The Perfect Zoo

[red river hog]

No, it isn't. All meerkats in the USA are in AZA zoos, which make up a fraction of places here. Total, about 80 places have them; that's similar in numbers to Binturong, and only a few more than the number of places with sea lions.

I'd compare UK meerkats to USA ring-tailed lemurs. If a roadside farm wants to enter the exotic game, their first step is nearly always to get lemurs and/or wallabies.

I know there definitely aren't as many in the US as the UK, but they still are common. The reason roadside zoos get lemurs and wallabies and not Meerkats is because Meerkats are difficult in the private US trade. If we are looking at just AZA zoos, there are lots with Meerkats.

 

[FelipeDBKO]

Ring tailed lemurs are an animal that I see in quite a lot of zoos around the world.

If I'm honest I used to feel about them somewhat the same way that I currently view meerkats. I viewed them as common, rather boring and taking up space from primate species that actually would benefit from being ex-situ in zoos.

Then I developed a much greater interest in primates than I once had and began reading more about lemur ecology and their in-situ conservation in Madagascar.

I discovered to my shock that there has been a 95 % decline in the wild population of this species since the year 2000 due to stressors like bushmeat hunting and habitat destruction. I also read about the projected impact of future climate change on this species which is predicted to hit it quite badly.

Since finding this out I really have much more appreciation for them both as a species and when I see them being kept in zoos.

I suppose what I'm about to say is common sense, but for overly widely-kept species, I don't see how the wild status is supposed to be a relevant justification unless the individuals are somehow part of a substantial conservation project. Rather than chinchilla, Sporophila maximiliani, crested gecko, axolotl and bicolor labeo, I'd rather see pioneering in the husbandry techniques of a Least Concern but cryptic species, specially if the "formal reason" for keeping the species is conservation alone yet there's barely any investment in a breeding or even reintroduction program.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I suppose what I'm about to say is common sense, but for overly widely-kept species, I don't see how the wild status is supposed to be a relevant justification unless the individuals are somehow part of a substantial conservation project.

Yes, I agree with you, it is necessary that these are kept as part of a substantial captive breeding program to serve ex-situ conservation purposes and there should ideally be long-term investment in in-situ conservation and plans for reintroduction (however, we all know that successful reintroduction of a species to the wild is in most cases an incredibly difficult goal to achieve).

As I understand it, the SSP for the ring tailed lemur actually strongly recommends for zoos to limit the amount of this species born in captivity in order to make room for other endangered lemur species which have more of an urgent requirement for space and breeding.

Nevertheless the ring tailed lemur is an endangered species due to the nature of the threats facing the wild population and therefore does require an ex-situ assurance population in captivity (though perhaps not in as many zoos as it is currently kept) even with this need for placing restrictions on captive breeding.

Rather than chinchilla, Sporophila maximiliani, crested gecko, axolotl and bicolor labeo

Some good examples there of species that are total paradoxes being commonly kept in captivity but of conservation concern in the wild. The case I am most familiar with is that of the axolotl so I'll address that in my comment.

Most axolotls that are bred in captivity are not actually significant for conservation purposes due to truly prodigious levels of inbreeding which makes them genetically irrelevant. The future of the species if indeed there is a future lies with the genetically wild axolotl population and part of this ensuring through decent and scientifically rigorous ex-situ conservation management that a genetic bottleneck is not reached.

What I am trying to suggest here is that in spite of the ubiquity of axolotls in captivity as conservationists we are still very far from having reached a point in time in which we can say with any certainty that we have mastered the ex-situ conservation of this species and these genetic challenges. What may appear to you as work that is somewhat of closed book is actually very far from being so and that is just within captivity as the conservation of the species in its wild state presents even steeper ongoing challenges.

I'd rather see pioneering in the husbandry techniques of a Least Concern but cryptic species, specially if the "formal reason" for keeping the species is conservation alone yet there's barely any investment in a breeding or even reintroduction program.

Which species would be examples of this in your opinion ?

 

[pendraig_milnerae]

I suppose what I'm about to say is common sense, but for overly widely-kept species, I don't see how the wild status is supposed to be a relevant justification unless the individuals are somehow part of a substantial conservation project. Rather than chinchilla, Sporophila maximiliani, crested gecko, axolotl and bicolor labeo, I'd rather see pioneering in the husbandry techniques of a Least Concern but cryptic species, specially if the "formal reason" for keeping the species is conservation alone yet there's barely any investment in a breeding or even reintroduction program.

I think both points of view are valid. On the one hand it makes some level of sense that species under some threat of extinction in the wild are displayed commonly in zoos, especially if the public is being educated on this fact, but on the other hand some animals that are rare in the wild have massive captive populations, which makes less sense if there is not reintroduction programme (e.g. Rothschild giraffes have around 500 captive individuals, despite their endangered status).

 

[FelipeDBKO]

Which species would be examples of this in your opinion ?

I clearly can't speak with authority, but maybe some species that would serve as a preparation for a more endangered one, such as some pika species before trying to keep Ili pika? Or any taxonomically unique species such as hoatzin that could theoretically turn into the new passenger pigeon.

I think both points of view are valid. On the one hand it makes some level of sense that species under some threat of extinction in the wild are displayed commonly in zoos, especially if the public is being educated on this fact, but on the other hand some animals that are rare in the wild have massive captive populations, which makes less sense if there is not reintroduction programme (e.g. Rothschild giraffes have around 500 captive individuals, despite their endangered status).

Just to clarify, I was considering just the direct conservation factor in my previous post. Considering education and given the appropriate circumstances, I believe even Least Concern and widely-kept species can have good reasons

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I clearly can't speak with authority, but maybe some species that would serve as a preparation for a more endangered one, such as some pika species before trying to keep Ili pika? Or any taxonomically unique species such as hoatzin that could theoretically turn into the new passenger pigeon.


Just to clarify, I was considering just the direct conservation factor in my previous post. Considering education and given the appropriate circumstances, I believe even Least Concern and widely-kept species can have good reasons

Yes, you are right, there is an argument to be made for using more common "least concern" species as "model" research organisms. Mainly in order to better research captive husbandry requirements and to prepare for the conservation of a more endangered closely related species. For example, the Jersey zoo apparently keeps silvery marmosets, emperor tamarins, meerkats and ring tailed coatis for this purpose (I suspect though with the meerkats that this is more to do with them being a crowd pleaser).

This kind of "model" organism research with the aim of improving captive husbandry of more endangered species is really the only reason why I personally see any tangible purpose for these animals to be within the setting of a zoo as we face enormous levels of extinction / biodiversity loss. However, the fact on the ground is that most zoos out there are not doing this kind of pioneer research with these conservation aims in mind and ultimately do not have these intentions going forward either.

 

[TinoPup]

I certainly think this is more the case in the US, but equally binturongs can be found in quite a few uk zoos (fair enough considering their status as vulnerable), and almost all uk zoos with pinapeds will have California sea lions.

That wasn't my question.

Yes. Both are equally, if not more common than meerkats over here in the states.

Binturong are about equal. CA sea lions are less. I even gave numbers in my previous post

 

[TinoPup]

I know there definitely aren't as many in the US as the UK, but they still are common. The reason roadside zoos get lemurs and wallabies and not Meerkats is because Meerkats are difficult in the private US trade. If we are looking at just AZA zoos, there are lots with Meerkats.

.... I feel like I'm talking to myself here