Species not in zoos that we'd want to see in zoos
- Thread starter Potto
- Start date
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@forumbully: There are cetacean species like the Beluga, the Orca or the ever-popular Common Bottlenose Dolphin in serious American or European captive populations that breed already in the at least third generation, with no wild-caught animals added to the groups in the last 2 or even 3 decades. And for example in the case of the Great Apes, not all species or subspecies couldn't establish themselves in zoos-think of the Eastern Gorilla.
If zoos stopped keeping all the species with no established, self-sustaining zoo populations, we would look at a lot of empty exhibits and tanks, especially in the avian, (marine) fish, invertebrates or amphibian/reptile section. Of course, this should not be considered a blank approval for the zoos worldwide to get all the animals they want without caring to establish self-sustaining populations-after all, this is one reason why CITES came up...But I think that the all too anthropomorphising, sometimes merely emotional approach to cetacea husbandry is not justified. Or is a dolphin more worthy of protection than a shark or a crayfish? Nobody seems to care about an aquarium replacing their deceased reef fish with new ones freshly caught from the ocean, while the same aquarium would be heavily animadverted by various animal right groups if they got captive-born belugas...I do not ignore and hereby state my sorrow that the "infant" mortality of cetaceans in captivity is still pretty high and the numbers of successful births in comparison is pretty low. But the same or even worse can be said about various species of the groups mentioned above which are kept and traded for more than 4 decades with, if at all, only a few people caring about it.
What I want to convey is that I fear that this "golden cow" status might do more harm to cetaceans than good-so that the "last of the mohikans" might be already gone before apt actions are taken up.
I do not think that catching river dolphins from the wild would add more pressure on the species. If Gewalt and Pilleri managed to capture botos/Indus dolphins "gently" and without losses more than 30 years ago and, in the case of Duisburg, keep them alive for decades, it should also be possible today, if not better, as we can now rely on the experiences and knowledge gathered back then, and improvements on the field of zoo/wildlife medicine, general husbandry etc. And in the unfortunate case that ex-situ reproduction and husbandry would not live up to the expectations, re-release or an elementary change of the situation might be faster undertaken than in the case of Qi Qi...
@Jurek7: Don't forget the belugas, Pacific dolphins or Commerson's kept in Western zoos. The attraction of Cetacean "Childlikeness" does seem to be appealing for "long nosed" Europeans/Americans, too...
If zoos stopped keeping all the species with no established, self-sustaining zoo populations, we would look at a lot of empty exhibits and tanks, especially in the avian, (marine) fish, invertebrates or amphibian/reptile section. Of course, this should not be considered a blank approval for the zoos worldwide to get all the animals they want without caring to establish self-sustaining populations-after all, this is one reason why CITES came up...But I think that the all too anthropomorphising, sometimes merely emotional approach to cetacea husbandry is not justified. Or is a dolphin more worthy of protection than a shark or a crayfish? Nobody seems to care about an aquarium replacing their deceased reef fish with new ones freshly caught from the ocean, while the same aquarium would be heavily animadverted by various animal right groups if they got captive-born belugas...I do not ignore and hereby state my sorrow that the "infant" mortality of cetaceans in captivity is still pretty high and the numbers of successful births in comparison is pretty low. But the same or even worse can be said about various species of the groups mentioned above which are kept and traded for more than 4 decades with, if at all, only a few people caring about it.
What I want to convey is that I fear that this "golden cow" status might do more harm to cetaceans than good-so that the "last of the mohikans" might be already gone before apt actions are taken up.
I do not think that catching river dolphins from the wild would add more pressure on the species. If Gewalt and Pilleri managed to capture botos/Indus dolphins "gently" and without losses more than 30 years ago and, in the case of Duisburg, keep them alive for decades, it should also be possible today, if not better, as we can now rely on the experiences and knowledge gathered back then, and improvements on the field of zoo/wildlife medicine, general husbandry etc. And in the unfortunate case that ex-situ reproduction and husbandry would not live up to the expectations, re-release or an elementary change of the situation might be faster undertaken than in the case of Qi Qi...
