Deciding what species should be in zoos

[DavidBrown]

The New York Times just published a long article on how zoos are deciding what species will stay in their collections long term and which ones will die out. This article will be of much interest to most people here I think: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/s...s-letting-others-die.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

There are many interesting and important points made in the article. Steve Montfort of the Smithsonian National Zoo argues that elephants and sea lions should not be in zoos because they are common in the wild. I think that this perspective is wrong. I think that the greatest conservation role that zoos can play is making their species truly meaningful ambassadors for wild species and their habitats. Zoos are not going to save elephants, giraffes, polar bears, lions, and the other megafauna species through captive breeding, but rather by helping design and amplify meaningful conservation actions that zoo visitors can take. There may be exceptions for some megafauna species, like tigers, where captive breeding may be important but this I think is the exception rather than the rule.

Interesting food for thought and discussion...

 

[Zooplantman]

Of course, nothing really new here, but it represents exactly the difference of opinion here on Zoochat:

“We as a society have to decide if it is going to be ethically and morally appropriate to simply display animals for entertainment purposes,” said Dr. Steven L. Monfort, the director of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, part of the National Zoo in Washington. “In my opinion, that model is broken. There needs to be an explicit role for zoos to champion species.”

Sea lions are doing fine in the wild for now, but the zoo, which is taxpayer subsidized, decided to spend $18 million on a new pool, expected to be completed next year, that will be filtered and ozonated for clarity. Why? Because sea lions are one of the most popular attractions and their home was decrepit

“We are always balancing the public experiencing with conservation needs,” Dr. Bonner said. “If you ask me why I have camels, I would say that we need something interesting for people to see at the back of the zoo in winter, and they are always outside.”

 

[Jurek7]

I think some principles of zoo conservation failed and should be changed.

First is the idea of self-sustainable zoo populations saving the 95% of genetic diversity for 100 or so years. Since it was introduced, hardly any zoo species actually needed it because became completely extinct in the wild. Most species still exist in the wild, although in very small populations, and there is still a trickle of rescued animals which could enter zoos. Instead zoos had to give up on most species, and the species already lost from zoos include ones currently needing help. And, of course, from the perspective of a zoo visitor, all zoos begin to look identical.

Second problem is AZA cutting itself from smaller zoos and private individuals instead of working together and adapting to the more responsible part of them. Of course, one can always raise the bar higher, until only San Diego, Bronx and 1-2 other zoos remain. But AZA desperately lacks spaces for animals. Private game breeders maintain larger herds of antelope than any zoo can. And, inconvenient truth is that a dedicated private breeder who concentrates on a few favorite species can give them higher level of care than all-purpose zoo can. The situation of birds, reptiles, fish etc. in big zoos is often poor.

Just my 5 cents.

 

[jbnbsn99]

I honestly foresee the day when no endangered animals will be kept in zoos, unless they are popular animals. In the past four years I saw a drastic decline in collection especially with endanged animals. A lot of zoos are moving towards to "if it isn't popular, we don't want it."

 

[gerenuk]

Second problem is AZA cutting itself from smaller zoos and private individuals instead of working together and adapting to the more responsible part of them. Of course, one can always raise the bar higher, until only San Diego, Bronx and 1-2 other zoos remain. But AZA desperately lacks spaces for animals. Private game breeders maintain larger herds of antelope than any zoo can. And, inconvenient truth is that a dedicated private breeder who concentrates on a few favorite species can give them higher level of care than all-purpose zoo can. The situation of birds, reptiles, fish etc. in big zoos is often poor.

This is already being addressed with the organization's new SSP program. However, many private individuals do not maintain proper records. This makes captive breeding programs involving private individuals much more difficult.

 

[tschandler71]

Here is one thing that I don't understand, instead of spending 20 million on a useless exhibit for animals that you don't have (like St Louis is doing)

Why not take 1 million, go 100 miles in the middle of nowhere and find some cheap land and set up a Wilds type facility.

Bronx really can't because of its location but every major Southern and Western Zoo should have no problems finding 500 cheap acres of land to raise hoofstock on.

 

[gerenuk]

The Saint Louis Zoo did. However it was for canids and is now an independent facility. The Bronx Zoo also had one in Georgia for a variety of species. It too is now independent.

