Zoos: How Many Species Should There Be?

[Coelacanth18]

The increasing lack of species diversity in zoo collections is talked about often on this site. While it may not be all regions and taxonomic groups experiencing this, some of both certainly are. I think much of this has to do with the shift from an import-driven, antiquated version of displaying animals to a more breeding-focused, welfare and conservation-oriented approach. There are likely other reasons for declining diversity besides this, but regardless I'm curious what people think. Do people dislike it because it conflicts with their personal enjoyment of zoos, or do they dislike it because they think it's unnecessary or counterproductive? Or maybe a lot of you have no issue with it, and think it's a positive trend?

I'm especially curious about how you all see this within taxonomic groups. Major zoos will want to have mammals, birds, and herps; they will want to have carnivores, primates, and ungulates; they may want to have lemurs, monkeys, and apes. But as a region, how many small African cats should zoos on a continent exhibit? How many tropical pitvipers? How many owls?

Example: a regional zoo organization wants to highlight vultures in their collections, but there are more species in the zoos than can be managed long-term. How many vultures do zoos continue with?

- One species, to represent the whole family?
- One species from each continent/biome, to represent some diversity?
- As many species as possible, to represent maximum diversity?
- As many species as can confidently be managed long-term, to hit a happy medium?
- Whatever species happen to already be doing well in the region's zoos?

I'm open to any interpretations of this topic, and also any disagreements with something fundamental I've said above. More than anything I'm just curious on what people's thoughts are how many kinds of each animal should be in zoos, including but hopefully beyond their own personal preferences.

 

[tigris115]

I'd go by what species do the best in zoos and that need the most conservation help

Especially with something like Indian vultures.

 

[Dassie rat]

I'd go for differentiating between in-situ and ex-situ conservation. Big species that do not feature in reintroduction programmes should be conserved in the wild. Smaller species that can be reintroduced into the wild should be kept in zoos. There should also be a limit on how many zoos keep the same species, so that more species can be conserved. According to ZTL. 621 ZTL collections keep meerkats, a species of least concern. Surely this number could be reduced considerably.

 

[Great Argus]

According to ZTL. 621 ZTL collections keep meerkats, a species of least concern. Surely this number could be reduced considerably.

This sits as an example of popularity driving holdings - which is understandable because you need species people want to see. However I would like to see more of those spaces allocated to Banded, Dwarf, and Yellow at least.

But anyway, to Coelcanth's posed question. I find myself sitting about in the middle - I very much like diversity, but also understand and support the need for sustaining populations. Diversity keeps zoos interesting; San Diego, Woodland Park, Zoo Tampa, and Bronx are all large AZA zoos, but with quite a lot of difference in their collections. If every zoo is largely the same species that you can see at any other zoo in the country - why bother visiting on trips, you can see them all back home. From a sustainability standpoint focusing on a "few" species makes sense, but on the other hand nobody is unique any more. In a sense the public is interested in diversity, as notable rare species draw attention. Does Georgia Aquarium have any claim to fame other than Whale Sharks and Manta Rays? That's all most people know Georgia for. National and Atlanta are well known - but how much for anything besides expensive bamboo-guzzling monochromatic bears? SeaWorld hits the map because of Orcas. Monterey Bay's stints with Great Whites were highly publicized. Most people expect to see a good number of ABC's at the average zoo. New animals and births are interesting. I've noticed frequently that people (especially kids) are intrigued by an animal they don't immediately recognize, even if they end up labeling it incorrectly in the long run.
However, sustaining populations successfully requires that a good deal of the same species is available, and so obviously many of the species doing well are commonly held. This is the downfall of many struggling or unpopular species, which become phased out. This is of course usually logical as for mammals in particular imports can be tough to nigh-impossible, but nonetheless it is sad to see. However some species that could have been salvaged get thrown aside - looking at deer especially here. Space is an issue though, and it nobody wants it then well, it's out. Sustainability takes commitment and coordination, which often changes all too easy. Too often someone new comes in and ix-nays half the projects. Or leadership changes and all kinds of things change up. (Significant look at SDZSP) Though in several cases private keepers are succeeding quite well even though the AZA shoves the species aside. Quite a few birds and herps fall into this category.
I do find it interesting however that if a species becomes on the verge of extinction, suddenly zoos are all over it even if few to no individuals of the species were previously in captivity. California Condor, Guam Rail, Guam Kingfisher, Hawaiian Crow, Pere David's Deer, Scimitar-horned and Arabian Oryxes, Partula snails, all of which have been saved - and frequently by one or two facilities originally but then they often become popular. Look at the California Condor's slow but steady spread across West Coast places. Scimitar-horned Oryx still listed as EXW but it's everywhere in and out of the AZA. Granted these are examples are mainly ones of a different era. Nowadays hauling all of the remaining members of a species into captivity is a different ball game.

