EAZA Ex-Situ Programmes update

Pongo said:
Well, if it was a strict methodological approach, EAZA would have to admit that (almost?) all lions in zoo are hybrids. In other species with a wider genetic background animals would have been sorted out if they only fulfill 90% of the criteria.

I sometimes wonder how quickly new taxonomies such as for lions or orangutans (Tapanuli) are accepted. Not saying they are wrong, I absolutely cannot evaluate this. On the other hand the new taxonomy for giraffes had a much wider genetic and scientific base and it took suprisingly long until this was accepted.
Click to expand...

In the case of P.leo.leo Is also true that the african population of this subspecies is near extincted in nature. There are less than 250 wild lions that can be ascribed in the african geographical range of this subspecies. The situation is dire so 90% is a good base in a pragmatic point of view.

In regard of P.leo.melanochita, well, in that case I can see some skeptisism in the act of unify all population and ecotypes of lions that live under the Congo basin in a single subspecies
 
Does the "Species not kept in EAZA and with no registered non-EAZA holders" and the "Species not kept in EAZA and only a few non-EAZA holders" categories mean that the coordinator encourages the acquisition of the listed species by member institutions (and later propagation)?

Or is it just species that member institutions should try to help conserve through funding and/or the creation of dedicated programs?
 
S. Venaticus said:
Does the "Species not kept in EAZA and with no registered non-EAZA holders" and the "Species not kept in EAZA and only a few non-EAZA holders" categories mean that the coordinator encourages the acquisition of the listed species by member institutions (and later propagation)?

Or is it just species that member institutions should try to help conserve through funding and/or the creation of dedicated programs?
Click to expand...
All of the listed reasons do not exclude one another, seeing how TAGs are now also about in-situ conservation.
 
The EAZA Terrestrial Invertebrate TAG has recently held a discussion for their second Regional Species Plan. In total, 12 EEPs were recommended - currently, there are just 6. There was no indication given what these 6 new planned EEPs will be for*.

There will also plans to create 4 different task forces to tackle some of the more specific work undertaken by the TAG more effectively - these four task forces will be for Wetlands, Deadwood, European islands and Pollinators.

* There have been some clues about a couple of planned species in the past, although these plans may well have changed:
 
DesertRhino150 said:
The EAZA Terrestrial Invertebrate TAG has recently held a discussion for their second Regional Species Plan. In total, 12 EEPs were recommended - currently, there are just 6. There was no indication given what these 6 new planned EEPs will be for*.

There will also plans to create 4 different task forces to tackle some of the more specific work undertaken by the TAG more effectively - these four task forces will be for Wetlands, Deadwood, European islands and Pollinators.

* There have been some clues about a couple of planned species in the past, although these plans may well have changed:
Click to expand...
They also published a post on the 1st of July showcasing the local conservation some zoos do on invertebrate taxa and hinting the Regional Collection Plan that would be discussed during the meeting having a special focus on European invertebrates.
 
It is a good opportunity to develop a practice how zoos and EEPs effectively collaborate with private holders and non-EAZA instiutions. The number of small animals in 'official' AZA and EAZA zoos will always be a small fraction of ones kept by hobbyists. So zoos must learn to work outside their zoo clubs, or every zoo will have a rather boring collection of the same few species of small animals, which will be probably more common outside zoos, anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top