Houston Zoo Pantanal Aviary

Zoo Birding

Zoo Birding

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
While I'm still interested in visiting the zoo just to see for myself the Pantanal aviary, I'm just slightly bothered how they try to sell it as "bringing the Pantanal" to the U.S.

I've reviewed from the pictures the species they put on display in their two aviaries and, for the most part, it is accurate except for a handful. Some I see the rationale behind as a form of showcasing the plight of the species, others because they are a species on the Species Survival Program, but others I think they could swap out for species native to their range.

For anyone who has visited or researched the Pantanal, the Pantanal is situated primarily in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso do Sul but does encompasses the southern portions of the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, along with the extreme eastern edges of the Bolivian department of Santa Cruz and the eastern edge of Alto Paraguay of Paraguay. Some of the species are true natives whereas some of them (which I'll put an asterisk by) are native to the departments or states where the Pantanal situates but is not native to the Pantanal proper.


From what I'll refer to as "Aviary 1":

Comb duck
Ringed teal
Guira cuckoo
Giant wood-rail
Sunbittern (Amazonian)
Wood stork
Puna ibis (SWAP)
Roseate spoonbill
Yellow-rumped cacique (Amazonian)
Red-capped cardinal *
Silver-beaked tanager *
Blue-grey tanager *

Nearly all the species in Aviary 1 are native to the Pantanal except a few, which are found in one of the states in Brazil but not native to the Pantanal proper. A thought is swap out the Puna ibis, since, to my knowledge, it is neither an SSP species or a flagship species, for either western cattle egrets or buff-necked ibises.

From "Aviary 2":

White-faced whistling-duck
Brazilian teal
Red shoveler
Wattled curassow
Southern lapwing
Wattled jacana
Boat-billed heron (Central American)
Black-faced ibis (SWAP)
Amazonian motmot
Guianan toucanet (SWAP)
Golden conure
Green oropendola *

Aviary 2 is a little more problematic but some of the species here I understand why they're here. The wattled curassow is an SSP species (though not native to the Pantanal), same with the Central American subspecies of the boat-billed heron, and the golden conure (again, not native to the Pantanal). The Amazonian motmot is an SSP species (the documents about them state that the founding population originated from Venezuela and Peru, making the "blue-crowned" motmots Amazonian motmots), despite the subspecies being different. If they wanted to make the exhibit true to the Pantanal, they should swap out the wattled curassow for white-throated piping-guans (Pipile cumanensis grayi) or bare-faced curassow, and the golden conure for maybe a pair of dusky-headed or blue-crowned conures, or better yet, for a small colony of quaker parakeets.

It is my understanding seeing a Youtube video about the exhibit that the Houston Zoo hosts the largest population of green oropendolas in the United States. While I get the appeal and bragging rights it brings, my cursory research about them states that the green oropendola is the least adaptable oropendola species for open woodlands and savannah, being more of a rainforest specialist. However, the crested oropendola, a native to the Pantanal, is an SSP species and would be truer to the idea of the exhibit.

A species to swap out the black-faced ibis would be a prime opportunity for the Houston Zoo to possibly be the first zoo to showcase Agami herons. For the Guianan toucanet, they could either showcase another ramphastid native to the Pantanal such as the chestnut-eared araçari or showcase another species entirely like the purple gallinule, black-necked stilt, or king vulture (the last two species are SSP species).

While the toco toucan would be the idea ramphastid and is the primary species of the Pantanal, they are far too aggressive to be put into a mixed species aviary.
Like I said, I understand some of the rationale to some of the species but it doesn't fully capture the Pantanal.

Then again, I'm just being pedantic.
 
Sarus Crane said:
They could've incorporated Jabirus into the Pantanal exhibit. What they could've done is added an extra exhibit where they mixed the Capybaras in with a 1.1 pair of Jabiru. It would've been great to showcase South America's tallest flying bird since there have been a few Jabiru sightings in south Texas over the years. Overall, I think the exhibit looks fantastic. I don't know why they couldn't have designed the macaw and curassow exhibit to be a walk through like the wader aviary (old Shoebill exhibit).
Click to expand...