Also, $1 million doesn't go as far as it used to.

 

[DavidBrown]

The Saint Louis Zoo did. However it was for canids and is now an independent facility. The Bronx Zoo also had one in Georgia for a variety of species. It too is now independent.

Also, $1 million doesn't go as far as it used to.

I think that WCS shut their Georgia facility several years ago. The National Zoo tried to shut down their Front Royal facility too, but there was a congressional outcry to keep it open. The movement for off-site breeding centers died when the zoo paradigm started to shift from maintaining back-up populations for the wild to exhibiting animals as conservation ambassadors. As Zooplantman noted, this article isn't saying much new, but it is framing the questions comprehensively. The movement for off-site facilities seems to be back, especially in regards to elephants. Now the rationale for these facilities seems to be mainly to increase the well-being of captive animals (e.g., giving eles lots of room) rather than maintaining "back-up" populations of endangered species.

It seems to me that there are 3 types of zoo animals:
1. The superstars (aka ABCs aka charismatic megafauna). The vast majority of zoo visitors want and expect to see giraffes, elephants, lions, tigers, gorillas, polar bears, etc. Most zoo collections will likely always be primarily built around these species (e.g., St. Louis's mega-investment in a new polar bear complex).

2. The species that zoos genuinely are an ark for. These would include Saharan and Middle East antelope species, California condors, etc. There aren't many of these species, and although they are present in some zoos much of their breeding and maintenance takes place in off-site breeding facilities.

3. Representatives of the rest of biodiversity that represent unusual species that zoo managers like, educators want displayed, zoologists maintain in captivity for study, etc. It seems to me like these are the species that the "what species should we maintain" debates are actually about. As the article notes the St. Louis Zoo has gotten rid of 20ish monkey species in the last 20 years. Similar declines in antelope, small mammal, bird, and other group diversity are discussed here all the time. As the paradigm shifts from maintaining a few individuals of a lot of species to sustainable populations of fewer species, this is the classification of zoo animal that is in decline.

 

[gerenuk]

The movement never died. The examples you listed reflect the budget-cutting measures of those zoos, at that time. National Zoo never wanted to shut down its Front Royal facility (the director of the Smithsonian did) and Saint Catherine's Island is still operating. Since then many zoos have continued to add or expand off-site/off-display facilities including Reid Park Zoo, Pittsburgh Zoo, Cincinnati Zoo, Columbus Zoo/the Wilds, San Diego Zoo, National Zoo/SBCI, Oregon Zoo (California Condors and soon elephants), and various amphibian facilities created within zoos.

I can only recall a few that have actually been closed - Topeka, Brookfield, and ??? Does anyone know what happened to Woodland Park's off site facility?

Your 3 zoo animal types I feel is dead on. Many zoos have rubrics to define its collection planning. And many of those characteristics you mentioned are often found in the rubrics.

While the contents of the article are not new, it still is an issue that is being debated amongst zoo managers at this time.

 

[DavidBrown]

The movement never died. The examples you listed reflect the budget-cutting measures of those zoos, at that time. National Zoo never wanted to shut down its Front Royal facility (the director of the Smithsonian did) and Saint Catherine's Island is still operating. Since then many zoos have continued to add or expand off-site/off-display facilities including Reid Park Zoo, Pittsburgh Zoo, Cincinnati Zoo, Columbus Zoo/the Wilds, San Diego Zoo, National Zoo/SBCI, Oregon Zoo (California Condors and soon elephants), and various amphibian facilities created within zoos.

Is St. Catherine's really still in business? I remember reading that it was closed and all of the species dispersed.

I just found this 2009 article: http://www.coastalcourier.com/archives/14417/

What happened with WCS trying to shut it down? Do they still manage it?

 

[gerenuk]

WCS never tried to shut it down - they just backed out of their financial commitments and removed many of their animals.

 

[DavidBrown]

WCS never tried to shut it down - they just backed out of their financial commitments and removed many of their animals.

Who runs it now? Is it a self-contained non-profit, or a is there a consortium of zoos that runs it?

 

[gerenuk]

The article you posted explains it a bit:

After Noble died in 1958 his foundation worked with the Wildlife Conservation Society to turn part of the island into a research and breeding station for rare mammals and birds.

