Zootierliste Goes Worldwide

PossumRoach said:
For those who do not know ztl also includes extinct taxa such as thylacine, Carolina parakeet, and quagga. So if anyone knows wether or not any recently extinct species were kept in zoos outside Europe this is your chance to share the knowledge on the captive history of these taxa (given that there’s evidence).
Click to expand...
Choose a zoo under Expert Search and EX (Extinct) under IUCH Level to find out which animals it kept and subsequently became extinct.
For example, London Zoo kept the following mammals:
Thylacine
Broad-faced potoroo, eastern woylie, southern bettong, crescent nail-tail wallaby
Saint Lucia giant rice rat, little Swan Island hutia, Dangs giant squirrel
Schomburgk's deer, Bubal hartebeest, Kenya oribi
Syrian wild ass, southern quagga, Indochinese Sumatran rhinoceros
Zanzibar leopard, Cape lion, Falkland Islands wolf, Honshu wolf
 
So I just started dabbling in updating entries (mainly just sticking to NC Zoo for now as that is a facility I both visited recently AND are familiar with) and I have a few questions (apologies, I am new to this).
  • Do the holding lists only take into account animals that are on public display? I see a species on the NC Zoo page (Victoria Crowned Pigeon) that is no longer on display because their exhibit closed, but I do not know if they have them BTS. Should I move that to former or leave it alone for now? Or should I try to verify if they have them BTS? They still have Eclectus Parrot, but those are exclusively BTS.
  • What's the best way for verifying a source or holding listing? I noticed a few NC Zoo entries that I have doubts about sourced with "pers. Mitt. (E-Mail an ZTL v. 01.01.2024)".
  • If an animal has been removed from public display and my only source is from a visit where I saw that the animal was replaced with another species and is not exhibited elsewhere, is that enough to switch it to a former holding?
 
Astrotom3000 said:
So I just started dabbling in updating entries (mainly just sticking to NC Zoo for now as that is a facility I both visited recently AND are familiar with) and I have a few questions (apologies, I am new to this).
  • Do the holding lists only take into account animals that are on public display? I see a species on the NC Zoo page (Victoria Crowned Pigeon) that is no longer on display because their exhibit closed, but I do not know if they have them BTS. Should I move that to former or leave it alone for now? Or should I try to verify if they have them BTS? They still have Eclectus Parrot, but those are exclusively BTS.
  • What's the best way for verifying a source or holding listing? I noticed a few NC Zoo entries that I have doubts about sourced with "pers. Mitt. (E-Mail an ZTL v. 01.01.2024)".
  • If an animal has been removed from public display and my only source is from a visit where I saw that the animal was replaced with another species and is not exhibited elsewhere, is that enough to switch it to a former holding?
Click to expand...
Offshow species should be included, but it is worth noting on the entry that they are offshow. Putting 'hinter den kulissen' (behind the scenes) under basic information works.

Regarding your second question, if the source is questionable, I tend to ask on this forum whether any recent visitors can confirm or deny its accuracy. However so long as there is a source (and if the date provided is relatively recent) I would trust it regardless. The email source is essentially a species list that was emailed to ZTL by a visitor to the zoo, so that they can update the site without creating an account.

I will leave the third question to someone more familiar with ZTL to myself, but I would assume that the answer is no, seeing as species are regularly moved behind-the-scenes. Personally, I would instead add a source that says '- Besuch DD/MM/YY (nicht gesehen, nicht ausgescheldert).' This would show to anyone who checks the source that the species was neither seen nor signed on a recent visit and thus prompt them to question it.
 
Thank you for the responses. I am currently adding species they had on my visit last week. Hope I am doing everything correctly.

NC Zoo is listed as having Burchell's and Grant's Zebra (only the latter of which is signed at the zoo) as well as Reticulated and Rothschild Giraffes (only the former of which is signed at the zoo). Shouldn't both be only generic/species-level based on discussions held here?
 
Astrotom3000 said:
Shouldn't both be only generic/species-level based on discussions held here?
Click to expand...
Yes. Despite it being established in other threads on here that there are no purebred reticulated or Rothschild's giraffe populations in the United States, ZTL has been refusing to remove the holders.

Personally, despite the fact I initially added a number of listings for zoos I know well to ZTL, I have decided that at least for the time being there's no benefit to devoting my time to adding to a database that has continuous, substantial errors and an inability or unwillingness to fix them. I'd imagine a number of other knowledgeable individuals on US zoos have similarly soured on ZTL.
 
