Many JAZA aquariums in Japan have breeding and reintroduction programs for local freshwater fish like bitterlings and loaches, as well as diving beetles.
Species no longer held/nearly gone from US zoos
- Thread starter SusScrofa
- Start date
Many JAZA aquariums in Japan have breeding and reintroduction programs for local freshwater fish like bitterlings and loaches, as well as diving beetles.
Indeed, space is a major concern for giving any species "another chance". To use the mountain tapir, which @Evirapo used as one of the species he wants a second chance to, if zoos attempted to phase in mountain tapirs it would come at the direct expense of Baird's tapir holding spots, and that's another very endangered species that lots of zoos are doing great work with.
I would argue that "big-picture" diversity matters a lot more than the specifics within smaller taxonomic groups. From an educational perspective, I'd argue it's very important for each individual zoo (barring specialist collections- which serve a different function, imo) to have a very diverse collection, as in a collection that includes a variety of mammals, but also birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. While within these groups I'd hope zoos focus on diverse taxa, I don't think it is overly important if a zoo has, say, a mole rat species or not, as long as a lot of different types of animals are exhibited. To speak more broadly than the individual institution level, while I'm not overly concerned if the AZA manages, say, ten ungulate species versus twenty, I do think it is important for that taxonomic group to be represented in groups, and for there to be multiple options available for zoos to choose from.
As for "massive diversity is a disservice", I do think it is important for zoo organizations to pick the right number of species to manage, as it is possible to go too far in the other direction and focus on too few species as well. Take for instance African monkeys. There is not a world in which it would be responsible for the AZA to manage fifteen different species of African monkey, as the space simply isn't there. However, a handful of zoos could absolutely switch from Guereza colobus to a different species, and that switch would do substantially more good for the other population than harm to the Guereza one. It's a constant balancing act, as there can both be too much diversity and too little.
I think this is a great point, as there are plenty of endangered native species underrepresented in zoos. While a lot have red or Mexican grey wolves, and endangered turtles can often be seen too, but other than that a lot of endangered native species don't get featured prominently in zoos. Even the zoos that do work with native endangered species I find often don't exhibit them or don't display them prominently enough for visitors to really learn about the threatened biodiversity in their backyards.
Indeed, I find a lot of the desert pupfish species to be absolutely fascinating, and despite most of the species being endangered, very few zoos feature pupfish in their collections. From a conservation perspective, a lot of fish species would likely be much better candidates for eventual re-introduction programs than most mammals would be (although there are exceptions).
Plus plenty of other Western fish, and all the Tennessee endemics (and near endemics) and the deepwater ciscoes, probably others, too.
I was trying to discuss about losses and gains in species count and how I felt there would be some leveling out. While there are a number of species below sustainable levels there are not as many straggler individuals right now and I thought the small populations might die off at a slower rate than individuals. This seemed reasonable. As far as I can tell Evirapo's original comments listed some further potential losses, which seemed in line with the topic as it stood, then there was some misunderstanding around Evirapo's use of "disappearing" and the thread shifted to debating about holder counts and which animals could or could not be held in managed and sustainable populations, "second chances" were mentioned and now we're discussing which animals are a good use or waste of AZA resources, which to me becomes a vastly different question.
I was reminded of Any Species You "Want" The AZA to Phase Out? and How Many Duikers Do We Need?
After some thought, I very much regret my initial optimisim right now considering this point. If we are looking at the end of each species in captivity by the last individual to pass away, my initial point may have had some merit as some of these unsustainable populations may last more than a decade; but if we shift to looking at when a program first became unsustainable, then my optimism was severely misplaced and a ton of species are already dead ends. There are a lot of mammals that are not and will not become sustainable populations, and in terms of mammals, nothing that isn't already sustainable will reach that point in the future if we're honest. I can think of over thirty populations I don't see heading anywhere in the future, and several groups for which there are more programs than there ever needed to be.
I was reminded of Any Species You "Want" The AZA to Phase Out? and How Many Duikers Do We Need?
