Why is the Common kingfisher so rare in zoos

[cerperal]

From a UK-centric perspective - many people in this country are not lucky enough to live in an area sufficiently rural or nature-supporting to see a live kingfisher. That extends to just about every wild animal, with the exception of the humble pigeon, and urban fox and perhaps the peregrine falcon.

I don't see kingfishers often, but as many times as you could expect to see them given their comparative rarity in this country. I'm lucky enough to have lived near several breeding pairs - both on the Basingstoke canal and the Avon.

Now I've also seen badgers many times - certainly more often than not squished, but plenty alive and well going about their business of giving the local farmers sleepless nights. I've never seen an otter - until maybe a decade ago, a trip along the canal or river would provide several mink, but luckily they have been all but exterminated. The otters have returned, and it's a matter of time before I see one. I have also been lucky enough to grow up next to one of the largest nightjar bastions left in the UK, seeing many and hearing many more.

What's the point in me mentioning all this? Well, most people in this country don't experience nature firsthand often enough (if at all) to see our native wildlife in its splendour, and certainly not entirety. Far more people visit zoological institutions than head into the countryside to look at nature. In many parts of the country, historically green areas are being bulldozed for an array of reasons, with local populations of the aforementioned animals (and many more) disappearing with them. By housing native species in zoological collections, especially urban ones, they serve a crucial purpose of reconnecting people with their homegrown wildlife. Plenty of zoos already house dormice and harvest mice, as a pre-existing example, as well as native owls (which, especially in the case of the barn owl, are far more common than kingfishers to spot).

I don't need to say that not everything in a zoo needs to be endangered, but in the case of British wildlife effectively everything is at the very least vulnerable.

TL;DR: more British zoos should keep kingfishers, badgers, buzzards, kestrels, beavers, bison* and any other of the plethora of British wildlife that the average person doesn't get to see often.

*Including this purely on the hope it becomes appropriate in the near future

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

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.

I looked up all kingfishers, of wich species make the most sense of keeping ex-situ population of.
The Marquesan kingfisher (Todiramphus godeffroyi), which has a drasticly diffrent life style to the common kingfisher, far closer to guam kingfisher or kookaburras.

And the Javan blue-banded kingfisher (Alcedo euryzona), which lives similary to the common kingfisher

 

[TeaLovingDave]

many people in this country are not lucky enough to live in an area sufficiently rural or nature-supporting to see a live kingfisher.

You'd be surprised just how urban kingfishers can be, mind you - I've seen them in the city centres of Newcastle, Manchester and York before!

I suspect that by and large, people merely don't notice them because they aren't looking for them, and because of the shy nature of the species.

 

[cerperal]

You'd be surprised just how urban kingfishers can be, mind you - I've seen them in the city centres of Newcastle, Manchester and York before!

I suspect that by and large, people merely don't notice them because they aren't looking for them, and because of the shy nature of the species.

We get a lot in Bath and Bristol and I've even seen them in Southampton, but as you say people just aren't looking.

Wildlife does an incredible job of adapting to human expansion, but if people aren't aware of it (peregrines are potentially the best example here) then nobody is going to look. Somehow there's a large portion of the population who are unaware we have resident snakes, let alone having seen an adder or grass snake - even when they're living in their compost heap or garden pond. Not for want of Sir Attenborough trying, it must be said.

 

[Tetzoo Quizzer]

I often struggle to find wild kingfishers even where they regularly occur; I agree with the arguments that there could be a role for captive kingfishers particularly in collections emphasising U.K. wildlife, although recently I have had excellent views of wild Kingfishers in both Slimbridge and Martin Mere; both were also being enjoyed by birding visitors but not general visitors as they were not on the general loop!

