I accept this, but white tigers and white lions can attract visitors who find them more interesting than 'normal-coloured' big cats. Shouldn't zoos be doing more to interest visitors in animals they know nothing about? There have been several nature programmes that show unusual species and zoos should be doing more to conserve a greater variety of species than they do at present.
I agree that zoos need to be doing more to help lesser known endangered species, 100%, but they cannot do that if people are not visiting the zoo, which many would not do if there wasn't something like a popular big cat to attract them.
This is a good thing, but once again relies on the optimistic idea that the human population is going to fall and that natural habitats are no longer going to be destroyed, but will expand. Neither scenario seems possible and captive big cats are very unlikely to be part of any reintroduction programme, so what is the point of having hundreds of individuals of some subspecies, when many critically endangered species have no captive breeding programme and could become extinct soon?
The point is so that the taxa does not go Extinct... Why is it any less ok for the Bay Cat, a species with no captive population atm, to go Extinct than any one of the tiger subspecies? They're still an endangered species in need of protection. The fact of the matter is that zoos can't keep every endangered species, and big cats are highly endangered, easier to keep compared to many other species, and extremely popular and as such there are many reasons zoos will want to prioritize keeping them. And if they're going to keep them, why not focus on an evolutionarily distinct subgroup?
Why are you under the impression that big cats cannot be reintroduced into the wild? While there aren't many examples of this, it has happened before and there's nothing stopping this from happening again. Large predators are hard to reintroduced, but not impossible.
This is probably true at present, but if zoos cooperated in breeding smaller species rather than larger species, the situation could be rectified.
Zoos
ARE breeding smaller species, many in large numbers. The European Wildcat is a very common zoo animal in Europe and is apart of a huge international breeding program, but it's still not more popular than a big cat. You've already agreed, big cats inherently inspire the public more than smaller species. This is the way it is, it may change in the future but the future is not now, zoos need to bring in visitors now. Zoos also have very little control over what animals the public is interested in most. Species like Meerkats are only common and popular because of pop culture.
You're also still ignoring my point that many smaller and more endangered cats are much more difficult to keep and breed than big cats, and as such lack of interest in keeping them is often not the cause of their small populations.
I was surprised about the number of ZTL zoos with Eurasian lynxes, wild cats and servals, but the number of zoos containing tigers and lions is far higher. How much work has been done to cooperate with zoos that keep small cats
Lots, go read up on SSPs, TAGs, and the various AZA and EAZA small carnivore programs.
This is a positive comment. Do you know what the problems are? I suspect that some captive small cats are taken directly from the wild via dubious practices.
No, lack of available animals not obtained through dubious practices seems to be the main issue. Also these animals needs permits to be exported and there are many, many, many legal hoops to jump through, which often lead to dead ends.
Please note that I included all ZTL zoos containing cat species or subspecies. I did not mention whether their conservation status, nor did I question why ZTL included some species as generic,while they listed subspecies of others.
Perhaps we need to be honest why many zoos keep a small number of the same species, while other species are rarely if ever kept. Why are there so many meerkats, while some other mongoose species are not kept? This is not a conservation issue, especially if a zoo has several meerkat enclosure, but decides to stop keeping other species.
As regards big cats, if they are not part of a reintroduction programme,doesit really matter if they are generic or belong to pure subspecies? I doubt if the average zoovisitor would be bothered.
Well I included them because they matter towards your overall point. You're contradicting yourself heavily by complaining that zoos are not keeping highly endangered species, then using very "unendangered" species with smaller captive populations than more endangered species as examples. Your questions have been answered in-depth multiple times now, but you insist on ignoring them in favor of re-asking the same questions. I agree that Meerkats are over-represented and I'd prefer other, more endangered mongoose species be kept. The fact is, though, that Meerkats are another species that get visitors through the gates.
I really don't understand your point here, you're complaining that zoos aren't focusing on more obscure endangered taxa but then you're questioning why bother keeping obscure highly endangered subspecies over the more common varieties. It doesn't matter if the average zoo-goer is bothered, the zoos are and this plays right into how these big cats are important for conservation.
Sorry, Thylo. This is an assumption on your part. I have been to zoos where people like looking for clownfish, due to the Nemo films. There has been an increased interest in narwhals, due to the unicorn connection. It is up to zoos to interest visitors in species that can be just as interesting as well known species. Some books and TV programmes for children show a range of interesting species and perhaps it is time for zoo to show some initiative. I wonder how many visitors would prefer to see some active corsac foxes,rather than a dozy big cat. If so, they should learn far more about animals.
No, it's really not. This is the reason the zoo keeps white tigers.
I bet you have seen lots of people highly interested in lesser known animals (not that clownfish or Narwhals are lesser known animals) when at the zoo, I have, too. When I visited the Cincinnati Zoo in 2013, I was very pleased to see people being highly engaged in the activities of their Banded Civet, Garnett's Galago, and various gibbon species. These examples, though, are from
after the visitor is inside the zoo. Once inside the zoo, the average zoo-goer will be fascinated by hundreds of species they've never heard of before, but that is not why they visited. Most visitors go to see great apes, elephants, bears, hippos, rhinos, giraffes, zebra, monkeys, seals/sea lions, parrots, crocodiles, and yes, big cats. These are the animals they complain about not being present when they visit a zoo without them, these are the animals they came to see, and these are the animals that will get the most visitors paying admission. It's a frustrating truth, and I also wish things were different, but the facts are what the facts are.
@Echobeast brings up the excellent example of umbrella species. It's really a genius tactic and one which the WCS (and undoubtedly others) have mastered. A great example from a zoo I know best is Bronx's Congo Gorilla Forest. The zoo has a $6 extra admission fee to enter the exhibit, which is also home to species like Okapi, Red River Hog, various smaller primates, various birds, and many herps, fishes, and inverts. The larger 90% of zoo-goers would never pay an extra admission fee to see these species, but they will for gorillas and then they're given to opportunity to learn about and be intrigued by all of the other species they'll see as well. At the end of the exhibit there is then a series of donation booths set-up, not just for gorillas, but for some of the other species as well. The money from those as well as the extra admission fee all goes towards conserving rainforests in Central Africa and all of the animals living in them. The gorilla is the face of this program, but hundreds or even thousands of other species may benefit from this. The zoo, and zoos in general, have similar programs incorporating elephants, sharks, bears, bison, and of course big cats. Bronx is also a good example here because it is odd in the fact that they exhibit no non-
Panthera felids (though they do have Cheetah and I think Clouded Leopard bts, and their other zoos keep other species). Bronx and the WCS will be doing more for endangered small felids in the wild than any other zoo in the US, but your arguments suggest that since they do not exhibit any to the public, these efforts lose their weight and the larger felids they exhibit- which they will also be doing more for in the wild than most zoos- are wasting valuable exhibit space.
And as for your Black-Footed Cat example, this species has a program within US zoos. It has been attempted to be kept in European zoos as well, but the population has never been successful.
~Thylo
!