@Jurek7: Don't forget the belugas, Pacific dolphins or Commerson's kept in Western zoos. The attraction of Cetacean "Childlikeness" does seem to be appealing for "long nosed" Europeans/Americans, too...
Last edited:
Yep, I also think that secrets of succesful keeping of bootlenose dolphins and few similar dolphins, belugas and killer whales are now known. It is wrong to put together now and mortality in 1960's or 1970's. The effort should go towards replacing old cramped tanks with larger ones.
Thats why I totally hate greens from Nurnberg, who oppose building bigger delphinarium, and want dolphins to stay until their death in small tank...
Unfortunately, cetacean exhibits will be always rare. They are always tied to big cities and holiday areas with enough visitor population to sustain cost. So perhaps no chance for keeping populations of more species of dolphins.
Thats why I totally hate greens from Nurnberg, who oppose building bigger delphinarium, and want dolphins to stay until their death in small tank...
Unfortunately, cetacean exhibits will be always rare. They are always tied to big cities and holiday areas with enough visitor population to sustain cost. So perhaps no chance for keeping populations of more species of dolphins.
forumbully
Well-Known Member
aha, fish and reptiles: my area of expertise!
yes, here zoos are magnificent in absence when it comes to breeding these. yet there are no exotics known that do better in private hands. and yes, that includes marine fish. except for some species like surgeonfish and the very large marine species, more and more are being bred every year. in fact, a good friend of mine published a book on the very subject last year (soon to be translated in english)
but to put some nrs on it. most of the fresh water fish are now being bred commercially on farms, asia is full of them. for marine fish and inverts: several species are also specially cultivated (many species of corals, giant clams, ...) and for others there are new catching techniques that allow more specimens to survive in the wild and in the aquarium trade (if there is any interest, I can elaborate on that) as for reptiles. here too, farms begin to come into view. so far mostly for larger and more prized species, take into account the breedings that are done by private herpetoculturists and one sees a great decline in wildcaught animals over the last decade! to put a figure on it: 50-60 % is either farmraised or bred here as opposed to only 10-20% in the 90's
so, allthough breedings of these species are not a zoo priority, it seems to me that they are in a better captive status than any dolphin species.
and allthough there is no denying that capture and husbandry techniques for cetaceans are much more gentle than 30-40 years ago, there is also no denying that it is still not as easy as we would like it to be.
I'm not against dolphinaria, and situations like in nurnberg are ridiculous. but first it needs to be proven with existing populations that breeding and survival can be achieved on a steady basis. only then it should be allowed to expand captive populations through new wildcaughts.
as for the bouto specifically: the last ones caught and shipped overseas were the duisburg ones. a total of 30 has been caught over the years of which only 1 in duisburg and a few in venezuela are alive today. venezuela has bred them you say? how many young over the time they keep the species? IF that is a big number and IF all those young are still thriving, then I think it should be ok to catch more to build an ex situ population and maybe try the same for the asian species.
looking forward to your answer.
yes, here zoos are magnificent in absence when it comes to breeding these. yet there are no exotics known that do better in private hands. and yes, that includes marine fish. except for some species like surgeonfish and the very large marine species, more and more are being bred every year. in fact, a good friend of mine published a book on the very subject last year (soon to be translated in english)
but to put some nrs on it. most of the fresh water fish are now being bred commercially on farms, asia is full of them. for marine fish and inverts: several species are also specially cultivated (many species of corals, giant clams, ...) and for others there are new catching techniques that allow more specimens to survive in the wild and in the aquarium trade (if there is any interest, I can elaborate on that) as for reptiles. here too, farms begin to come into view. so far mostly for larger and more prized species, take into account the breedings that are done by private herpetoculturists and one sees a great decline in wildcaught animals over the last decade! to put a figure on it: 50-60 % is either farmraised or bred here as opposed to only 10-20% in the 90's
so, allthough breedings of these species are not a zoo priority, it seems to me that they are in a better captive status than any dolphin species.
and allthough there is no denying that capture and husbandry techniques for cetaceans are much more gentle than 30-40 years ago, there is also no denying that it is still not as easy as we would like it to be.
