ploughshare tortoise; scimitar-horned oryx.

Please note that none of these are listed as commonly kept in zoos.

 

[Dassie rat]

After reading these messages, I think that Damian Aspinall has more in common with Gerald Durrell than I would have guessed. Durrell wanted to live in a world where zoos weren't necessary but realised that situation didn't exist at present. Aspinall seems to have a similar mindset and considers that some species do not benefit from captivity and that some animals are not kept in appropriate conditions. I can relate to that.

Zoos have saved relatively few species from extinction when this is compared to the number of species that have been kept in zoos. Zoos perform valuable conservation in various countries and I wonder how much of this would continue if zoos closed down. As has been pointed out during this thread, many of the animals kept in zoos have no conservation value while many captive animals of endangered species are not part of a reintroduction programme and seem to be over-represented in zoos, often benefitting from enlarged enclosures that replace smaller species that may be more endangered.