Zoo's recieving animals from the wild!!

zooman

Well-Known Member
15+ year member
I would have thought zoos no longer received animals from the wild!

I would think it was only just acceptable. IF the zoo is saving the animal from extintion. Even then l am not convinced!

Seems this is not the case. With Aardvarks and aardwolfs:confused:

What other animals are coming into main stream zoos from the wild?
 
I would have thought zoos no longer received animals from the wild!

I would think it was only just acceptable. IF the zoo is saving the animal from extintion. Even then l am not convinced!

Seems this is not the case. With Aardvarks and aardwolfs:confused:

What other animals are coming into main stream zoos from the wild?

I believe the majority of captive Shoebills are wild caught.
 
What other animals are coming into main stream zoos from the wild?

What would you say if a group of ethiopian wolves (simien jackal) were caught and given to a zoo to breed and otential reintroduction. Would this species then not benefit greatly from an increase in population and safeguard a species that is teetering on the edge of extinction?

I would say it varies...if there was no need for a wild caught animals then it becomes unacceptable.
 
Reptiles and amphibians.

In fact, in Australia (specifically WA and NT) reptiles are still legally taken for the pet trade.

:p

Hix
 
What would you say if a group of ethiopian wolves (simien jackal) were caught and given to a zoo to breed and otential reintroduction. Would this species then not benefit greatly from an increase in population and safeguard a species that is teetering on the edge of extinction?

I would say it varies...if there was no need for a wild caught animals then it becomes unacceptable.

When we say potential reintroduction! If the animals numbers are in decline. Reintroduction of new animals does not fix this problem at all long term. As l am sure you are aware.

We all need to focus on habitat protection rather than individual animals. Although focusing on a individual animal does at time put a focus on a habitat and protect it.
 
I think a lot of rhinos still come from the wild too, although they say "private game reserve" so it doesn't sound so controversial. I'm sure the two at Noahs ark zoo are from the wild, Manor house in Wales is thinking of importing some, and the two Indian rhino females at Whipsnade are wildcaught. These are all relatively recent, all happened within the last ten years (at least that's the case with Noahs ark and manor house, I think it is with Whipsnade but not 100% sure).
 
There is nothing wrong with it if they are going into a breeding program to help with falling numbers in the wild, or if is sustainable and will not have a negetive effect on the species.
 
And the RSCC have taken animals that were wild born from rescue centres they support in their homeland, so they free up valuable space in rescue centres and give animals that can't go back into the wild a place in the captive breeding programme.
 
Four of the Jaguars at the Jacksonville Zoo are from the wild. Though two were confiscated pets and the other two sadly had their habitat turned into cattle ranches.
 
Some animals are "problem" animals and I think placing them in a proper enclosure is far better than killing them, same with animals who'd otherwise be killed in culling operations. Many bears and elephants in captivity are such animals. In some cases an injection of wild blood is beneficial as well, I believe this is being done with lions.
 
The trouble is zooman that there are too few places now that are wildernesses or truely "wild". Far more common now is extensive management (national parks, etc.), and animals living outside of these parks have little or no chance of survival due to human progress and development (taking livestock/people therefore becoming "problem", being poached/hunted or losing habitat/food).
Taking new founders for a breeding programme from the wild is an ongoing battle between researchers in the field (who want to study the population in their natural habitat) and captive breeding programme coordinators (who know that basically if you allow a population to dwindle to 50 or less then you've functionally lost that population). Very often, but not always, new founders are "problem animals" after coming into conflict with people or like ashley-h said are from rescue centres, these animals would otherwise be destroyed if they aren't taken into captivity.
 
Some animals are "problem" animals and I think placing them in a proper enclosure is far better than killing them, same with animals who'd otherwise be killed in culling operations.

I have no doubt, that many would assume. Animals taken from the wild that are considered "problem animals" are better off in captivity rather than culled. I am not convinced.

I just wonder if the bears and elephants would agree with this. Yes there are allot more good elephant enclosures now. Although l think the majority of elephants enclosures are not of a good standard.

