Species no longer held/nearly gone from US zoos
- Thread starter SusScrofa
- Start date
All admittedly negligent on my part. My apologies.
I would actively encourage phasing out polar bears. They have proven they cannot reproduce in captivity enough to outpace the rate of death and even after major zoos have invested millions of dollars in so they continue to struggle. These efforts did not prove productive, and now all we are doing is artifically extending an unsustainable population because of an abnormal level of institutional interest.
In the past, I have held some optimism about imports becoming a factor in the long-term success of various programs, but that was misplaced and naive. When the topic comes up, the consensus has been and remains that the amount of paperwork is too difficult and too prohibitive, so I have shifted my position that any species dependent on support from outside the United States isn't worth a shred of investment for the AZA. That money is better served by supporting the programs that are already functioning properly.
The future of zoos in the United States needs to be significantly smaller and more homogenous collections, and that's the only way we can maintain sustainable and healthy populations.
In the past, I have held some optimism about imports becoming a factor in the long-term success of various programs, but that was misplaced and naive. When the topic comes up, the consensus has been and remains that the amount of paperwork is too difficult and too prohibitive, so I have shifted my position that any species dependent on support from outside the United States isn't worth a shred of investment for the AZA. That money is better served by supporting the programs that are already functioning properly.
The future of zoos in the United States needs to be significantly smaller and more homogenous collections, and that's the only way we can maintain sustainable and healthy populations.
Unless polar bears go extinct, there will be a need for at least a small number of zoos to house polar bears that are orphans or otherwise rescues. Sure, there aren't that many rescues often, however there will be a need for at least one or two polar bear holders for the foreseeable future. I am admittedly more optimistic about the future of the zoo polar bear population than you, but I don't think actively phasing them out would be beneficial, especially since it's not like they are competing for space with any other valuable programs.
There's a difference between being dependent on a large number of imports, and the occasional gene flow between multiple zoo populations. While I can agree that a population that is dependent on frequent imports can be unwieldly, the benefits of occasional gene flow between countries greatly outweighs the costs and paperwork- even more so for countries like Canada that don't have as many zoos as the United States. To say that US zoos shouldn't work cooperatively with zoos in any other countries would essentially be a death sentence for Canada's AZA zoos, unless they were somehow able to join EAZA.
Not necessarily- in fact if collections became smaller then it'd be immensely more difficult to manage populations sustainably. Instead of reducing the quantity of collections, I more so advocate for larger collections of small animals, and less emphasis on the megafauna species that take up extremely large amounts of space. Not every zoo needs elephants, giraffes, and big cats- and without those animals there would be a lot more space available for smaller mammals, birds, herps, inverts, and fish.
King of Komodo Dragons
Well-Known Member
I'm honestly amazed and a little disappointed at the sentiments being stated on the thread, I honestly though unnecessary and lazy phase-outs were universally hated, yet that almost seems to be the most popular sentiment being shared on this thread. I'm amazed "zoo fans" would want smaller homogenized collections but hey if you want to see your 215th zoo with a meerkat go ahead I guess. Also some hypocrisy with complaining about setting up a breeding program for a LC species when in US zoos endangered species are being phased out left and right being replaced with LC species. yeah more native species would be cool and some zoos are working on projects with local species, but I still adamantly will never agree with the sentiment that "it's more work to establish a population so we should never even try" "why import new blood for a rarer species we could salvage instead of having a species with a ton of holder already". I know there are species that we have lost and will never get a chance again with like Amazon river dolphins, grizzled tree kangaroos, jetink's duiker but thats not the case for all species, some like the striped possum and common wombat are doing well in zoos in europe and australia so theoretically it could be possible to import them, other species like the ring-tailed vontsira, black-and-rufous elephant shrew, gelada, and perentie have all made it to the US via imports from Europe. and Europe recently started a program for Eastern Quoll and have seen success with more and more zoos joining the program, so I don't think it's impossible for the US to do the same with species.
