I'm pretty sure quite a few species put on the phase-out list were doing fine in captivity beforehand.
I totally agree with you here.
~Thylo
Phase out species in United States
- Thread starter jusko88
- Start date
I'm pretty sure quite a few species put on the phase-out list were doing fine in captivity beforehand.
I totally agree with you here.
~Thylo
The TAGs base their conclusions about sustainability by surveying zoos to see how many spaces are open for certain animals (ex. space for 110 tapirs in AZA zoos) and then deciding which animals have a higher population, contain the possibility for additional founders, are easier to keep, and have a greater necessity for ex situ breeding. Then, they suggest how many spaces should be allocated to each species. Right?
So my question is, how much work is being done on increasing the number of SPACES available? Maybe if we had a higher number of spaces, we wouldn't have to phase out any species with a large enough population. Populations lower than 15 or so would still be unsustainable, but perhaps we could avoid hard choices, like phasing out the critically endangered Sulawesi macaque. So how much and what kind of growth are we seeing in new exhibit construction right now?
So my question is, how much work is being done on increasing the number of SPACES available? Maybe if we had a higher number of spaces, we wouldn't have to phase out any species with a large enough population. Populations lower than 15 or so would still be unsustainable, but perhaps we could avoid hard choices, like phasing out the critically endangered Sulawesi macaque. So how much and what kind of growth are we seeing in new exhibit construction right now?
I'm pretty sure quite a few species put on the phase-out list were doing fine in captivity beforehand.
I totally agree with you here.
~Thylo
Can you give me some examples of some that were phased out even though they had sustainable populations?
This is distantly related, but there are plans to release cheetahs into the wild at some point (not soon, but there are plans)
Well there's the aforementioned Sulawesi Crested Macaque. Multiple other macaque and baboon species as well I believe. I believe both a few subspecies of Leopards did and still do have good captive populations in the U.S. but we're only focusing on Amur.
As for the African Forest Elephant mentioned earlier, I'm pretty sure they just kept dying out in captivity and were hard to obtain and keep at the time so zoos stopped getting them.
~Thylo
What leopard species in particular? I think african leopards would be cool. Amur Leopards are starting to become so common, even though theres only 40-60 in the wild.
I believe there are still a good amount of Persian and North Chinese Leopards between AZA and non-AZA zoos.
~Thylo
You have hit the majority of factors the TAGs consider right on the head. Those are the most significant along with genetics and demography of the population. There is zero point in having 10 000 captive tigers if they are horribly inbred. And an unstable age or gender bias can also create enormous problems. Boom busts do no species any good.
TAGs will ask zoos to try to create more space when deemed necessary for the populations health. But to do that there must be institutional interest which is in part driven by guest interest. Yes almost every zoo has lions and tigers because that is what guests expect and are the big pulls for guests. They are easily identifiable for people. Now how many people know what they are looking at when they see say a fishing cat? Maybe a tiny fraction of people. Are those rarities most dont recognize going to draw in the visitors who's dollars are the ones building the exhibits? Not too likely. That creates less institutional interest which creates less spaces, even if the population could be grown and founders added. If a zoo has $10 million to spend on exhibits they will try to make sure they get the best bang for the buck by supporting some big feature animals everyone will flock to see and sprinkling in some rarer extras if they can. It will be the star animals drawing in the majority of guests though. In the end zoos are businesses that need to make enough money to reinvest in itself.
TAGs have to make tough calls but some arent that hard. If the population isnt sustainable then its easier. Some species have small populations and its almost impossible to get new stock. If there isnt interest in growing a population or zoos are deciding on their own this species just isnt working for them then its easier. TAGs cannot make zoos keep a species if they just dont want them. In the end each zoo has the choice to keep what it wants. TAGs just make recommendations. Sometimes its easy to give up on a species because another region has a strong breeding program. Often if European, Japanese or Aussie zoos have thriving populations it frees up the AZA to refocus its attention on another species.
Its a complex thing. Each decision is thoroughly examined, considered and reconsidered with the goal of doing the most good they can with the limited space, funds and animals they have. I'm glad that I'm not the one making those kinds of decisions.