I'm not against dolphinaria, and situations like in nurnberg are ridiculous. but first it needs to be proven with existing populations that breeding and survival can be achieved on a steady basis. only then it should be allowed to expand captive populations through new wildcaughts.
as for the bouto specifically: the last ones caught and shipped overseas were the duisburg ones. a total of 30 has been caught over the years of which only 1 in duisburg and a few in venezuela are alive today. venezuela has bred them you say? how many young over the time they keep the species? IF that is a big number and IF all those young are still thriving, then I think it should be ok to catch more to build an ex situ population and maybe try the same for the asian species.
looking forward to your answer.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@forumbully: Excellent, another soulmate in terms of the lesser popular vertebrates...
Before I answer, could You please explain what this sentence of Yours meant:
"yet there are no exotics known that do better in private hands." TIA
I do know about the improvement in commercial breeding, catching techniques, transportation etc. in the last years. However, besides the still existing, unfortunately not-too-small numbers of species traded where commercial breeding and careful catching hasn't established itself yet (and might never, as the creature in question is hard if impossible to reproduce in captivity, still "abundant", the people in charge are unwilling/unable to switch to other methods etc. etc.), You shouldn't forget that these commercially produced species need food and create waste. And where do the breeders get the food and lead the waste back to?-right, the ocean or the other waters closeby. Luckily, this problem isn't as big as it is in aquacultures where fish are farmed in large numbers for human direct consumption, but it underlines the boundaries of such procedures. And don't forget various other problems, like spreading of neozoas, energy consumption etc.
BTW: If I compare the situation in terms of successful breeding in captivity of, say, the popular Sand tiger shark, the pet herbitcrabs or many grouper or barracudas (...) species, to that of one of the cetaceans mentioned above, the ratio in regard to the captive status seems to favour the marine mammal, not the fish or the crustaceans...
Of course catching cetaceans isn't easy-although the accounts of previous caughts seem to strech that some species, like the Beluga or the Indus River Dolphin, seem to be easier to catch than others. But it should be at least tried, instead of ignoring successes made 30 years ago.
"I'm not against dolphinaria, and situations like in nurnberg are ridiculous. but first it needs to be proven with existing populations that breeding and survival can be achieved on a steady basis. only then it should be allowed to expand captive populations through new wildcaughts." Glad to read that, and total agreement from my side-however, the same should also be true for all the other species kept in captivity, even the ones without a loud agenda behind them.
About the botos in Venezuela: I doubt that the ones currently kept there have been there since the 1970s. In terms of successful breeding: I know of at least one successful offspring that is still living and doing fine, but that's all I heard of so far.
Before I answer, could You please explain what this sentence of Yours meant:
"yet there are no exotics known that do better in private hands." TIA
I do know about the improvement in commercial breeding, catching techniques, transportation etc. in the last years. However, besides the still existing, unfortunately not-too-small numbers of species traded where commercial breeding and careful catching hasn't established itself yet (and might never, as the creature in question is hard if impossible to reproduce in captivity, still "abundant", the people in charge are unwilling/unable to switch to other methods etc. etc.), You shouldn't forget that these commercially produced species need food and create waste. And where do the breeders get the food and lead the waste back to?-right, the ocean or the other waters closeby. Luckily, this problem isn't as big as it is in aquacultures where fish are farmed in large numbers for human direct consumption, but it underlines the boundaries of such procedures. And don't forget various other problems, like spreading of neozoas, energy consumption etc.
BTW: If I compare the situation in terms of successful breeding in captivity of, say, the popular Sand tiger shark, the pet herbitcrabs or many grouper or barracudas (...) species, to that of one of the cetaceans mentioned above, the ratio in regard to the captive status seems to favour the marine mammal, not the fish or the crustaceans...
Of course catching cetaceans isn't easy-although the accounts of previous caughts seem to strech that some species, like the Beluga or the Indus River Dolphin, seem to be easier to catch than others. But it should be at least tried, instead of ignoring successes made 30 years ago.
