Apologies if my previous post was unclear on this point. Developing conservation breeding protocols is a component of the plan (although assigned the lowest priority rating), but at "established conservation centres". That's one thing. Extending those efforts to new locations, including zoos in Europe and the US, is quite another. No mention is made of this in the plan, hence Leipzig's import is not recommended.
Surely advocates of a pangolin breeding program (namely you and TeaLovingDave) should be arguing that the resources to put pangolins on display in Europe would be better utilized improving established conservation centres, as recommended by the Pangolin Specialist Group. There's no reason the ex situ work you want to see couldn't be carried out solely in Asia.
Taking the last decade into account, and assuming TeaLovingDave will correct my figures if they're wrong, the zoo had 8.8 pangolins in 2007 and currently has >20. During that time, only four were conceived and born at Taipei. Certainly a step forward (as are the efforts of Nandankanan, Singapore, and a few other places), but hardly a solid basis for a sustainable captive population.
Likewise. Given the circumstances, I think my conjecture is best avoided.
I addressed most of your post above, but some specific points…
Your experience of the Elephant House sounds time-specific; the situation in summer is rather different. Nonetheless, given that you didn't challenge the rest of that sentence, I assume you'd concede my point: that conditions aren't ideal for the conservation breeding program you're imagining. To state the obvious, the quietest part of the zoo would have been off-exhibit.
These cases are non-equivalent in just about every way (direct exploitation vs. bycatch, one country vs. bilateral, small vs. declining pop. paradigm, etc.). However, if your analogy was supposed to illustrate that conservation efforts sometimes start too late… Well, duh.
Since we're on the topic, even your hindsight isn't a wonderful thing. If the Mexican government enforced a total ban on gillnets in the 1990s, the vaquita's predicament probably wouldn't be hopeless. This is a prime example of the failure of in situ conservation. Attempting to establish an ex situ breeding program would have been unnecessary, expensive, deeply controversial, near-impossible logistically, potentially detrimental to in situ efforts, and unlikely to succeed. It would also (and does also) raise serious welfare concerns. This is something I wish you considered before writing off losses as "trial-and-error" and celebrating the import of every new husbandry-challenged species for vacuous notions of "conservation". If nothing else, it makes your derision of @Bib Fortuna's purported dogmatism more than a little hypocritical. Speaking of Bib, he does have a habit of disappearing when challenged, doesn't he?
The long and short: ex situ conservation requires better justification than "the wild population's falling, let's give it a go". Returning to pangolins, I think the authorities cited above are more convincing than your faith in half-baked breeding programs. And you never responded about that beer
Last edited:
but I *would* be very happy to meet you at some point and have a nice long natter over a drink of some form; we may be pretty opposed on this particular point but I suspect we'd get along quite well on many other discussion points. I've certainly found its a lot easier to discuss contentious issues when you can hear someone's tone of voice and see their body language 
though as alluded above you do get the occasional exception!