There are over 1,750 captive tigers and only 250 genetically varied tigers are required to save the species. Therefore, zoos have saved the tiger from extinction. Even if the tiger becomes extinct in the wild, there are more than enough tigers to prevent the species becoming extinct. In my lifetime, I have seen various species, such as Mongolian wild horses and Arabian oryxes, which were extinct in the wild. Zoos have saved various species and these include tigers. This is not the case with many other species, which are at great risk of extinction.
It would be good if someone followed Gerald Durrell's example and went into the wild to rescue animals prior to the destruction of their habitat. Carl Jones is also a good example of someone who saved various non-ABC species.
Maintaining a species in a perpetual genetic bottleneck is far from being "saved".
Arabian oryx were also not saved by zoos - not when a few thousand were maintained in some private herds within the Middle East while the "world herd" was gathered in Phoenix, AZ.
If minimal numbers were really all that mattered for saving a species, they why would anyone give two hoots about white rhino poaching? There are still thousands of them left.
Because of the growing world bureaucracy and the evolution of conservation policy, indivduals cannot act like Durrell and simply talk a government into taking some animals back to their private zoo. Our world has changed in many ways since then. Captive breeding must persist first and maybe only in-situ like in Carl Jones's case.
In conclusion, new tiger zoo exhibits are not taking away opportunities for zoos to focus on species at greater risk of extinction. In the US, it wasn't until recently that zoos have come close to demographic goals. In the past, American zoos traditionally had just one enclosure with holding areas in the back. This setup does not allow the flexibility needed for breeding. Newer exhibits are now incorporating 2 or more enclosures, that allows for breeding and holding of older juveniles/older adults necessary for breeding programs to be successful.
While you and others may not believe this, many conversations on this website suggest that species are only "safe" if they persist in "Western Zoos". This train of thought needs to stop, if zoos are going to progress as conservation entities.
Arabian oryx were also not saved by zoos - not when a few thousand were maintained in some private herds within the Middle East while the "world herd" was gathered in Phoenix, AZ.
If minimal numbers were really all that mattered for saving a species, they why would anyone give two hoots about white rhino poaching? There are still thousands of them left.
Because of the growing world bureaucracy and the evolution of conservation policy, indivduals cannot act like Durrell and simply talk a government into taking some animals back to their private zoo. Our world has changed in many ways since then. Captive breeding must persist first and maybe only in-situ like in Carl Jones's case.
In conclusion, new tiger zoo exhibits are not taking away opportunities for zoos to focus on species at greater risk of extinction. In the US, it wasn't until recently that zoos have come close to demographic goals. In the past, American zoos traditionally had just one enclosure with holding areas in the back. This setup does not allow the flexibility needed for breeding. Newer exhibits are now incorporating 2 or more enclosures, that allows for breeding and holding of older juveniles/older adults necessary for breeding programs to be successful.
While you and others may not believe this, many conversations on this website suggest that species are only "safe" if they persist in "Western Zoos". This train of thought needs to stop, if zoos are going to progress as conservation entities.
Saying that zoos have "saved" tigers rather misses the point, as does the number of 1750 - there are six living tiger subspecies, only three of which are recommended for AZA collections. Using your numbers, that would require 750 individuals to sustain populations of all three subspecies. I'd venture that many of the 1750 you mention are Bengals - and how many of those are pure Bengal? Not to mention the inbreeding rampant in the hundreds of white tigers still being bred.
Of course, a larger question remains: while zoo populations can represent insurance policies, how can zoos be said to "save" a species if there are no wild populations remaining? Durrell's much publicized successes are few in number, and it is worth noting that it seems that even the Jersey Zoo is much more interested in in situ projects - many of the species maintained there are held to allow development of husbandry techniques to foster conservation work elsewhere or for education purposes.
As others have noted, the criteria for the development of regional collection plans in the AZA include a number of factors; most taxa designated for phase out are not present in sufficient numbers in American institutions to maintain genetic diversity, are not in sufficient demand by member institutions, or take up space better spent on a species with higher conservation value (either because there is an international program elsewhere that manages the taxon or because the phase out taxon is safer in the wild). Even supposing, for example, there was sufficient genetic diversity in the AZA institutions to sustain a viable population of Persian leopards, what is the point if the member institutions
do not have the ability or desire to maintain such a population?