"I'm not against dolphinaria, and situations like in nurnberg are ridiculous. but first it needs to be proven with existing populations that breeding and survival can be achieved on a steady basis. only then it should be allowed to expand captive populations through new wildcaughts." Glad to read that, and total agreement from my side-however, the same should also be true for all the other species kept in captivity, even the ones without a loud agenda behind them.
About the botos in Venezuela: I doubt that the ones currently kept there have been there since the 1970s. In terms of successful breeding: I know of at least one successful offspring that is still living and doing fine, but that's all I heard of so far.
Completely unviable.
The wild population is so low that taking any out of the wild will eventually result in an inbred captive population (and less breeding animals available in the wild).
Disney doesn't strike me as the ideal place to keep them anyway...
forumbully
Well-Known Member
I'll first start answering your last remark on the botos. what you said is exactly the reason I asked the question.
I've heard several unconfirmed stories that there has been a steady stream of new animals (thus making them the only zoo that caught them on a regular basis) which would mean their longevity in that zoo isn't all that.
the breeding result is completely new to me.
as to the comparison between pelagic sharks and cetaceans: pelagics are indeed not the easiest to breed and here too a lot of import still takes place.
big difference in my opinion is the fact that those sharks born in captivity generally do well, showing a much higher survival rate than cetaceans.
but you most certainly have a good point that several large species should be really reconsidered as regular aquarium habitants. e.g. large hammerheads, threshers, tigers, ... to keep with the sharkspecies.
in regards to my comment: "yet there are no exotics known that do better in private hands." I simply mean to point out that private keepers and breeders have results with several reptile and fish species that zoos would only dream about. e.g a friend of mine practically wrote the manual on how to breed the madagascan treeboa (sanzinia madagascariensis), I know several freshwater stingray breeders and finally most seahorses in dutch zoos can be traced back to 1 single private person that breeds them.
I've heard several unconfirmed stories that there has been a steady stream of new animals (thus making them the only zoo that caught them on a regular basis) which would mean their longevity in that zoo isn't all that.
the breeding result is completely new to me.
as to the comparison between pelagic sharks and cetaceans: pelagics are indeed not the easiest to breed and here too a lot of import still takes place.
big difference in my opinion is the fact that those sharks born in captivity generally do well, showing a much higher survival rate than cetaceans.
but you most certainly have a good point that several large species should be really reconsidered as regular aquarium habitants. e.g. large hammerheads, threshers, tigers, ... to keep with the sharkspecies.
in regards to my comment: "yet there are no exotics known that do better in private hands." I simply mean to point out that private keepers and breeders have results with several reptile and fish species that zoos would only dream about. e.g a friend of mine practically wrote the manual on how to breed the madagascan treeboa (sanzinia madagascariensis), I know several freshwater stingray breeders and finally most seahorses in dutch zoos can be traced back to 1 single private person that breeds them.
Thonoir
Active Member
This may be somewhat pedantic and - on a global scale - somewhat superfluous to this conversation but I'd like to see a greater variety of prosimian species being kept and bred, especially in the UK. Don't get me wrong, I love the species we have at the moment but (and yes, I'm slightly biased here) I reckon we need to have a greater variety among the breeding stock within the UK. I'm not talking virtual impossibilities like the indri, but perhaps a sportive or mouse lemur species, a tarsier or two, a galago...
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
@forumbully: a friend of mine is currently doing her PhD on botos-maybe she knows more about the animals there. I will try to contact her, but I think she is currently in Brazil.
Re: "showing a much higher survival rate than cetaceans."
Yes and no-it depends a lot on which species we're talking about. I know of only two or three institutions that are able to keep tiger sharks alive for a longer time, while makos, blue or fox sharks didn't survive in captivity for longer periods of time. The latter can be said about several cetacean species, but there are also species which survive at least as long as the more commonly kept shark species-think f.e. of Belugas. About the survival rate: don't forget that the survival rate of cetacean offspring in the wild is often also pretty low-and unlike most sharks, they usually have only one young. So while chances are still pretty high that at least one juvenile shark of the clutch/litter makes it, for cetaceans it's a literally win-lose situation-either it survives, or You have a 100 percent loss...
