ZooDoo Wildlife Park Yet more White Lions!

[MRJ]

Actually, White/Blonde/Pale Lions have been found in Kaokoland, Botswana, Umfolozi and Kruger, as well as Timbavati. And some recent research I heard about suggests that a pride of white lions maybe better hunters than normal lions. The white colour does not disadvantage them as they tend to hunt in sandy areas (near rivers) where normal tawny lions are obvious.

A view promoted, as far as I can tell, by the Global White Lion Protection Trust, perhaps not the most reliable of sources. By the way, the GWLPT do say on their website that white lions have been "extinct" in the wild since 1994. Perhaps a decline in sandy habitats?

Are you suggesting normal coloured lions in Australia have considerably more conservation value?

The conservation value of lions in Australia rather depends on how taxonomists end up classifying lions. But a population bred to maintain maximum genetic diversity is always going to be of more conservation value than one inbred to establish a recessive mutation.

The gene appears in the wild, and although it has a low frequency it is not extremely rare in this population (as attested by the number of white animals being born in the wild).

I understood that it was exceedingly rare, and the GWLPT says they haven't existed in the wild since 1994.

Therefore, the gene needs to be conserved.

Why? And especially why at the expense of all the other rare alleles that would be bred out of the animals as you selectively breed for the white allele. Maybe an allele that could help them combat feline AIDS or one that will help lions adapt to climate change. But heck none of those can be as important as a pretty white coat.

It's possible this is the beggining of an evolutionary radiation within the species,

Highly speculative, and pretty much at odds with everything we know about genetics and evolution.

which we are interfering with - the current selection pressure upon this gene appears to be Homo sapiens.

Finally a statement I can agree with. We are putting pressure, promoting the allele by selectively breeding for it. And guess who turns out to be the major breeders of white lions? Operators of canned hunts in South Africa. Which pretty much sums it all up, I would think.

 

[phoenix]

MRJ - yes, yes and yes!

 

[jay]

Fancy jay being beaten by a Pom with news that is 5 days old!! You are slipping mate.

that's because I was actually at ZooDoo viewing them. As I don't have a laptop and couldn't be bothered trying to find an internet cafe I am only just now able to write about ZooDoo.

 

[Hix]

A view promoted, as far as I can tell, by the Global White Lion Protection Trust, perhaps not the most reliable of sources.

Perhaps, perhaps not. As neither of us are in South Africa, neither of us are in a position to state categorically one way or the other. Incidentally, although I came across this site, I also used books as well when writing my previous post.

The conservation value of lions in Australia rather depends on how taxonomists end up classifying lions. But a population bred to maintain maximum genetic diversity is always going to be of more conservation value than one inbred to establish a recessive mutation.

Yeah, I probably didn't phrase my question correctly, and you misunderstood my intent. Let me rephrase it: Do you really think ANY tawny lions in Australia will be re-introduced to the wild?

I understood that it was exceedingly rare, and the GWLPT says they haven't existed in the wild since 1994.

I used the words "gene" and "in this population". The gene - not the white animals - does not appear to be extremely rare (just uncommon) in this population. The phenotype will obviously be much rarer than the gene.
Although you think the GWLPT is not very reliable, you seem quite happy to quote them.

Why? And especially why at the expense of all the other rare alleles that would be bred out of the animals as you selectively breed for the white allele. Maybe an allele that could help them combat feline AIDS or one that will help lions adapt to climate change. But heck none of those can be as important as a pretty white coat.

What about rare alleles on the same autosome as the white allele? Is there any linkage between the white allele and other rare alleles. Get rid of the autosome with the white allele and you get rid of every other allele on that autosome. Is there an allele that can combat feline AIDS? If so then it is a mutant allele, the same as the white allele. Why preserve one and get rid of the other?

And I never said I wanted white coats - I said the I think the gene (more correctly, the allele) should be preserved. If that needs tawny animals to carry it, so be it, I don't care. What I am against is the idea of white lions being mutants or defects and systematically eliminating the allele from the genome through selective breeding (or non-breeding).

