Hope for Pangolins??

[Coelacanth18]

The zoos in the US that have pangolins are the Brookfield Zoo, Columbus Zoo & Aquarium, Memphis Zoo, and Essex County Turtle Back Zoo.

At one point, Pittsburgh and Gladys Porter were also holders - unsure exactly which facilities still hold them currently.

Does anyone know the exact number of Tree Pangolins in the US. It seems like it's a decent amount.

As I already said, the population statistics are not known to the public - overall or at any individual facility. No way to keep track when nearly all of them are behind the scenes and the zoos are not providing regular updates on their status.

Yes, thats an interesting debate for sure.

For reference, this was that debate - or at least the primary one, the discussion has come up multiple times since. Also the original source of information about the import and project: https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/several-us-zoos-receive-pangolins.466979/

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

For reference, this was that debate - or at least the primary one, the discussion has come up multiple times since. Also the original source of information about the import and project: https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/several-us-zoos-receive-pangolins.466979/

Thanks for that @Coelacanth18 ! I'll have a read as it sounds interesting !

 

[Grant]

The only zoos I've heard of in the States breeding pangolins are Columbus (once) and Brookfield which has had several - I'd be curious to know where you're getting "many zoos" from?

It's hard to know what's even going on with the population at large. Memphis pulled theirs off exhibit, and I have not seen any recent (within the past 9 months) reference to pangolins for any zoos except Columbus and Brookfield. Not enough public information to know whether the program has been a success so far.

I would say a zoo like Brandywine acquiring them is very unlikely anytime in the near future, and the possibility of more major zoos acquiring them anytime soon is dependent on what the trend line looks like.

There are multiple (at least 5-6 currently- including Brookfield, Gladys Porter, Pittsburgh, and Columbus) that keep them but many do not publicize the fact that they have them. Memphis' last remaining one passed this year.

 

[red river hog]

I wonder why they're being so secretive about it.

 

[RatioTile]

I wonder why they're being so secretive about it.

Secrecy is probably for the better. They’re still figuring out optimal husbandry conditions for this endangered species, as well as breeding it. While it is cute it doesn’t make a good display animal (being nocturnal and apparently more easily stressed than other species). So it’s probably best, at least for the time being, to keep them offshow. If you want to see one you could always ask the holder zoos politely and humbly.

 

[Great Argus]

I wonder why they're being so secretive about it.

The import from which these animals came was questioned, and some zoos refused to be involved because of the situation. That is very likely part of it.

 

[red river hog]

The import from which these animals came was questioned, and some zoos refused to be involved because of the situation. That is very likely part of it.

Speaking of which, you’d think the AZA would have some kind of rule against buying animals from the illegal trade.

 

[Great Argus]

Speaking of which, you’d think the AZA would have some kind of rule against buying animals from the illegal trade.

Confiscated animals from the illegal trade are all over in AZA zoos. Even started populations of a few species if I'm remembering right. Buying from the illegal trade isn't likely to happen from an AZA. Now some private facilities do on a regular basis but that's not the point.

 

[DDcorvus]

Speaking of which, you’d think the AZA would have some kind of rule against buying animals from the illegal trade.

AZA's policy on responsible population management says the following:

Any acquisitions, transfers, euthanasia and reintroductions must meet the requirements of all applicable local, state, federal, national, and international laws and regulations

So the rule is in place and please note that the acquisition and the import of the pangolins wasn't violating any legislation. It was the ethics of how the import was done that has been questioned.

 

[red river hog]

Confiscated animals from the illegal trade are all over in AZA zoos. Even started populations of a few species if I'm remembering right. Buying from the illegal trade isn't likely to happen from an AZA. Now some private facilities do on a regular basis but that's not the point.

AZA's policy on responsible population management says the following:

Any acquisitions, transfers, euthanasia and reintroductions must meet the requirements of all applicable local, state, federal, national, and international laws and regulations

So the rule is in place and please note that the acquisition and the import of the pangolins wasn't violating any legislation. It was the ethics of how the import was done that has been questioned.

I just thought maybe they wouldn't allow AZA facilities to buy from illegal sources. I am aware that many are confiscated, but contributing to the illegal animal trade is what many zoos tell the public not to do.

 

[Coelacanth18]

I just thought maybe they wouldn't allow AZA facilities to buy from illegal sources. I am aware that many are confiscated, but contributing to the illegal animal trade is what many zoos tell the public not to do.

I think you are misunderstanding the situation or point we are making. As far as I know, nobody here claimed that the animals were obtained illegally? You can legally import animals from the wild, including pangolins. It doesn't contribute to poaching per se - the ethical issues are that 1) just like the illegal trade, it takes animals from an ever-dwindling population out of that population, and 2) pangolins did not have a good track record in captivity at the time which made high mortality likely.

As for what the AZA thought about the acquisition, I assume it fell within the bounds of what they found acceptable as they did not take any publicly identifiable action against the members. As I said, US zoos import wild animals with some frequency - normally they are just far less controversial species, like common birds.

 

[red river hog]

I think you are misunderstanding the situation or point we are making. As far as I know, nobody here claimed that the animals were obtained illegally? You can legally import animals from the wild, including pangolins. It doesn't contribute to poaching per se - the ethical issues are that 1) just like the illegal trade, it takes animals from an ever-dwindling population out of that population, and 2) pangolins did not have a good track record in captivity at the time which made high mortality likely.

As for what the AZA thought about the acquisition, I assume it fell within the bounds of what they found acceptable as they did not take any publicly identifiable action against the members. As I said, US zoos import wild animals with some frequency - normally they are just far less controversial species, like common birds.

Yes, actually, someone did claim that. That's why I thought that. I knew animals could be imported from the wild, but I was told that the pangolins were bought from the illegal trade.

Brookfield is the only North American zoo to have its pangolins on display. There's actually been lots of debate on this site about whether these zoos SHOULD have pangolins, as they were sources from the illegal trade (not confiscated, bought).

 

[Coelacanth18]

Yes, actually, someone did claim that. That's why I thought that. I knew animals could be imported from the wild, but I was told that the pangolins were bought from the illegal trade.

Okay, thanks for pointing that out - I didn't remember anyone suggesting it and only had time earlier to skim for that conment.

Here is my opinion on that: we don't know the exact details of the import and can't say for sure anything about the legality of it - one way or the other.

The post is correct I think as far as them being bought and not confiscated individuals - the reason for that likely being that rescue animals often tend to be in poor health and not survive as long as healthy wild individuals could.

 

[Grant]

The import from which these animals came was questioned, and some zoos refused to be involved because of the situation. That is very likely part of it.

This is very true as well. AFAIK the import was most definitely legal but the ethicalness of it remains highly questioned.

 

[DDcorvus]

Importing pangolins was by itself no issue. The way it was done was. The animals were imported by a private dealer who in general has commercial interests and the zoos acquired their animals from him. It would have been better if the zoos would have done the import themselves and link the import with in-situ conservation actions, which could have been as simple as supporting a rescue facility that among others with pangolins. It would have been more difficult and possibly more expensive, but it would have been more appropriate.