Why is the Common kingfisher so rare in zoos

[gerome]

I have been exploring zootierliste and I discovered to my shock that there are very few common kingfishers in captivity, six zoos have them so far that I am aware.

Why is that it is beautiful species that is relatively small and seems easy to keep. It is kept in very few zoos while its range is quite large from the United Kingdom to Indonesia. So, zoos would have an easy time acquiring them and there not that abundant in their range that it would be like showing the house sparrow. Anyone any suggestions why this is or is there just lack of interest from zoos to hold this species

 

[OkapiJohn]

Why should they keep common kingfishers in the first place?

 

[cornu aspersum]

I have been exploring zootierliste and I discovered to my shock that there are very few common kingfishers in captivity, six zoos have them so far that I am aware.

Why is that it is beautiful species that is relatively small and seems easy to keep. It is kept in very few zoos while its range is quite large from the United Kingdom to Indonesia. So, zoos would have an easy time acquiring them and there not that abundant in their range that it would be like showing the house sparrow. Anyone any suggestions why this is or is there just lack of interest from zoos to hold this species

Regardless of wether they are interesting species, kingfishers are abundant and not in direct need of conservation. The space they could take is better utilized by more endangered species in my opinion (although, I will say it is a striking bird and I would not object to seeing it in captivity if kept for conservation, rescues).

 

[gerome]

I am just bit susprised that are so few rescues that end up in zoos of this species. seeing as how urban there range is.

There are many other species aswell that don't have a conservation reason to keep them in zoological colletions such as the fennec fox.

Comparing the common king-fisher representation to the Collared Kingfisher who has representation in 12 zoos with similair conservation status. It just seems so low.

 

[Prochilodus246]

On the whole not many kingfisher species are kept in captivity to my knowledge. With Common kingfishers, their diet is small fish only whereas with other kingfisher species they eat a wider range of foodstuffs such as crickets. They're also fairly shy birds that wouldn't exactly make for great exhibit animals as they'd likely hide from view. Certainly, watching them dive for fish is unfeasible in an aviary unless of a large size and a water body, deep enough and stocked with small fish.

Not only that but they are highly territorial so keeping a pair would be your only option. Their nesting in cavities shouldn't prove an issue, just keeping up with the demands of feeding both adults and young may be challenging.

 

[cornu aspersum]

There are many other species aswell that don't have a conservation reason to keep them in zoological colletions such as the fennec fox.

The fennec fox also has a decent amount of animals in zoos and with a comparatively well understood husbandry (the kingfisher's more complicated husbandry is a good point by @Prochilodus246). It means it is easier to keep the fox's population in circulation although I am not very knowledgeable on their exact husbandry and population so I can be wrong.

 

[ZooNews2024]

Why should they keep common kingfishers in the first place?

Why not...?

Regardless of wether they are interesting species, kingfishers are abundant and not in direct need of conservation. The space they could take is better utilized by more endangered species in my opinion (although, I will say it is a striking bird and I would not object to seeing it in captivity if kept for conservation, rescues).

What species of kingfisher is endangered and 'needs the space' theoretically occupied by common kingfishers?
This continuous pre-occupation with endangered species only, will remove the diversity of zoos collections, and will inevitably reduce footfall and thus income. Zoos (especially in countries like the UK where they are highly taxed and receive no subsidies or help whatsoever) must compete for the tourist dollar. Collections can only be reduced so far, and most paying visitors like to see (and demand, by their actions?) a wide and varied collection.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

I have been exploring zootierliste and I discovered to my shock that there are very few common kingfishers in captivity, six zoos have them so far that I am aware.

Why is that it is beautiful species that is relatively small and seems easy to keep. It is kept in very few zoos while its range is quite large from the United Kingdom to Indonesia. So, zoos would have an easy time acquiring them and there not that abundant in their range that it would be like showing the house sparrow. Anyone any suggestions why this is or is there just lack of interest from zoos to hold this species

A combination of 3 factors.
First, they are tricky to keep, unlike other pretty species of birds like parrots or many passerines.
Second there is little demmand, exept a few bird enjoyers or zoo diehard fan'S nobody wants to seem them in paricular. The avrage zoo goer will pariculary inpressed, and it is not endangered at all, wich lowers the intrest in the species even more
And it is like I said in point 2 a common species, even inside many zoos (which often have pounds or streams inside them). It makes it even morep ointless to keep a tricky, not particular wanted species, if it also justl ives inside the zoogrounds aswell

 

[cornu aspersum]

Why not...?