While I would LOVE to see jabirus displayed somewhere, there is the problem with them being aggressive. Would love to see them in a large flight with capybaras.

Curassows I can see in a walk-through aviary but macaws SHOULD BE clipped for the patron's safety. I've seen firsthand how aggressive macaws can get when they are ready to breed, and if fully flighted and hand-reared, they could be very problematic to say the least.

My problem, like what I said earlier, is the species they showcase even in that flight are species not native to the Pantanal. However, both are SSP species and both are Critically Endangered, thus great species to showcase conservation efforts.

A perfect species that showcases that is an SSP species, that is practically the poster child of the Pantanal, and, while not Critically Endangered but listed Vulnerable, the hyacinth macaw would be a better candidate for accuracy.
 
macaw-maniac-91 said:
While I'm still interested in visiting the zoo just to see for myself the Pantanal aviary, I'm just slightly bothered how they try to sell it as "bringing the Pantanal" to the U.S.

I've reviewed from the pictures the species they put on display in their two aviaries and, for the most part, it is accurate except for a handful. Some I see the rationale behind as a form of showcasing the plight of the species, others because they are a species on the Species Survival Program, but others I think they could swap out for species native to their range.

For anyone who has visited or researched the Pantanal, the Pantanal is situated primarily in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso do Sul but does encompasses the southern portions of the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, along with the extreme eastern edges of the Bolivian department of Santa Cruz and the eastern edge of Alto Paraguay of Paraguay. Some of the species are true natives whereas some of them (which I'll put an asterisk by) are native to the departments or states where the Pantanal situates but is not native to the Pantanal proper.


From what I'll refer to as "Aviary 1":

Comb duck
Ringed teal
Guira cuckoo
Giant wood-rail
Sunbittern (Amazonian)
Wood stork
Puna ibis (SWAP)
Roseate spoonbill
Yellow-rumped cacique (Amazonian)
Red-capped cardinal *
Silver-beaked tanager *
Blue-grey tanager *

Nearly all the species in Aviary 1 are native to the Pantanal except a few, which are found in one of the states in Brazil but not native to the Pantanal proper. A thought is swap out the Puna ibis, since, to my knowledge, it is neither an SSP species or a flagship species, for either western cattle egrets or buff-necked ibises.

From "Aviary 2":

White-faced whistling-duck
Brazilian teal
Red shoveler
Wattled curassow
Southern lapwing
Wattled jacana
Boat-billed heron (Central American)
Black-faced ibis (SWAP)
Amazonian motmot
Guianan toucanet (SWAP)
Golden conure
Green oropendola *

Aviary 2 is a little more problematic but some of the species here I understand why they're here. The wattled curassow is an SSP species (though not native to the Pantanal), same with the Central American subspecies of the boat-billed heron, and the golden conure (again, not native to the Pantanal). The Amazonian motmot is an SSP species (the documents about them state that the founding population originated from Venezuela and Peru, making the "blue-crowned" motmots Amazonian motmots), despite the subspecies being different. If they wanted to make the exhibit true to the Pantanal, they should swap out the wattled curassow for white-throated piping-guans (Pipile cumanensis grayi) or bare-faced curassow, and the golden conure for maybe a pair of dusky-headed or blue-crowned conures, or better yet, for a small colony of quaker parakeets.

It is my understanding seeing a Youtube video about the exhibit that the Houston Zoo hosts the largest population of green oropendolas in the United States. While I get the appeal and bragging rights it brings, my cursory research about them states that the green oropendola is the least adaptable oropendola species for open woodlands and savannah, being more of a rainforest specialist. However, the crested oropendola, a native to the Pantanal, is an SSP species and would be truer to the idea of the exhibit.

A species to swap out the black-faced ibis would be a prime opportunity for the Houston Zoo to possibly be the first zoo to showcase Agami herons. For the Guianan toucanet, they could either showcase another ramphastid native to the Pantanal such as the chestnut-eared araçari or showcase another species entirely like the purple gallinule, black-necked stilt, or king vulture (the last two species are SSP species).

