The Future of Species in Zoos

animalszoos

animalszoos

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
What species will we see more of in zoos?
What species will we see less of in zoos?
Will we see rarer species in zoos, or will more common species 'dominate'?
Will there be more mammals, birds, insects, reptiles etc. or will it remain the same?
Will zoos focus on more native species or foreign species?
Will zoos focus on species from a particular area of the world (for example, a zoo that focuses only on African species)?
 
Last edited:
There will always be common species and a bias to charismatic ones. This is why I am a skeptic of zoo conservation: people do not care about things like tree snails or toothcarp, and too often attempts are too little, too late even with megafauna. As with the Sumatran rhinos. But at least conservation altruism got them a new mega fauna to stick on display. (Of course people must feel a NEED to justify zoos, to dwell on altruism so much. I have never felt most zoo animals are maltreated.)

The same patterns will persist. Zoos have to display what's available and this is a matter of circumstance. In developing countries native fauna are easier to obtain, as are intergrade lions and such. The most diverse collections will be big zoos in Western countries.

Something people forget is the large postage stamp" collections of the past were motivated by an emphasis on education: illustrating biodiversity. In retrospect we see it as a fad. Later the conservation zeitgeist was one of the reason collections were downsized and levelled out. It will be interesting to see how far this zeitgeist continues: can't just keep downsizing the species inventory and particularly charismatic mega fauna. At some point there will be a backlash.
 
Last edited:
Zoos never lose sight of what the general public wants. What is seen at a zoo will be most heavily influenced by visitor expectations... not by conservation, not by displaying rarities, not by themes. Like everything in the early 21st Century, expect to see continued dumbing down of zoo collections
 
Zooplantman said:
Zoos never lose sight of what the general public wants. What is seen at a zoo will be most heavily influenced by visitor expectations... not by conservation, not by displaying rarities, not by themes. Like everything in the early 21st Century, expect to see continued dumbing down of zoo collections
Click to expand...
Dumbing down?
 
Sadly the trend is to downsize the number of species and also to have the same species at every zoo. This is partly out of necessity - the only way to maintain breeding programs with genetic diversity is to have a large number of a particular species. Still those of us ZooChatters who are old enough to remember when there was a larger variety look at this trend with sadness.
 
Arizona Docent said:
Sadly the trend is to downsize the number of species and also to have the same species at every zoo. This is partly out of necessity - the only way to maintain breeding programs with genetic diversity is to have a large number of a particular species. Still those of us ZooChatters who are old enough to remember when there was a larger variety look at this trend with sadness.
Click to expand...

I agree that this is happening in many zoos. I can understand the need to have genetic diversity, but I feel there should be an upper limit for the number of individuals of a species that are kept in captivity, especially if the species is not threatened or there is no intention to send any individuals to remaining wild habitat. I know that many people like meerkats, but should any zoo have more than one meerkat exhibit? Reducing the number of species kept in zoos is not aiding conservation if some species are over-represented, while other animals, some of which are critically endangered, are no longer kept, as if they are in no need of protection and can be allowed to become extinct. If the public don't know about more obscure species, how should we expect them to care about less popular species?
 
Dassie rat said:
I agree that this is happening in many zoos. I can understand the need to have genetic diversity, but I feel there should be an upper limit for the number of individuals of a species that are kept in captivity, especially if the species is not threatened or there is no intention to send any individuals to remaining wild habitat. I know that many people like meerkats, but should any zoo have more than one meerkat exhibit? Reducing the number of species kept in zoos is not aiding conservation if some species are over-represented, while other animals, some of which are critically endangered, are no longer kept, as if they are in no need of protection and can be allowed to become extinct. If the public don't know about more obscure species, how should we expect them to care about less popular species?
Click to expand...
It is unfortunate that the popular animals that are not endangered do take priority. I have a friend who had thought it would be a neat idea if zoos would focus on just one or two geographic areas and go all out on exhibits for those species. This could work in areas with multiple zoos but not so much in a city with only one zoo.
 
elefante said:
I have a friend who had thought it would be a neat idea if zoos would focus on just one or two geographic areas and go all out on exhibits for those species.
Click to expand...

Kilverstone tried this with South American animals, but closed down over 25 years ago; it was replaced by a collection of animals from various continents, but this closed after a year or two. Africa Alive! replaced the Suffolk Wildlife Park's more varied collection.
 
I think that keeping more species is possible and should be done, but that American zoos tend not to utilize space and funds very well. They build a few naturalistic enclosures for ABCs with lots of space around them, instead of maximizing the number of enclosures to land area. They also spend many millions of dollars on themed exhibits and decorations that frankly I think is a huge waste. With careful planning and the use of low-cost methods and materials, one could build an entire zoo with what some zoos have spent on one new area.
 
Zooplantman said:
Zoos never lose sight of what the general public wants. What is seen at a zoo will be most heavily influenced by visitor expectations... not by conservation, not by displaying rarities, not by themes. Like everything in the early 21st Century, expect to see continued dumbing down of zoo collections
Click to expand...

Partly true, but maybe too pessimistic.

Well, actually successful people are those who manage to infect others with their interest, not those who follow expectations of others. Conservation pioneers in the 20. century succeeded because they made general public accept nature as they see it, not played to the public opinion then: that gorillas and carnivores are bad, rainforests should be converted to something more productive etc.

I think it is possible to infect general public with interest in less well known animals. A beauty of bird of paradise or a cuteness of a marbled polecat would appeal to layman. It might require a different type of a zoo exhibit. Maybe one which is open on two shifts on Fridays and Saturdays, and people can come at dusk, like to Singapore Night Safari and see the night animals active. Maybe one which is very expensive and small groups of people can see and hold small animals under supervision.

Currently, TV and movies are actually becoming less 'dumbed down' than zoos in terms of showing little known animal species. Recent cartoons from Disney and Pixar starred such unusual species as Spix's Macaw and lots of other South American birds (Rio), mouse lemurs, aye-ayes, tenrecs, fossa, fanaloka and hissing cockroach (Madagascar franchise), various obscure sea animals (Finding Nemo and Finding Dory).
 
Regarding meerkats, it took my local zoo a few months to fill their new exhbit because meerkats are not readily available in the USA, in spite of ZooChat perceptions to the contrary. Apparently very few zoos are breeding them and my local zoo hopes to change that.

As for zoos focusing on a specific region instead of the entire world, I was pleasantly surprised to see the newly reopened Paris Zoo have two complete sections for South America, each focusing on a different region of that continent.

Of course there are zoos that focus solely on the region in which they are located. Usually they refer to themselves as a nature center or living museum instead of a zoo. The best of these is arguably the one I live near: Arizona Sonora Desert Museum.
 
Sumatran orangutans are becoming more popular in the Australasian region. Several of the Australian Zoos hold them (Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth) and Taronga Zoo will hopefully acquire them in the future (they are currently in the process of relocating their last two hybrids). In New Zealand, Auckland Zoo and Orana Wildlife Park are planning to acquire them in the immediate future. Bornean orangutans have almost been phased the region. I guess aside from the lack of support for the Bornean orangutan programme, the Sumatran orangutans are a better link with the Sumatran tigers which grace our zoos and are the faces of the palm oil campaigns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top