I'm especially curious about how you all see this within taxonomic groups. Major zoos will want to have mammals, birds, and herps; they will want to have carnivores, primates, and ungulates; they may want to have lemurs, monkeys, and apes. But as a region, how many small African cats should zoos on a continent exhibit? How many tropical pitvipers? How many owls?

Personally I say as many can be managed successfully on grounds of diversity. However several factors confound this. AZA, the non-AZA, and private keepers are three very different situations. There generally appears to be rather little decent interest by the former in working with the latter two. In some cases this is understandable, as there's certainly no shortage of poor roadside zoos out there. However there's also some decent ones that could become pretty good with a boost. A good deal of experienced private keepers seem to swing off from AZA places and make private collections of their own, which often seem to be rather diverse and more successful than breeding than the AZA facilities. In herps especially the private sector is advancing breeding and husbandry far more than most AZA - too many big name places just stick a snake or lizard in a box and that's it. Often rather common ones too. But if you visit a private place there's often unusual stuff at every turn. Now obviously we cannot maintain everything in zoos, there are space limitations, especially when it comes to sustainability. But keeping some diversity keeps things fresh and interesting. However it's also possible to overdo diversity by being nearly completely unsustainable in what you keep (significant look at DWA) there needs to be a middle ground. Spread species out between zoos, even if the managed species number shrinks. Keep some uniqueness to pique people's curiosity.
One last thing re how many species per group - it irks me how many spaces are given to LC native species here. I know most of them are rescues and I have no issues with that, but they take up so much space and other species get shoved out. Some bird numbers for example (dating to last full update, not including additions since; for AZA and non-AZA combined):

Turkey Vulture - 79 facilities
Red-tailed Hawk - 82 facilities
Bald Eagle - 127 facilities
Wood Duck - 44+ facilities
American Ruddy Duck - 43+ facilities
Barn Owl - 57-58 facilities
Eastern Screech-Owl - 42-43 facilities
Great Horned Owl - 75-76 facilities
Burrowing Owl - 42 facilities
Barred Owl - 64-65 facilities
American White Pelican - 40 facilities

Also the Grizzly, American Black Bear, Raccoon, Bobcat, and Mountain Lion.

Most of those do have conservation merit - but are all LC species and several have increasing population. Spaces could be used for similar species that are threatened or endangered. Mind I'm not saying ditch them entirely - but most of those species are not even bred in zoos because there's no reason too. Rescued natives need homes too, but I do wish they didn't take quite so many spaces. Slight pet peeve of mine.

 

[Batto]

There should also be a limit on how many zoos keep the same species, so that more species can be conserved. According to ZTL. 621 ZTL collections keep meerkats, a species of least concern. Surely this number could be reduced considerably.

I can imagine the animated reactions of zoos barred from keeping meerkats and other over-represented popular species: "How come that neighbouring zoo X is allowed to keep them and we're not?!!? That's not fair and bad for business!!! If we can't have them, we'll leave the zoo organization!" etc.

 

[birdsandbats]

I was going to do a much longer post here, but Great Argus took most of the words right out of my mouth. I understand sustaining a population is better for conservation, but it really is sad to see so many species going.

I personally love seeing rescue native species though - most people know nothing about their local wildlife, and I love to see visitors engage with an animal and then realize it's found right in their area. I think this is probably some of the most important education that zoos do.

As for diversity in a single group, I've found myself conflicted, and I'm not really sure why. I've made fun of DAK for having all three zebra species, which I always thought was unnecessary, but then I also applaud zoos like Wildwood Wildlife Park for having ridiculous numbers of waterfowl species. I'm not sure what the difference is in my head, and why I like one and not the other.