While the toco toucan would be the idea ramphastid and is the primary species of the Pantanal, they are far too aggressive to be put into a mixed species aviary.
Like I said, I understand some of the rationale to some of the species but it doesn't fully capture the Pantanal.

Then again, I'm just being pedantic.
Click to expand...
They also added to “Aviary 2” are two Andean Cock of the Rock.
 
macaw-maniac-91 said:
there is the problem with them being aggressive.
Click to expand...
They look fine far away, but close up...... the avian grim reaper! Why people are afraid of Marabous when these look like they should've starred in The Birds???? It must be that all-black face and beak....
DLWmoYJVoAAlIn8

Source
 
macaw-maniac-91 said:
While I'm still interested in visiting the zoo just to see for myself the Pantanal aviary, I'm just slightly bothered how they try to sell it as "bringing the Pantanal" to the U.S.

I've reviewed from the pictures the species they put on display in their two aviaries and, for the most part, it is accurate except for a handful. Some I see the rationale behind as a form of showcasing the plight of the species, others because they are a species on the Species Survival Program, but others I think they could swap out for species native to their range.

For anyone who has visited or researched the Pantanal, the Pantanal is situated primarily in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso do Sul but does encompasses the southern portions of the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, along with the extreme eastern edges of the Bolivian department of Santa Cruz and the eastern edge of Alto Paraguay of Paraguay. Some of the species are true natives whereas some of them (which I'll put an asterisk by) are native to the departments or states where the Pantanal situates but is not native to the Pantanal proper.


From what I'll refer to as "Aviary 1":

Comb duck
Ringed teal
Guira cuckoo
Giant wood-rail
Sunbittern (Amazonian)
Wood stork
Puna ibis (SWAP)
Roseate spoonbill
Yellow-rumped cacique (Amazonian)
Red-capped cardinal *
Silver-beaked tanager *
Blue-grey tanager *

Nearly all the species in Aviary 1 are native to the Pantanal except a few, which are found in one of the states in Brazil but not native to the Pantanal proper. A thought is swap out the Puna ibis, since, to my knowledge, it is neither an SSP species or a flagship species, for either western cattle egrets or buff-necked ibises.

From "Aviary 2":

White-faced whistling-duck
Brazilian teal
Red shoveler
Wattled curassow
Southern lapwing
Wattled jacana
Boat-billed heron (Central American)
Black-faced ibis (SWAP)
Amazonian motmot
Guianan toucanet (SWAP)
Golden conure
Green oropendola *

Aviary 2 is a little more problematic but some of the species here I understand why they're here. The wattled curassow is an SSP species (though not native to the Pantanal), same with the Central American subspecies of the boat-billed heron, and the golden conure (again, not native to the Pantanal). The Amazonian motmot is an SSP species (the documents about them state that the founding population originated from Venezuela and Peru, making the "blue-crowned" motmots Amazonian motmots), despite the subspecies being different. If they wanted to make the exhibit true to the Pantanal, they should swap out the wattled curassow for white-throated piping-guans (Pipile cumanensis grayi) or bare-faced curassow, and the golden conure for maybe a pair of dusky-headed or blue-crowned conures, or better yet, for a small colony of quaker parakeets.

It is my understanding seeing a Youtube video about the exhibit that the Houston Zoo hosts the largest population of green oropendolas in the United States. While I get the appeal and bragging rights it brings, my cursory research about them states that the green oropendola is the least adaptable oropendola species for open woodlands and savannah, being more of a rainforest specialist. However, the crested oropendola, a native to the Pantanal, is an SSP species and would be truer to the idea of the exhibit.

A species to swap out the black-faced ibis would be a prime opportunity for the Houston Zoo to possibly be the first zoo to showcase Agami herons. For the Guianan toucanet, they could either showcase another ramphastid native to the Pantanal such as the chestnut-eared araçari or showcase another species entirely like the purple gallinule, black-necked stilt, or king vulture (the last two species are SSP species).

While the toco toucan would be the idea ramphastid and is the primary species of the Pantanal, they are far too aggressive to be put into a mixed species aviary.
Like I said, I understand some of the rationale to some of the species but it doesn't fully capture the Pantanal.

