ZooChat Cup Group D2: Plzen vs San Diego

[Coelacanth18]

An interesting comparison that has so far been totally absent from the competition!

In some ways it's a similar comparison to the point I tried to make in the Chester/Taronga match with regards to the former collection having to work more, and choose, to have its strengths with regards to Islands.

Perhaps, although personally I think extrapolating a topic as general as admission price to an Asian-specific comparison is a much bigger stretch than your comparison, TLD. I brought it up partially to show what mechanism allows San Diego to spend so much on conservation and research (charging exorbitant ticket prices) and partially because of my own personal annoyance at said exorbitant prices

 

[TeaLovingDave]

personally I think extrapolating a topic as general as admission price to an Asian-specific comparison is a much bigger stretch than your comparison, TLD.

Not really; a collection with a much smaller budget does have to pick and choose where to develop and cultivate strengths more than one with a vast amount of cashflow does.

 

[birdsandbats]

@Haasje I would be interested to know why you voted 3-0 for San Diego?

 

[ThylacineAlive]

@Haasje I would be interested to know why you voted 3-0 for San Diego?

I asked them that earlier on.

Personally I'd say 3-0 is a bit extreme given the arguments made on both sides but to each their own.

~Thylo

 

[TZDugong]

In some ways it's a similar comparison to the point I tried to make in the Chester/Taronga match with regards to the former collection having to work more, and choose, to have its strengths with regards to Islands.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this comparison. Taronga had the geographic advantage of being situated in Australia, while Chester is quite far away from where most Island species are. In this case San Diego isn't particularly close to Asia, while Plzen is closer toAsia, which gives them the geographic advantage.

Of course San Diego has much more money, but Plzen has a very comprehensive collection, and I believe more Asian species than San Diego.

I'd also argue that San Diego has had to work harder to design some of their enclosures, while in a lot of cases Plzen's exhibits seem to be putting a fence around natural woodland (not saying this is bad, but it's easier to do).

 

[TZDugong]

Are you aware of Elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus? Without exaggeration, this virus could single-handedly wipe out the entire species if it infects all the wild populations considering it has a near 100% mortality rate in elephant calves in captivity. As it stands, less than a dozen calves across the US and Europe have ever been able to be saved once the disease takes over since its identification in the mid-90s. The disease spread from African elephants to Asian Elephants thanks to zoos continuing to mix their herds/hold them in close proximity. This is why it's pretty awful to me that San Diego insists on continuing to house elephants in this manner.

If EEHV is already in both African and Asian Elephants, then why would it be a problem to hold them together? Obviously they should never have been put together in the first place, but now that the damage is done, what difference would it make to have Asians and Africans together. If all-African herds and all-Asian herds both can have EEHV, then surely there's no problem mixing the two?

 

[amur leopard]

If EEHV is already in both African and Asian Elephants, then why would it be a problem to hold them together? Obviously they should never have been put together in the first place, but now that the damage is done, what difference would it make to have Asians and Africans together. If all-African herds and all-Asian herds both can have EEHV, then surely there's no problem mixing the two?

Realistically, if EEHV is found in the same concentrations are African and Asian elephants which seems to be the case, this mix gives exactly the same chance of getting the virus as 4 Asian or 4 African elephants, and even more if the herd is increased in number.

 

[TZDugong]

Realistically, if EEHV is found in the same concentrations are African and Asian elephants which seems to be the case, this mix gives exactly the same chance of getting the virus as 4 Asian or 4 African elephants, and even more if the herd is increased in number.

That's what I was thinking about as well.

 

[Great Argus]

If EEHV is already in both African and Asian Elephants, then why would it be a problem to hold them together? Obviously they should never have been put together in the first place, but now that the damage is done, what difference would it make to have Asians and Africans together. If all-African herds and all-Asian herds both can have EEHV, then surely there's no problem mixing the two?

The main problem stems from Africans being the transfer to Asians, which are far more susceptible. The loss of numerous Asian calves is the main difficulty at present. This is why the two are now recommended to be kept separate. Given that San Diego Zoo's are all female and past their prime so thus not going to be moving anywhere or bred, I think it's becoming a bit overblown here.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Realistically, if EEHV is found in the same concentrations are African and Asian elephants which seems to be the case, this mix gives exactly the same chance of getting the virus as 4 Asian or 4 African elephants, and even more if the herd is increased in number.

That's what I was thinking about as well.

Firstly, there are multiple strains and the key factor that has allowed the ultra-lethal one to arise is the exposure of multiple species and strains together; this is the same principle which allows viruses such as influenza to manifest much more severe strains on occasion, such as when a strain of avian flu entered human circulation and combined with a swine flu strain already circulating in the 1910s and produced the pandemic strain of 1918. Therefore biosecurity precautions are still important even though EEHV is already a problem, because further strain recombination could occur.

Secondly, the same principle applies to other pathogens which are currently *not* an issue; given the effect EEHV has had, we don't want to risk something else emerging through the same pathway.

Or to put it another way using a similar example; just because chytrid is already circulating in amphibian populations, it doesn't mean there's no point upholding biosecurity.