Species such as the echo parakeet and Mauritius kestrel were bred from a small number of individuals. Would you have preferred it they had been allowed to go extinct. There are several hundred captive cheetahs, most of which show very genetic diversity. Should these be culled?
Conservationists have done a good job in increasing populations of wild white rhinos. It goes to show that large animals can be saved in the wild and it is better to do this than to breed thousands of white rhinos in captivity with no hope of releasing any of them into the wild.
You may be right on this one, although I had a talk with Gerald Durrell's secretary about the way that Jersey Zoo used to deal with this issue and it required a lot of diplomacy. I suppose it depends on the way people want the world to go. I would prefer it if endangered species and their habitats were not being continually destroyed, often to the detriment of the native people.
I found this to be the most confusing argument of all. If one new tiger exhibit replaces the enclosures of several other species, the emphasis will be on the tigers, not on the animals no longer in the collection. I doubt if there are many zoo visitors who do not already know about tigers, but I bet that most zoo visitors have never heard of some of the critically endangered species that could have been kept in the same space. I went to Shepreth and there was information about conserving many species that were not in the collection. Does every zoo have to have tigers and other designated ABC animals, while other species are allowed to become extinct due to lack of interest? There are many charities trying to save tigers in the wild and there are too many tigers in captivity, so the main reason for breeding tigers is commercial, not conservation. It is possible that the money could help conservation, but far more would be achieved by protecting suitable habitat for tigers and other animals in the wild, rather than building a new, expensive tiger enclosure.
Your argument seems to be that space should be devoted to species other than tigers that have greater conservation value (as noted above, I do not believe that there are excess tigers of the three managed susbspecies in AZA care, so I don't believe your point that there are too many tigers in captivity). But can you point to any species that are being phased out which are currently present in AZA collections in sufficient numbers to allow for maintenance of a sustainable, genetically diverse population?
Except for very few cases, the answer does not seem to be removal of individuals of critically endangered species from the wild, at least not for ex situ exhibition. Even the species you note (the Mauritius kestrel and the echo parakeet) were managed in situ at first- there was not an attempt to set up breeding groups at institutions outside of Mauritius until the population had been stabilized through in situ work (in fact, the only echo parakeets on display outside of Mauritius are birds intended for educational, not breeding, purposes). The San Diego Zoo is doing the same for Hawaii's endangered bird species in Hawaii, yet the Zoo's collection holds none of these species (ditto Jersey's work with pygmy hogs).
And for an example of how ex situ breeding can utterly fail when there are not sufficient founders, one need look no further than rhinos: both the northern white rhinoceros and the Sumatran rhinoceros failed as captive populations. The Northern white is a particularly sad case, as there was such success with the southern subspecies, the failure of continued breeding, even with the small number of founders present, has resulted in a functionally extinct subspecies. There was large institutional interest in Sumatran rhinos, but despite success with other rhino species, the entire ex situ captive population has dwindled to one.
Finally, your argument seems to be that zoos should not focus on species that the public wants to see; to extrapolate, it almost seems that you argue that captive breeding should be the most important function of zoos. Why not get rid of the vast populations of non-breeding animals maintained solely for display, education, and research programs? I must admit, when I was younger, I used to believe that zoos should be focused on the propagation and rescue of endangered species, but I have grown to strongly feel that, as much as I love zoos, their biggest contribution towards conservation is education and ex situ field work.
Guys, zoos are not just about conservation (even though that is a very big and important part of zoos). Zoos are also supposed to foster an appreciation for wildlife, something that is much easier to do by showing guests large, active, interesting animals in vast exhibits that mimic their natural habitats, and have other animals in the exhibits as well. That is why it is important for zoos to have these ABC animals.
Even though zoos would be a lot better conservation-wise if they only had those small monkey and bird species that most people haven't heard about, it is important for people to start to appreciate wildlife a lot first, and then they will get more interested.
Therefore, Zoos should have lots of ABC animals, and then also smaller exhibits for the not-popular animals too, or put ABCs and other animals in the same exhibits like an ecosystem together (but not when they would eat each other).
Even though zoos would be a lot better conservation-wise if they only had those small monkey and bird species that most people haven't heard about, it is important for people to start to appreciate wildlife a lot first, and then they will get more interested.