tldr I disagree with the posts that the US zoos need less species and more homogenization, that screams anti-conservation in my opinion, and in fact I firmly believe in the opposite, less homogenization and more species, yeah we won't ever have as many species as we did in the 1900s but doesn't mean we need to stick to a downward trend either. Its honestly a shame that most of the new species or returning species are coming via nonaccredited zoos. Yeah we will lose some species along the way, but if that is offset by new species being brought in, then its a tradeoff at that point, but I will stop here, as I feel if I continue I'll get more and more heated as I am very passionate about the reversal of the species decline in American zoos.
tldr I disagree with the posts that the US zoos need less species and more homogenization, that screams anti-conservation in my opinion, and in fact I firmly believe in the opposite, less homogenization and more species, yeah we won't ever have as many species as we did in the 1900s but doesn't mean we need to stick to a downward trend either. Its honestly a shame that most of the new species or returning species are coming via nonaccredited zoos. Yeah we will lose some species along the way, but if that is offset by new species being brought in, then its a tradeoff at that point, but I will stop here, as I feel if I continue I'll get more and more heated as I am very passionate about the reversal of the species decline in American zoos.
Nile Hippo Expert
Well-Known Member
Evirapo
Well-Known Member
Exactly, that’s what I felt when that always happens. Europe has way more accredited zoos and managed to keep their species numbers well. AZA has struggled with the species even if there are 3 or 4 holders of any species (Malagasy jumping rat is what I know)
Every species you list here other than the quoll is least concern, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
King of Komodo Dragons
Well-Known Member
I was saying it is kind of hypocritical that people are complaining about a least concern species, when they are supporting homogenization of lets be real here mostly least concern species like meerkats for example. US zoos are losing all kinds of endangered species that get replaced with LC species and this has been an increasing trend
Very, very few people are advocating for "unnecessary and lazy phase-outs", you're being hyperbolic here. While yes, a number of us do understand that sometimes phase outs may be the best course of action, that doesn't mean we aren't disappointed by seeing certain species disappear from zoos. However, most of the phase outs that are happening are anything but "unnecessary and lazy". The vast majority of phase out species are ones that were never common in zoos, and the exceptions are populations that have struggled or been unlucky for various reasons (e.g., lion-tailed macaques with herpesvirus), or were directly competing for space with each other (e.g., it would've been impossible to maintain both sun and sloth bears with the number of spaces available, so AZA zoos opted for sloth bear).
I think "smaller collections" is a more popular sentiment than you think. That isn't saying zoo fans want zoos to unnecessarily shrink their collections, however I for one will always place animal welfare and exhibit design above collection size when visiting a zoo. Many of us would much rather see the norm for zoos be like Detroit, where the collection has decreased as the exhibit quality and animal welfare have increased, than see the norm be like Wildlife World Zoo, which while full of a large collection of rarities are often in inadequate, atrocious exhibits. Granted, there is a lot of spots in the middle of this spectrum, and zoos don't necessarily need to go quite as far towards downsizing a collection than Detroit, but the "Detroit approach", at least in my opinion is vastly superior to the "Wildlife World approach".
As for homogenization, while I understand not wanting to see the same species over and over again, but many would consider that the "lesser of two evils" when compared to a dependence on wild caught imports. While yes, homogenization can be taken too far, many of the anti-homogenization arguments I've seen on here recently are very hyperbolic, and portray it as "every zoo will have the same 30 mammal species and that's it", instead of the more likely reality, where there will still be significant variation between what institutions house, even if there are less extremely rare species. Even with the current homogenization trends, there will still be some zoos that have plains zebras, some zoos that have mountain zebras, and some zoos that have no zebras. There will still be some zoos with gorillas, some with orangutans, and some with both. Sure, the total number of callitrichid species in AZA zoos may decrease to seven total (instead of the ten or so present right now), but stop pretending that the focus on sustainable collections will cause some drastic loss in diversity to the extent every zoo is the same.