The current owners believe that if the animals were to leave, then they would be pressured to develop the island like the rest of the barrier islands in the Southeast US. So the foundation is a way to maintain this. Its nothing big or fancy. Just a low-key operation with minimal annual funding.

 

[DavidBrown]

WCS never tried to shut it down - they just backed out of their financial commitments and removed many of their animals.

It seems that WCS was out to shut it down, but apparently decided not to for some reason: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/nyregion/29zoo.html

 

[gerenuk]

Some times "shut down" is not used in concrete terms in the zoo world. They shut down their programs at the island, but this did not necessarily close down the facility. I know it may not make a whole lot of sense.

An better example may be - The local university shut down its medical school. However the hospital is still open and operating.

 

[Zooplantman]

The movement never died. The examples you listed reflect the budget-cutting measures of those zoos, at that time.

And there is the issue.
It is not impossible to get donors to fund the purchase and outfitting of such a facility, but then what? Operating costs must be covered and there are no visitors or hot dog sales to cover that. Food, keeper salaries and benefits, building up-keep, veterinary care, etc. all have a price tag.
And while zoos accept that they have a conservation role, the public exhibits bring in an income while the off-site facilities are a financial black hole. So when donations slow down in economic tough times, which part of the institution can survive?

 

[DavidBrown]

Here's a follow-up article from the NY Times about "assurance populations" in zoos and restoring captive-born individuals to the wild.

From Z(oos) to A(rks) - NYTimes.com

 

[Tim Brown]

Ah The Wilds..one of the worst zoo visits i ever made..stuck in a long caravan of non-moving cars at spring break with a lot of mostly non-endangered hoofstock to look at.White Oak is a different thing however and the U.S.is very lucky to have a such a facility.Whatever the reason behind species maintained in captivity i think we can look forward to a future whereby western zoos mainly carry the same taxa with occasional inputs of an odd new one for whatever reason..for the taxonomically-orientated we are probably at the end of an era.Who has an Elephant Seal for instance?Yet they are a fantastic and exciting species for public and zooman alike that i have seen in a few zoos in my time.Actually i must make an exception for herps[particularly in the U.S.]which have never been more interesting [or succesful] in zoos.

 

[Dassie rat]

I think this is quite a difficult issue. I agree with David brown's list. I would prefer to see zoos saving as many species as possible and dislike going to zoos and seeing the same species. Unfortunately, it seem that a large percentage of visitors want to see the superstars.

The superstars (aka ABCs aka charismatic megafauna). The vast majority of zoo visitors want and expect to see giraffes, elephants, lions, tigers, gorillas, polar bears, etc. Most zoo collections will likely always be primarily built around these species

.

Zoos have saved many of the superstars from extinction and some of the species have total captive populations of several hundred if not a couple of thousand. The zoos try and pretend that they need to keep breeding these species and spend millions of pounds on new enclosures for them. The reality is that few 'superstars' are involved in reintroduction programmes. The enclosures and breeding programmes are money-making schemes, as zoo directors realise that visitors would prefer to see a baby tiger, rather than a bay cat, or a gorilla, rather than a Hainan gibbon.

I think that zoos need to co-ordinate their collections, rather than compete with each other. There should be a balance between superstars and other species. Each species needs to be housed appropriately and it would be better to have a zoo with a large herd of a social hoofed mammal, rather than having several zoos with one or two individuals of the species. If zoos agreed which superstar species they kept, so that the total captive populations of the superstars were allowed to fall to a maximum of 200, this would free up space for some of the less popular species that zoos could save. There is no point in having hundreds of lions, tigers, gorillas, giraffes, elephants etc, when it is unlikely that any of their young will be used to replenish wild populations, while zoos phase out smaller species, which could be bred and reintroduced into the wild to save species.

I recommend Zoochatters to read 'A Gap in Nature' and visit the Hall of Extinct and Endangered Animals in Paris to see what happens when we lose interest in individual species.

 

[Tim Brown]

Blimey too many zoos,so little time..it was Fossil Rim[not The Wilds]that irritated the hell out of me.Big apologies to the folks in Ohio...