Therefore, Zoos should have lots of ABC animals, and then also smaller exhibits for the not-popular animals too, or put ABCs and other animals in the same exhibits like an ecosystem together (but not when they would eat each other).
The failure of these taxa in captivity was more due to mismanagement and bureaucracy than it was a lack of founder stock, I believe
Dassie Rat you are moving away from the thread topic of phase out species in US zoos, and you have seemed to contradict yourself without sarcasm. To further this small debate, if you are going to piecemeal my statements, please at least provide a thoughtful counterpoint for each one.
1. Your response to my statement re "maintaining perpetual bottleneck" makes no sense. Please look up the definition of perpetual. Population genetics dictates that to recover from a bottleneck, one must increase the population rapidly to increase survival of the population. If species are to survive in zoos, captive populations need to be kept above whatever minimal number is necessary for being "saved". Hence the need for increasing number of holding spaces in zoos. I highly doubt Echo parakeet and Mauritius kestrels numbers are being kept at a minimal number to be saved from extinction (I also don't recall them being held and bred in zoos). The rest of your bit that followed makes little sense and you appear to be over reacting.
2. (Your response to re: white rhino example) You still haven't addressed my inquiry regarding why minimal numbers = saved from extinction.
3. (Re: Durrell) Whatever our preferences are, Gerald Durrell did his conservation work in a different time. Conservation policy and its politics have drastically changed since then, as I already mentioned. It is very unlikely, near impossible for someone to replicate what he accomplished.
4. (Re: Conclusions and your confusion) So my argument does not necessarily concede that other species should be left out in favor of "ABC" species. You are attempting to put words in my mouth that I have not said here. Also Tigers are still Endangered, the Sumatran subspecies itself is Critically Endangered. Maybe more still needs to be done for this animal. If they didn't need further conservation, they would be considered Near Threatened, right?
Now there needs to be some tough decisions made regarding collection planning. Certainly some species in zoos are not going to make it in the long run due to great husbandry challenges or complete lack of interest. But as I mentioned before and you concluded in your last post, that conservation can occur without captive breeding programs. In fact your last sentence, suggests that zoos are taking away money from conservation? Wouldn't that contradict your entire argument?
Personally I know that zoos have a place and the money is generally necessitated for running/updating zoos. But zoos can do more harm than good (to themselves mostly) if they try to accomplish more than what they can manage. In the reality of our world, animals enclosures will need updating and enlarging in order to maintain what animals we can in zoos. It should be a zoo's priority to take care of what it has first. If zoos are going to be responsible and have captive breeding programs - it needs to be done correctly (i.e. having the space for breeding and housing surplus to allow for demographic shifts). Your logic also appears to conclude that zoos will expand enclosures without expanding the facility's overall physical footprint. While there are a handful of zoos that are constrained from expanding, this is not the case for all zoos. And even many of those zoos constrained in space have found outlets in off-site facilities. So the tigers aren't necessarily replacing other species.
Is there really a need to bring in more species that zoos cannot manage? The Western attitude that non-developed countries can't conserve their own species is outdated and disrespectful. So conservation can occur without the involvement of captive breeding programs in zoos. Now that doesn't mean our money and knowledge can't be shared, but as you mentioned the root of the problem is beyond just population numbers.
1. Your response to my statement re "maintaining perpetual bottleneck" makes no sense. Please look up the definition of perpetual. Population genetics dictates that to recover from a bottleneck, one must increase the population rapidly to increase survival of the population. If species are to survive in zoos, captive populations need to be kept above whatever minimal number is necessary for being "saved". Hence the need for increasing number of holding spaces in zoos. I highly doubt Echo parakeet and Mauritius kestrels numbers are being kept at a minimal number to be saved from extinction (I also don't recall them being held and bred in zoos). The rest of your bit that followed makes little sense and you appear to be over reacting.
2. (Your response to re: white rhino example) You still haven't addressed my inquiry regarding why minimal numbers = saved from extinction.
3. (Re: Durrell) Whatever our preferences are, Gerald Durrell did his conservation work in a different time. Conservation policy and its politics have drastically changed since then, as I already mentioned. It is very unlikely, near impossible for someone to replicate what he accomplished.