Highly speculative, and pretty much at odds with everything we know about genetics and evolution.

Speculative? Yes, but then all theories are speculative. But what I said certainly fits in with what we know about genetics and evolution.

Finally a statement I can agree with. We are putting pressure, promoting the allele by selectively breeding for it. And guess who turns out to be the major breeders of white lions? Operators of canned hunts in South Africa. Which pretty much sums it all up, I would think.

And again you missed my point - I was talking about animals in the wild. White Lions are targets for Homo sapiens, either to shoot for sport, or to capture for zoos or canned hunts. Which is why no whites have been seen since 1994 - they all been removed from the environment. The heterozygous parents that produced them would most likely be dead now, and with the white animals gone the white allele frequency would be much lower in the gene pool now. But with luck, some whites will turn up again in the near future.



Hix

 

[MARK]

You have made some very good points there Mr Hix

 

[phoenix]

Let me rephrase it: Do you really think ANY tawny lions in Australia will be re-introduced to the wild?Hix

lets not go down that path with this argument. we all know that realistically, its unlikely that most zoo species will ever be reintroduced in the wild. we know this because its expensive, unnecessary and impractical when you already have populations of wild animals in the wild. animals populations that are preserved will repopulate new areas naturally, and even if thats not possible translocation of wild, experienced animals is far superior an option than introduction of zoo bred animals. protection in the wild is our main priority as conservationists and always should be.

however we also know that zoos justify their existence as banks for insurance populations. and just in case, on the odd chance that african lions are wiped out completely by disease or the results of some civil unrest etc, that further down the track when mankind has its **** together - that option of reintroduction will be available to us. we should thus strive to keep our captive populations as pure to the natural form as possible. this isn't always realistic. for example if a limited captive population represents two subspecies, its better to form a genetically healthy hybrid population than two inbred unhealthy ones. but when it is possible we should strive for that. and i see white lions as no different. the fact is there are plenty of lions in captivity and since the jury seems well and truly out on wether or not these white lions are of any conservation value whatsoever, lets keep them separate and offer them about as much a percentage of the captive lion population as they get in the wild. so probably leave them in south african zoos and parks, where the temptation to interbreed them with tawny lions by zoos who don't want to spend more money on imports, is lessened.

i'm not for the purposeful extinction of the gene, just not the proliferation of it.

 

[MRJ]

Yeah, I probably didn't phrase my question correctly, and you misunderstood my intent. Let me rephrase it: Do you really think ANY tawny lions in Australia will be re-introduced to the wild?

Probably not, but who knows? But that is not an excuse to deliberately produce an inbred population of captive lions just to promote one rare allele for aesthetic reasons.

Look I understand that zoos are always looking for a point of difference, and that white lions certainly look attractive from that perspective.

A good friend of mine, an "elder" in this industry, once said the ideal zoo exhibit from the publics and zoo managements point of view might be a large aviary filled with lutino ringneck parrots. Plenty of movement, noise and colour, but easy and cheap to keep. White lions fit into a similar category.

Although you think the GWLPT is not very reliable, you seem quite happy to quote them.

I'm always happy to use peoples words against them if it suits my purpose.

I used the words "gene" and "in this population". The gene - not the white animals - does not appear to be extremely rare (just uncommon) in this population. The phenotype will obviously be much rarer than the gene.

What about rare alleles on the same autosome as the white allele? Is there any linkage between the white allele and other rare alleles. Get rid of the autosome with the white allele and you get rid of every other allele on that autosome. Is there an allele that can combat feline AIDS? If so then it is a mutant allele, the same as the white allele. Why preserve one and get rid of the other?

And I never said I wanted white coats - I said the I think the gene (more correctly, the allele) should be preserved. If that needs tawny animals to carry it, so be it, I don't care.

Well I can almost agree with all of that. Except of course nobody is talking about "getting rid" of any allele. On the contrary the objective of good captive population management should be to maximise genetic diversity.

But why your concern for this particular allele against all the thousands of other rare alleles in the lion genome? Is it because it is easy to understand what it does?