 

[OkapiJohn]

I'm sorry for bringing unpopular opinions.
Why not keep kingfishers? Well, just because you can it doesn't mean you should. If you don't have substantial positive motives to keep a species, why to keep it in the first place? Let's remember that keeping animals captive is an ethical dilemma. We are just here discussing the destiny of those individuals that would be kept captive like if there was no cost for the individual.
Most zoochatters seem to agree that anything on Earth that moves needs to be in captivity. Like if that makes any sense in 21st century. It seems that it's not about the animals, not about conservation or education. It's just about the encyclopedic pursuit that most here cultivate. Most zoo visitors will not be interested in kingfishers in zoos. Nevertheless they still cost upkeep in food, maintenance and staff. Keeping them just for the pleasure of a minority of people sounds quite selfish to me.
Wanna see a kingfisher? Just go for a walk and look for it. No need to keep animals in captivity for the sake of our stamp collection. They can also be appreciated in the wild.

 

[gerome]

I have seen king-fisher in the wild but I only was able to see them after visting zoo and seeing them there first. It gave me rough idea of were to look out for.

 

[cornu aspersum]

I have seen king-fisher in the wild but I only was able to see them after visting zoo and seeing them there first. It gave me rough idea of were to look out for.

Where the kingfisher's in the zoo captive or wild?

 

[FBBird]

I'm sorry for bringing unpopular opinions.
Why not keep kingfishers? Well, just because you can it doesn't mean you should. If you don't have substantial positive motives to keep a species, why to keep it in the first place? Let's remember that keeping animals captive is an ethical dilemma. We are just here discussing the destiny of those individuals that would be kept captive like if there was no cost for the individual.
Most zoochatters seem to agree that anything on Earth that moves needs to be in captivity. Like if that makes any sense in 21st century. It seems that it's not about the animals, not about conservation or education. It's just about the encyclopedic pursuit that most here cultivate. Most zoo visitors will not be interested in kingfishers in zoos. Nevertheless they still cost upkeep in food, maintenance and staff. Keeping them just for the pleasure of a minority of people sounds quite selfish to me.
Wanna see a kingfisher? Just go for a walk and look for it. No need to keep animals in captivity for the sake of our stamp collection. They can also be appreciated in the wild.

Are you suggesting that an animal in captivity has a worse life than its wild counterpart?

 

[Lafone]

I voted no, though if they were a wild rescue that could not be released I'd see some merit in it.

Kingfishers would be difficult to keep. It would need a number of collections to house them if they bred - they don't tolerate the chicks remaining in the same territory. You could wild release them I guess but there are wild populations already. Why not just support those.

They'd need an expansive aviary. If the aim of keeping them is to be able to see them easily or see them diving, they are pretty shy and very fast and I doubt they would make good exhibit animals in the round.

While I do think there is a role for collections to keep and indeed breed native wildlife where it supports the wild population or offers a safe haven for rescues, while being educational, it would be quite hard to keep and breed Kingfishers. There are none now so they'd have to be built up by trapping wild birds.

Given their status it doesn't seem like a practical or useful thing to do. I'd rather see educational investment, investment in their natural habitats by organisations such as the RSPB and wetland trust and linkw to programmes such as SFI that reward farmers for environment protection measures.

 

[FBBird]

I don’t see why some of the wetland aviaries around, shouldn’t hold Kingfishers. With decent water quality and small live fish on offer, they would add another dimension to these enclosures, as is starting to happen with grebes.

 

[Lafone]

I don’t see why some of the wetland aviaries around, shouldn’t hold Kingfishers. With decent water quality and small live fish on offer, they would add another dimension to these enclosures, as is starting to happen with grebes.

Where would they be sourced from? As I understand it the majority of birds like grebes you see in captivity at present are captive bred vs wild caught. To establish a viable breeding population of captive Kingfishers wouldn't they have to be all caught from the wild?

 

[cornu aspersum]

I don’t see why some of the wetland aviaries around, shouldn’t hold Kingfishers. With decent water quality and small live fish on offer, they would add another dimension to these enclosures, as is starting to happen with grebes.

I suppose adding another dimension may not be the only reason for a zoo to acquire animals. In my opinion spending that space on a LC species for that reason and no intended conservation purpose should not be a priority (of course this is my opinion and an uninformed one so it may well be wrong).

 

[gerome]

Where the kingfisher's in the zoo captive or wild?

I saw it in the bestzoo and then I saw it in the wild

 

[gerome]

Where would they be sourced from? As I understand it the majority of birds like grebes you see in captivity at present are captive bred vs wild caught. To establish a viable breeding population of captive Kingfishers wouldn't they have to be all caught from the wild?