4. (Re: Conclusions and your confusion) So my argument does not necessarily concede that other species should be left out in favor of "ABC" species. You are attempting to put words in my mouth that I have not said here. Also Tigers are still Endangered, the Sumatran subspecies itself is Critically Endangered. Maybe more still needs to be done for this animal. If they didn't need further conservation, they would be considered Near Threatened, right?
Now there needs to be some tough decisions made regarding collection planning. Certainly some species in zoos are not going to make it in the long run due to great husbandry challenges or complete lack of interest. But as I mentioned before and you concluded in your last post, that conservation can occur without captive breeding programs. In fact your last sentence, suggests that zoos are taking away money from conservation? Wouldn't that contradict your entire argument?
Personally I know that zoos have a place and the money is generally necessitated for running/updating zoos. But zoos can do more harm than good (to themselves mostly) if they try to accomplish more than what they can manage. In the reality of our world, animals enclosures will need updating and enlarging in order to maintain what animals we can in zoos. It should be a zoo's priority to take care of what it has first. If zoos are going to be responsible and have captive breeding programs - it needs to be done correctly (i.e. having the space for breeding and housing surplus to allow for demographic shifts). Your logic also appears to conclude that zoos will expand enclosures without expanding the facility's overall physical footprint. While there are a handful of zoos that are constrained from expanding, this is not the case for all zoos. And even many of those zoos constrained in space have found outlets in off-site facilities. So the tigers aren't necessarily replacing other species.
Is there really a need to bring in more species that zoos cannot manage? The Western attitude that non-developed countries can't conserve their own species is outdated and disrespectful. So conservation can occur without the involvement of captive breeding programs in zoos. Now that doesn't mean our money and knowledge can't be shared, but as you mentioned the root of the problem is beyond just population numbers.
Last edited:
The failure of these taxa in captivity was more due to mismanagement and bureaucracy than it was a lack of founder stock, I believe
While you are certainly, the lack of a sufficient size of a population to begin with allowed the mismanagement/bureacracy/poor husbandry to do in the species. I must admit to not knowing the entire story as to the northern white rhino - I know that Dvur Kralove transferred five indivudals to the San Diego Safari Park (then Wild Animal Park) around 1990. Given the Park's excellent success with the southern subspecies, I was puzzled by the lack of any breeding success. The Czech institution had some success early on; I'm not sure what ultimately led to its downfall.
Back to the larger topic at hand, I think it is telling that most larger species that have been saved by captive breeding are due to in situ programs that do not involve the animals being put on public display. Beyond the examples of the Mauritian species, one great example is the California condor - while it was ultimately saved by captive breeding in zoos, only zoos within its historic range held the species and no individuals were kept on public display until the captive breeding program had had substantial success (my guess is that breeding individuals with genetically important backgrounds are still not on public exhibit).
Since ISIS stopped being generally available on-line, it has become more difficult to check on the number of zoos keeping different species and subspecies of animals and the number of individuals contained. Most endangered species do not have viable captive populations, so are at far greater risk of extinction than those that do.