Then again, I'm just being pedantic.
Click to expand...

Puna Ibis isn't an SSP but it's a species with a decent sized population that until now was confined to a single zoo. While not exactly geographically accurate, it's a great addition and a good step towards perhaps getting this species established as a program. Similar situation with Black-Faced Ibis, except in this instance there are very few birds present at a handful of zoos trying hard to establish a population.

Most of your suggestions are species not present in the country at all, or that aren't really in need of additional holders (Cattle Egret, Monk Parakeet).

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
Puna Ibis isn't an SSP but it's a species with a decent sized population that until now was confined to a single zoo. While not exactly geographically accurate, it's a great addition and a good step towards perhaps getting this species established as a program. Similar situation with Black-Faced Ibis, except in this instance there are very few birds present at a handful of zoos trying hard to establish a population.

Most of your suggestions are species not present in the country at all, or that aren't really in need of additional holders (Cattle Egret, Monk Parakeet).

~Thylo
Click to expand...

I suppose my big gripe about exhibits is that if zoos are going to claim they are "bringing [insert appealing geographic region]", the exhibit planner or whoever envisions this exhibit should be as accurate about the species that represent that region. I can forgive using a species that is present in the region but at the time a subspecies is put in its place (like in the case of the Central American boat-billed heron and the Amazonian motmot (SIDE NOTE: According to 2008 TAG Collection plan, the boat-billed heron subspecies represented in American zoos is the subspecies ridgwayi, what I refer to as the Central American subspecies but I have read some called it the Honduran subspecies), but to put species not native to the region in this exhibit is misleading and spreads misinformation.

I feel that if zoos really should strive for accurate exhibits where species interact with each other as they would in the wild. I get that with most zoos with aviaries, they want to display for the public the most eye-catching, most memorable mix-species flights to wow and appeal to the public but zoos can always do better.

Yes, I know most of the species I listed aren't really represented in the U.S. but zoos can create a consortium or work with zoos elsewhere to obtain those species. To use the Agami heron, I don't think there are any represented anywhere, and they are not just an eye-catching species that, in the wild, do share breeding colonies with other species (an excellent candidate for mixed-species exhibits), but they are a conservation concern (listed "Vulnerable" by the IUCN at the time of writing this). Like the roseate spoonbill, this species has flexibility as far as Neotropic / South American-themed aviaries given their large, geographic range.

I don't know what to say regarding the cattle egret and Quaker parakeet comment other than they I don't think many zoos show display them. I've seen cattle egrets displayed in zoos (Oakland had one in their Hillside Aviary before they renovated it, and Fresno Chaffee has one in their Tropical Rainforest Aviary) but I don't think I've ever seen Quaker parakeets displayed in zoos (then again, they are illegal to keep as pets in many states, and thus would be challenging to keep in a zoo setting). While the cattle egret is not the most ideal candidate for display given that anyone can see them in the wild throughout their geographic range, there is some appeal in their exhibit adaptability because they can mix with other species well and they have a large range.
 
Sarus Crane said:
I knew Macaws were loud, but didn't know how mean they could be. I did hear however that Dolley Madison had a troublesome parrot named Polly that liked and obeyed her but nipped at others including nearly severing President James Madison's finger!!! I know that Theodore Roosevelt Jr. had a Hyacinth named Eli Yale and was incredibly docile. Maybe Hyacinths are indeed gentle giants?
Click to expand...

While in aviculture hyacinth macaws have a reputation as "gentle giants", depending on the individuals, they can be especially aggressive. When hand-raising hyacinths, you HAVE TO teach them to be gentle and to not apply pressure on fingers because they don't know their own strength. I've handled about ten, and only birds that were about to be set up for breeding or were already breeder birds were the only individuals that acted either uninterested or who acted in any way aggressive towards me. Other than that, I've gotten along with them beautifully.

I visited a friend's aviary and they had hyacinth macaws (they were breeder birds), and when I was assisting providing enrichment for their birds, the hyacinth pair lunged, bobbed their heads, and flashed their wings, posturing how intimidating they can be. Remember, hyacinth macaws have a beak strong enough to crack Brazil nuts, open coconuts, and especially strong palm nuts.