What species of kingfisher is endangered and 'needs the space' theoretically occupied by common kingfishers?
This continuous pre-occupation with endangered species only, will remove the diversity of zoos collections, and will inevitably reduce footfall and thus income. Zoos (especially in countries like the UK where they are highly taxed and receive no subsidies or help whatsoever) must compete for the tourist dollar. Collections can only be reduced so far, and most paying visitors like to see (and demand, by their actions?) a wide and varied collection.

I do understand what you mean by varied collections being important and zoos being increasingly homogenized. Although kingfishers may not bring a zoo much additional traffic for their costs. I was thinking of no particular species, kingfisher or otherwise when referring to space that can be filled by endangered species instead of kingfisher's. I do agree that kingfishers could be brought in if need be even if to create an assurance population (something which I hope is being started with the brown hyaena and aardwolves in captivity) despite being least concern. However, I don't think there is a particular need to bring in common kingfishers versus other species, especially endangered ones or those that have a higher chance in captivity.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

Why not...?

What species of kingfisher is endangered and 'needs the space' theoretically occupied by common kingfishers?
This continuous pre-occupation with endangered species only, will remove the diversity of zoos collections, and will inevitably reduce footfall and thus income. Zoos (especially in countries like the UK where they are highly taxed and receive no subsidies or help whatsoever) must compete for the tourist dollar. Collections can only be reduced so far, and most paying visitors like to see (and demand, by their actions?) a wide and varied collection.

He does not talk about other kingfishers, but other species of birds here. Zoos can't just import wild animals nowdays anymore. If they want too keep birds they need to be breed, which takes up space. Espicially a species like the common kingfisher, who lives very short, needs a larger population to be maintained. And the common kingfisher is far from a crowed pleaser. Even the 2 Kookaburra species (the only common kingfisher species in european insitutions), are because of their size, iconicness to australia, aswell as their far easier husbandary, and longer lifespam are far more fitting species for cpativity. The common kingfisher is pretty, but so are many other smal birds, who would get the same ammount of attention from the avrage zoo goer

 

[dillotest0]

A funny story ... I have talked about one family member of mine visiting Ueno Zoo some years ago ...
there were common kingfishers on her visit!

As for reasons I can't say I'm surprised to their scarcity ... they are common enough in the wild that they are readily seen. But this shows that there are some I think !

 

[ZooNews2024]

A combination of 3 factors.
First, they are tricky to keep, unlike other pretty species of birds like parrots or many passerines.
Second there is little demmand, exept a few bird enjoyers or zoo diehard fan'S nobody wants to seem them in paricular. The avrage zoo goer will pariculary inpressed, and it is not endangered at all, wich lowers the intrest in the species even more
And it is like I said in point 2 a common species, even inside many zoos (which often have pounds or streams inside them). It makes it even morep ointless to keep a tricky, not particular wanted species, if it also justl ives inside the zoogrounds aswell

The average zoo-goer is little bothered by whether a species is endangered or not, and certainly in the UK very few zoos have wild kingfishers visible to the public inside their grounds.
And of course, I was not saying that kingfishers would drive footfall, as I thought that was so obvious it did not need typing. What drives footfall is lots of variety and a good day out. Much of that variety is not endangered, and the above assumptions that animals should only be in captivity if they have conservation value or be some sort of insurance population, I personally take issue with.
As a side point, it must be remembered that conservation categories are artificial and rigid, but at the same time in constant review. Today's LC can easily be tomorrows CR. Jumping in and out of captive stocks is very difficult, often impossible.
Long may collections be varied and contain lots of non-endangered species.

A funny story ... I have talked about one family member of mine visiting Ueno Zoo some years ago ...
there were common kingfishers on her visit!
View attachment 712086
As for reasons I can't say I'm surprised to their scarcity ... they are common enough in the wild that they are readily seen. But this shows that there are some I think !

Lovely...
Others are being bred much closer to home too, and zoo bred surplus on ZIMs at the moment.

 

[15399]

What species of kingfisher is endangered and 'needs the space' theoretically occupied by common kingfishers?

The extinct in the wild Guam kingfisher, for starters.

This continuous pre-occupation with endangered species only, will remove the diversity of zoos collections, and will inevitably reduce footfall and thus income. Zoos (especially in countries like the UK where they are highly taxed and receive no subsidies or help whatsoever) must compete for the tourist dollar. Collections can only be reduced so far, and most paying visitors like to see (and demand, by their actions?) a wide and varied collection.

