"There is no conservation value in keeping exotics in Australian zoos" - prove me wrong.

  • Thread starter Thread starter MRJ
  • Start date Start date
Dassie rat said:
I know, MRJ

I was giving an example of an ex situ breeding programme that saved a species from extinction and allowed some captives to be sent to their original home.

Apart from the orang-utans, are there any other examples of exotic species that have been bred in Australian zoos as part of a reintroduction programme?
Click to expand...
Some Przewalski's horses were provided to a release program in Mongolia.

However the premise of your question is incorrect. These animals just happened to be available when an opportunity arose. Neither the orangutan or the horses were bred as part of a reintroduction program.
 
@MRJ Given that there have been improvements in captive breeding / husbandry of the short beaked echidna in Australian zoos and the pressures on wild populations could the long beaked echidnas of New Guinea not benefit from a captive breeding programe by Aussie zoos (of course matched with in-situ efforts) ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MRJ
MRJ said:
However the premise of your question is incorrect. These animals just happened to be available when an opportunity arose. Neither the orangutan or the horses were bred as part of a reintroduction program.
Click to expand...

The first orangutan (released in 2006) was born in 1992 and was indeed chosen as she was a suitable candidate. I’d suggest the next two orangutans released (born 2005 and 2007) were bred with the intention of releasing them as the rehabilitation process was well established by the time they were bred. Both were born to a well represented line and clearly surplus to the breeding programme. Both were born to young mothers, one of which has since bred again.

I agree with you that it would be an exaggeration to refer to their efforts as a meaningful contribution to conservation; but they remain the only zoo in the world to do something direct and should be proud of their efforts nonetheless.

Given Perth Zoo has bred around 30 orangutans, these releases represent 10% of these.
 
Zoofan15 said:
The first orangutan (released in 2006) was born in 1992 and was indeed chosen as she was a suitable candidate. I’d suggest the next two orangutans released (born 2005 and 2007) were bred with the intention of releasing them as the rehabilitation process was well established by the time they were bred. Both were born to a well represented line and clearly surplus to the breeding programme. Both were born to young mothers, one of which has since bred again.

I agree with you that it would be an exaggeration to refer to their efforts as a meaningful contribution to conservation; but they remain the only zoo in the world to do something direct and should be proud of their efforts nonetheless.

Given Perth Zoo has bred around 30 orangutans, these releases represent 10% of these.
Click to expand...
I agree it was an accomplishment, and no issue there.
 
@MRJ I think we are in in agreement with your hypothesis “that there is no conservation value in keeping exotics in Australian Zoos”
My question is what is the way forward for the Australasian Zoo industry?
 
kiwimuzz said:
@MRJ I think we are in in agreement with your hypothesis “that there is no conservation value in keeping exotics in Australian Zoos”
My question is what is the way forward for the Australasian Zoo industry?
Click to expand...
Again we are talking exotics. There will be a lot of opportunities for zoos to be directly involved with conservation programs for natives.

@Carl Jones postulates in other threads on this forum that long-term captivity leads a "domestic" version of wild species that are more adapted to captivity than the wild. I think this is broadly correct while at the same time think it can be overstated. Accepting this would benefit zoos in that they can modify their species management, which could reduce their costs and reduce welfare and biosecurity concerns. This could see them more comfortable with the idea of growing the number of species in their collections.

My hope is that zoos will redouble their efforts for conservation action in two main areas:

1. Ambassador species promoting acting in specific areas. The classic example being of course orangutans and palm oil.

2. Support for in-situ programs. These can be, but don't need to be, linked to species and ecosystems represented in their collections. Linking increases the chance of obtaining additional community support for these programs and increase their effectiveness. Sometimes zoos will be directly involved in programs, and even running them, while at other times simply provide financial support. I can see opportunities for consortia of zoos acting together so smaller zoos will have opportunities to be involved with several programs. Of course the plus side for zoos is the positive face this gives them.

Australian zoos are not alone in this, European and North American zoos are tackling with the same issues and their regional associations are moving towards only recognizing in-situ conservation work in their accreditation programs. Just the tyranny of distance makes the situation so much more obvious in Australia, while Australian zoos do have a huge roll to play with the conservation of our native species.
 
Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
@MRJ Given that there have been improvements in captive breeding / husbandry of the short beaked echidna in Australian zoos and the pressures on wild populations could the long beaked echidnas of New Guinea not benefit from a captive breeding programe by Aussie zoos (of course matched with in-situ efforts) ?
Click to expand...
As yet the short-beaked echidna is far from established in Australian zoos. The problem is that many zoos receive rescue animals and given they are long lived there is no pressure to establish captive populations.
 
MRJ said:
As yet the short-beaked echidna is far from established in Australian zoos. The problem is that many zoos receive rescue animals and given they are long lived there is no pressure to establish captive populations.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply @MRJ

Don't you think that even with these being long lived mammals there should be a greater sense of urgency in establishing captive breeding programes in zoos ?
 
Dassie rat said:
Long-beaked echidnas have a far higher conservation value
Click to expand...

Yes, totally agree, I misread @MRJ's comment.

I do think the long beaked echidnas have a higher conservation value.

I'm wondering whether it could be argued that a captive breeding programe for these in Australian zoos would be of far greater value than programes for orangutangs or tigers or rhino etc ?
 
toothlessjaws said:
@MRJ Do you know if there are currently approved marsupial and monotreme IRA's?
Click to expand...
There is only an interim policy for marsupials (only Dasyuromorphia, Peramelemorphia and Diprodontia), and monotremes are not covered by it. Because it isn't a proper IRA any animals imported under the protocol need to remain under quarantine surveillance for at least two years after import. There isn't really much call for a marsupial IRA (bar for foreign tree kangaroo species, which the zoos seem to have largely lost interest in now), so I can't see a proper IRA being developed any time in the foreseeable future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top