How To Combat An Increasing Homogenization Amongst Zoo Collections?

[gentle lemur]

This is actually a problem caused by success. When Zoo A has repeated breeding success with Species X, it will pass young stock on to Zoo B and Zoo C, perhaps receiving their surplus stocks of Species Y and Species Z in return, all transfers being mediated by studbook holders and associations as appropriate.
This is a great advance on the situation 50 years ago when animals imported from the wild were much more easily available, and many were kept singly or in pairs, with distinctly patchy breeding results in consequence.
The conditions which caused this process to happen will continue to operate, so zoo managers will have to make deliberate decisions to avoid increasing uniformity. Fortunately there are several ways to do this. Conway's bullfrog solution* (if I may call it that) is better exhibits to display the animals and to educate visitors. An alternative is more specialisation, for example Gerald Durrell decided that his small zoo on the island of Jersey should concentrate on small endangered species from islands, such as lemurs, Mauritius pink pigeons and Caribbean iguanas, as well as having a few more popular species: obviously zoos that are relatively close together need to specialise differently, but that is not a problem if they are associated like Antwerp & Planckendael or Regents Park & Whipsnade, or if other factors such as amount of space or climate are different. Publicity is important too, zoos can now communicate directly with the pubic via social media, without needing to interest journalists in stories - which is not to say that mass media don't matter, but zoos can have more say in the agenda: in the UK in the past few years, TV series on the animals and keepers at ZSL, Edinburgh & HWP, and in particular Chester, have all gone beyond the lions, tigers and meerkats to show keepers working with wolverines, frogs and insects.

* I first read Conway's splendid article 'How to exhibit a bullfrog: a bed-time story for zoo men' in International Zoo Yearbook Volume 13 (1973). A copy is available on Zoolex https://www.zoolex.org/media/uploads/2018/07/30/conway_how_to_exhibit_a_bullfrog.pdf

 

[Jana]

I would also mention historical case of Czechoslovak zoos during communism (1948-1989) and central (failed) plan how to avoid homogenization and competition.

When Europe was still divided, trade of exotic animals was also affected. Our state zoos lacked hard currency to buy many animals from Western European/American animal traders, on top of export/import and travel barriers. This has led to increasing homogenization of CS zoos. Species that were imported in low/single number or failed to breed quickly disappeared. And only few hardy species who bred successfully started to spread to every collection. All zoos were state owned and the responsible ministry came with a plan of forced specialization. Each zoo should have animals from 1 or max 2 selected continents (only Prague zoo would be allowed to exhibit all). This would lead local people to visit different zoos if they wanted their children to see lets say chimpanzees and polar bears. This plan was apparently never popular among zoo directors, was not feasible due to lack of funds and available species and apart of Dvur Kralove (Africa) and Chomutov/Ohrada (Eurasia) it never got implemented.

 

[Westcoastperson]

I wouldn't really consider any of SeaWorld's orca exhibits "compelling", certainly not even close to the Bullfrog exhibit William Conway describes in his story.

Orcas are also just extremely popular animals that will have large visitor interest regardless of how they are exhibited (for example, Miami Seaquarium). This would also apply to other charismatic megafauna species such as Lions or Elephants.

One I didn’t mean The Orca exhibit at SeaWorld was compelling, what I was saying was how SeaWorld showed off their Orcas and Dolphins was compelling. And yes currently Orcas and Dolphins are charismatic but they weren’t when SeaWorld introduced them. They took an animal was fisherman thought were sea dogs and SeaWorld made them charismatic, not specifically with exhibits but how they showed them off to the public in their shows.

 

[TZDugong]

They took an animal was fisherman thought were sea dogs and SeaWorld made them charismatic, not specifically with exhibits but how they showed them off to the public in their shows.

I do agree, but this directly contradicts what you said earlier.

What SeaWorld did was interest people in these animals, you don't need shows to do that

 

[Westcoastperson]

I do agree, but this directly contradicts what you said earlier.

I said you don’t need shows but SeaWorld used shows to intrest people, you could also use exhibits to intrest people. Both are great ways to help the public appreciate animals and I believe exhibits and shows can have they same massive effect on people if they are done correctly.

 

[elefante]

A few solutions I could think of-
1. The AZA putting maximums on the number of institutions that can participate in a given SSP. By limiting how many zoos can keep a specific species, the AZA can essentially force an increase in diversity- as institutions would need to get new species to replace ones they aren't able to keep. For instance, if the AZA puts a limit on 30 institutions keeping red pandas, you would see an increase in other small carnivores in facilities unable to keep red pandas.
2. An AZA-EAZA Merger- this might not create any new programs and would be difficult to pull off due to CITES rulings, but if these two institutions merged their SSP programs, each region would see more diversity in their collections due to species only kept in one of the two regions currently.
3. Disney- a lot of animals become popular due to movies and pop culture. Disney might be part of this solution by choosing rarer species to be featured in their movies, as opposed to meerkats (Lion King), sloths (Zootopia), etc.
4. Bans on single-species Exhibits for certain popular animals- this has already been floated by the AZA with giraffes, but has never been enforced. By not allowing institutions to keep giraffes, plains zebras, or other over-represented popular species in single species Exhibits then you can create an increase of rarer hoofstock being mixed with these popular species. Obviously this won't work with all species, but would for most herbivores.

I think all of these are great solutions.