What I am against is the idea of white lions being mutants or defects and systematically eliminating the allele from the genome through selective breeding (or non-breeding).

And what I am against is the deliberate creation of an inbred population using the excuse of the preservation of a rare recessive allele.

Speculative? Yes, but then all theories are speculative.

Well I guess that depends on how you are talking. If you are using the language of science, then a theory is the best available explanation of what is happening in the natural world, and is supported by all available facts. As in the Theory of Evolution. Your proposal is just speculation.

But what I said certainly fits in with what we know about genetics and evolution.

'Fraid not. For a start for white lions to be anything more than an occasional oddity would require normal lions to pretty well disappear of the face of the earth. That is just a function of the recessive nature of the while allele. If you like I'm happy to draw up the genetic tables for you.

And again you missed my point - I was talking about animals in the wild. White Lions are targets for Homo sapiens, either to shoot for sport, or to capture for zoos or canned hunts. Which is why no whites have been seen since 1994 - they all been removed from the environment. The heterozygous parents that produced them would most likely be dead now, and with the white animals gone the white allele frequency would be much lower in the gene pool now. But with luck, some whites will turn up again in the near future.

You will be pleased to hear that there would still be plenty of hetrozygous lions still out there, so white lions will continue to appear from time to time, their appearance about as relevant from an evolutionary point of view as any other abnormal colour variation in any other animal.

 

[Jarkari]

I didnt word that correct, it was more of a general statement, not a direct go at you.

If white lions are what a facility uses to get the message across about Lion conservation, a matter we should all be aware of as most people take lions for granted!
And if they want them to have seomthing nice/different to look at well thats all good too!
No one seems to care when a facility has a White Tammar Wallaby for something different.

Not only Lion Conservation. Having something like white lions will draw people to the park that may be postponing them. especially in a state where there aren't any. People will travel from all over Tasmania to see these animals.

\Once they are through the gates that is when you can fill their heads with all the conservation messages you dersire.

You can say what you want but when it comes down to it, there is no point in housing animals of any type unless you can get people through the gate to pay the bills and teach. The best way to Educate people is by giving them an exciting and unique experience. No matter what you think of a species.

 

[MRJ]

Not only Lion Conservation. Having something like white lions will draw people to the park that may be postponing them. especially in a state where there aren't any. People will travel from all over Tasmania to see these animals.

\Once they are through the gates that is when you can fill their heads with all the conservation messages you dersire.

You can say what you want but when it comes down to it, there is no point in housing animals of any type unless you can get people through the gate to pay the bills and teach. The best way to Educate people is by giving them an exciting and unique experience. No matter what you think of a species.

And normal lions wouldn't have been as big a drawcard for ZooDoo? And if the answer is "no" then the question is why not, and what sort of message are we sending out that they aren't.

 

[phoenix]

....People will travel from all over Tasmania to see these animals..

people only ooogle at white lions because zoos make a big deal out of them. i've been in national parks in asia before and seen elephants and orangutans and all sorts of wildlife with my best mate. i have then become arguably more fascinated by some giant flying squirrels that i have spotted. i tell my best friend, who like most people is not really an animal buff, that these are hard to spot and instantly he becomes ecstatic. now he hadn't seen wild elephants before that trip, i had, but he hadn't. and we had passed a plethora of different squirrel species on our journey.

but he was just as excited as me about the flying squirrels. why? because i was.

there is nothing special or rare about white lions. they are very common in captivity. but zoos get excited about them, and that excitement builds more excitement and suddenly everyone is excited.

if a zoo acted as if its leopards or pumas or tawny lions for that matter, were special - then people would come to see them.

surely tasmanias ONLY lions is about as big a drawcard as tasmania's ONLY white lions.

so the pulling power of white lions argument never seems to gel so well with me. if a zoo can misleadingly convince the public that white lions are some kind of rare species deserving of protection, then they can convince them that japanese macaques are just as special.

its not hard.

 

[jay]

Question, why did ZooDoo get white lions? I don't know butmy theory might be. Two of the lions are going to another zoo (Mogo?). ZooDoo is a small place - did they get financial support to bring in the white lions from the other zoo. You help bring them in and you get to keeo two for yourselves. Because I'm sure it would have been easier for ZooDoo to get tawnies, perhaps excess males that might be bred by Werribee.