After some thought, I very much regret my initial optimisim right now considering this point. If we are looking at the end of each species in captivity by the last individual to pass away, my initial point may have had some merit as some of these unsustainable populations may last more than a decade; but if we shift to looking at when a program first became unsustainable, then my optimism was severely misplaced and a ton of species are already dead ends. There are a lot of mammals that are not and will not become sustainable populations, and in terms of mammals, nothing that isn't already sustainable will reach that point in the future if we're honest. I can think of over thirty populations I don't see heading anywhere in the future, and several groups for which there are more programs than there ever needed to be.
I have to say, quite surprised my list of species gained since 2010 was assumed to be more losses - especially when a couple were mentioned just before the current discussion.
As already mentioned, just use Sugar Gliders. They're already here and can be obtained from reputable sources. Striped Possum was last documented by USDA coming up on 7 years ago now, they would require imports and be taking up space unnecessarily. They're closer to Leadbeater's sure, but I don't see the logic in importing a shy, relatively short-lived animal to campaign for a related species that most people in NA will have no clue about and likely not care about.
Maybe because we can't import whatever is interesting from Australia and haven't for many years? Importing what we can from Australia isn't easy and doesn't happen often. In many cases we're having to work with a limited founder base and small population.
And there's typically 4 or 5 misses for every success - and even if they do start spreading out, there's no guarantee the population can self-sustain enough to get a foothold. Banded Palm Civet I think is a good example here, Nashville has been distributing a few but there's not enough of a population base. Similarly, the Tree Pangolin import has likewise basically crashed and burned - Brookfield and Gladys Porter hold small groups, and I think Columbus might still have one. There's been no new holders coming in, and multiple zoos bowed out once theirs passed away.
Second chances would be nice of course, but there's real world complications such as not enough space to allot to them and still maintain other species. That would be the case with the tapir and many of the primates. I'm not sure why you're claiming Bear Cuscus deserves another chance when it's literally a single animal imported by Memphis, there's been no others in the last decade at least.
We do, as with any zoo - they currently have 4 Fanaloka.
I've noticed in many cases zoos are involved in breeding programs for native threatened species and thus opt to hold them off display, especially for amphibians due to biosecurity issues. It's a bit of a shame, but in a lot of cases I can understand why they tend to hold them off-exhibit. It would be nice if they could display at least a single individual with some good signage to help people learn that would be great though.
Misused the word rather than misunderstanding around the word.
Programs and species have long come and gone - we're noticing it more now with the shift to sustainability during which species that never were common are now slowly leaving collections. There's a lot of species that never have been held in high numbers and simply continue to maintain a static presence. Others come and go as rescues come in or facilities shift out specimens. Gains and losses are nothing new, and part of the seeming major losses is also likely attributable to being able to actually be aware of it. The internet allows us to easily keep tabs on zoos across the country and various resources are available to help us in finding and keeping track of rarities. Go back only two decades and you'll find tracking this sort of thing a good deal harder.
As already mentioned, just use Sugar Gliders. They're already here and can be obtained from reputable sources. Striped Possum was last documented by USDA coming up on 7 years ago now, they would require imports and be taking up space unnecessarily. They're closer to Leadbeater's sure, but I don't see the logic in importing a shy, relatively short-lived animal to campaign for a related species that most people in NA will have no clue about and likely not care about.
Maybe because we can't import whatever is interesting from Australia and haven't for many years? Importing what we can from Australia isn't easy and doesn't happen often. In many cases we're having to work with a limited founder base and small population.
And there's typically 4 or 5 misses for every success - and even if they do start spreading out, there's no guarantee the population can self-sustain enough to get a foothold. Banded Palm Civet I think is a good example here, Nashville has been distributing a few but there's not enough of a population base. Similarly, the Tree Pangolin import has likewise basically crashed and burned - Brookfield and Gladys Porter hold small groups, and I think Columbus might still have one. There's been no new holders coming in, and multiple zoos bowed out once theirs passed away.
