Zoos are meant to educate and conserve, so the preference should be given to animals that are in danger and are needed to be in captivity. With so many species yet so little space, zoos must pick and choose what they can house.
Yes, but, while I do see your point, ex situ populations of an animal are not likely to do a whole lot of good in increasing the population unless that species is right on the brink. The preference is of course given to endangered species, but the essential point here is that they are preferred not necessarily in order to form an ex situ breeding population but often to promote the species and raise awareness for its plight, while also placing the zoo in a better light.
For example, imagine this scenario. A small zoo in, say, Germany is doing well. Visitors enjoy visiting the zoo for a low cost for a nice walk in the woodland, occasionally seeing animals along the way. The zoo holds almost uniquely Eurasian animals (Red deer, boars, foxes), with perhaps a lemur or a few pheasants in there too.
Now, continuing this scenario, one day the director of the zoo decides he wants to import Tufted deer in the place of the Red deer. Now the climate and adaptations of the deer are similar, so the species are almost a perfect switch! Almost exactly what this thread aims to bring out. Of course, the Tufted deer are also more endangered.
However, there is a problem. The exhibit has to be renovated - maybe split in two for the smaller species. Then there are more costs - new signage, demolition of old or rotting fences, possibly a new indoor area, the cost of importing the deer from another zoo and so many more add-ons in addition. They also need to get the deer out to another collection and buy up different food for the new species.
Suddenly, the switch is costing thousands. For what benefit? If they manage to get a breeding pair, they might get one, maybe even two fawns. But the chances of that are small, even negligent - who is to say that if they do get a pair of opposite sex, the pair will mate, and that birth will be successful? If they do give birth, the adult animals are likely to die in captivity, serving no function other than to reproduce, perhaps replace themselves with one, maybe two fawns. So in essence by bringing these deer into captivity we have replaced a breeding pair (if they even are a pair and genetically viable) with two fawns who are not genetically viable (they are siblings...).
So surely there must be another reason or advantage of bringing them in? Well yes - the fact that they are there raises awareness for the species' plight, if only among a few locals. Furthermore, people are more likely to be intrigued by Tufted deer with fangs than ordinary Red deer they see regularly in the wild anyway. And finally any breeding success would be an additional success, raise more money for the zoo and put it in a good light? All of these things would apply.
However, is it really worth it? What we are suggesting by these swaps is that they would viable or a good idea. But at the end of the day, the zoo spends thousands on switching the species, renovating the exhibit, feeding the animals, veterinary costs and signage. The money gained from the switch would likely be two orders of magnitude below this cost.
In conclusion, most swaps like this would cost a lot more than they would bring in, not really benefit even the ex situ population let alone the population of that species as a whole and eventually boil down to a failure.
Where the story changes is with enigmatic species like big cats or highly endangered but less flashy species. It is at this point that I feel zoos have a duty to fulfill and try and establish a healthy, viable breeding population of that species ex situ if they choose to do so. At that point it is no longer a question of profit or cost.
All this to say, the zoos cannot pick and choose which animals they bring in. They have to make an informed decision based on all the background costs the import will create as well as the positives and income it will bring the zoo.
Most importantly would be garnering enough interest from zoos in the Eulemur. The Ring-tail and sifaka have been highly popularized, and the ruffed lemurs are flashy. Most Eulemur are not. In my experience Eulemur are either tucked away or mixed with other lemurs, rather than being showcased.
This is the most important thing - whether they will be able to 'pay for their stay' so to speak. If a species cannot bring in anywhere near as much as another, it is off the list.
Well I think Europe has some damn good zoos but I would imagine that numerically there are a higher amount of zoos in the USA and many of them are also of good quality.
Nope, Europe has far far more zoos than the US. The US is still only a country
I think a lot of it stems from the smaller percentage of European zoos that make it into the gallery compared to zoos across the pond.
Malagasy giant jumping rat over capybara.
As has (I think) already been pointed out, the point of the thread is to make a vaguely realistic swap between a common species and an endangered one, where the species' needs and size are similar. This fulfills neither criteria.
I didn't mean mixing the anoa but rather that it would be nice to see it replace more common bovids.
Again, not possible. The more common bovids are often in captivity because they have a high cold tolerance (most zoos are in the Northern Hemisphere) and can mix (most of the time) easily with other species. Anoas, again, have neither. I agree, it would be nice, but it is not realistic.
Patagonian Cavies could probably be replaced with Malagasy Jumping Rats, though.
This isn't really a fair swap either. Maras eat pretty much entirely green vegetation, whereas giant rats need a varied diet and eat just about anything they can find. Giant jumping rats don't need as much space and are entirely nocturnal. Maras are much more suited to smaller zoos with a more open-range approach to exhibits.