I'd also say that, even if it is a species that you've seen many times before, it can be very interesting seeing a common species at more zoos, as each zoo is going to display that species in a unique, interesting way- making each zoo unique even if there is significant overlap in collections.
Three or four holders is simply not enough to reliably sustain a population, unless it is something like penguins where each zoo can have a colony of fifty, or something like a frog species where a zoo can keep large numbers in a rather small space. With only three to four holders, if something tragic happens at one institution (e.g., a disease outbreak causes one zoo's group to be wiped out- things like this have happened before- such as Nubian ibex at Los Angeles Zoo) it can doom the entire population, and most zoos don't have the time or resources to devote substantial resources into one, rare species- not every zoo has the budget or staff expertise that Bronx or San Diego do.
Is it really a trend though for LC species to be replacing endangered species? I'd like to see actual data to back this up, rather than just throwing out the names of a few LC species. There are plenty of endangered and critically endangered species that are popular in zoos too- ranging from black-and-white ruffed lemurs, to red pandas, to Amur leopards, to Chinese crocodile lizards.
Importing species can be great, however there isn't much value to importing massive amount of species unless the dedication exists to ensure they remain in zoos. Importing species just to say you have rare species is flat-out irresponsible. Bronx Zoo is constantly cooperating with the EAZA on geladas, and works with that organization to assist in the global captive population. That's why the gelada program is able to work. Is there a zoo that is willing to put that much effort and dedication into maintaining striped possums or common wombats? If there is, good for them, but I don't think it's smart to get upset at zoos for opting not to focus on a particular rare species, when there are plenty of really great animals out there to choose from.
I think this speaks to a greater question about what the role of zoos is. While zoos are conservation organizations, the vast majority of species in zoos (including endangered ones) are not strong candidates for re-introduction programs. No matter how endangered they become, tigers and giraffes will never be re-introduced into the wild from zoos, and while yes there's a small number of reintroduction programs that were successful, compared to the number of endangered species housed in zoos these are few and far between.
I for one, and many others, view zoos as having much more of an impact as focusing on institutions of education and research, that can aid in local conservation efforts and send resources/expertise to conservation efforts abroad. This is a more indirect link than reintroduction programs, but many times is a more effective one. By taking this approach, it doesn't necessarily matter how many species are housed in zoos, as long as the species being housed in zoos are ones that we are learning valuable information about and that have compelling educational messages to be told.
I doubt it is - nearly half of the current Species Survival Plans are for VU/EN/CR species. And that doesn't include several species managed either globally (eg Blue-crowned Laughingthrush) or as consortiums with the US government (Black-footed Ferret, California Condor, Whooping Crane, etc.)
I would still view them as competing with other programs. Polar bears demand an immense amount of space and money and like most large carnivorans require specialized care. Multiple zoos have invested over fifteen million dollars each in new polar bear exhibits; some of them have not bred and are not contributing meaningfully to the species survival plan. It's deeply concerning to see those resources going to an animal that looks to be nearing a dead end instead of a recovery.
My emphasis was specifically about dependence so there is no conflict here. Gene flow between separate sustainable populations is not a problem.
I see nothing to support the claim that smaller collections would be harder to manage (though do welcome any clarification what you mean there) but I certainly agree with less emphasis on megafauna in favor of birds, herps, inverts and fish. I don't expect anything to change for small mammals at this late stage. There have been multiple conversations on this site about a lack of interest in that category for a long time and there won't be turnarounds. Birds, herps, insects and fish however, have a lot of room to grow as categories even now, especially since many of them breed more easily than mammals and have a better chance to become sustainable.
I accept and welcome your disagreement.
Listen man, I admire your optimism, despite my disagreement.