 

[Dassie rat]

On 6 August 2022, i published an article, 'A zoo is no place for an animal - nor for a tourist' by Justin Francis, Responsible Travel's CEO. 5 years ago, Francis stopped promoting holidays including zoos. He says that wildlife should only be kept in captivity for a very reason. "Most animals in zoos are neither threatened nor endangered ... most zoos don't release endangered animals back into the wild." He says that people can use nature documentaries and educational materials to learn about the natural world. He says that there is little evidence that the impact of visiting a zoo "is greater than nature-based experience." "A recent report from the Born Free Foundation found that UK zoos invest just 6.6% of takings in on-the-ground conservation projects." "With rare exceptions, wildlife encounters should happen in the wild", which is "better for the animals" and "a far more special experience for us." "Zoos operate for profit and entertainment." "There are far more effective ways than a zoo ticket to restore habitats and help endangered species thrive."

 

[gentle lemur]

On 6 August 2022, i published an article, 'A zoo is no place for an animal - nor for a tourist' by Justin Francis, Responsible Travel's CEO.

I take the points made here. But there are other arguments that are valid too. The CEO of Responsible Travel has a vested interest here and some people would argue that it is irresonsible to travel round the world ticking off a list of species seen in the wild, when you can travel a few miles to your local zoo and see more species more easily, more often and much more cheaply too. Zoos do not exist only to fund 'on-the-ground coservation projects' (however BFF defines that novel term) - although this aspect of zoo's work has increased greatly in the past 20 years. I would suggest that all travel companies 'operate for profit and entertaiment' - even the most responsible ones: while only someone utterly ignorant of the zoo licensing system could say the same of British zoos.

 

[Dassie rat]

I would suggest that all travel companies 'operate for profit and entertainment' - even the most responsible ones: while only someone utterly ignorant of the zoo licensing system could say the same of British zoos.

I agree with your comment about travel companies, gentle lemur. I also understand the author's comments about the high proportion of zoo animals that are not threatened by extinction and that many threatened species in zoos are not part of reintroduction programmes.

 

[NATY]

I’d say aquariums have more homogenised collections than zoos, when you go to 1 aquarium unless it's in Japan or it's Georgia, Monterey Bay, Sea aquarium, or another huge oceanarium, you've kinda seen all aquariums. Especially with how SeaLife is basically the Starbucks of aquariums

 

[iloveyourzoos]

Might the homogenization of species and collections, really be a symptom of a larger homogenization of institutional values and culture?

At least for accredited zoos, it seems like so much pressure is put on them to check all the boxes and be in conformity with each other around animal welfare, and habitat size, and enrichment, and education, and conservation, and research, and field work, and.... At a certain point, it seems like most zoos are just stuck in a continuous game of catch up with the few giants who are the only ones really allowed to innovate. And those innovations then very quickly become the new homogenized standard that everyone has to catch up to.

In such a context, it's probably hard for most zoos to even think about trying something new. Why rock the boat on species selection, when you're struggling to constantly upgrade your habitats and sending money and resources far away for in situ field work?

I don't know that I have a solution for that, since I too value all of those things they're trying to achieve. Maybe it will take 2 or 3 of the powerhouse zoos within the association to move in radically different directions, such that the accrediting body can't immediately institute all those ideas into a single, homogenized standard. Or maybe it's several medium to small sized zoos sharing what the minimums are to meet accreditation, thus freeing up resources and energy for other things. Or maybe the disruption has to come from outside, from quality zoos that aren't accredited or that are accredited by another body. Or maybe it will require another, competing accrediting body with a clear, competing vision. (Not one that people think is of lower quality, but rather one that clearly and affirmatively values different qualities).

Or maybe we're stuck and just have to wait for the next revolution in zoo innovation, on the level of the cultural shift from menageries to scenic views to conservation. We've been in the current "age" for a while now, so maybe this is just the homogenous calm before the revolutionary storm!

 

[Jurek7]

On 6 August 2022, i published an article, 'A zoo is no place for an animal - nor for a tourist' by Justin Francis, Responsible Travel's CEO. 5 years ago, Francis stopped promoting holidays including zoos. He says that wildlife should only be kept in captivity for a very reason. "Most animals in zoos are neither threatened nor endangered ... most zoos don't release endangered animals back into the wild." He says that people can use nature documentaries and educational materials to learn about the natural world. He says that there is little evidence that the impact of visiting a zoo "is greater than nature-based experience." "A recent report from the Born Free Foundation found that UK zoos invest just 6.6% of takings in on-the-ground conservation projects." "With rare exceptions, wildlife encounters should happen in the wild", which is "better for the animals" and "a far more special experience for us." "Zoos operate for profit and entertainment." "There are far more effective ways than a zoo ticket to restore habitats and help endangered species thrive."

This article could be written 25 years ago. Sadly, Mr Francis missed what happened in the last 25 years to zoos, wildlife and the society. Does he really think that that all people who decide not to go to a zoo send the same sum as the ticket price to wild conservation? Or that most zoo visitors can realistically travel to see wildlife?

And 'nature documentaries and educational materials' suggest that he really missed the last 25 years, including social media and that TV viewers no longer need any real wildlife, or actually anything outside their doors. Disney released computer generated films with African savanna with talking lions, Asian jungle with a flying elephant and Amazon rainforest with a friendly jaguar.

Maybe he could be educated somehow?