Species selection for zoos

[MRJ]

Jenny Gray, CEO Zoos Vic, gave an interesting talk at the ZAA conference yesterday about how Zoos Vic will be approaching animal selection in the future. Basically each species will be mapped on a graph, reflecting it's value on one axis and its cost on the other. Value would be things like conservation value, impact, profit, and the value the species gives to the zoos reputation and brand. Costs of cours are in time, resources, but also such things as image. Basically species with a high value and low cost will be grown, high value and high cost will be invested in, low value and low cost questioned as "fillers", and low value and high cost exited from. Interesting process.

 

[Steve Robinson]

MRJ - does mean that animals are to be reckoned like commodities?

 

[CGSwans]

MRJ, did she give any examples of species that would fall into each category?

These are suppositions on my part:
High value, low cost: Meerkats, gibbons, otters, lemurs, kangaroos
High value, high cost: great apes, elephants, seals, big cats, koalas, penguins
Low value, low cost: most reptiles and birds, wombats, echidnas
Low value, high cost: Malayan tapir!

 

[MRJ]

MRJ - does mean that animals are to be reckoned like commodities?

No, rather it looks at the value in more abstract terms. For instance high conservation value might be animals that are recovery species, ark species, ambassador species, enabling species, and research species. so any species that scored highly in these areas is likely to be invested in, even if the costs are high. OTOH they won't exclude species they consider important for their brand even if they don't have high conservation value. I guess that is the let out for things like elephants and white lions.

I guess the proof will be in the pudding. On one level it is possible to justify pretty well anything if you put your mind to it, and much of this sort of thing is subjective no matter how much we try and bring science into it. Zoos Vic presenters made a great deal about turning the zoo into a conservation force, I guess at the end of the day we will just have to see if the Emperor actually does end up wearing clothes.

 

[MRJ]

MRJ, did she give any examples of species that would fall into each category?

These are suppositions on my part:
High value, low cost: Meerkats, gibbons, otters, lemurs, kangaroos
High value, high cost: great apes, elephants, seals, big cats, koalas, penguins
Low value, low cost: most reptiles and birds, wombats, echidnas
Low value, high cost: Malayan tapir!

No she didn't. But remember this value is not just exhibit value, rather conservation value is meant to weigh in there very heavily too...

 

[CGSwans]

No she didn't. But remember this value is not just exhibit value, rather conservation value is meant to weigh in there very heavily too...

I get that, and you can see from my guesses that it's factored in.

 

[Jurek7]

For me zoos would lose much interest, because it means shrinking number of species and uniformization. Much of appeal of a zoo is seeing some new, unexpected species - weedfish, jackson's cameleon, garden eel, bamboo lemur...

I hope zoos will not overdo this "hollywoodization" trend. I describe it pejoratively, as it includes "dumbing down" education message into lowest common denominator, concentrating on few most spectacular animals, and repeating the same ace numbers - popular animals or exhibits - everywhere.

Arguably, 95% of visitors want only to see few charismatic animals and don't know most basic facts about animals. But this 5% or 1% or 0.01% of people who develop deeper interest in wildlife will do incomparably more for conservation.

 

[reduakari]

For me zoos would lose much interest, because it means shrinking number of species and uniformization. Much of appeal of a zoo is seeing some new, unexpected species - weedfish, jackson's cameleon, garden eel, bamboo lemur...

I hope zoos will not overdo this "hollywoodization" trend. I describe it pejoratively, as it includes "dumbing down" education message into lowest common denominator, concentrating on few most spectacular animals, and repeating the same ace numbers - popular animals or exhibits - everywhere.

Arguably, 95% of visitors want only to see few charismatic animals and don't know most basic facts about animals. But this 5% or 1% or 0.01% of people who develop deeper interest in wildlife will do incomparably more for conservation.

While I sympathize with your view, the bottom line question is where is all of this diversity to come from? In order to maintain viable populations, space and resources must be invested in fewer species, unless--as in the past--new animals are obtained from the wild. That is less and less possible, with the inevitable result being that any zoo that has the "only" something will probably be the LAST zoo to have that something.

Of all of the species in AZA zoos that are in "managed" populations, only about 15 meet the desired criteria of being "viable" (a large enough captive population to maintain 90% genetic diversity for 100 years).

Sad but true demographic reality

 

[Blackduiker]

Blackduiker

For me zoos would lose much interest, because it means shrinking number of species and uniformization. Much of appeal of a zoo is seeing some new, unexpected species - weedfish, jackson's cameleon, garden eel, bamboo lemur...

I hope zoos will not overdo this "hollywoodization" trend. I describe it pejoratively, as it includes "dumbing down" education message into lowest common denominator, concentrating on few most spectacular animals, and repeating the same ace numbers - popular animals or exhibits - everywhere.

Arguably, 95% of visitors want only to see few charismatic animals and don't know most basic facts about animals. But this 5% or 1% or 0.01% of people who develop deeper interest in wildlife will do incomparably more for conservation.

I think the zoo going public has more interest in seeing "lots of different animals" than the powers-that-be give them credit. I hear this on quite a few occasions at the Los Angeles Zoo, when I overhear individuals in different groups walking around state, "next time let's go to the San Diego Zoo, they have lots of animals." Maybe the average zoo goer does want more than just bears and koalas; lions or tigers; elephants or giraffes. It has been my observation, that they also want to see echidnas, coyotes, monkeys of all types, and bears too. Los Angeles, which once exhibited several species of bears, is now down to just one. I know a wide representation of species where always a major draw for me personally, throughout my many years as a zoo visitor.

