I agree. I much prefer to see species I didn't expect to see, rather than ones I've seen many times before. I realise that meerkats are relatively cheap to keep, but why did Edinburgh have 8 meerkat exhibits a few years ago. I much preferred seeing the Jentink's duiker at the Berlin Tierpark, various species of sakis and uakaris at Cologne, hoatzins at the Bronx and an olingo at Kilverstone. I doubt if I'll see some of these again.
How Many Duikers Do We Need?
- Thread starter Coelacanth18
- Start date
I am sometimes too used to the acknowledgment of species reduction in American facilities, and the sense of inevitability that accompanies it. I'm glad to see the argument in favor of keeping more duikers, and indeed species diversity within related groups, is winning out.
This is a key nuance that I often think people on the forum miss. There's plenty of jokes to be made about visitors who can't tell a warthog from a hedgehog, but anecdotally I've also known plenty of people who might only be casually or barely interested in animals generally - yet they know what more obscure species like tapirs or spoonbills are, and are more than capable of guessing that a miniature species like a duiker is not simply a baby of something larger. You never know what species might captivate any particular individual as well.
I think there's different ways of looking at species reduction, and I tried to get at this in my OP using an example group. On the one hand, overall diversity in a collection is great: losing duikers from zoos would mean the loss of several potential benefits, and there's plenty of good arguments to make for dedicating zoo space to as many kinds of animals as is possible. On the other hand, population sustainability and space capacity are real issues to contend with in the modern era - so I think it's worth asking how many species of one kind are necessary to achieve diversity goals, so that we aren't handicapping growth and genetic diversity for some species in an attempt to keep more varieties.
I personally think that this is what I call the "bureaucrat's trap". It is good to think about for sure and while end products might look fine on paper, the real world often behaves differently. What I feel that happens often, not only in the zoo world is that the paper trail becomes some forced reality to which the situation on the ground has to conform. So you can do some quick calculations on robust populations per species and how many holders you would need and what is possible under different scenarios. But without taking into account real world uncertainty it is very hazardous to say: we need 3, let's phase out the other 2. While in reality you could keep more long term or populations you intend to keep unexpectedly collapse... Every choice has a risk, and once something is gone, it is gone. With like-minded private keepers you could probably sustain a lot more, though some zoos will have to swallow some pride and acknowledge the private scene is just like zoos with the good, the bad and the ugly....
The reason that we had some many duikers in American zoos apparently is that the former director of the LA Zoo Warren Thomas loved duikers and imported several species in the 1970s and 1980s. He was also at the Oklahoma Zoo and other zoos.
Almost nobody outside of zoo nerd circles knows much about duikers most likely, even that they exist. Having a species or two of duikers in sustainable populations makes sense if the goal is to show people examples of ungulate biodiversity and try and develop meaningful awareness of antelope. Otherwise it's not clear to me what the point of having duikers in zoos is. There is no conservation value in terms of maintaining the species as an "assurance population". Duikers in American zoos are never going to be returned to the wild. They are not an ABC animal that will drive attendance at a zoo and thus necessary for economic health of the institution.
Almost nobody outside of zoo nerd circles knows much about duikers most likely, even that they exist. Having a species or two of duikers in sustainable populations makes sense if the goal is to show people examples of ungulate biodiversity and try and develop meaningful awareness of antelope. Otherwise it's not clear to me what the point of having duikers in zoos is. There is no conservation value in terms of maintaining the species as an "assurance population". Duikers in American zoos are never going to be returned to the wild. They are not an ABC animal that will drive attendance at a zoo and thus necessary for economic health of the institution.
Many ABC animals are never going to be returned to the wild and can be a drain on the economic health of some institutions, due to the cost of keeping them and transferring the young to other institutions. Several books and TV programmes feature animals that are not ABC animals and, hopefully, encourage children to become interested in animals that their parents may not know about. Perhaps some children would like to see some of the animals at zoos. Just a thought.
So... if it's not an ABC, used for biodiversity display, or held as a reintroduction program, there's no real point to zoos holding a species? That's an interesting take given it encompasses about 90% of species held by zoos, as most zoos don't go by group biodiversity these days. Are you implying such species are basically negligible as to whether we have them or not, or just saying you don't see a specific point in having them?
Yes, and this is the point that I made earlier in the post.
By "biodiversity" I mean displaying the diversity of life, which encompasses really every species that a zoo exhibits.
One way to think about Coelo's original question is from the perspective of a curator putting together a collection plan. What is the justification for keeping a duiker species? What is the justification for keeping two, three, or more duiker species?
The best answer I have is that a duiker helps zoo visitors see an aspect of antelope diversity, small antelopes, and/or a unique niche in an African savanna or forest ecosystem. That is what I mean by "biodiversity display".
In Warren Thomas's day when zoos were fine with displaying few individuals of many species and there were few qualms about getting animals out of the wild, it was desirable to have lots of rare species around. Those days have changed. Getting animals out of the wild, especially rare mammals, is over mostly. The postage stamp model of animal collections is transforming to having family groups of fewer species.
Last edited:
I think I see your point. IMO phase outs should be done cautiously, optimally with data showing that there is too much competition for space and that it's impacting potential growth and sustainability - rather than simply deciding "we have enough space for X number of long-term programs and X+2 species, so let's get rid of 2 species". If nobody's struggling for room yet, might as well breed them all up and see how they do. Space is not infinite, though, and especially for a group that are not flagship species or particularly threatened I can easily imagine a scenario where "picking winners" is the go-to solution rather than finding ways to increase capacity. That might be an issue of collective problem solving, but it's also a very real outcome that individuals might have to base curatorial decisions on.
David can correct me if my interpretation is wrong, but my understanding of what he said is that assurance populations are not the reason to be keeping as many duikers as we currently have because the chances any will be reintroduced to the wild is slim. Therefore, having them around in general could serve a purpose of displaying ungulate diversity - but also begs the question of how many duikers are actually necessary for that.
This mostly answers what I was trying to understand, thanks. Though even given the import/export restrictions on ungulates, certain species have been bred and then sent back to the wild - oryxes and Eastern Bongo come to mind. (Minding that these were exceptions and not the norm due to threat of imminent extinction, particularly for the two oryx.) I do agree that for duikers that's not liable to ever happen, both based on zoo populations and the more problematic logistics for small secretive animals, besides none of the species currently held are confirmed to be at high risk. Nor would attempting to establish zoo populations of threatened species be an appropriate venture.
I agree in terms of diversity not that many duikers are necessary - holding on to Yellow-backed, Blue, and Red-flanked are plenty, especially as they vie for space with dik-dik, Klipspringer, pudu, and mouse-deer. If exhibited well I think they could be quite interesting to the public, as general perception of antelope is generally akin to an Impala or larger gazelle - not a tiny little creature. (Or a large sturdy animal like sable and eland for that matter.) Neighboring exhibits for a large and small antelope with interpretive signage could be quite an educational display about environmental niches and habitat preferences. Comparison between their predators too could be interesting, servals and eagles versus lions for example.