Species no longer held/nearly gone from US zoos
- Thread starter SusScrofa
- Start date
Evirapo
Well-Known Member
I know there's a children's book named "Tarsier Sings His Song" featuring bear cuscus as the neighbor character, but it would be nicer to have more media of this animal.
Where is this exhibit? I don't think I've ever seen it.
It would also be nicer if more zoos had tarsiers
Look, I love tarsiers and think they are really incredible animals, however shouldn't zoos focus on the species that thrive in captivity? Like it or not, past tries to keep tarsiers in captivity have generally had high mortality rates, including from tarsiers launching themselves into windows and walls. They simply aren't the kind of species to thrive well in zoos, and instead zoos should focus on featuring nocturnal primates that do (e.g., Moholi bushbaby, pygmy slow loris, etc.)
I am pretty sure Dassie rat is joking to make fun of the inherent childishness of the "I wish more zoos had x" sentiment.
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
There have not been any pure Reticulated Giraffes in US Zoos in about 50 years. All that remains of them is hybrid (generic) giraffes.
1. Fifty years is surely an exaggeration, seeing as even twenty years ago there was a small number of wild-caught giraffes still living in US zoos.
2. If it truly was 50 years, then it wouldn't even be relevant to this thread, as the first post states (bolding is my own doing):
And, as recently discussed elsewhere on this site, there may be a few pure individuals still around, although if there are we have no idea where they might be.
I don't know why any zoochatter has to leave open the possibility of some purity when it's completely irrelevant.
It does not matter in the slightest if there are any pure reticulated giraffe left since it changes absolutely nothing in any functional sense. The management plan is the same.
It does not matter in the slightest if there are any pure reticulated giraffe left since it changes absolutely nothing in any functional sense. The management plan is the same.
The macaque, anoa, and civet are rare here already - there's no point in importing cuscus to exhibit alongside them.
And yet, they haven't despite potentially very easily doing so...
Evirapo
Well-Known Member
I didn't say about macaques, anoa, and civet in captive. Also, why is there no point?
You're right, it's misinterpreted since all of those species are present in captivity here and the thread is about captive species.
There's no point importing a species nobody is interested in having.
From what I understand there are some facilities in Asia that specialise in rescued tarsiers. I don't see why the obsessive director couldn't take some ideas from there.
And I will say that I agree to a point that zoo directors are often a bit scared of what is novel; and mainly chose to invest in what they know will bring in the public. [i.e. 'ABC' animals] However in the case of many animals such space is already taken. Most zoos only have capacity for one species of tapir - two if the zoo has Baird's [assuming US] and Malayan, but then the Andes is not significant enough for most directors to consider a third. And even if one decides in favour of that there's no guarantee all others will be on the same page. And before long that's the end of that for the Woolly tapirs...
And I do think also that exclusivity can breed other things. Just like the case of the Giant Eland and all that has came of that programme.
I concede stamp collecting isn't sustainable - but I do believe that zoos could do more in regards to their collections.
And I will say that I agree to a point that zoo directors are often a bit scared of what is novel; and mainly chose to invest in what they know will bring in the public. [i.e. 'ABC' animals] However in the case of many animals such space is already taken. Most zoos only have capacity for one species of tapir - two if the zoo has Baird's [assuming US] and Malayan, but then the Andes is not significant enough for most directors to consider a third. And even if one decides in favour of that there's no guarantee all others will be on the same page. And before long that's the end of that for the Woolly tapirs...
And I do think also that exclusivity can breed other things. Just like the case of the Giant Eland and all that has came of that programme.
I concede stamp collecting isn't sustainable - but I do believe that zoos could do more in regards to their collections.
Fair enough. But then I suppose the question then becomes which species to throw off the ark.
Polar bears in US zoos are rather lazy breeders, and import from Europe, which on the contrary is doing excessively well with polar bears, has not yet fully been legalised. So the American polar bear population has to be occasionally supplied with wild individuals. As long as this occurs, the population of polar bears in American zoos cannot be described as either 'functional' or 'sustainable'.
And without getting into all else that accompanies this particular topic, I think it would be a stretch so to say that we should get rid of polar bears because of this. We could replace polar bears with brown bears with paedological material explaining how the polar bears descended from the brown bears half a million years ago; but it's underwhelming for everyone involved.
And there are various other species in a similar situation. Some are charismatic and well known enough so that zoo directors will consider keeping their projects alive; but in the same breath many others will not be as fortunate. Some for better; some for worse.
But I do believe that in the wake of whatever downsizing may occur that stagnance is not what is preferrable. If zoos want to prove themselves, then it will be up to them to start new projects just as was done in years before. The Arabian oryx and American bison make for nice bedtime stories; but those were many years ago; the world was much different back then. We need new figurehead species, and people willing to champion their husbandries in a sustainable manner.
I think there's a happy medium somewhere in between these too. There are plenty of species that do well in captivity, but whose populations, either due to a low founder base or other means, don't classify as "sustainable". To be sustainable, according to the AZA, there are a lot of fancy math done to show gene diversity over time, with the goal of no more than 10% diversity loss over 100 years. If we decided only to manage species already at this point, then there would be pathetically low diversity in zoo collections.
I'm going to use primates as an example because they are the taxa I am most familiar with. Based on the genetic metrics, only approximately five monkey programs are considered sustainable and would still be around if the AZA only focused on already-sustainable populations: golden lion tamarin, cottontop tamarin, common squirrel monkey, pale-faced saki, and guereza colobus (possibly one or two others, but unlikely). Surely, despite not technically being sustainable, however, there is a place in US zoos for more than five monkey species. Especially when cooperation is possible with Europe (e.g., there have been callimico and emperor tamarin imports in recent years), Asia (e.g., Japanese macaques have been imported from Japanese zoos in recent years), or new animals coming in through other means (e.g., AZA zoos regularly take in confiscated spider monkeys), it's certainly reasonable to maintain populations that aren't "technically" sustainable, but still have a reasonable chance of being successful. There's a sweet spot in between guerezas being the only Old World monkey in US zoos, and having fresh imports of proboscis monkeys, snub-nosed monkeys, and uakaris because zoos want as many cool animals as they can get.
Basically what I think is most important is for there to be enough species readily accessible for zoos to fill whatever their institutional needs are. While most zoos are going to want to exhibit primates, the needs of each zoo is going to be different, meaning there needs to be enough species available to fill what zoos are interested in having. Some zoos are going to want to exhibit an ape in their Africa section, while others will want to exhibit an ape in their Asia section- meaning it's important for both a gorilla/chimpanzee program and an orangutan program to exist. Some zoos may want gorillas in their Africa section, but others might be spatially constrained and opt for a guenon species instead. The less species that zoo organizations manage, the more difficult it will be for zoos to fill their institutional needs and existing exhibits in ways that make sense. So for each group of animals (speaking broadly, e.g., a group would be "antelope", or even "ungulates", but certainly not "duikers", there is a need to manage, in as sustainable a fashion as possible, at least one species in each size category (when applicable), and from each geographical region that zoos may exhibit that taxa in.
Andes is significant - but the Mountain Tapir population is not there, there is not enough space, and imports are next to impossible. The Mountain Tapirs in the US are all related as it stands.
This reads as one not aware of how the US Polar Bear population is functioning. Until just recently the breeding population was not allowed to include wild born bears and facilities have been trying hard to increase births. The wild imports you mention are orphaned cubs, we're not actively pulling bears from the wild.
California Condor, Black-footed Ferret, hellbenders, Wyoming Toad, American Burying Beetle, Guam Kingfisher, Guam Rail, Whooping Crane, these are all pushing onwards in NA with breeding and releases.