I think there is an argument to made, however, that an east fix to this problem if you are tired of just seeing the same species over and over is just to visit some private zoos.

 

[Julio C Castro]

While I don’t have much experience visiting many zoological parks as many of you, I do have an opinion on it but I want to go ahead and apologize ahead of time if I sound ignorant or don’t formulate my thoughts well

I think there it’s imperative that large zoos with massive collections should have a rich diversity of species, perhaps they have the resources to care for unique species that other zoos may not be able to just due to the sheer cost. I am fortunate enough to be a member of both San Diego parks, both being good for their own reasons. What the SDZ has that I always love is the incredible amount of species out on exhibit ranging from mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, amphibians. Yes they don’t have the strongest collection of fish but I think they cover the other groups of animals pretty well for the most part especially with birds. I’ve heard some say the that they aren’t as diverse as they once were, maybe they’re right but I do feel like they do hold a solid collection spanning across many species/subspecies.

As for their sister facility, it plays differently to the zoo and I think it’s for its own benefit after many visits. The Safari Park really lacks in reptiles, amphibians, insects, and fish out on exhibit. Do I find this detrimental or a point of contention against the Safari Park? Absolutely not. It’s meant to be a different experience and purpose from their world famous sibling. It is due to the Safari Park that I found my love/appreciation for ungulates, seeing a diverse array of species mixed with one another to simulate their native range. However, the recent change in management have made some, including myself, nervous and/or disappointed with their choices regarding what species they want to work with.

I do often wish that zoos would focus on keeping more endangered species compared to other species that are considered Least Concern or Near Threatened. But I do see that would be an impossibility as many aviaries, reptile/invertebrate houses could be impacted as some of those species are readily available and also species guests would want to see. And other issues being sustainability of any endangered species, their sensitivity to guests or being exhibited that may affect them, politics, importation requirements, etc. One of my favorite aviaries, Woodland Aviary at SDZ, is filled with birds considered Least Concern but is always a spot I want to be at to see the mingling between species and photographic opportunities.

I don’t think there is a number any zoo should constraint themselves to in order to have a solid collection. I do understand that having more species on display could mean more guests being able to spend time at their facility and show off some of their conservation programs they work with BTS. I feel that zoos whom have the means and resources to care for their wide array of species should do so. I may sound cliched in saying this but I do truly enjoy seeing charismatic ABC animals as much as the rare or unique animals my home zoos have. I remember how excited I was to extensively photograph the West African Lungfish at the Basecamp just as much as I did when I later when to see Ernest the African Lion. It brings me joy to see an animal I may not be familiar with, take photos of them, go back home to learn about it more in depth about them.

I know the AZA has come under scrutiny by some of us on here, mostly due to the standardization of species they want to work with in their accredited facilities. I do want to see a wider array of species at any given facility while keeping in mind that they may have some overlap as what animals are kept. While many of the AZA accredited facilities are non-profit, that doesn’t mean they may not run them as a business. And for many zoos, that means having species that don’t have a potential for reintroduction to their native rangers for the foreseeable future such as big cats, elephants, primates, etc. By having such animals, they can potentially draw in funds for species bred for conservation purposes or reintroduction programs. I am very proud when I hear of the BTS work being done with species I’ve never seen at the facility such as Mountain Yellow Legged Frogs at the LA Zoo or the Kiwi at the SDZ Safari Parks. Hopefully with such work being done we come closer to understanding how certain species in the wild can benefit due to the work being done with captive populations.

Perhaps it’s the idealist in many of us that we can see a plethora of species, I do think many of us agree that animal welfare being amongst one of the main priorities when visiting any facility or working at one. I’m sorry if I rambled on too much, I just have been having trouble sleeping these past couple days and I wanted to add to the dialogue with my thoughts

 

[equidae]

(Referring just to ex situ conservation here)

I don’t personally care about the reduction in diversity: seeing the animals, how their enclosures/mangement differs, and taking notes on behaviour is enough for me. I don’t go to different zoos as a way of ticking off as many species as I can. As long as species are being supported, I’m happy.