Re: the private breeders-tell me about it...Muenster's successful turtle project is a great example of what a zoo and an dedicated and skilled private breeder can achieve when they join forces:
Internationales Zentrum für Schildkrötenschutz
Unfortunately, it's still a rare exception to the rule...
The reason for the obvious domination of private breeders' in the field of breeding birds, reptiles, amphibians, small exotic rodents, invertebrates... is that a) private breeders can focus on species that zoos (have to?) neglect because they are not that attractive to the main audience or because they have more and more "demanding" species like elephants or Great Apes to take care of and b) private people can get animals zoos couldn't obtain legally...But I think You know that already.
Re: "showing a much higher survival rate than cetaceans."
Yes and no-it depends a lot on which species we're talking about. I know of only two or three institutions that are able to keep tiger sharks alive for a longer time, while makos, blue or fox sharks didn't survive in captivity for longer periods of time. The latter can be said about several cetacean species, but there are also species which survive at least as long as the more commonly kept shark species-think f.e. of Belugas. About the survival rate: don't forget that the survival rate of cetacean offspring in the wild is often also pretty low-and unlike most sharks, they usually have only one young. So while chances are still pretty high that at least one juvenile shark of the clutch/litter makes it, for cetaceans it's a literally win-lose situation-either it survives, or You have a 100 percent loss...
Re: the private breeders-tell me about it...Muenster's successful turtle project is a great example of what a zoo and an dedicated and skilled private breeder can achieve when they join forces:
Internationales Zentrum für Schildkrötenschutz
Unfortunately, it's still a rare exception to the rule...
The reason for the obvious domination of private breeders' in the field of breeding birds, reptiles, amphibians, small exotic rodents, invertebrates... is that a) private breeders can focus on species that zoos (have to?) neglect because they are not that attractive to the main audience or because they have more and more "demanding" species like elephants or Great Apes to take care of and b) private people can get animals zoos couldn't obtain legally...But I think You know that already.
Zebraduiker
Well-Known Member
I would like to see more antelope species in zoos, especially more duiker species, giant sable antelope, beira, dibatag, mountain nyala, oribi, greys bok..Unfortunately most of them are absolutly unrealistic, with a few exceptions, so maybe Ader's Duikers will come to some zoos in the near future, and there is a tiny little chance for zebra and jentinks duiker in a few years...
Yesterday I've got an old zooguidebook from Naples Zoo, it is from 1956 and has pictures of Dibatag,Phillips Dik-Dik,Beira,Oribi and Bushbok inside....All this species were kept in this zoo until the beginning of the sixties or longer. Naples had once one of the biggest collections of antelopes in the world, but it's gone.
Yesterday I've got an old zooguidebook from Naples Zoo, it is from 1956 and has pictures of Dibatag,Phillips Dik-Dik,Beira,Oribi and Bushbok inside....All this species were kept in this zoo until the beginning of the sixties or longer. Naples had once one of the biggest collections of antelopes in the world, but it's gone.
forumbully
Well-Known Member
the large oceanic pelagics like tigers, mako, scalloped hammerhead, blue and of course the nemesis of all: the great white are in my opinion even more off limits than cetaceans (allthough monterey bay seems to have established a few tricks). but there are enough active shark species that do very well in captivity and show moderate reproductive numbers like the sandtiger, lemon, and various smaller species like blacktips, grey reefs, ...
on another note, sharks live as individuals and don't show parental care, unlike cetaceans and even then most sharks have a lot less offspring with a much slower growthrate than any other fish species. so I don't believe their offspring does much better in the wild than the average dolphin pup.
regarding private versus zoo breeding of reptiles. your absolutely right that they have a different focus. yet it is a shame that a lot of small species are under more pressure than the average big mammal. More cooperation between private breeders and zoos would be great, but is probably utopic.
on another note, sharks live as individuals and don't show parental care, unlike cetaceans and even then most sharks have a lot less offspring with a much slower growthrate than any other fish species. so I don't believe their offspring does much better in the wild than the average dolphin pup.
regarding private versus zoo breeding of reptiles. your absolutely right that they have a different focus. yet it is a shame that a lot of small species are under more pressure than the average big mammal. More cooperation between private breeders and zoos would be great, but is probably utopic.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
"moderate reproductive numbers" is a little bit too optimistic in terms of most of the shark species You mentioned.