As for bears. They just should not be in captivity. As they are totally unsuited. There seems to be less than a handfull of decent sized exhibits. Just how much "happyer" they are in these enclosures is debateable.
 
What other animals are coming into main stream zoos from the wild?

Most zoos receive a real 'stream' of injured, orphaned and confiscated wild animals which cannot be released back. Some of these are then exported from exotic zoos to start a breeding program.

Actually, these is often a problem what to do with all those animals - one zoo I know receives several 100s of animals every year, and about 1/3 neither dies nor recovers completely. So there is one aviary with 10 owls, another off-show aviary with 20 buzzards etc.

There is also a small trickle of wild-caught animals from game farms (antelopes, zebras, rhinos etc are traded in South Africa), few small animals traded for pet trade (small birds, lizards etc) and few purposefuly imported for new conservation programs (very few, unfortunately).
 
Just how much "happyer" they are in these enclosures is debateable.

Actually, there was a thread some time ago, that animals prefer to stay in zoos with their food and safety.

And please, remember that Australia has luck of being one of the least populated countries. Bears in Europe and elephants in Thailand live only because (human) society actively keeps national parks from being developed and animals from being shot as pests.
 
There is also a small trickle of wild-caught animals from game farms (antelopes, zebras, rhinos etc are traded in South Africa

I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing (not that you said it was) for animals to be exported from big reserves where they are bred for zoos.( I think this is what you mean by game farms?) It helps pay for the reserve maintenance and lots of local species will benefit from that. Often, as well, I'd guess it prevents overpopulation. Its not always possible for young animals to move into neighbouring territories if it's occupied by farmland, urbanised areas, unsuitable habitat etc, so it gives an outlet for 'surplus' animals. This is as I suppose, I've never really looked into such businesses. What does anyone else think?
 
When it was decided to take all remaining California Condors from the wild for a captive breeding program, their numbers consisted of less than 30 individuals. But just over a couple of decades later, due to that successful program at the San Diego Wild Animal Park and Los Angeles Zoo, there are now well over 300 individuals today. And many have been successfully released back into the wild. We're talking about saving a species that was definitely headed for sure extinction. And with a limited gene pool in captivity, and destruction of natural habitat, I believe this may be the only means of avoiding extinction for many species.

Hasn't this been the discussion for years, whether or not to pull from the wild other highly endangered species and set-up captive breeding programs? Javan and Sumatran Rhinos, or the Mountain Tapir as a few examples?
 
There are still significant numbers of fishes imported from the wild for the pet trade. This can be done sustainably (the number involved is only a small fraction of the number that are eaten by fishermen, their families and customers) and it can provide an income for some people in parts of Africa and South America.
Many years ago the Wildfowl Trust (since renamed the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust) introduced a policy of only importing eggs from wild waterfowl. They felt that they had perfected hand-rearing techniques and that removing one or two eggs from a nest, or even a whole clutch if the parents could re-nest, had very little impact on the productivity of the parent birds. It wouldn't work with every species of bird, but it does make sense.

Alan
 
I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing (not that you said it was) for animals to be exported from big reserves where they are bred for zoos.( I think this is what you mean by game farms?)

If I understand well, some nature reserves in South Africa have surplus herbivores, mostly because they are too small to accomodate them. And some ranches switched from cattle into wild animals in semi-wild state. The business is trophy hunting, tourism and maybe meat. There is a low-level trade of live animals going on there, too. A minority of these animals are sold to foreign zoos, too.

Maybe some South African member can tell more and better.

If I understand well, it is preferable to the alternative - using the habitat for traditional farming, with no wildlife at all.
 
I have absolutely no problem with animals being wild caught as I have no problem with animals being kept in captivity. As for zooman’s comments about bears, I think bears are the perfect creatures to keep in zoos. When kept in decent enclosures they are large active and interesting animals, the problem is that zoos have traditionally kept bears in dull, boring enclosures.
 
Back
Top