Deciding what species should be in zoos

[gerenuk]

The reality is that few 'superstars' are involved in reintroduction programmes.

The bigger reality is that most of the charismatic megafauna will probably never be involved in reintroduction programs. However, maintaining an assurance population of these animals in captivity and transferring gametes between the wild and zoo populations will most likely be the most practical of measures for future conservation and wildlife management. Because one of the largest challenges for wildlife conservation is available habitat. As long as the human population grows, this opportunity continues to dwindle. Therefore a time may come when wild populations will need to be carefully managed just like the captive populations.

 

[DavidBrown]

To me the point of having superstars in zoos is to serve as conservation ambassadors for their wild cousins. As gerenuk points out the elephants, giraffes, and gorillas in zoos are not there to serve as reintroduction material. They are there to generate meaningful conservation attention for their wild relatives and their habitats. If reintroductions are needed (and in the case of some giraffe species like Rothschilds that may be necessary in places like Uganda), then this will be done from existing populations in native range states.

 

[Dassie rat]

I agree with gerenuk that wild populations of animals will probably need to be managed in the same way that captive populations are. The human population will keep on rising and will take over big chunks of the remaining wild habitat.

I understand the principle of superstars acting as conservation ambassadors, but as far as many visitors are concerned, the only endangered animals are the charismatic superstars, apart from a few species, like great whales, which can't be kept in zoos. This leads to some animals having many associated charities, while other animals having none. I agree with Gerald Durrell being bothered about the 'little brown jobs' - those animals that are very obscure and are unlikely to become superstars. There are a few animals that have become a lot more popular over the past few decades. Meerkats are the most obvious, but there are also some species of lemurs and other animals. Unfortunately, this can lead to overabundance in zoos - there are too many captive meerkats and ring-tailed lemurs, while some endangered mongooses and lemurs are not kept in zoos at all. I'd like to see conservation programmes and money being spread more widely to cover more species, rather than continue being used for species that are already over-represented in zoos.

 

[chrisbarela]

Note how often the cost of a new exhibit is mentioned - $20 million for this new exhibit, $10 for that one - Now if you want to see an increase in attendance/profits you need a new exhibit every few years and a lot of zoos are devoting a huge amount of space to these. LA Zoo has carved out the center of their zoo for elephants, Hogle Zoo redid a huge area for their new rocky shores exhibit, and of course San Diego's notorious elephant odyssey . And while these revisions are welcome and in most cases VASTLY improve the animals enclosure and the visitors experience they usually allow for only a few species at a very high cost. So zoos and aquariums have to be very picky about which species to feature and unfortunately they are the "common denominator" species that your average guest thinks they want to see. Another member mentioned how all zoos are starting to look alike... How many zoos gleefully announce a new lion/African plains exhibit every year? Polar exhibits? Madagascar exhibits? Amazon rainforest exhibits...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Guests will come in large numbers to see them and that's why zoos won't invest $20 million on an animal species that the general public is unfamiliar with. Aquariums suffer from this same problem.
Here's another factor to consider - Zoos rarely have in inhouse design/fabrication team to handle large exhibits. They almost always use the big agencies (who in turn outsource to smaller agencies, who then outsource to even smaller agencies) and the fees are astronomical. And yes they do outstanding work... but because of the high price tag the zoo or aquarium will not risk exhibiting unpopular/unfamiliar animals.
In my opinion, if zoos invested on an in-house design and fabrication team to handle the entire exhibit design then you would see exhibits with greatly reduced price tags and hopefully less concern about animal popularity. They would be more open to risks and diversity.

 

[Dassie rat]

I understand the logistics about attracting visitors to zoos and why zoos with obscure species, such as RSCC, have problems in being financially viable. I just wish that zoos were honest with their customers. Many exhibits are built to make money and not to save species from extinction, despite the publicity attached. Many species have more than the 200 individuals needed to save a species from extinction over the next 100 years and there are ethical concerns in spending more money on these species while allowing others to become extinct.

Leslie Kaufman wrote an article called 'For Zoos, Bitter Choices on Life and Death' for the New York Times and this appeared in the Observer on June 3. It mentions that Dr Steven Monfort suggests that zoos should provide facilities for animals to develop more natural reproductive behaviour and that popular animals, such as African elephants and California sea lions, that are doing fine in the wild should be replaced with animals in desperate need of rescuing. Zoos have been culling some species and replacing them with others. For example, they are saving pied tamarins rather than saddle-back tamarins, black-and-white ruffed lemurs rather than black lemurs, Addra gazelles rather than Mhorr gzelles, eastern black rhinos rather than southern black rhinos, Chinese alligators rather than American alligators and Toco toucans rather than red-bellied toucans. In some cases both examples are critically endangered and in others they are species of least concern.

I think zoos need to have a balance between species that are being saved from extinction and those that are there to attract the public to pay money to save less popular species. I just wish there were fewer individuals of some of the ABC species.