I think we’re getting to the point where some species will need to be sacrificed so there’s enough space/collections available for other species in the same taxonomic group. The species that remain ought to be the ones that do best in the local climate, breed well, and whose offspring will be candidates for release. Following on from the vulture example, you’d ideally get A. monachus in various European collections only, G. indicus in collections in that part of Asia only, etc. This would also reduce the distances animals have to travel to be released, better for their welfare and for reducing emissions. (Obviously, this concept is very idealistic, and would require more financial support and management expectations for zoos in countries with different welfare standards.)

In the end, it various immensely from taxonomic group to taxonomic group though. You’d be able to have more small African cats than vultures, because the cats have the “cute factor” and are more likely to attract visitors. You’d be able to have more fishes than cats, because you’d be able to have a higher stocking density with smaller spaces. But, if you’re going for diversity within a group, you’ll also need more experiences for visitors to highlight the differences between the species, and why they’re all important and unique. If you only offer ‘feed the tiger’ as an experience, then most of your visitors aren’t going to care about the different small cats species, making keeping them less financially sustainable, thus putting you off from keeping them all, and so on.

 

[Westcoastperson]

I think there is a stronger value in holding LC animals than people realize. Native LC animals are extremely important for education on local species. Exhibiting animals like deer, raccoons, and coyotes takes away the stigma of them being pests. A few months ago there was a debate about wether NA deer belong in captivity when Asian deer are much more valuable. Yes the AZA should have better Asian Cervid ssp but local deer species still serve as an extremely important educational tool in zoos. Non local species of least concern also have great value in zoos. Meerkats bring in guests and get kids interested in wildlife. I don’t expect a five year old to go to the zoo just to see the only Ethiopian Dwarf Mongoose in captivity. When they see it they may find it interesting but it didn’t bring them there. Animals like Fennec Foxes, zebras, giraffes, bears, meerkats, and leopards bring them there. ABC animals wether they’re least concern or not bring people into zoos and get them interested in wildlife. Once they’re interested then they can learn about rare and endangered species but they can’t do that if they never go to the zoo. LC and Endangered species can exist together in zoos. Places like the Living Desert have proven you can have meerkats and mongoose in zoos. LC species shouldn’t be excluded from zoos just because they aren’t endangered because there is more depth to animal importance than they’re ICUN classification.
Right now I don’t think the AZA is doing a terrible job with managing species and I think in the end everything is going to be ok. It is a tricky process to figure out which species need to stay in American zoos and which need to be phased out. Right now I only see a few problem areas. I mentioned earlier cervids are at a low in the AZA and I do think we could do better with more Asian cervids. But again as I mentioned earlier it’s not the fault of American cervids it’s mainly because of state regulations and disease issues. Caprids also definitely need better representation in zoos but that is once again the fault of disease partially destroying part of the Nubian Ibex population a few years ago. Both cervids and caprids need time to let disease pass and regulations disappear. In the future the AZA could do well with another Leopard species but first it has to get the Amur population expanded and stable. They need to set up an Amur leopard breeding and release program before bringing in new Leopard species. Until that happens Amur leopards should be the priority but cat in the AZA. This is the time where conservation status trumps educational value. For the big cats I think 2 subspecies or species tags is appropriate. Once the AZA figures out leopards the old Asiatic Lion program should be revitalized. I can’t speak on the state of birds, amphibians, or reptiles in the AZA but I can say fish should be fine. There is no drought of rare fish in zoos and aquariums in other nations and facilities in North America should have no problem getting rarer aquarium species. Still many aquariums focus on the same species when the global professional and private aquarium trades are vast. Some more large fish, coastal shark, and large ray species would be appreciated. Expand the Giant Sea Bass population, bring in lemon sharks or wobegongs, and mangrove rays or a small manta species. North American aquariums could be much more diverse with the species found in European, Australia, and Japan.

 

[LARTIS]

First pf all, I have to excuse myself in advance, as I am not in the best shape right now, what affects my expression style even more past my disability.
I swear I do my best and request politely to be a bit flexible. I do not mean to be rude.

