Diversity in Collections, US vs. Europe

[Coelacanth18]

However, I'd like to point out that in other parts of zoo husbandry, mainly regarding invertebrates, fish, amphibians and reptiles (and to a certain extent, birds), we've seen a rise of hitherto unfamiliar species displayed, thanks to a very productive (though not always legal...) private husbandry and commercial sector, from which zoos obtain specimens. Just a couple of years ago, no one would have thought of zoos displaying Emerald cockroach wasps, Australian spotted jellyfish, Kaiser's spotted newts (now even part of international zoo breeding projects) or Mangshan pitvipers [some of you will probably have to google these names just to know what I'm talking about ^^]. And this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the diversity of invertebrate, fish etc. species kept and increasingly bred in private husbandries. Unfortunately, a number of zoos fail to keep these species as well as serious private keepers do, leading to significant animal suffering and losses. This can be (at least partly) also contributed to the different requirements of public vs. private animal husbandry-and the significance these species still have in comparison to the popular mammalian megafauna (pmm).

You bring up a good point that I hadn't considered. There are probably many more species of reptiles and amphibians in zoos today than there ever has been in the past, and invertebrates certainly so. I always think it's interesting that zoos see little reason to manage most of these species and largely just acquire them from private breeders. On the other hand, it's probably easier to do that than to try and manage over a hundred species of reptiles and amphibians, some of which you can buy from a breeder down the road.

What differences are there in animal management between public and private animal husbandry that accounts for animal losses in zoos? Or is it simply that private breeders give more thought and care to keeping reptiles/amphibians/fish/invertebrates alive than zoos that depend on mammalian fauna for visitor profits?

 

[Batto]

The private keeper can focus on the individual species and its husbandry demands without having to compromise for more popular species or the expectation of the paying audience. The private husbandry can be more functional in fulfilling the demands of the animal than a public husbandry more aimed at pleasing the aesthetic and entertainment expectations of the visitors, which can stress the animal up to the point of being harmful.
To be honest, I think that some species are not well suited for public display for a number of reasons. Bitis nasicornis, for example, is rather reclusive species. While a private keeper can limit the amount of human presence that could stress the animal, the zoo is showcasing the animal and as such, confronts it with almost constant human presence and thus stress. While some specimens might be able to cope with this, a majority won't, resulting in a reduced immune system and thus ultimately disease and death.
Diseases are actually another aspect: a serious private breeder can just focus on keeping and breeding one species, restricting the contact with other species. In zoos, the interspecific intake and spread of diseases is more likely to occur due to most zoos keeping a variety of species from different parts of the world.