This is assuming the premise that visitors care about the diversity of a collection, which I'm not sure is actually true. Many non-zoochatters seem to care more about a small number of flagship megafauna, such as great apes, elephants, bears, big cats, and giraffes, and aren't going to care about the specifics of what non-penguin birds are exhibited. Sure, they might like to see birds at the zoo, but the individual species I don't think are a major concern. I agree, however, that there are certainly compelling reasons why non-endangered species may deserve prioritization in zoo collections, however- especially in cases where a particular species is extremely unique and/or has high educational value.

 

[ZooNews2024]

Espicially a species like the common kingfisher, who lives very short, needs a larger population to be maintained.

Google says 15 years. That does not seem 'very short' at all, to me, but very respectable for a small bird It it wrong.

The extinct in the wild Guam kingfisher, for starters.

Keeping one does not automatically preclude the other.
You might actually be able to keep both, especially if you had worked out a management regime with the non-endangered spp first.

 

[dillotest0]

The average zoo-goer is little bothered by whether a species is endangered or not, and certainly in the UK very few zoos have wild kingfishers visible to the public inside their grounds.
And of course, I was not saying that kingfishers would drive footfall, as I thought that was so obvious it did not need typing. What drives footfall is lots of variety and a good day out. Much of that variety is not endangered, and the above assumptions that animals should only be in captivity if they have conservation value or be some sort of insurance population, I personally take issue with.
As a side point, it must be remembered that conservation categories are artificial and rigid, but at the same time in constant review. Today's LC can easily be tomorrows CR. Jumping in and out of captive stocks is very difficult, often impossible.
Long may collections be varied and contain lots of non-endangered species.

One thing I find interesting is the differed attitudes to rare species and conservation maintenance between the UK and other nations.
In other nations zoos are often instrumental with the maintenance of rarer species as they should; which was the saving grace needed for the American Bison, and might be also for the Guam Kingfisher. Rarer birds of those nations are kept in captive breeding programmes.
With UK fauna however, with many species at risk of disappearing from the country entirely, it serves interest then that there is trepidation towards breeding programmes for rarer birds. And I can only wonder whether this is partially because of superstition; that we have known for a good while now that nightingales don't like rudimentary captivity very much [it is said they would throw themselves suicidally against the cage] that we feel we know better than to try again with breeding programmes.
But maybe what it is is that instead of such programmes the UK has found it prefers the 'reserve' model of things ... such as the Knepp estate in Sussex which has seen considerable success with rarer species of bird. And from what I understand capturing of many native species has been outlawed in UK law with limited exception. But then what I find interesting is that the Pied Avocet is protected well under law, and is the face of the RSPB ... but is reasonably common in zoological collections!

 

[TeaLovingDave]

The extinct in the wild Guam kingfisher, for starters.

Considering the fact that the Guam Kingfisher programme is limited to North America, and like species such as California Condor and Black-footed Ferret is explicitly intended to remain so, I somehow doubt that any theoretical increase in Eurasian Kingfisher in captive collections would displace the former species whatsoever

Google says 15 years. That does not seem 'very short' at all, to me, but very respectable for a small bird It it wrong.

As regards wild longevity verified by the collection and tracking of previously-ringed birds, the record is as follows:



I'm not as familiar with captive longevities for the species, but at the very least I am given to understand that animals at Marlow and Innsbruck both exceeded a decade.

 

[cornu aspersum]

Today's LC can easily be tomorrows CR

That is why I said assurance populations are important giving Brown hyaena and aardwolves as an example. Despite this I believe endangered or injured animals should be given a priority:

However, I don't think there is a particular need to bring in common kingfishers versus other species, especially endangered ones or those that have a higher chance in captivity.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

Google says 15 years. That does not seem 'very short' at all, to me, but very respectable for a small bird It it wrong.



Keeping one does not automatically preclude the other.
You might actually be able to keep both, especially if you had worked out a management regime with the non-endangered spp first.

Oh, I see. I was looking in the lifespan wild animals, which is between 1-5 years. So I was mistaken on that point.

 

[ZooNews2024]

Oh, I see. I was looking in the lifespan wild animals, which is between 1-5 years. So I was mistaken on that point.

No - if you check the link kindly posted by TLD above, you will see that the wild life-span is actually up to 21 years..! - remarkable for such a small animal, and considerably longer than many, many others kept in captivity.

 

[gerome]

I do think that zoos should consider looking into keeping this species as it would be great practise king fisher (that eats fish), for if ever the need comes up to have to hold some of the other more endagerd species of kingfisher in captivity.