Rescues for sure often have eye issues. But pinnipeds born in human care often develop eye issues and blindness
Rescues for sure often have eye issues. But pinnipeds born in human care often develop eye issues and blindness
Golden-headed has been somewhat successful. I believe there are currently four US holders, but DWA has by far been the most successful with them and hold an overwhelming majority of the US population. Resplendent quetzals have not fared as well; although they stay alive alright, breeding is very difficult and has only successfully been achieved within their range countries. Some are still held by DWA. The aquarium also had a crested quetzal, which it may still have, but it is (or perhaps was) a very elderly individual. I believe they had more previously but I haven’t been able to find more information.
Off display I'm guessing? First I've heard of them at DWA in quite awhile; previously it was a single female in a rather hidden aviary as I recall. Wouldn't put it past DWA to import more Resplendent either, if someone would be willing to export.
They even can not adapt to the environment around Great Lakes?
Corangurilla
Well-Known Member
Detroit had a couple, not sure what happened to them.
It's not just about being colder. Humidity, how far above sea level, etc. all seem to be factors.
Yes, off exhibit - I don’t think they’ve ever been visible to the public at DWA. They’ve always had more than one since acquiring the species. All of their resplendent quetzals are captive-bred.
I would say Hummingbirds. A few species are kept and now and then bred but not a single species is bred in numbers to keep the captive population stable, at least not in zoos / birdparks. Some private breeders are doing a little better but still only small numbers and very few different species.
There are a few Great Lakes region zoos that keep them - Detroit, Columbus, Minnesota, NEW.
Group requirement makes it impossible how exactly?
I don't think we can make distinction between more deserving and less deserving species as well as those who "matter" and those who don't anymore, may you explain what do you mean with this statement ?
There definitely is - California Condor is far more in need of zoos than is the Turkey Vulture, and Partula Snails far more so than the Garden Snail. Also given there are multiple species that currently only exist in captivity, they definitely are more deserving because otherwise they're gone for good. Once you get into less threatened species it gets more arbitrary, but there is definitely a need to prioritize some species over others.
On that I agree, what I meant is that most animals need captive back up as we cannot always be sure of their wild status (an example are cheetas, one day they were Vulnerable with thriving estimated numbers, the day after they were Endengered), especially in areas where warfare and diseases might be a risk, look at Russia and Ukraine now, I wouldn't be surprised if all wild Saigas in that range will die out due to stress from bombing or shot by soldiers for meat and fur supplies.
TL;DR we definetely need to prioritize resources on some species but everyone of them should have a healthy and self-sustainable captive population
And how do you propose this happens? Innumerable hoops to jump through so I'm curious how you actually think this is plausible.
Replacing overwhelmingly present species would be a starting point, keeping more than a couple/group a second, opening a secondary or more facilities a third although quite expensive point
Cheetah are still considered VU as of the latest IUCN assessment.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
The two species breed in harem situations as I recall, and back when they were in private hands no one was willing/able to keep sufficient numbers for breeding to occur often enough to sustain numbers.
So not impossible per se - just very costly.
Shrews and other mammals with voracious appetites often don't adapt well to captivity