Ungulates in Australia

A

Ara

Well-Known Member
Like all of us, I am totally frustrated by the ungulate situation in Australian zoos.

At the same time, I don't really understand the law.

Is there a total NO IFS NO BUTS ruling on artiodactyl ungulates, or is it just a case of the necessary quarantine and testing procedures makes the cost just unrealistically high.

In other words, if some rich ratbag to whom money was no object was determined that Taronga was going to have, say, okapis, could it happen ?

(And NO, before you ask, I'm not a RICH ratbag, just a ratbag.)

It seems to me that new breeds of cattle are appearing in Australia all the time, which argues to me that at least semen or embryos are being imported.
Does this mean that,say, bongo embryos could be imported and implanted in, for example, elands?

Also, and excuse my ignorance, is the situation the same in New Zealand?
 
Hi Ara,

there isn't a blanket NO on the import of ungulates. It depends on the species, and the country they come from. Some species can be brought in from some countries, but not others. Some can't be imported at all. Your best bet is to have a read through these pages for more info:

What is a TSE?
Import Risk Analyses IRAs - DAFF
ICON Database - Import Conditions - DAFF

Combined, these three lots of info will give you a better understanding of the issues, and what can and can't be done.

New Zealand has a whole different list of issues, and their own Import Health Standards.
 
Thanks, ZooPro, that was a lot of useful information and it really brings home the seriousness of the situation.

(Guess I'll just wait till I get overseas to see those okapis.)
 
Ungulates in NZ

Abi might find a work colleague at Auckland Zoo mammals section that could provide you with a very detailed answer of MAF and ERMA requirements for any ungulate species that the zoo may wish to bring in , but you have to understand that NZ biosecurity regulations are ALOT tougher than even Australia .
Australias biosecurity is lax compared to ours . Needless to say , it somewhat restricts the species of animals that can be brought into NZ .
 
Australia and NZ have strict biosecurity regulations for good reasons but I think they should alow for exceptions when animals can be imported from a controled area such as a zoo with good quarintene and vet supervision much easier.

NZ regulations used to be easier as in the past as fallow deer which could not be imported into Australia were imported into NZ and then semen sent to Australia from NZ.
 
Meanwhile, I guess, it's up to Australian zoos to look after those ungulates we DO have as best they can.

I find it very depressing the way that sitatungas have almost gone,and I suppose that bongos are on the way out, too.

A couple of species that are hanging in there, despite all the gloomy predictions, are the barbary sheep and the Himalayan tahr.
These two had founder stock of only 3 or 4 individuals each, but despite the fact that there has been no new blood in over 60 years new generations keep being born.
I was at Taronga last week, and both herds had healthy young ones among them.(Good to see.)
 
neither tahr nor barbary sheep are actually considered viable, in the long term, despite the large populations.
realisically, Australia isnt well placed to assist in antelope conservation due to our biosecurity laws; its better for our zoos to focus on primates, carnivores, rhinos, wild horse, elephant etc...which can be imported.
th dwindling stocks of antelope will ipact on our open range zos to an extent, but im confident that so long as we have giraffes, zebra, bison and a few other species that these institutions can be maintained as premier wildlife attractions!
 
Interesting about the Tahr. I believe that the NZ wild population also had very few founders. I think their population got to around 50,000 before the govenment tried to eradicate them. The population was dropped to about 1,500 before they decided to manage the population instead of eradicating them. I am not certain but I think there is around 10,000 now.

That population seems very viable. I believe if numbers in Aust zoos are not alowed to go to low and any problems are culled ours should be viable too. Does anyone know what problems if any with Australia's animals due to indreeding.
 
the giraffes became particuarly unhealthy if a document i read awhile ago was correct. until the rothschilds addition, all giraffes had just 3 founders i believe.

i'm sure may otther artiodactyls are particuarlly inbred now in our region - though what the effects of this are i'm not sure. id'e say most other mammal species are quite genetically healthy now. but i'm not sure.
 
All the sumatran tigers are descendants of, or mated to descendants of, just four tigers. However this is not so bad as we cab still import new blood, though our bloodlines are also well represented overseas apparently.
 
jay said:
All the sumatran tigers are descendants of, or mated to descendants of, just four tigers.
Click to expand...

i read eight. though i'm not saying i'm necessarily right.

thats a low level of founders. is this where zoo breeding programs come a bit unstuck? its okay to work with what you've got for awhile - but the art of breeding tigers in captivity are well and truly mastered now. without a good injection of fresh blood, is it that advantageous to have even more? is it that much better to have 50 tigers descended from four or 500 tigers descended from four?

i assume their are unrelated sumatrans available in indonesian zoos. is there a lack of coperation from indonesia or are western zoos lacking motivation to spend the resources on aquiring such animals?

any tiger fans to elighten me?
 
All the regions tigers are descended from Frank and Poetry ( melbournes cats) and two tigers from Sydney. There are unrelated tigers in the region but they are mated with descendants of these four. Before Melbourne received its female there were reports that they were going to import two wild caught females from Indonesia. I don't know what happened to that. I guess political issues might have got in the way. As to whetjer or not this will cause problems I don't know. Some species are very vulnerable to inbreeding and others aren't I'm fairly sure that the entire worlds pouplation of hamsters (how many millions) are descended from just one pregnangt female caught from the wild.
How tigersd could or would be affected I don't know.
 
ps/ I think I'm guilty of steering this thread away from its original subject.:rolleyes:
 
at the risk of steering even further away, boo hoo, AZA's Tiger TAG has prioritised integrating both EEP genetic material in the Sumatran population in North America and acquiring new animals from Indonesia. Potentially, this is how new genes could filte rinto the Australasian region in the future. the fact that most of these animals are related isnt necessarily that scary, the program is managed around that, although non-recomended pairings do compromise this program, not mentioning any names.
 
tigers and sitatungas

Auckland Zoo has (fairly) recently imported a Sumatran tiger from a zoo in Israel . I am not sure if you knew of this or not . Abigail should be able to give more up to date information here

Wellington Zoo has sitatunga on display . I have sent an email to them asking more information on numbers , sexes , breeding plans etc , but I havent yet got an answer . Will post if/when I get a response
 
ha - and its come back round to ungulates!

from memory the sitatunga in australiasia are separated into same sex groups. showing a clear intention to phase the species out.
 
So which even toed ungulates ARE viable in Australia, apart from water buffaloes and some species of deer?

Elands?
Blackbuck?

Any others?
 
Nigel said:
Auckland Zoo has (fairly) recently imported a Sumatran tiger from a zoo in Israel . I am not sure if you knew of this or not . Abigail should be able to give more up to date information here
Click to expand...

Is that a male to partner the female which featured in the ZOO! DVD series.
Or is the female herself?
 
Patrick - I think 500 sumatran tigers from 4 founders are a lot better then just 50 (or less). Each animal born will have a unique combination of genes, and the more animals are born, the more mutations occur which both will result in increased genetic diversity.

Anyway, I don`t think inbreeding is necessarily detrimental of an animal`s health - there are many, many examples of inbreeding over many generations with no health problems. Just look at islands like Galapagos - most if not all species there developed from very, very low founder numbers, some probably as low as one pregnant female. The red wolves and mexican grey wolves in the USA also descend from only a handful of founders (something between 5-10 if I remember right) and the populations are viable. Inbreeding is no problem as long as the animals have no hidden diseases in their genes. This means populations with low founder numbers must certainly be watched very carefully for health problems and individuals that develop problems that might be related to genetics must not be bred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top