Hyacinth macaws in the wild compete and often win fights with green-winged (red and green) macaws for nesting trees. Macaws at the clay licks will chase off and scare away smaller species like conures (Neotropic parakeets), Amazon and Pionus parrots, and smaller macaws.

Macaws are extremely intelligent and have a mischievous streak that can be dark. Most often though, macaws are generally the most even-tempered out of all the large parrots, especially compared to cockatoos and Amazon parrots. Most people are afraid of their large size and strong beaks, and most people who keep them that then surrender them either can't handle their calls or they didn't socialize the bird properly that the bird oftentimes develop behavior problems like screaming, aggressive habits, or, not very often, feather-pick.
 
Sarus Crane said:
They look fine far away, but close up...... the avian grim reaper! Why people are afraid of Marabous when these look like they should've starred in The Birds???? It must be that all-black face and beak....
DLWmoYJVoAAlIn8

Source
Click to expand...

First time I've seen that close a shot of a jabiru's head. Ummm... lol o_O

I've met a marabou really close up in Miami and they definitely deserve the moniker "the undertaker bird". A face only a mother can love but I am impressed by their size, especially in flight.
 
Houston's Pantanal is for me the best new exhibit in American zoos in the last years. I, to, feel a dissonance between carefully restoring a particular place and putting animals not found in it. Especially that I can compare with the real Pantanal in Brasil.

But, because that American zoos can only keep relatively few species in sustainable populations, I may suffer Central American tapirs, puna ibises, lion marmosets etc.

The real Pantanal is home to many more classic zoo animals: maned volves, bush dogs, ocelots, coatis, capuchins, tamandua, king vultures, toco toucans, seriemas, many more parrots, red-footed tortoises, green iguanas, lots of herps and fish etc. But of course there is not enough space in the zoo for them all.
 
macaw-maniac-91 said:
I suppose my big gripe about exhibits is that if zoos are going to claim they are "bringing [insert appealing geographic region]", the exhibit planner or whoever envisions this exhibit should be as accurate about the species that represent that region. I can forgive using a species that is present in the region but at the time a subspecies is put in its place (like in the case of the Central American boat-billed heron and the Amazonian motmot (SIDE NOTE: According to 2008 TAG Collection plan, the boat-billed heron subspecies represented in American zoos is the subspecies ridgwayi, what I refer to as the Central American subspecies but I have read some called it the Honduran subspecies), but to put species not native to the region in this exhibit is misleading and spreads misinformation.

I feel that if zoos really should strive for accurate exhibits where species interact with each other as they would in the wild. I get that with most zoos with aviaries, they want to display for the public the most eye-catching, most memorable mix-species flights to wow and appeal to the public but zoos can always do better.

Yes, I know most of the species I listed aren't really represented in the U.S. but zoos can create a consortium or work with zoos elsewhere to obtain those species. To use the Agami heron, I don't think there are any represented anywhere, and they are not just an eye-catching species that, in the wild, do share breeding colonies with other species (an excellent candidate for mixed-species exhibits), but they are a conservation concern (listed "Vulnerable" by the IUCN at the time of writing this). Like the roseate spoonbill, this species has flexibility as far as Neotropic / South American-themed aviaries given their large, geographic range.

I don't know what to say regarding the cattle egret and Quaker parakeet comment other than they I don't think many zoos show display them. I've seen cattle egrets displayed in zoos (Oakland had one in their Hillside Aviary before they renovated it, and Fresno Chaffee has one in their Tropical Rainforest Aviary) but I don't think I've ever seen Quaker parakeets displayed in zoos (then again, they are illegal to keep as pets in many states, and thus would be challenging to keep in a zoo setting). While the cattle egret is not the most ideal candidate for display given that anyone can see them in the wild throughout their geographic range, there is some appeal in their exhibit adaptability because they can mix with other species well and they have a large range.
Click to expand...
Jurek7 said:
Houston's Pantanal is for me the best new exhibit in American zoos in the last years. I, to, feel a dissonance between carefully restoring a particular place and putting animals not found in it. Especially that I can compare with the real Pantanal in Brasil.