I used Zootierliste to provide a list of zoos keeping different species and subspecies of cats:
Eurasian lynx 389 (Carpathian 37, Central Asian 5, Eurasian 122, northern 196, Siberian 29)
Tiger 385 (Malayan 10, Siberian 178, Sumatran 51, tiger 146)
Lion 359 (Asiatic 43, Barbary 22, Kalahari 4, lion 225, Somali 1, Southeast African 45, Southwest African 19)
Leopard 232 (African 12, Amur 54, Arabian 3, Caucasus 1, Central African 2, Indian 1, Javan 3, leopard 59, North Chinese 29, North Persian 46, Sri Lankan 22)
Wildcat 179 (African 3, Caspian steppe 1, East African 4, European 134, Gordon’s 11, Cheetah 132 (Cheetah 1, South African 115, Sudan 16)
Serval 118 (Serval 117, Southern 1)
Jaguar 103 (Amazon 5, jaguar 98)
Snow leopard 98
Cougar 96 (Chilean 5, cougar 89, Missouri 2)
Ocelot 60 (Central American 1, ocelot 59)
Caracal 50 (Caracal 26, common 21, Schmilz’s 2, Turcmenistan 1)
Leopard cat 45 (Amur 29, Indochinese 11, leopard cat 2, Palawan 3)
Fishing cat 40
Pallas’s cat 37
Jungle cat 34 (Jungle cat 29, Palestine 5)
Indochinese clouded leopard 31
Geoffroy’s cat 29
Sand cat 25 (Arabian 25)
Jaguarundi 24
Bobcat 20
Margay 14 (Central American 1, Yucatan 13)
Rusty-spotted cat 13 (Sri Lankan 13)
Asiatic golden cat 9 (Chinese 1, South East Asian 5, Tibetan 3)
Canadian lynx 6
Oncilla (Oncilla 4, South Brazilian 1)
Palestine 4, Scottish 22)
Iberian lynx 2
I was surprised about the number of zoos keeping Eurasian lynxes. I also produced a list of mammals represented by species and/or subspecies in over 250 zoos on Zootierliste. This is only a rough list, as some zoos keep more than one subspecies or variety of the same species:
Fallow deer 617
Red-necked wallaby 450
Red deer 431
Wolf 401
Northern raccoon 394
Eurasian lynx 389
Tiger 385
Meerkat 375
Mouflon 363
Lion 359
Ring-tailed lemur 339
Ring-tailed coati 326
Brown bear 298
Plains zebra 290
Eurasian wild boar 269
Giraffe 263
Once again, I found several surprises as regards inclusions and omissions. Several of the species are not endangered and some are often kept in parks and could be replaced by other species. I did not include domestic animals, but many of these are kept more for their popularity with visitors, rather than any educational value.
I accept that it is better to protect endangered animals in the wild by protecting their habitat. When I visited Madagascar, I saw an enclosure that had been created around an area of trees to keep indris, prior to exporting the indris to Paris. All the indris died and the experiment failed, as it did with most of the Sumatran rhinos that were captured from the wild. I do not advocate capturing other species if they have a similar fate. I know people who are involved with saving species in the wild, but I also feel that zoos could allocate more spaces to have back-up captive populations. As wild habitats will continue to be lost over the next few decades and the human population will continue rising, it is imperative that as many wild habitats are protected now, if people want to conserve large species. Keeping several hundred individuals of some large species in zoos, while ignoring smaller species, is not conservation. Too many species have died out and will continue to die out.
I do not expect you to agree with me on this, but I would like to have more of a balance in the animals that zoos choose to keep. Keeping animals purely for their popularity is not conservation. I remember zoos that had several species in small enclosures and do not like seeing animals in barred concrete blocks. While i can understand why animals should be kept in relatively natural conditions, I believe that 'all animals are equal', but not that 'some animals are more equal than others.' Land for a new tiger enclosure could be used to keep several smaller carnivores, which could educate people, as well as helping conserve the species. Does any zoo need 3 meerkat enclosures, when many mongoose species are poorly represented? Is any visitor really keen on seeing the same species several times in the same zoo?
Some of the most popular animals are not endangered. Many visitors are interested in leaf-cutter ant colonies, even though the ants can be pests where they live. Similarly, some endangered animals can be boring when inactive - the giant panda is one example. It is a case of having a balance and realising that zoos could keep thousands of species of animals that could intereet people in the natural world.
I went to Colchester Zoo yesterday with a couple of friends, who tended to want to see the ABC animals, but also showed an interest in some of the non-ABC animals, such as the rainbow lorikeets, Kirk's dik-diks and rock hyraxes, although I think I was the only one keen to see the red-backed saki and the Visayan deer. I agree that it is a case of having a balance. My friends liked the large enclosure for African animals and agreed that a large, multi-species exhibit was better than small, cramped enclosures. One of my favourite zoos is Plzen, which has a lot of ABC animals as well as XYZs. It is a case of balance, but when a small zoo replaces exhibits for several species with one for an ABC species, the balance is skewed. While I accept that many visitors would prefer to see large ABC species, rather than small, obscure birds and monkeys, they may never find out about the latter if they don't see them. People don't need to see large ABC animals to realise that many of them are endangered, but if they don't find out about the small XYZs, how are they going to care about them?