Neil chace said:
Yes. Despite it being established in other threads on here that there are no purebred reticulated or Rothschild's giraffe populations in the United States, ZTL has been refusing to remove the holders.

Personally, despite the fact I initially added a number of listings for zoos I know well to ZTL, I have decided that at least for the time being there's no benefit to devoting my time to adding to a database that has continuous, substantial errors and an inability or unwillingness to fix them. I'd imagine a number of other knowledgeable individuals on US zoos have similarly soured on ZTL.
Click to expand...
It's been, what a week or two since we ironed out that situation? I'm sure the people at ZTL are pretty busy right now, just give them some time.
 
birdsandbats said:
It's been, what a week or two since we ironed out that situation? I'm sure the people at ZTL are pretty busy right now, just give them some time.
Click to expand...

It has been just over two weeks now. Plenty of time to fix that - I emailed them back in early January about a similarly blatant issue and it was fixed in under 24 hours.

I'm in a similar boat as Neil over the situation, and know quite a few others who feel the same way. You cannot hammer on us about accuracy and then proceed to flatly ignore one of the most major and blatant errors on NA ZTL and expect the reliable contributors to act like it's fine... it has been raising a lot of questions about whether other problems will similarly ignored when corrections are brought forward.
 
Neil chace said:
Yes. Despite it being established in other threads on here that there are no purebred reticulated or Rothschild's giraffe populations in the United States, ZTL has been refusing to remove the holders.

Personally, despite the fact I initially added a number of listings for zoos I know well to ZTL, I have decided that at least for the time being there's no benefit to devoting my time to adding to a database that has continuous, substantial errors and an inability or unwillingness to fix them. I'd imagine a number of other knowledgeable individuals on US zoos have similarly soured on ZTL.
Click to expand...

Myself and several others are definitely in agreement with you there.

Edit: Guess I should have reloaded the page before replying so I could see Argus's post above mine :D
 
While I understand people's frustrations, I really, really, really want to implore all of us not to sour or give up on the international ZTL project so quickly. I have read threads here on Zoochat going back years with people trying to figure out how to create just an American equivalent to ZTL, some of them with claims that such a thing would be "impossible" for any number of reasons. But now that ZTL has graciously opened itself up not only to America, but the whole world, people are going to abandon it in a matter of weeks? That seems like an unfair overreaction. And one that will ultimately make our shared goal of an accurate worldwide database less achievable. Especially if it is the most knowledgeable contributors (like all of you!) who are giving up so easily.

I only created a ZTL account less than a week ago (I've perused the site in logged out mode for years but never felt I had anything to contribute since I'd never been to Europe), so I can't claim to speak for the admins. But I have administered databases in other contexts and can think of lots of reasons why they may need more time to fix some of these continent-wide errors and inconsistencies.

In regard to giraffes (and any other species where people are asking for continent-wide corrections):

-- Remember that we are talking about potentially hundreds of entries -- both current and historical -- across a whole continent, in a context where the database may require that each one needs to be changed individually -- and where that may actually mean three or more separate entries need to be changed for each zoo (retic, roth, generic, and whatever other categories may have been entered). So even though previous individual or smaller corrections may have been completed more quickly, we're really talking about a more complicated thing when it comes to a species that's so prevalent in so many zoos.

-- Remember that the incorrect entries may nevertheless contain data and sources which the admins may want/need to maintain or carry over -- since they do show that someone saw/signed/had a source proving there's a giraffe, even if it wasn't the subspecies claimed.

-- Remember that the zoos themselves are often the cause of the errors (having signed/claimed to have a subspecies they don't in fact have).

-- As a result of the incorrect identification by the zoos themselves, we are asking ZTL to, in effect, adopt a higher standard of proof than they may have previously had to (when they could normally rely on what was seen/signed).

-- Remember that we ourselves are trying to bypass ZTL's normal procedures by seeking changes continentally, instead of submitting them one by one, zoo by zoo, the way this would normally be handled (For good reason, of course. But we should at least acknowledge that we're asking for something that they may not be set up for).

-- Remember that even after ZTL has corrected the entries for all the American giraffes, the zoos themselves don't seem to be changing their signs and data, so ZTL is going to have to come up with a strategy for addressing this long term. Otherwise, each and every time a contributor visits a zoo, they are going to CORRECTLY follow ZTL's rules about how to source things, report what they saw (or were told they saw), and accurately report what was signed -- and in the process inadvertently reintroduce the erroneous subspecies. Over and over in perpetuity. (Or at least until American signage catches up with the standards that we are asking them to use).