The main difference between the sharks' start into life is the mentioned number of animals per birth-and the dependence of the cetacean young to make it to the surface as fast as possible.
The main difference between the sharks' start into life is the mentioned number of animals per birth-and the dependence of the cetacean young to make it to the surface as fast as possible.
I once read the proposition that instead of captive breeding of marine fish and invertebrates, there should be extractive reserves, that is protected reefs from which aquarium fish are sustainably collected and sold in return for protecting the reef.
Seemed like sensible idea, given that reefs are often destroyed for other reasons. I wonder how it is catching up?
Zebraduiker, in this post you have many antelope species that you would want to see in captivity, actually(if you didn't know or not, sorry for this if you did.
) Beira and Phillip's Dik-Dik are being held at the Al Wabra center in Qatar, Al Wabra is also going out to collect dibatag in the future, Bushbuck are kept at Gladys Porter Zoo and a few African zoos,Jentink's Duiker at Gladys Porter ,3 Oribi antelope are kept at Johannesburg zoo in South Africa and there are about 2-3 zoos in Africa that have grysbok.....so in your post the only antelope that aren't in captivity is the Zebra Duiker, the Giant Sable, the Mountain Nyala and the Ader's Duiker 
Zebraduiker
Well-Known Member
I know ,Al Wabra is keeping Beira ( they are not doing well there, a lot of them died and I don't think they will send Beira to other facillities )and Phillips Dik-Dik, but Al wabra is not a zoo and not open to the public, so it's impossible to see them. The Jentinks Duiker at Brownsville is the last one in a zoo, and and the last Bushbucks at Brownsville is the last group of them outside of africa and they will die out there.
There is one Dibatag in a breeding facillity in eritrea.But its not open to the public,too.
@Okapikpr. There was an quarantine station at naples, but it is closed since many years.
There is one Dibatag in a breeding facillity in eritrea.But its not open to the public,too.
@Okapikpr. There was an quarantine station at naples, but it is closed since many years.
I believe that is why Naples Zoo had such an excellent collection of African antelope- it acted as a quarantine station for other European zoos as well due to its geographical location. Some of these species would have been 'in transit' and others more permanent exhibits. (Belle Vue in Manchester played a similar role in the UK when it was open, so did Chipperfield's Plymouth Zoo)
Not so sure they are so impossible-remember that Sifakas have started appearing in collections and they were previously ranked similarly with Indris as 'impossible' but now have proved they are not.
forumbully
Well-Known Member
indeed, the number of pelagic shark breedings could be a lot better if you're looking at the aquaria that keep them. I'm afraid this has nothing to do with difficulty to breed them. but with the attitude of those aquaria. a lot of the animals end up in cramped tanks where they live short lives. I know of several well renowned institutions in Europe that have new blacktips every 6 months!
I seem to remember that the problem with young cetaceans both in the wild and captivity is not breathing after birth but health problems in the first months.
@Jurek7: the reef principle you describe is used mostly for clams, anemones, soft corals and other inverts.
one of the latest development in collecting fish is imitating floating nurseries where larvae of surgeonfish, wrasses, ... gather and grow. these are regularly harvested and the animals found are reared to a certain size. after that part goes to the aquarium trade and part is released into the wild. not yet a common technique, but you see more and more of these "micro-fish" in aquarium shops.
I seem to remember that the problem with young cetaceans both in the wild and captivity is not breathing after birth but health problems in the first months.
@Jurek7: the reef principle you describe is used mostly for clams, anemones, soft corals and other inverts.
one of the latest development in collecting fish is imitating floating nurseries where larvae of surgeonfish, wrasses, ... gather and grow. these are regularly harvested and the animals found are reared to a certain size. after that part goes to the aquarium trade and part is released into the wild. not yet a common technique, but you see more and more of these "micro-fish" in aquarium shops.