But, because that American zoos can only keep relatively few species in sustainable populations, I may suffer Central American tapirs, puna ibises, lion marmosets etc.

The real Pantanal is home to many more classic zoo animals: maned volves, bush dogs, ocelots, coatis, capuchins, tamandua, king vultures, toco toucans, seriemas, many more parrots, red-footed tortoises, green iguanas, lots of herps and fish etc. But of course there is not enough space in the zoo for them all.
Click to expand...

The situation is precisely as @Jurek7 said, there isn't enough space to keep every animal going. Houston is not just going to rip a few Agami Herons from the wild to use as an accessory species in an aviary that, once they and whatever offspring they may produce die-off, will inevitably be replaced by a species which isn't exactly geographically accurate. The only difference is maybe there aren't any Puna Ibis left available for them to use by then, because no other holders stepped up to take on the species. Maybe they defy AZA recommendations--which is more to let EAZA focus on Brazilian while we focus on Baird's rather than there being no interest in Baird's--and choose Brazilian over Baird's. Well that's now one less institution helping the Baird's program which already faces a number of challenges while the European and non-AZA Brazilian populations thrive.

Lack of genetic diversity and lack of institutional holders are the two largest challenges facing SSP programs, and are the two reasons we've seen so many phase-outs in the last two decades. Like it or not, zoos cannot do mass importations from a specific geographic location every time they open an exhibit themed as such. Stand-in species are a great way to still highlight the biodiversity of a region while helping support a program so those animals can still be around for whenever someone wants to create a Gulf of Mexico exhibit or something.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
The situation is precisely as @Jurek7 said, there isn't enough space to keep every animal going. Houston is not just going to rip a few Agami Herons from the wild to use as an accessory species in an aviary that, once they and whatever offspring they may produce die-off, will inevitably be replaced by a species which isn't exactly geographically accurate.
Click to expand...

That's why I proffered them as a potential candidate species for the SSP. While I understand the SSP is primarily used for zoos to manage populations, a good number of species on the SSP, at least when looking at said species's IUCN status, aren't facing a level of threatened, either being "Least Concern" or "Near Threatened" in the wild. I pointed out in one of my threads that the Agami heron, while being a good, to use your words, "accessory" species, they also provide a conservation message, being a "Vulnerable" species in the wild while also potentially being a good aviary specimen due to wild studies showing they can mix well with other species in the wild. Lastly, zoos also want a species that's eye-catching and bring in the patrons, and the Agami heron, while being a distinct species taxonomically, is also an eye-catching species.

Like I also pointed out, to my knowledge, the Agami heron has never been displayed or bred in U.S. zoos or aviculture, and it would present a new and exciting prospect for an institution to pursue.

If the AZA finds success with the species, they wouldn't be replaced and would continue to stay around.
 
macaw-maniac-91 said:
That's why I proffered them as a potential candidate species for the SSP. While I understand the SSP is primarily used for zoos to manage populations, a good number of species on the SSP, at least when looking at said species's IUCN status, aren't facing a level of threatened, either being "Least Concern" or "Near Threatened" in the wild. I pointed out in one of my threads that the Agami heron, while being a good, to use your words, "accessory" species, they also provide a conservation message, being a "Vulnerable" species in the wild while also potentially being a good aviary specimen due to wild studies showing they can mix well with other species in the wild. Lastly, zoos also want a species that's eye-catching and bring in the patrons, and the Agami heron, while being a distinct species taxonomically, is also an eye-catching species.

Like I also pointed out, to my knowledge, the Agami heron has never been displayed or bred in U.S. zoos or aviculture, and it would present a new and exciting prospect for an institution to pursue.