This thread brought up so many questions and I am sorry if any of these are off topic

I recently planed to dtart a thread pitching a concept that would manage the distribution of species in european parks aiming for equal abilities to see certain species, recomending institutions near one another to keep different species. Like west germans zoos in the state of nrw seemed to collaborate.

There are different threads talking about the different regions decline in species kept, but from a european perspective it seemed that we have less issues now and general out look on species coming back.
Is this impression correct?

Another impression, sorry if wrong or common sense
Do the bigger non roadside institutions in north america show less often native species?

For sure do movies have a strong imprint on a broader audience, but I honestly found the parks attitude lazy.
When I was in cologne for the first time at the south america house, people coming in thru one of the entrances passed by a poster for the aquarium and seemed to be very interactive with the presented species, among these an arapaima that I concidered to be a less widely known species. I can not remember if they offered any specific information beyond the picture.

Another believe I had voiced several times before is that Parks should not keep just a couple of the species, which just meant delay negotiations for a new partner and generaly made the species appear more secure than it actualy was.

Also why are not there any ex situ breeding programmes for hawaiis honey kreepers?

There are some species in the us meant to be sorted out by aza, why are not the remaining individuals sent to europe where more specimens ans a studbook were given?

Lc specues can also bw helpfull learning husbandry of closely relate species.

I think the zoo world needs to sort things out and both the inner workings as well as global politics are a bit complex. Or not and it is just me on a sugar low.

 

[SusScrofa]

I'm going to poke the hornets nest just for the sake of discussion when I say this:
Major city zoos should not bother with typical native animal exhibits. Instead they should all allocate their limited space to exotics. The exception to this is nationally endangered natives that are part of a breeding program the zoo works with (black-footed ferret, california condor for US zoos as an example).
Smaller zoos and nature centers/refuges can be used to fill that niche.
Mind you, I quite enjoy native species collections. But if theoretically my hometown Zoo Miami was planning on closing down Mission Everglades in favor of a large African rainforest complex that will feature an improved habitat for their Gorillas and a good collection of small African animals like Old World Monkeys (something the zoo is sorely lacking in), I'd honestly be all for it. So many other places down here already work with alligators and Florida Panthers as it is.

 

[Great Argus]

Major city zoos should not bother with typical native animal exhibits. Instead they should all allocate their limited space to exotics.

Woodland Park and Minnesota would like a word.

 

[Sphenisciologist]

I'm going to poke the hornets nest just for the sake of discussion when I say this:
Major city zoos should not bother with typical native animal exhibits.

Now this I’m skeptical about, in major cities especially people usually are not educated on all kinds of animals, whether native or not, as they are virtually separated from all possible forms of nature.

 

[pachyderm pro]

I'm going to poke the hornets nest just for the sake of discussion when I say this:
Major city zoos should not bother with typical native animal exhibits. Instead they should all allocate their limited space to exotics. The exception to this is nationally endangered natives that are part of a breeding program the zoo works with (black-footed ferret, california condor for US zoos as an example).
Smaller zoos and nature centers/refuges can be used to fill that niche.
Mind you, I quite enjoy native species collections. But if theoretically my hometown Zoo Miami was planning on closing down Mission Everglades in favor of a large African rainforest complex that will feature an improved habitat for their Gorillas and a good collection of small African animals like Old World Monkeys (something the zoo is sorely lacking in), I'd honestly be all for it. So many other places down here already work with alligators and Florida Panthers as it is.

I understand the sentiment here, but I will definitely disagree. Conservation starts at home and getting people to care about animals in their own backyard is a critical part of a zoo's mission. No one in North America or Europe can directly help wild elephants, but they can play a small part in helping species they share an environment with. The example you cited, Miami's Mission Everglades exhibit, is one of the most dynamic exhibit complexes for native species I've ever seen and provides a completely different understanding for these species for visitors. Actually getting an underground look at a burrowing owls burrow, being inches away from an adult black bear, and seeing how a river otter swims can totally change anyone's perspective on their own environment, as city zoos are some of the only exposure to nature many urban residents will ever have.

Also, just because an exhibit focuses on native species doesn't mean it can't also include some very interesting species. Look at Minnesota Trail at, well, Minnesota. Wolverine and fisher aren't exactly things you'd see on your morning walk.

