zoopro, in your opinion, how many species do you think can we viably keep?
though i understand the prioritise SE asia rationale, and fully support the decision to do so, i would like to see our zoos remain a place where one can see and learn about the diversity of all life and the ecology of the earths major diverse habitat types. and generally when i whinge about the phase-out of a species its because they represent an important role in and ecosystem that other animals in our regions zoos, share.
but i spose in the end an element of it may just be "whats your favorite animal" ...
Hey Patrick,
"
how many species do you think can we viably keep?" - How long is a piece of string?
Seriously though, this is not a question that can be easily answered - thousands of species, if we stick to smaller, native species, especially invertebrates, fish, reptiles, amphibians and birds (Sydney Wildlife World claims to have over 6,000 animals, of over 1,000 species, in a 7,000 square metre facility). If we opt for larger mega fauna, then probably only hundreds of species.
But of course every zoo is different, some specialise in smaller species, some concentrate on the larger taxa, and most have a cross section of species, attempting to represent some level of biodiversity.
There are currently over 2,700 species represented in Australian zoos and aquariums (this includes both aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates). Is this number sustainable? Probably not, especially if we break this down a little. If we look at these species, and exclude the natives (we can relatively easily acquire additional individuals of native species), and then look at the number of species that have fewer than 20 individuals in the region (the regional species management program has set a minimum of 20 regional spaces in order to maintain a managed program), we are left with probably less than a hundred species that are exotic, predominantly birds and mammals, and in dire need of "review" by the region's zoos. The "
Going, Going, Gone." paper discusses this in much more depth.
Zoos in this region really do need to take a
serious look at this list of species, and rationalise their collection plans. If they fail, they are simply cutting off their noses to spite their faces, and the longevity of the zoos themselves will suffer. This not only involves looking at their collection plans, but of course working together to lobby Canberra into reviewing Australia's importation regulations. This is currently underway, and the recent staff changes in the DEH department that the zoos deal with look like they might be resulting in much closer cooperation with the zoos. We can only hope so.
but i spose in the end an element of it may just be "whats your favorite animal"
I'm sure there will always be an element of favouritism in their decisions, and they are also constatly under pressure from naive visitors to see the classic zoo animals (lions, tigers, elephants, giraffe, zebra etc.). Let's face it, we've all read more than a few wish lists of species on this forum! But unless the zoos take notice of what's happening with their collections, and start to manage their animals with a far more scientific and regionally-focussed plan, I think it will be very much a case of Going, Going, Gone.