There have to be some Rescued king fisher out there. Seeing as how close they are in so many urban areas.

 

[Lafone]

There have to be some Rescued king fisher out there. Seeing as how close they are in so many urban areas.

In theory but if you search the RSPB or other sites then you can see rescued / recovered Kingfishers being returned to the wild. I struggle to see an argument for stopping those returns and keeping them in captivity (unless not possible to release them of course but how many of those really are there, in terms of populating a programme).

 

[FBBird]

I don’t see why some of the wetland aviaries around, shouldn’t hold Kingfishers. With decent water quality and small live fish on offer, they would add another dimension to these enclosures, as is starting to happen with grebes.

Where would they be sourced from? As I understand it the majority of birds like grebes you see in captivity at present are captive bred vs wild caught. To establish a viable breeding population of captive Kingfishers wouldn't they have to be all caught from the wild?

Nestlings could be taken under licence. Everything came from the wild initially

 

[Lafone]

Nestlings could be taken under licence. Everything came from the wild initially

Yes but practice has changed quite a lot in terms of collecting.

I guess I can't see the argument for putting Kingfishers into captivity vs preserving them outside it. In terms of breeding for wild release there are birds on the red list that might make better use of captive resources and Kingfishers don't seem to warrant a captive population.

 

[Strathmorezoo]

Nestlings could be taken under licence. Everything came from the wild initially

I would be interested to know who has had experience in hand raising kingfisher chicks

 

[lintworm]

I'm sorry for bringing unpopular opinions.
Why not keep kingfishers? Well, just because you can it doesn't mean you should. If you don't have substantial positive motives to keep a species, why to keep it in the first place? Let's remember that keeping animals captive is an ethical dilemma. We are just here discussing the destiny of those individuals that would be kept captive like if there was no cost for the individual.
Most zoochatters seem to agree that anything on Earth that moves needs to be in captivity. Like if that makes any sense in 21st century. It seems that it's not about the animals, not about conservation or education. It's just about the encyclopedic pursuit that most here cultivate. Most zoo visitors will not be interested in kingfishers in zoos. Nevertheless they still cost upkeep in food, maintenance and staff. Keeping them just for the pleasure of a minority of people sounds quite selfish to me.
Wanna see a kingfisher? Just go for a walk and look for it. No need to keep animals in captivity for the sake of our stamp collection. They can also be appreciated in the wild.

This story could be for any animal, it really depends on the zoo and its goals whether it is worth to keep kingfisher. There are valid reasons, but I agree having a post stamp collection is not one. It all depends on the collection. Kingfisher are one of the most stunning and well-known representatives of European freshwater systems, but very few people actually see them well in the wild, despite them occurring near and in settlements. If you are a zoo that wants to educate people about say European wetlands or has a zone dedicated to European rivers, they can be a good species to add. But it only makes sense if you are willing to work with private keepers (and alternatively rescue stations) to ensure the animals are part of a larger population.

I don’t see why some of the wetland aviaries around, shouldn’t hold Kingfishers. With decent water quality and small live fish on offer, they would add another dimension to these enclosures, as is starting to happen with grebes.

Wouldn't they reach such high speeds in a large aviary that they fly themselves to death in the aviary boundaries, like African pygmy falcons do? I can't find anything on it, but the common kingfisher aviaries I have seen tended to be quite small.

Where would they be sourced from? As I understand it the majority of birds like grebes you see in captivity at present are captive bred vs wild caught. To establish a viable breeding population of captive Kingfishers wouldn't they have to be all caught from the wild?

Common kingfisher are kept and bred in private hands, so they could be sourced from there relatively easily if one would like to keep them.

All that said, I don't know if it is worth it, common kingfishers tend to be quite skittish and the small aviaries I have seen them in don't exactly look great for such a mobile species. I am not sure if they can be kept in a large aviary, but if so, they could be am interesting addition. They are also quite territorial and outside of the breeding season need to be kept solitary, so quite a lot of effort for a small bird.

Until now I have been to more zoos where I have seen wild common kingfishers compared to ones in captivity, current score 4-2