-- Remember that we're asking for all of this at a time when they've just opened themselves up to the whole world, when entries are flooding in from everywhere (not just America), and where some of the policy and strategy questions we're bringing up may look more complicated if they're trying to think about how they'll address them everywhere.

Again, I can certainly understand that it's frustrating to true experts (like all of you!), who have studied these animals for years and know this information forwards and backwards. But I really hope we can give the admins the benefit of the doubt and not assume that they're ignoring things or that they're unwilling to make corrections. Surely there must be enough other entries that we all can work on in the meantime, and circle back to the problems a little bit later after they've had a chance to catch their breath?
 
iloveyourzoos said:
And one that will ultimately make our shared goal of an accurate worldwide database less achievable. Especially if it is the most knowledgeable contributors (like all of you!) who are giving up so easily.
Click to expand...

ZTL will never be fully accurate as long as anyone who makes an account can edit. One of the biggest ongoing frustrations for the knowledgable contributors is other people reverting, changing, or requesting deletion of correct edits back to wrong information.

iloveyourzoos said:
-- Remember that the incorrect entries may nevertheless contain data and sources which the admins may want/need to maintain or carry over -- since they do show that someone saw/signed/had a source proving there's a giraffe, even if it wasn't the subspecies claimed.
Click to expand...

Not really - almost the entirety of the giraffe entries is the same single source, someone went through and added everything. The only thing really worth carrying over is the numbers held. There is no other data or sources to copy, I've looked. Most of the zoos are already entered under the generic heading - and most of the Retic/Roth listings were added AFTER many of the generic listings were already in, if I remember correctly.

iloveyourzoos said:
But we should at least acknowledge that we're asking for something that they may not be set up for).
Click to expand...

But perhaps should have considered as a possibility...

iloveyourzoos said:
-- Remember that even after ZTL has corrected the entries for all the American giraffes, the zoos themselves don't seem to be changing their signs and data, so ZTL is going to have to come up with a strategy for addressing this long term. Otherwise, each and every time a contributor visits a zoo, they are going to CORRECTLY follow ZTL's rules about how to source things, report what they saw (or were told they saw), and accurately report what was signed -- and in the process inadvertently reintroduce the erroneous subspecies. Over and over in perpetuity. (Or at least until American signage catches up with the standards that we are asking them to use).
Click to expand...

Yep, a problem plaguing multiple species at present. I know some people aren't even interested in contributing to ZTL because of this exact reason.

iloveyourzoos said:
But I really hope we can give the admins the benefit of the doubt and not assume that they're ignoring things or that they're unwilling to make corrections.
Click to expand...

Much of the problem is that the giraffe situation has been discussed with an admin, who was arguing against all of us on the matter. This included citing a source that we are not allowed to use for ZTL, and citing incomplete information from studbooks. Further inquiries for clarification and confirmation have been met with silence and apparent deliberate ignoring. The implied was the listings would stay unless proven otherwise - which WAS done, per studbooks, but nothing has happened.

iloveyourzoos said:
Surely there must be enough other entries that we all can work on in the meantime, and circle back to the problems a little bit later after they've had a chance to catch their breath?
Click to expand...

Inherently, yes - but there are many species where subspecies are an issue in how they've been entered on ZTL, and the giraffe argument has left a bad taste for many people. There is also growing frustration from knowledgeable people having to correct listings multiple times over after others walk over it and mess it up again. Many are a bit hesitant to correct wrong subspecies listings if they are going to be similarly challenged or ignored as has happened with giraffes.
 
In addition to everything @Great Argus just said, there's things the people who run the site could have done in preparation of opening it to make it easier on themselves for once it was. Things like adding pages for subspecies and generics that are native/present in the USA (and other countries it now includes, I imagine). The list of facilities was also a bit of a mess. They could have reached out to members on here who are known to be well-versed in different areas. They could not allow troublesome people to add data. Giraffes are what's being discussed because it's the most blatant example of admin being told well-known, verifiable facts - that they themselves even verified! - and ignoring them. Devoting our time to inputting data, especially data that we have to look into like where native rescues came from, isn't worth it if that effort is going to be ignored.
 
lintworm said:
I just fixed all the Barino giraffe holdings and wanted to continue with retics, but that are 78 entries (and I assume Canada is in the same boat as the US), so that will have to wait a little bit....
Click to expand...

Are you an admin for the site? If not, most of them do have correct listings as generic, but someone went in after and made all of these ssp listings that need to be deleted by admin.
 