In an ideal world, I'd like to dream there's double or triple the facilities and we can have as many species as we want - but we have a number of facilities that is probably going to go down, with spaces that will decrease. It's a depressing reality and one I am still growing into. There are a lot of species I once held an interest in I've been forced to confront I will never be able to see or need to be let go, and I'm learning to move on and let go of that. I'm already winding down a lot of my long-term travel plans to focus much less on seeing new species. The majority of zoo fans in my experience are far more interested in exhibit design and natural immersion than collection or species though. Caring about collection is usually viewed through the same lens as being a "stamp collector".
I'm sure once in a while you guys will catch me falling back into some over stupid, emotional "oh, exciting news!" kind of posts once in a while over Chicago's facilities but even mature adults sometimes fall back into childish enthusiasm.
I think this opens up a number of new lines of conversation - such as what kind of education zoos should prioritize? I don't have an answer in mind but it is food for thought.
I think this is the way forward.
As in zoos opting not to have all of the popular horses or all of the popular monkeys; but sticking to a few particular such. And I think this could even open the possibility for new programmes.
I think the problem's not so much that 'polar bears are utterly incapable of reproducing in any zoo ever created' - on the contrary, in Europe they are rather prolific breeders and even in the older grottos have shown consistent breeding success over a period of many years.
That is to say I'm not too sure why it would be different across the pond; though one of my guesses is that most polar bears in Europe are kept in a colder natural climate which obviously helps things.
What I meant is that if collections became smaller, then populations would become smaller to manage. Certainly it wouldn't be harder to the individual institutions, but if collections became smaller then the amount of space available for each SSP would inevitably decline, making it more difficult to manage populations and make it more difficult for them to be sustainable.
Note when I said smaller mammals, I wasn't strictly talking about rodents. There are plenty of smaller mammals that zoos can focus on that do have large populations: North American river otters, red pandas, meerkats, prehensile-tailed porcupines, ocelots, golden lion tamarins, Reeve's muntjac, two-toed sloths, and so on.
Furthermore, what I meant by smaller mammals also is that instead of zoos increasing exhibit size, they can decrease the size of the animals. Replacing elephants with antelope is focusing on a smaller mammal, even if it isn't a small mammal.
Indeed, that is a rather big question. I know if you talked with a lot of zoo educators at different facilities you wouldn't get a uniform answer either. Some may focus primarily on conservation education, others may instead teach about natural history and general knowledge, while a growing number focus on empathy training and creating profound experiences with animals. None of these approaches are necessarily wrong, and the approach used can certainly have a major impact on the educational elements of exhibit design.
Thankfully, there are very few polar bears left in the southern United States, most of the places left have climates much more comparable to Europe (e.g., Michigan, Ohio, New York, Illinois, etc.). One of the biggest problems the polar bear SSP has is that they lost a lot of genetics by contracepting a number of females with a contraception that ended up being permanent. That significantly reduced the number of females available to breed, and caused a lot of the current problems.
Furthermore, any population that is on the small side can struggle due to the small number of possible breeding pairs. The gorilla SSP, one of the largest there is, can in any given year expect around 20% of their breeding recommendations to be successful. However, the gorilla SSP is also large enough they can give an extremely large number of breeding recommendations to account for this. The polar bear program really only has around seven breeding pairs at the moment, multiple of which are unlikely to be successful due to behavioral/medical/age-related reasons, meaning that there's extremely little room for error left. I can't comment on the program's past, but the current management of the polar bear program is making the best of a tough situation, and hopefully they can find ways in the future to remedy a lot of the historical problems and start breeding more consistently.
Brayden Delashmutt
Well-Known Member
Brayden Delashmutt
Well-Known Member
Nocturnal primates (loris, potto, etc) are already becoming less and less common, throwing tarsier in the mix probably wouldn’t be a good idea
Brayden Delashmutt
Well-Known Member
Hey, do you have any more data on this? Not to take this off course but have they ever done well in captivity? Were they ever common?