I have seen on this forum quite a bit of ... discourse... about what can or cannot be bred or displayed under the AZA. So I did some research myself.... to hopefully bring some clarification. Is there anything here that is incorrect? Great! Do reply below... just keep things civil and try not to eat each other alive. Thank you.
One thing that not many people 'give credit' for... is that AZA taxonomic programmes don't technically work as other zoo programmes do. In Europe, the EAZA has a similar taxonomic programme system which maintains programmes of various taxonomic groups of species, what can be obtained what can't be obtained. So some species in a certain TAG [taxonomic advisory group] are under EEPs [EAZA ex situ programmes; basically a breeding programme for a particular species], some are managed under ESBs [European Studbook; a breeding programme maintained by a particular studbook guardian who is in charge of transfers of the spcies between zoos] and some are listed as DNO - do not obtain. Exactly what it sounds like.
So where the AZA and EAZA are alike is that they both have some form of TAGs - Taxon Advisory Groups. But the AZA does not have the equivalent as such of EEP vs ESB. Presumably because where the AZA is a multinational organisation, the EAZA's reach is across multiple European nations... as well as Israel... and Singapore... and probably a few others. Whereas in the AZA most species kept under the AZA have a studbook which is overlooked again by a single individual. And many also have SSPs - species survival programmes, which determine what is to be done moving forward. But as with any bureaucracy exceptions abound. Rather notably... one species without a SSP or studbook is the brown bear, as it is a native species to the United States.
I haven't been able to find anything proving or disproving this... though from what I understand... in the case of most species without SSP or studbook it is that they are kept as non-breeding populations, usually because they are overall abundant, and since they are rescue animals the need to have more of them in circulation isn't there. And so this is true also for most 'petting zoo animals' [which are usually obtained from private sources], native species, amongst others. The TAG then is merely a pointer as to what a zoo theoretically should do.. if the species has a studbook or better yet a SSP then it's not so much a matter regarding the TAG, you can breed it still, in theory.
So, then, what if a breeding group of [insert species here] were hypothetically brought in to the United States? By all means, if you got the species over there it could happen. But then the question would be having a studbook erected. It does seem like if you don't have a studbook, zoos will think twice before breeding the species. And whilst I don't think it'd be overly difficult to make a new studbook.. I have no idea how difficult the process actually is. And somehow even if you had a decent sized breeding group I still have doubts how much money other zoos are willing to put into your idea of erecting a new studbook.
Thank you for your attention.
One thing that not many people 'give credit' for... is that AZA taxonomic programmes don't technically work as other zoo programmes do. In Europe, the EAZA has a similar taxonomic programme system which maintains programmes of various taxonomic groups of species, what can be obtained what can't be obtained. So some species in a certain TAG [taxonomic advisory group] are under EEPs [EAZA ex situ programmes; basically a breeding programme for a particular species], some are managed under ESBs [European Studbook; a breeding programme maintained by a particular studbook guardian who is in charge of transfers of the spcies between zoos] and some are listed as DNO - do not obtain. Exactly what it sounds like.
So where the AZA and EAZA are alike is that they both have some form of TAGs - Taxon Advisory Groups. But the AZA does not have the equivalent as such of EEP vs ESB. Presumably because where the AZA is a multinational organisation, the EAZA's reach is across multiple European nations... as well as Israel... and Singapore... and probably a few others. Whereas in the AZA most species kept under the AZA have a studbook which is overlooked again by a single individual. And many also have SSPs - species survival programmes, which determine what is to be done moving forward. But as with any bureaucracy exceptions abound. Rather notably... one species without a SSP or studbook is the brown bear, as it is a native species to the United States.
I haven't been able to find anything proving or disproving this... though from what I understand... in the case of most species without SSP or studbook it is that they are kept as non-breeding populations, usually because they are overall abundant, and since they are rescue animals the need to have more of them in circulation isn't there. And so this is true also for most 'petting zoo animals' [which are usually obtained from private sources], native species, amongst others. The TAG then is merely a pointer as to what a zoo theoretically should do.. if the species has a studbook or better yet a SSP then it's not so much a matter regarding the TAG, you can breed it still, in theory.
So, then, what if a breeding group of [insert species here] were hypothetically brought in to the United States? By all means, if you got the species over there it could happen. But then the question would be having a studbook erected. It does seem like if you don't have a studbook, zoos will think twice before breeding the species. And whilst I don't think it'd be overly difficult to make a new studbook.. I have no idea how difficult the process actually is. And somehow even if you had a decent sized breeding group I still have doubts how much money other zoos are willing to put into your idea of erecting a new studbook.
Thank you for your attention.