 

[Steve Robinson]

Because I'm sure it would have been easier for ZooDoo to get tawnies, perhaps excess males that might be bred by Werribee.

Sorry jay but non-ARAZPA zoos get NOTHING worthwhile out of ARAZPA zoos.

Even if a transfer would be beneficial to the animal in question. See my previous post about a spider monkey.

ZooDoo already had tawnies that were transferred out to allow the whites to be quarantined there.

 

[Steve Robinson]

And normal lions wouldn't have been as big a drawcard for ZooDoo? And if the answer is "no" then the question is why not, and what sort of message are we sending out that they aren't.

Maybe we're responding rather than "sending".

Some of us have to balance the books.

 

[MRJ]

Maybe we're responding rather than "sending".

Some of us have to balance the books.

We all have to do that. And as I said above, I can understand the reasons some may go down that track. Disappointed, yes. But as Gough Whitlam famously said "Only the impotent are truly pure", so I guess it is always a question of how far, how much for us all.

 

[phoenix]

well, i'd say that about wraps it up. we've all put forth our best arguments.

either way, for or against - in a few short years white lions have gone from being absent from australia to common - more common than most exotic species in fact. it looks like white lions are here to stay.

i hope they carry the amazing conservation message that those in favour of them say they do.

 

[Hix]

there is nothing special or rare about white lions. they are very common in captivity.

How many are there worldwide?

And how many in Australia?



Hix

 

[phoenix]

i don't know exactly hix. but suffice to say that since they are kept in zoos in at least the following countries, and that some of these countries have more than one zoo housing them, they hardly classify are rare by zoo standards...

france,
germany,
the netherlands,
serbia,
slovakia,
canada,
the US,
the UK,
china,
south africa,
new zealand,
australia,
argentina

 

[Jarkari]

i don't know exactly hix. but suffice to say that since they are kept in zoos in at least the following countries, and that some of these countries have more than one zoo housing them, they hardly classify are rare by zoo standards...

france,
germany,
the netherlands,
serbia,
slovakia,
canada,
the US,
the UK,
china,
south africa,
new zealand,
australia,
argentina

There are between 200 and 300 white lions in Captivity. Not Rare? there are 270 Sumatran Tigers in zoos worldwide. They are very rare.

Sumatran tigers are a big draw card also but if ARAZPA will give two Sumatran tigers to a zoo with no experience with big cats but wouldn't even consider sending them to zoos that have loads of big cat experience and facilities that are more than adequate.

At anyone time in Australia there can be atleast 5 upto 15 Sumatran Tigers being kept off display (obviously being rotated) but still this is an animal that comes with a great education message, deforestation, poaching, palm oil etc. If our private zoos want drawcard species why not a white lion. Arguing that a private non- ARAZPA zoo can't have white lions is exactly like someone telling me what kind of dog I can and can't keep.

I would have a different opinion if this was an ARAZPA Zoo but hey, as Steve said, some people have to balance the books.

 

[Jarkari]

How many are there worldwide?

And how many in Australia?



Hix

I believe there are 19 or 20 in Australia at three institutions. given the size of Australia and the location of the current and furture homes of the lions they will remain a major attraction.

 

[CGSwans]

Re: non-ARAZPA zoos getting animals from member zoos, what was involved with Tasmania Zoo getting Melbourne's lion-tailed macaques and De Brazza's monkeys? Are Tasmania Zoo currently seeking membership?

On the white lion import. Zoodoo can do what they want. They're not seeking to take part in any managed program for lions... So if the owner wants white lions then that's his prerogative. Surely the zoos thatshould be receiving criticism for holding non-ASMP lions are Mogo and NZA. But again, both zoos do provide spaces for tawny lions in the ASMP, so as far as collection planning ethics goes, I don't see it as any different to Dubbo maintaining black and Indian rhinos along with the whites.

Do we actually know where the second Zoodoo pair will be going?