Zoos urged to dump mutt giraffes

Wild giraffes lose their conservation safety net as zoo populations hybridize

I find the following to be completely untrue regarding coordinated breeding programmes:

————

Study co-author Kari Morfeld says captive breeding programs often prioritize animal demeanor.

"A lot of times, decisions to breed animals are based on, "She's a nice female, he's a nice male. Let's put them together for breeding."

The genetics aren't usually considered in making breeding decisions for giraffes, but they should be. We have a responsibility to consider genetics, not only demeanor or physical characteristics, to do better for giraffe conservation," said Morfeld, reproductive physiologist and owner of Morfeld Research & Conservation.

————

The primary objective of coordinated breeding programmes is to maintain and promote genetic diversity within the managed population.

That’s not to say demeanour isn’t factored in (a Sumatran tiger who has killed two mates probably isn’t going to be paired with a third female); but it’s completely incorrect to imply coordinated breeding programmes pair animals for breeding on the basis they’re ‘nice’; or based on a physical characteristic they have.
 
Zoofan15 said:
Wild giraffes lose their conservation safety net as zoo populations hybridize

I find the following to be completely untrue regarding coordinated breeding programmes:

————

Study co-author Kari Morfeld says captive breeding programs often prioritize animal demeanor.

"A lot of times, decisions to breed animals are based on, "She's a nice female, he's a nice male. Let's put them together for breeding."

The genetics aren't usually considered in making breeding decisions for giraffes, but they should be. We have a responsibility to consider genetics, not only demeanor or physical characteristics, to do better for giraffe conservation," said Morfeld, reproductive physiologist and owner of Morfeld Research & Conservation.

————

The primary objective of coordinated breeding programmes is to maintain and promote genetic diversity within the managed population.

That’s not to say demeanour isn’t factored in (a Sumatran tiger who has killed two mates probably isn’t going to be paired with a third female); but it’s completely incorrect to imply coordinated breeding programmes pair animals for breeding on the basis they’re ‘nice’; or based on a physical characteristic they have.
Click to expand...

That was a really odd thing to say.
 
It is going to take a long time before US Zoos in particular are going to be able to phase out generic giraffe, if ever. The US Masai population doesn't have enough individuals to go around, and even if several individuals were castrated, sent to safari park-style facilities, etc there likely wouldn't be enough zoos with space to breed enough giraffe to make a self-sustaining population. Considering that direct Masai/generic hybrid crossing is still happening (notably with Toledo, now Cleveland's, amazing hybrid "oopsie" baby number two..), it's going to take severe reform both management and legal-wise if there is hope to focus on Masais regionally or introduce more pure Reticulated or other species.

Of course, such has been discussed on Zoochat for years, but I myself question if such changes have much chance of genuinely occuring. Several big zoos have active breeding programs with "Reticulated" giraffe for instance, with numerous very young individuals being born each year and doubtlessly more pregnant right now.
 
We've known that the American zoo giraffe populations are thoroughly hybridized since the late 1990s when the Omaha Zoo did the initial genetics research on them.

These researchers are dishonestly acting like they just discovered a major problem.

And they have no idea what they are talking about regarding actual policy because there is no way to import wild giraffes into the United States because of cattle disease laws.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that Morfeld's rather baseless comment about breeding based on demeanor or physical traits may be rooted in some... conflicts of interest.

Later on in the article she says:

"Physically moving these huge animals between continents would be difficult. So, a better way, in my opinion, is to develop reproductive technologies where you can move semen or embryos and proceed with artificial insemination, IVF, and embryo transfer. We do this all the time in livestock and other species. There's no reason this can't be applied to giraffes."

Her website touts her services. $2000 daily fee + travel reimbursement for her reproductive services (including semen collection/assessment/banking, reproductive ultrasound [which is actually misspelled as "ultrasond" on her official website], artificial insemination, and "body condition assessments"... you can view the page here which is weirdly rife with typos lol). 20 bucks a pop for a variety of hormone tests, plus $5 for samples if it's a feather, urine, or fecal sample... she offers giraffe fecal hormone monitoring, a total of 12 samples, 12*25= $300... and elephant semen collection, a multi-visit process, $2000 per visit. She also offers laparoscopic egg retrieval, IVF, and embryo transfer, though I'm not seeing pricing info on that.

Maybe these prices are normal? I am not exactly an elephant semen specialist's prime audience. But I am generally suspicious of professionals who a. Have a social media presence, b. Are making baseless claims, and c. Are offering an alternative that they directly serve financially to benefit from.

I think in general that this is an important issue but idk what the heck she's on about talking about accredited breeding programs choosing their pairings based solely on demeanor or physical traits.
 
DavidBrown said:
We've known that the American zoo giraffe populations are thoroughly hybridized since the late 1990s when the Omaha Zoo did the initial genetics research on them.

These researchers are dishonestly acting like they just discovered a major problem.