 

[Westcoastperson]

I'm going to poke the hornets nest just for the sake of discussion when I say this:
Major city zoos should not bother with typical native animal exhibits. Instead they should all allocate their limited space to exotics. The exception to this is nationally endangered natives that are part of a breeding program the zoo works with (black-footed ferret, california condor for US zoos as an example).
Smaller zoos and nature centers/refuges can be used to fill that niche.
Mind you, I quite enjoy native species collections. But if theoretically my hometown Zoo Miami was planning on closing down Mission Everglades in favor of a large African rainforest complex that will feature an improved habitat for their Gorillas and a good collection of small African animals like Old World Monkeys (something the zoo is sorely lacking in), I'd honestly be all for it. So many other places down here already work with alligators and Florida Panthers as it is.

Once again it’s people looking at animals and zoological collections only through the view of an expert. Might I remind everyone that we are not the average zoo guest. We know not to litter, to go slow in marine mammal zone, and to protect wildlife. The average zoo visitor does not understand these issues and that is the point of local exhibits. We may want more exotics in our zoos for because we have that higher knowledge but the point of zoos is education not species counts. I said it earlier but the rare species we value don’t mean the same to the average zoo viewer. You need animals as an anchor for rarer species and key education. Local wildlife is the anchor for that Eric. Local wildlife is one of the most important parts of a zoo and is a key starting point for wildlife awareness.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Thanks for all the responses everyone. I'm glad to see so many people explain all their thoughts on this! Lots of different ideas and opinions to sort through, so little time...

There should also be a limit on how many zoos keep the same species, so that more species can be conserved. According to ZTL. 621 ZTL collections keep meerkats, a species of least concern. Surely this number could be reduced considerably.

I can imagine the animated reactions of zoos barred from keeping meerkats and other over-represented popular species: "How come that neighbouring zoo X is allowed to keep them and we're not?!!? That's not fair and bad for business!!! If we can't have them, we'll leave the zoo organization!" etc.

That's where I've generally come out on that idea as well: in theory it would be one way of ensuring greater diversity in our collections overall, but I've never heard or thought of a good mechanism for doing so. Individual zoos make individual decisions for themselves about what to keep, and I can't see a bunch of them voluntarily agreeing to give up their most popular animals.

However, sustaining populations successfully requires that a good deal of the same species is available, and so obviously many of the species doing well are commonly held.

This is the catch-22 with a lot of rarities under the current system: in order for something to be "rare" few zoos can have it, but if few zoos have it then its chances of being sustainable in the long term is pretty low. There are exceptions - for example, native rehab animals from species that don't commonly get rescued - but in practice many rarities are holdovers from an era where more species were kept, and I just have a hard time seeing a return to that era.

One last thing re how many species per group - it irks me how many spaces are given to LC native species here. I know most of them are rescues and I have no issues with that, but they take up so much space and other species get shoved out.

Mind I'm not saying ditch them entirely - but most of those species are not even bred in zoos because there's no reason too. Rescued natives need homes too, but I do wish they didn't take quite so many spaces. Slight pet peeve of mine.

I personally love seeing rescue native species though - most people know nothing about their local wildlife, and I love to see visitors engage with an animal and then realize it's found right in their area. I think this is probably some of the most important education that zoos do.

This was on my mind too. Owls are a good example for North America; we have tons of native owls sourced largely from the rehab circuit (although a couple like Snowy and Burrowing also get bred); meanwhile, only two species of foreign owl are common. Is this a failing on zoos' part to highlight the diversity of that family and commit to breeding them, or a pragmatic and sensible focus on local wildlife and helping animals in need that otherwise wouldn't have homes? In a perfect world zoos could do both... I guess part of my writing this thread was to see if people believe zoos *could* be doing both, in addition to whether they *should*.

Do the bigger non roadside institutions in north america show less often native species?

It's pretty common for major zoos in North America to have a variety of native species; I'd say the majority have at least one exhibit complex dedicated solely to natives. It is often the same kinds of animals, though sometimes there will be a rarer-seen species. Oftentimes smaller places like nature centers will have unusual stuff too.

