OkapiJohn
Well-Known Member
I want to add the following:
Just because a species is not endangered it does not mean it shouldn't be kept in zoo collections. First and foremost, they are not endangered YET! We know how our world is changing quickly and how some species that were least concern 15 years ago are not considered vulnerable or endangered. My half-life ago, giraffes, lions and hippos were considered least concern. Look at them now. We are losing biodiversity way too fast.
Very often many least concern species serve other institutional roles rather than conservation. Let's think for example education or research. Many species of antelope are kept and managed as EEPs not because they are endangered but because they are suitable species to create savanna mix species habitats which are attractive to the public and function for educative means (showcasing an African faunal community).
The same can be said about why European zoos keep Fallow deer, red deer, wild boar or red foxes. For sure you could use the space and resources these take for Mesopotamian fallow deer, philippine spotted deer, babirusa or dholes. But one of the most important goals of European zoos is to promote and divulge European fauna and habitats to the European public. In a continent seen as "empty of wilderness" and where the vast majority of its population lives in urban areas, showcasing these animals is an important mission of European zoos.
Another example is the selected songbird species for EEPs in European collections. Many are least concern status but they serve as a vehicle to have a conversation with the public about the songbird trade in Asia (EAZA Silent forest campaign). Do they serve as backup populations? Most of them no. But they were the most common, well-bred, sustainable populations of songbirds out there and their value as an educational tool is relevant enough to be managed as EEPs to be kept for generations in the future. We do not want to lose them, otherwise, we lose their educational role.
Gentoo (EEP) or King Penguins (EEP) are least concern but they are great species to bring awareness to climate change, overfishing, pollution, and to remind people about the amazing continent of Antarctica. Similarly can be said about Californian sea lions (EEP) which have the extra of being used in animal talks to engage the public.
Meerkats, pinnipeds and some primate species are widely used for behavioural research in zoos for example. Meerkats are amazing animals to explain to the public the dynamics of animals living in groups. Beavers are a great example of ecological engineers for instance.
Some of these species are managed as EEP populations others are not. The point is that they are intended to be preserved for multiple generations in healthy sustainable populations for whatever role they might play because importing animals from the wild is out of the question nowadays (with notorious exceptions). Better to preserve them than to lose them. More sustainable populations must be the priority above keeping more species. Of course, there are institutions or individuals that try with some species (e.g gerenuk at both berlin zoos) which is positive, but it must always be done together with the rest of the zoo community because no zoo alone can maintain a sustainable population. Many species that do not have an EEP attributed are still monitored by the TAGs and their situation can be upgraded to EEP if the population does well (grows) and/or more institutions get interested in them.
Finally, I don't see the role of modern zoos as arks - clumping as many species as possible without regard for purpose or what message is being given to the public; the public does not care if you have 3 species of zebra, 5 species of macaca or 3 species of flamingo, even if all of them are critically endangered. Modern zoos must be seen as conservation hubs where the role of education and public awareness is equal or even stronger than the role of "ark". A place where people, universities, public entities, and businesses can get together to talk about solutions for wildlife conservation. As such, modern zoos are supposed to display representations of ecosystems, habitats, biogeographical realms or faunal communities, explain ecological relations between species and if possible display those interactions (through mix-species exhibits) together with information about threats and conservation measures both ex-situ and in-situ. Least concern species are also part of these ecosystems and communities and if displayed correctly and taken part in the message, they also deserve a place in "the ark".
Anyways, nice topic of discussion, Cheers!
Just because a species is not endangered it does not mean it shouldn't be kept in zoo collections. First and foremost, they are not endangered YET! We know how our world is changing quickly and how some species that were least concern 15 years ago are not considered vulnerable or endangered. My half-life ago, giraffes, lions and hippos were considered least concern. Look at them now. We are losing biodiversity way too fast.
Very often many least concern species serve other institutional roles rather than conservation. Let's think for example education or research. Many species of antelope are kept and managed as EEPs not because they are endangered but because they are suitable species to create savanna mix species habitats which are attractive to the public and function for educative means (showcasing an African faunal community).
The same can be said about why European zoos keep Fallow deer, red deer, wild boar or red foxes. For sure you could use the space and resources these take for Mesopotamian fallow deer, philippine spotted deer, babirusa or dholes. But one of the most important goals of European zoos is to promote and divulge European fauna and habitats to the European public. In a continent seen as "empty of wilderness" and where the vast majority of its population lives in urban areas, showcasing these animals is an important mission of European zoos.
Another example is the selected songbird species for EEPs in European collections. Many are least concern status but they serve as a vehicle to have a conversation with the public about the songbird trade in Asia (EAZA Silent forest campaign). Do they serve as backup populations? Most of them no. But they were the most common, well-bred, sustainable populations of songbirds out there and their value as an educational tool is relevant enough to be managed as EEPs to be kept for generations in the future. We do not want to lose them, otherwise, we lose their educational role.
Gentoo (EEP) or King Penguins (EEP) are least concern but they are great species to bring awareness to climate change, overfishing, pollution, and to remind people about the amazing continent of Antarctica. Similarly can be said about Californian sea lions (EEP) which have the extra of being used in animal talks to engage the public.
Meerkats, pinnipeds and some primate species are widely used for behavioural research in zoos for example. Meerkats are amazing animals to explain to the public the dynamics of animals living in groups. Beavers are a great example of ecological engineers for instance.
Some of these species are managed as EEP populations others are not. The point is that they are intended to be preserved for multiple generations in healthy sustainable populations for whatever role they might play because importing animals from the wild is out of the question nowadays (with notorious exceptions). Better to preserve them than to lose them. More sustainable populations must be the priority above keeping more species. Of course, there are institutions or individuals that try with some species (e.g gerenuk at both berlin zoos) which is positive, but it must always be done together with the rest of the zoo community because no zoo alone can maintain a sustainable population. Many species that do not have an EEP attributed are still monitored by the TAGs and their situation can be upgraded to EEP if the population does well (grows) and/or more institutions get interested in them.
Finally, I don't see the role of modern zoos as arks - clumping as many species as possible without regard for purpose or what message is being given to the public; the public does not care if you have 3 species of zebra, 5 species of macaca or 3 species of flamingo, even if all of them are critically endangered. Modern zoos must be seen as conservation hubs where the role of education and public awareness is equal or even stronger than the role of "ark". A place where people, universities, public entities, and businesses can get together to talk about solutions for wildlife conservation. As such, modern zoos are supposed to display representations of ecosystems, habitats, biogeographical realms or faunal communities, explain ecological relations between species and if possible display those interactions (through mix-species exhibits) together with information about threats and conservation measures both ex-situ and in-situ. Least concern species are also part of these ecosystems and communities and if displayed correctly and taken part in the message, they also deserve a place in "the ark".
Anyways, nice topic of discussion, Cheers!