The vast majority of family, friends, coworkers and other acquaintances I know, would still rather drive some 120 miles to San Diego, and even become members there, than visit, or join Los Angeles; right in their own hometown. That's mainly because, and they have told me this; "San Diego has lots more animals."

 

[Ara]

"Shrinking number of species and uniformization", as Jurek7 puts it, is the way Aussie zoos are going now, mainly due to an ideology which implies that no exotic species will be kept unless it can be maintained into perpetuity without importing fresh blood.

Why not import occasional animals from European or American zoos to add fresh genetic material from time to time?

I've got a long and dismal list of exotic mammals which I've seen at Taronga during my lifetime but which are no longer there (59 species at last count.)

 

[docend24]

While I sympathize with your view, the bottom line question is where is all of this diversity to come from? In order to maintain viable populations, space and resources must be invested in fewer species, unless--as in the past--new animals are obtained from the wild. That is less and less possible, with the inevitable result being that any zoo that has the "only" something will probably be the LAST zoo to have that something.

Of all of the species in AZA zoos that are in "managed" populations, only about 15 meet the desired criteria of being "viable" (a large enough captive population to maintain 90% genetic diversity for 100 years).

Sad but true demographic reality

Not entirely true, there are a lot of private keepers nowadays, especially if we talk non-mammals. Disclaimer - I mean private breeders (hobbyist to some extent) not animal traders.

 

[Arizona Docent]

I find this entire discussion fascinating. Balancing the desire to have something different (than nearby zoos) with the need to maintain healthy populations long term, is a tricky dilemna with no easy solutions. Like most of us on this forum, who are zoo geeks, I would prefer to see more kinds of different animals.

I think a partial solution is to focus on smaller animals to fill in the "new and different" category. These are usually inexpensive to maintain (I presume) and it would be easy for a small handful of zoos to maintain a population with additional animals off exhibit.

My zoo (Reid Park Zoo) is very small, only 15 acres, and we use our very small (one or two acre) off exhibit area to breed birds.

Given this new consolidation trend, I find it surprising (in a good way) that some entirely new species have shown up and are being expanded into zoos. Specifically I am thinking of bush dogs and giant otters.

 

[MRJ]

"Shrinking number of species and uniformization", as Jurek7 puts it, is the way Aussie zoos are going now, mainly due to an ideology which implies that no exotic species will be kept unless it can be maintained into perpetuity without importing fresh blood.

Why not import occasional animals from European or American zoos to add fresh genetic material from time to time?

I've got a long and dismal list of exotic mammals which I've seen at Taronga during my lifetime but which are no longer there (59 species at last count.)

There are of course four very good reasons for this:

1. Any taxa group may become unavailable from overseas overnight due to changes in quarantine requirements. For instance in recent years birds and hoofed mammals.

2. Importation and quarantine are expensive.

3. Increasingly DEWHA is anti-importation, especially if the species has previously existed in Australia and has died out because it has been poorly managed.

4. There is a reluctance for overseas zoos to admit Australian zoos into programs. It is much easier and cheaper for, say, European zoos to source a tiger from within Europe than take one from Australia. Then the discussion comes down to what can you do for us? Ie what Australian native fauna can you supply in exchange, which in itself has a whole set of problems.

 

[Blackduiker]

Blackduiker

Given this new consolidation trend, I find it surprising (in a good way) that some entirely new species have shown up and are being expanded into zoos. Specifically I am thinking of bush dogs and giant otters.[/QUOTE]

Actually, the Bush Dog isn't what I'd call an "entirely new species." Los Angeles, along with 7 other zoos, had them at least as far back as 1972, and probably even earlier. I remember seeing them back then, and they were successfully breeding here. And I'm sure they had been in captivity for quite sometime prior to this. By 1981, they were only shown in 5 institutions, but no longer in Los Angeles. Their captive numbers fluctuating from year-to-year.

In 1985, while I was training in the the Zoo Keepers class under Dr. Warren Thomas, during one of his lectures he gave reason for L.A. no longer exhibiting certain species; such as Brindled Gnus and Bush Dogs. Due to certain viruses both carry, and apparently their affecting the health of other species. If someone else more knowledgeable than myself would care to comment on this, feel more than welcome to. Also, anyone with the history of Bush Dogs first being kept in captivity at your fingertips, please share with us.

 

[Ara]

While I agree with Arizona Docent that an increased number of interesting small species is the way to go to "beef up" the diversity in our zoos, sadly, I can't see it happening.

The large Australian zoos seem hell-bent on keeping only a limited number of the big "show stoppers", elephants, gorillas, lions tigers, giraffes etc. There are fewer and fewer small mammals being kept, presumably because these cost money to maintain and don't bring in any revenue.

Consequently, in a few years time the guide books will read like "A Child's A B C of Animals."

 

[animal kid]

I think that this whole way of doing things could be reversered but the zoos would need to change, i think that if a zoo can provide an experience that makes the person have to know about the less known animals then people will start to change i mean this by having hands on experiences or close encounters like helping keepers feed a marmoset or getting to put enrichment into a servals cage, as well as making the zoo more about individual animals rather then just species, it works for animals that are in the media look at luk chai, mali and mr shuffles or yakini.