 

[Fallax]

Major city zoos should not bother with typical native animal exhibits.

This has already been stated a few times, but if any zoos are holding native species it should be those in urban environments as most people living there will not have the same exposure to these species as others in more rural areas will have.

 

[lintworm]

The increasing lack of species diversity in zoo collections is talked about often on this site. While it may not be all regions and taxonomic groups experiencing this, some of both certainly are. I think much of this has to do with the shift from an import-driven, antiquated version of displaying animals to a more breeding-focused, welfare and conservation-oriented approach. There are likely other reasons for declining diversity besides this, but regardless I'm curious what people think. Do people dislike it because it conflicts with their personal enjoyment of zoos, or do they dislike it because they think it's unnecessary or counterproductive? Or maybe a lot of you have no issue with it, and think it's a positive trend?

A lot has been said before and I am just going to quote myself from this thread: Europe's 100 must see exhibits as it gives an overview where I stand. I think zoos have the responsibility to keep diverse species collections, including unknown species as it is the only way the general public will come into contact with them and possibly learn about them. Keeping (some) ABC species is a must and every zoo has the right to meerkats, as long as they don't ignore other species.

Even if must see exhibits would not be essential for survival, I think zoos have the responsibility to up their game. I would argue though that zoos as professional institutions have the task of not only engaging the average zoo visitor, but offer something unique that might initially only be appreciated by the zoo enthusiast or zoo professional. That can be both from a collection or a design principle. Having a zoo with a small collection and only ABC species, like the current Dublin Zoo, is in a way the same as having an art museum with only the grand masters and nothing else. That might bring in the tourist revenue, but having only the famous artwork is a missed chance to show more unknown contemporaries or tell surprising stories. Fortunately most museums seem to show a good deal more than their few starpieces. When I visited the Louvre, I was not that impressed by the Mona Lisa, I came away with a wholly different appreciation of the ancient Egyptians and Persians though. That was not what I expected to take away from there, but it was most entertaining. A good zoo can be the same in that they draw people in with elephants and polar bears, but leave them impressed by unlikely stars such as red ruffed lemurs, chameleons or fiddler crabs. Zoos have as a prime function in an ever less natural world to instil love for nature to their visitors. To quote Baba Dioum:

“In the end, we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand and we will understand only what we are taught.”

This means that zoos need a diverse collection to remain relevant and deliver unexpected experiences with underappreciated animals. This does not necessarily mean that zoos need a large collection like Berlin or Prague, even though research shows that the most species rich zoos are in general also the most visited ones (though this could be a chicken - egg discussion). Some of the most stunning zoos don’t have very large collections, but they are balanced between crowd pleasers and the unknown. Burgers’ Zoo has less than 80 separate exhibits and Bioparc Doue-la-Fontaine has around 40 and both have diverse, if relatively small, collections that highlight unlikely stars. Which means that you need to choose wisely what you highlight and how you do it. Presenting an animal well in a must see exhibit can be a prime way to engage the general public and as this is a thread about exhibits, I will focus on that option alone.

I think that currently many zoos use the "more space for less species" approach as an excuse not to bother beyond the ABC species and the standard endangered species. That is because of a lack of interest, not because of a lack of possibilities. Zoos should not keep a species just to keep the species though and especially with smaller mammals, birds and reptiles they should be serious about maintaining it long-term. Fortunately some zoos are stepping up their game by creating off-show breeding centres that allow them to keep otherwise unpopular species long-term. This is something different to a zoo like Beauval or Dvur Kralove (in case of birds) where rare species are brought in in low numbers, with hardly any idea on how to maintain the species in the collection. Which often results in these species dying out within years without any meaningful breeding success.

Having a big collection as a goal should not be the case, but I think many zoos that nowadays boast a large or interesting collection do so because they successfully cooperate with serious private breeders. This allows a healthy population to exist, even if only few zoos participate and allows a zoo to keep interesting species. Cologne would be a prime example of that.