And they have no idea what they are talking about regarding actual policy because there is no way to import wild giraffes into the United States because of cattle disease laws.
Click to expand...
Yeah again, unless they wanna help import animals, they have no place to talk
 
Frankie_number_1_fan said:
It is going to take a long time before US Zoos in particular are going to be able to phase out generic giraffe, if ever. The US Masai population doesn't have enough individuals to go around, and even if several individuals were castrated, sent to safari park-style facilities, etc there likely wouldn't be enough zoos with space to breed enough giraffe to make a self-sustaining population. Considering that direct Masai/generic hybrid crossing is still happening (notably with Toledo, now Cleveland's, amazing hybrid "oopsie" baby number two..), it's going to take severe reform both management and legal-wise if there is hope to focus on Masais regionally or introduce more pure Reticulated or other species.

Of course, such has been discussed on Zoochat for years, but I myself question if such changes have much chance of genuinely occuring. Several big zoos have active breeding programs with "Reticulated" giraffe for instance, with numerous very young individuals being born each year and doubtlessly more pregnant right now.
Click to expand...

I agree. Another challenge is that zoos (who have to consider their bottom line) have little motivation to phase out their generic giraffe herds in favour of establishing purebred herds.

The overwhelming majority of zoo visitors neither know or care whether a giraffe is a purebred or a generic. A giraffe is simply a giraffe to them and purebreds would bring in no more or less money than their generic counterparts.

I would personally love to see purebred herds of giraffe, but acknowledge the challenges around establishing these at this point in time (including import restrictions) make it an unviable venture.
 
Daktari JG said:
No way? Perhaps cumbersome and expensive, but there are ways.
Particularly now. Bribe , err donate to the trump and you can get whatever you want.
Click to expand...

The zoo world has been working on importing giraffes for the last 30 years. The cattle lobby will kill any attempt to loosen import laws because of (not entirely unfounded) disease concerns.

The cattle lobby has millions of dollars to lobby to keep this in place.

Realistically nobody has figured out how to import giraffes to the United States for 30 years, so functionally there is no way.
 
Last edited:
I could see if it was a case of Joe Exotic wanting to import giraffe, but for legitimate zoos this would seem to be just a matter of communication to overcome that ignorance.
But either way- again with enough money- you can (unfortunately ) do whatever you want.
 
I don't care at all that the giraffes (which are still reticulated in just about every way phenotypically) have mixed ancestry, and most zoo patrons care even less than I would. The four giraffe "species" as they have been arbitrarily split don't have any differences beyond coat pattern, which is the result of a once interconnected population becoming reproductively isolated quite recently on an evolutionary timescale - a quarter million years or less I believe they determined it was? - and are interchangeable as far as ecological impact in the event you have to reintroduce a giraffe back into a wild habitat as far as anyone could say.

I have said for many years at this point that the giraffe situation where they have a strong genetically diverse population with founders from multiple wild populations would be a more logical management choice for tigers, too. Especially the mainland tiger subspecies, which is significantly less distinct than giraffe but we continue to see "bengal" considered a useless hybrid for amur ancestry when until a few centuries ago the two interbred over a connected range.
 
Last edited:
Sheather said:
The four giraffe "species" as they have been arbitrarily split don't have any differences beyond coat pattern, which is the result of a once interconnected population becoming reproductively isolated quite recently on an evolutionary timescale - a quarter million years or less I believe they determined it was? - and are interchangeable as far as ecological impact in the event you have to reintroduce a giraffe back into a wild habitat as far as anyone could say.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect that the giraffe species were arbitrarily split. The four species are reproductively isolated and are defined by both morphological (skull shape, pelage) and genetic differentiation. Relative to giraffe evolutionary history, the reproductive isolation is not recent.

It does matter evolutionarily what giraffes live where from a conservation perspective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Sheather That's an interesting opinion however I don't think you will find many supporters and I would like to address a few of your points:

  • Sole phenotype selection would be kin to breed selection, which is not the goal of most esteemed zoological facilities but rather of a farm or dog/cat breeder, zoos try to preserve the wild biological variety and genetic diversity (quite the overused and abused term but in my case it refers to genes and lineages that do occur in the wild without human intervention to our knowledge) within its boundaries, thus why populations should also be managed to subspecies level in my and not only my opinion, and the same IUCN who has published and "mainstreamed" the mainland and Sunda tiger subspecies model you so fondly cite is the same authority that has accepted and "mainstreamed" the 4 giraffe species split (with a study done by the above DavidBrown cited in the bibliography, so they know a thing or two I imagine and a reason more to endorse their reply to you): so your point I argue is rather anthropocentric to the zoo and phenotypical aspect of the matter;

  • The proof of your claim that they were split arbitrarily, evolutionary changes in 250k years in giraffids are irrelevant and they are ecologically interchangeable? I am not saying they do not exist, but I am curious to hear the foundation of your reasoning;

  • Different founders from different wild lineages for which type of management and for how long have you been saying so? I hope not too long to deal damage, so much for preservation of biodiversity and populations, I surely hope this mentality never reaches the IUCN (as per principle of closest kin possible for reintroductions and management alike this would mean arbitrarily decide which taxa are not worthy of separate management and which are, which is comprehensible when taxonomy the ever-changing biological science makes new discoveries, rearranges or better analyses previous knowledge, which you seem to do without any backup whatsoever).

  • You seem to have been around more than I have here, wouldn't it be adviseable to be precautious with statements to which you do not have proof ready or that some people may find contrasting with a different mentality from yours?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top