I believe you mean "uncharismatic", not "uncharacteristic".
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
While mostly true, this really only works when the threats are related to the habitat itself (i.e. deforestation, fragmentation, climate, etc.) While these are all real threats, it is unfortunate when an outsized amount of effort goes into these flagship species, and there are other threats that aren't habitat related get ignored. For instance, if Jaguars and Baird's Tapirs were the flagship species for Central America, and most effort went into conserving habitat, etc., that doesn't bode well for many of the Amphibian species- for which the top threat is fungal diseases. So it's really a double-edged sword, where it truly depends whether or not this flagship approach will work or not. However, as a general rule of thumb, I prefer when groups are working to conserve ecosystems or communities than working to conserve specific species, as working to conserve the broader ecosystem or community is the best way to ensure the efforts go where they are needed to keep the whole fragile web in tact.
Preserving habitat is always a good thing. For species like the giant panda, it doesn't just mean keeping the land - water pollution, air pollution, etc are better controlled, too. There will always be species and types of animals that are left out of specific protections, but giving them a place to live is vital.
Bengal Tiger
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't call any species "useless" in an ecosystem. All living creatures have their parts to play in their habitats.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
As @TinoPup indicated, Pandas require large home ranges extending through different altitudes in their mountainous environment. In order to "save pandas" we must protect those ranges and in so doing we protect thousands of other plant and animal species. The same may be said for tigers, jaguars and a whole host of other charismatic species. The panda's attractiveness to humans is all that is saving those thousands of species.
Giant Panda Conservation Also Helps Other Unique Species in China
Be kind and have an open mind
Last edited:
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
With the exception of captive breeding programs, how does one conserve specific species other than conserving ecosystems/habitats?
It's more so just a different in mindset. If your goal is protecting a certain species, the goals and projects that'd be pursued would be specifically geared towards that species, and any help to other species would be accidental. Conserving ecosystems and habitats would be looking at it at the level of the entire ecosystem, and seeing what can be done at this level, rather than narrow in on specific species. Sometimes, what's best for an ecosystem may be specific to certain species (i.e. removing fungi that are deadly to frogs), but by determining this at the ecosystem level, it ensures resources are spent appropriately- on what has the greatest chance at saving the entire ecosystem, rather than whatever has the greatest chance at saving a certain species.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
I cannot think of any program that focuses on a specific species on the order of a Giant Panda or jaguar that does not prioritize preserving habitat.
IMO the programs most like what you oppose are those aimed at isolated amphibians or fish.
Can you cite an example of the program you are concerned about?
Or is your point that in protecting the range of Giant Pandas no one is out looking for how some amphibian can get extra attention?
Of course biologists flock to these protected zones to study everything they can so conservation strategies for the species found therein are more likely to be created than if the habitat had not been protected.
That's more so the point. Rather than "protecting the range of Giant Pandas", conservation biologists should be "protecting the temperature forests of China", and all of the biodiversity within. While giant pandas could be used as a "poster child" for this project, the focus should not be on the giant pandas, but on the ecosystem itself. Sometimes, that may mean the best course of action is preserving the actual land, or the plant life, but sometimes it may mean targeting a specific species within. But when determining the best course of action, conservation biologists should take an approach of seeing the big picture first, rather than look at the small picture or individual species first.
I think you may be conflating the message presented by nature conservation groups with the opinions and views of the actual conservationists themselves. Most people I know involved in conservation are keenly aware of the big picture. They understand the importance of all layers of the ecosystem, even if their organisations only like to show off the charismatic or popular species in their press releases and on social media.
Trying to get people invested in, say, dry siliceous grasslands is a lost battle. Getting them invested in European bison is a lot easier. But in my experience, the conservationist in the field is very much aware he is mostly conserving the grassland ecosystem, using the bison partly as a tool to do so.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
Hello, longtime lurker. Here's my hot takes:
1. Acquisitions from the wild are not a bad thing if done legally and sustainably. Wild animals come from the wild.
2. "Roadside zoo" is as definable as the word "sanctuary". The goalposts on these change quite often.
3. AZA accrediration is overrated. It's not cheap or free either; some facilities just can't afford it.
4. Zoos turning their backs on circuses was counterintuitive. Lots of zoos used elephant hooks prior to local bans on them, and some zoos lost their elephants because of that.
In general, the pandering to animal rights activists has to stop. "Animal rights" and "animal welfare" are not interchangeable terms. How long before you can't keep carnivores in zoos because livestock has to be raised and slaughtered?
1. Acquisitions from the wild are not a bad thing if done legally and sustainably. Wild animals come from the wild.
2. "Roadside zoo" is as definable as the word "sanctuary". The goalposts on these change quite often.
3. AZA accrediration is overrated. It's not cheap or free either; some facilities just can't afford it.
4. Zoos turning their backs on circuses was counterintuitive. Lots of zoos used elephant hooks prior to local bans on them, and some zoos lost their elephants because of that.
In general, the pandering to animal rights activists has to stop. "Animal rights" and "animal welfare" are not interchangeable terms. How long before you can't keep carnivores in zoos because livestock has to be raised and slaughtered?
I agree with all of these.
I think it is worth chiming in to say that I don't think the second and third points are as unpopular as you may believe. The AZA is not really popular around here at all, given it is widely associated with the phasing out of species and the increased bows to the activists you mention, and there have been multiple discussions lately about how favoritism towards the AZA is unfair to private facilities. Even many users who work in the field as zoo professionals seem to hold no love for the AZA currently.
EDIT: I don't meant to say that the AZA is not supported here, just that it is not beloved and accreditation does not mean as much as it once did.
Last edited:
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
Why 100% support? I'm not 100% anti AZA.
Worth remembering the AZA can only make suggestions in terms of phase in and phase out - the actual decisions are made by the zoos themselves. The problem is too many curators have taken the SSPs as what to go by, something I've heard the AZA is now trying to remedy. The SSPs are to ensure species that are of particular importance/well established are maintained well, not as the standard banner that all zoos should focus on.
A very good point that I appreciate you bringing up, since I always assume some lurkers reading these threads haven't read all of them and in this thread, not every post. I chose the word 'associated' to reflect these facts - casual zoochatters will associate the AZA with phase-outs even in cases where they are not the driving cause of it. For example I think it has been brought up by a zoo professional that zoos have wanted to phase out lion-tailed macaques due to concerns with viruses, but the AZA is sometimes assumed to be pushing that when they are actually responding to what zoos are telling them.
La Cucaracha
Well-Known Member
Not only have I in fact read every post in this thread, I said not a word about phase outs. I said accreditation costs money that not every facility is large enough to afford to apply for.
Clearly this is a hot take indeed.
I have other gripes with the AZA; it is better than ZAA in my humble opinion (though some facilities even have both!).
How is that a "hot take"?