We need a degree of management at a higher level, but it seems current strategies are overly focused on maintaining large mammals and are overly sensitive on genetic diversity. While that might make sense on paper, in practice it can be quite harmful. If every zoo with elephants is forced in the future to keep 2 groups (as is the current EAZA guideline), that means a lot of space that could be used for other species is lost for one big grey one. In addition zoos have to be honest about what most breeding programmes will ever add to populations in the wild. Re-introductions are very expensive and only feasible for a limited number of species. This means it is often more cost-effective to put your money in in-situ conservation and it also means that zoo animals are ambassadors only. If you can focus on genetics, that is good, but inbreeding is a risk and not necessarily negative. Countless zoo species demonstrate that lack of genetic diversity is not necessarily detrimental to health, though examples exist where it does of course. Just stopping to breed a species because of the risk of inbreeding depression seems somewhat lazy if it is just a possibility. If such stuff happens though, it can be a good reason to halt a breeding program (if it doesn't halt itself).

Overall I think current species declines have a lot to do with lack of interest of zoos, hiding behind a "more space for less animals" approach. That is what I take issue with. How else will anybody ever learn about the existence tree kangaroos, hyraxes or screaming pihas if there is no place to see them. It is a task for zoos to show some real diversity of the animal kingdom. Bring visitors in with ABCs, but show them something they didn't know. Even if a regular zoo visitor doesn't see something of value, the expert will. And if you are a professional you would rather be appreciated by experts than by somebody with no background on your area of interest....

 

[Batto]

A lot of smart and thoughtful posts so far.

I doubt that the ongoing standardisation of major zoos and their species collections can be stopped, mainly due to economic reasons and red tape. But there are exceptional zoo individuals, smaller zoos and specialised institutions as well as organizations such as the ZGAP that face this challenge despite all odds and have a positive impact on the representation of species diversity in zoos. What you can do is support these by spreading the word and visiting them as often as you can. May it be a crane centre in Wisconsin, a bug zoo in the UK, a wild feline centre in Brandenburg or a tiny toxic zoo in Salzburg...

 

[Jurek7]

I think this question is wrongly asked: zoos need to be diverse. If they get uniform, this opens a niche to a different zoo. It is like with restaurants: a successful Indian restaurant in the neighbourhood does not mean that a second restaurant should be Indian, but the opposite: second restaurant should be different.

The idea that for a zoo, most important is having popular species is much overextended to the point of being wrong. It is like thinking that for a blockbuster movie, it is most important that the actor is handsome. Carl Hagenbeck, who made a living on zoo business and certainly was an expert on public preferences, openly said that there are animals which are necessary to draw the public, but there is only 7 such animals (I don't remember which, but he included elephant, lion, bear and monkeys. For monkeys, particular species are unimportant. The remaining three were possibly giraffe, sealion and camel). In line with this, zoos made popular exhibits on unusual species, for example fiddler crabs in Burgers. And TV and movies easily created star animals out of nothing. An example is Madagascar cartoon franchise which used a whole lot of obscure animals which are now known to every child: lemurs, aye-aye, fossa etc.

(By the way, do zoos make marketing studies what visitors want in a zoo? I never heard of any, but making a multimillion decision to build a new exhibit would certainly warrant one. And I saw many zoo playgrounds which are avoided by children. )

I would strongly oppose planned phasing out any species. It has two reasons. First, current import regulations mean that one cannot easily reverse the decision. Second, situation in the wild changes very fast and a phased out LC species easily can be Endangered in few years time. This happened with golden-bellied mangabeys and a lot of 'commoner' macaque species in Europe. So I think it was a wrong recommendation of EEP to phase out e.g. several monkey species or East Caucasian Ibex. Zoos certainly need to plan their projects with some uncertainity in the future. Also, maybe even the restrictive regulations will change.

By the way, red tape and restrictions are also overrated. Smaller zoos do import impossible animals. Recent import of gaurs and douc langurs to Czechia is the example.

I see an opportunity of collection plans to replace too common species with rarer lookalikes. For example, countless baboon and capuchin exhibits in Europe can largely be replaced by rarer monkeys. Countless native deer, Mufflon and Alpine ibexes could be replaced by many rare deer and caprids. Countless asian small-clawed otters could be partially replaced by Smooth-coated and other otters. Only the notorious meerkats could be hardly replaced, because other mongoose don't stand bipedally. Perhaps the best replacement would be social rodents like marmots and sousliks.