Second chances would be nice of course, but there's real world complications such as not enough space to allot to them and still maintain other species. That would be the case with the tapir and many of the primates. I'm not sure why you're claiming Bear Cuscus deserves another chance when it's literally a single animal imported by Memphis, there's been no others in the last decade at least.
We do, as with any zoo - they currently have 4 Fanaloka.
I've noticed in many cases zoos are involved in breeding programs for native threatened species and thus opt to hold them off display, especially for amphibians due to biosecurity issues. It's a bit of a shame, but in a lot of cases I can understand why they tend to hold them off-exhibit. It would be nice if they could display at least a single individual with some good signage to help people learn that would be great though.
Misused the word rather than misunderstanding around the word.
Programs and species have long come and gone - we're noticing it more now with the shift to sustainability during which species that never were common are now slowly leaving collections. There's a lot of species that never have been held in high numbers and simply continue to maintain a static presence. Others come and go as rescues come in or facilities shift out specimens. Gains and losses are nothing new, and part of the seeming major losses is also likely attributable to being able to actually be aware of it. The internet allows us to easily keep tabs on zoos across the country and various resources are available to help us in finding and keeping track of rarities. Go back only two decades and you'll find tracking this sort of thing a good deal harder.
Indeed, even though I am aware of many programs that are happening at zoos, it would be really nice to have even a single exhibit specimen, or even windows into the secure room where the species is housed. This isn't even just amphibians- I'm also aware of zoos similarly not displaying inverts, reptiles, and even small mammals they are working with.
New England Cottontail, American Burying Beetle, and Southern Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog tend to be like this, although the latter 2 are being displayed more nowadays.
Who's displaying burying beetles more nowadays? Roger Williams used to, but that building was demolished to make way for the new Rainforest in 2017. I take it Cincinnati might display them?
Cincinnati does not have them on display. I don't think anywhere is currently exhibiting them.
Thanks, that's what I thought too, but I figured if any of the four holders were displaying them Cincinnati was the most likely option.
Indeed, while I stand by that I wish Roger Williams would start exhibiting them again (ideally along with some of their other behind-the-scenes local species), there old exhibit wasn't exactly anything to write home about, lol:
That doesn't stop Brookfield from having an earthworm exhibit where the inhabitants are never seen.
Evirapo
Well-Known Member
I only mentioned bear cuscus because I would love to see numbers of these reimport from Southeast Asia or somewhere in Europe for the first time in the NA, They are interesting largest possum native to Asia co-exist with Sulawesi crested macaque, anoa, hornbills, and civet.
If the species and the reasons you listed were that enticing then other zoos would have also went ahead and import bear cuscuses in bigger numbers. But they don’t due to already-mentioned reasons such as limited space and the average zoo visitor not caring about cool small mammals.
Evirapo
Well-Known Member
I get about the limited space thing, and not all people would go for random gray mammals, but bear cuscus seems like they would be very character and ironic enough. Also not to mention that they’re diurnal, and probably some rich zoos like DWA, San Diego Zoo, or Cincinnati Zoo could take these
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here but I take it as “very characteristic and iconic enough”. And here’s the thing: if the could have been iconic enough not only would they be featured more frequently in zoos, they would also be featured in other cultural outlets such as books about rainforests, wildlife documentaries, and more media. But they are not and I don’t think zoos importing them and breeding them would bring up their relevance either.
Brayden Delashmutt
Well-Known Member
I would argue, that at least for large zoos, diversity in the collection is key. Obviously I don’t think it’s totally necessary to keep like 20 different antelope species or something, but the goal of zoos is to teach people about the natural world, and by having a diverse collection they’re likely going to be more effective unless the collection is hyper-focused on a few species
I argue that large zoos are already diverse on their own. We only see some form of homogeny when we compare them with other large and accredited zoos and also because we keep discussing about phase outs and rarities. Are the Bronx, San Diego, and St. Louis zoos (for example) not diverse enough because they don’t have cool stuff we personally want to see.