If the AZA finds success with the species, they wouldn't be replaced and would continue to stay around.
Click to expand...
Agamis are great! If not Agami, I would choose the Capped Heron or Rufescent Tiger-Heron as potential SSP candidates.
 
macaw-maniac-91 said:
That's why I proffered them as a potential candidate species for the SSP. While I understand the SSP is primarily used for zoos to manage populations, a good number of species on the SSP, at least when looking at said species's IUCN status, aren't facing a level of threatened, either being "Least Concern" or "Near Threatened" in the wild. I pointed out in one of my threads that the Agami heron, while being a good, to use your words, "accessory" species, they also provide a conservation message, being a "Vulnerable" species in the wild while also potentially being a good aviary specimen due to wild studies showing they can mix well with other species in the wild. Lastly, zoos also want a species that's eye-catching and bring in the patrons, and the Agami heron, while being a distinct species taxonomically, is also an eye-catching species.

Like I also pointed out, to my knowledge, the Agami heron has never been displayed or bred in U.S. zoos or aviculture, and it would present a new and exciting prospect for an institution to pursue.

If the AZA finds success with the species, they wouldn't be replaced and would continue to stay around.
Click to expand...

All of this, especially your last sentence, would require the AZA to import a significant number of wild-caught birds to give themselves a solid genetically diverse founding populations for which to manage. This will require space. What other AZA zoos are joining this venture? They will all need to have exhibits themed within the Agami Heron's range. A range that, according to the IUCN range map for the species, barely, if at all falls inside the Pantanal.

What species will need to be phased-out to make room for this new population? The TAG is already failing to find enough holders for the species they're pushing as it is, so what will convince institutions that it is worth risking public critique, social backlash, and a large sum of money to import a sustainably-sized wild-caught population of Agami Herons despite the fact that they have never been successfully bred in captivity? We think they may be social with other species in-situ, but we don't know if that is the case within a confined space for a prolonged periods, how they will respond to aviary mates during the breeding and nesting season, or how they will respond to aviary mates during those species' breeding and nesting seasons.

Don't get me wrong, I would fully support an attempt to legally establish any endangered species in zoos, but you are ignoring an awful lot of factors to justify importing a species for just one aviary at one zoo.

~Thylo
 
Re: the Pantanal aviaries, there are two ways you could look at this. One is that, if the zoo is going to try and represent the Pantanal ecosystem, they should make the best effort to represent the species as accurately as possible. The other way to look at it is to compare how it accomplishes that to other zoos - and that's where I end up. The fact that Houston has a species lineup mostly from the right region is already leagues ahead of many zoo aviaries, some of which aren't even loyal to one continent, makes me a little surprised anybody would even have constructive notes to give. But this is ZooChat... *shrugs*

Another thought besides everyone else's points about sustainable populations and logistical issues with imports is that realistically zoos are often making a meal out of the ingredients already in their pantry, so to speak. I know that Houston's bird collection has gone through some significant changes in the last few years; it's possible that some of those birds were holdovers or bts and the zoo thought the Pantanal aviary was a good opportunity to put them on exhibit. I think geographical inaccuracy is a fair sacrifice for getting to show more birds to the public, rather than keeping them off-display or shipping them elsewhere for no good reason. I'm not saying that is the case here, but it's another possibility and something that does happen.
 
Great Argus said:
No they aren't - you just need equivalent sized species. I've seen them in mixed aviaries before.
Click to expand...

I saw toco toucans last year kept in a mixed species flights at both San Diego Zoos:

At the Safari Park, they were kept with their elegant-crested tinamous. Make since since they occupy different areas of the flight.

At the main zoo, (at least during my visit) they were kept with Inca terns, a small flock of blue-headed macaws, and a lek of Andean cock-of-the-rocks, though the signage posted also listed ringed teals, Amazonian motmots, black-spotted barbets, crested oropendolas, yellow-rumped caciques, and silver-beaked tanagers. I can see a potential problem with them cohabitating with the motmot, barbet, tanager, and caciques ESPECIALLY due to their size and the toucan's predatory nature. In the wild, toco toucans (well every araçari and toucan species within their wide range) especially love to predate, eat, and destroy nests of the yellow-rumped caciques and oropendolas. I'm iffy about a motmot doing well but I did capture a picture of a motmot holding its own against a spotted thick-knee, and zoos have reported that them and plush-crested jays should NEVER mix because one species WILL kill the other.

My take during my San Diego trip was they really strive to keep species within their respective geographic location and have it where these would be species that would interact in the wild, fostering and encouraging natural behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top