@Great Argus and @TinoPup I'm not trying to minimize your feelings or deny your frustrations in any way. (and hope I didn't come across as such). I understand that there are real challenges. There are always things that could be done differently, and room for improvement. And I should add that I obviously believe your extensive research on these things over what is merely "seen/signed" by a random zoo visitor like myself.

Rather, I'm just putting in a plea that all who are able continue to power through, for the greater good. Or if it's really too much right now, that y'all consider trying again after some time has passed.

If correcting and deleting others' errors is too hard right now because of the number of people jumping in, are there still other ways that you could contribute by just adding the correct subspecies (or non-subspecies generics) and coming back to fight over the deletions later? Are there other taxon that could be entered now that are less controversial? Zoos you've visited that aren't getting much attention where you could help complete the listings?

ZTL has been such an important source for Europeans and understanding European zoos (even despite errors that must have crept into it even then), that I'd hate for us to lose the opportunity to build something worldwide.

And I'd also hate to see your valuable knowledge and expertise be lost because you feel like you're banging your head against a wall over corrections, when there are so many other parts of the project that could be completed or improved in the meantime. For example, for myself I've got some species in the zoos I'm working on that I've got on a "to do later" list, precisely because there were possible subspecies irregularities mentioned in the other thread. Might something like that work here too? I'm sure it's frustrating to log in and see all of those incorrect giraffe entries (or other species that have had the same problem), but surely not everything falls into that category.

Again, I do hope that a solution for the giraffes will come in time. I just hope there is a way forward for all of you experts to not get stuck on that one thing, when there are so many other places where your expertise is needed!
 
iloveyourzoos said:
@Great Argus and @TinoPup I'm not trying to minimize your feelings or deny your frustrations in any way. (and hope I didn't come across as such). I understand that there are real challenges. There are always things that could be done differently, and room for improvement. And I should add that I obviously believe your extensive research on these things over what is merely "seen/signed" by a random zoo visitor like myself.

Rather, I'm just putting in a plea that all who are able continue to power through, for the greater good. Or if it's really too much right now, that y'all consider trying again after some time has passed.

If correcting and deleting others' errors is too hard right now because of the number of people jumping in, are there still other ways that you could contribute by just adding the correct subspecies (or non-subspecies generics) and coming back to fight over the deletions later? Are there other taxon that could be entered now that are less controversial? Zoos you've visited that aren't getting much attention where you could help complete the listings?

ZTL has been such an important source for Europeans and understanding European zoos (even despite errors that must have crept into it even then), that I'd hate for us to lose the opportunity to build something worldwide.

And I'd also hate to see your valuable knowledge and expertise be lost because you feel like you're banging your head against a wall over corrections, when there are so many other parts of the project that could be completed or improved in the meantime. For example, for myself I've got some species in the zoos I'm working on that I've got on a "to do later" list, precisely because there were possible subspecies irregularities mentioned in the other thread. Might something like that work here too? I'm sure it's frustrating to log in and see all of those incorrect giraffe entries (or other species that have had the same problem), but surely not everything falls into that category.

Again, I do hope that a solution for the giraffes will come in time. I just hope there is a way forward for all of you experts to not get stuck on that one thing, when there are so many other places where your expertise is needed!
Click to expand...

Basic members do not have the power to delete things. If a page has not been created by admin for a subspecies/generic, we cannot create one, we have to ask and wait for it. There isn't really anything that qualifies as less controversial, because problems are happening with things that shouldn't be controversial at all - bison, for example. Giraffes shouldn't be controversial, either, as it's been discussed many times on here over the years. Again, it takes a lot of time and effort on our part to add information. There is no point to it if incorrect information is going to be treated equally; it invalidates the whole set of data.
 
iloveyourzoos said:
While I understand people's frustrations, I really, really, really want to implore all of us not to sour or give up on the international ZTL project so quickly. I have read threads here on Zoochat going back years with people trying to figure out how to create just an American equivalent to ZTL, some of them with claims that such a thing would be "impossible" for any number of reasons. But now that ZTL has graciously opened itself up not only to America, but the whole world, people are going to abandon it in a matter of weeks? That seems like an unfair overreaction. And one that will ultimately make our shared goal of an accurate worldwide database less achievable. Especially if it is the most knowledgeable contributors (like all of you!) who are giving up so easily.

I only created a ZTL account less than a week ago (I've perused the site in logged out mode for years but never felt I had anything to contribute since I'd never been to Europe), so I can't claim to speak for the admins. But I have administered databases in other contexts and can think of lots of reasons why they may need more time to fix some of these continent-wide errors and inconsistencies.

In regard to giraffes (and any other species where people are asking for continent-wide corrections):

-- Remember that we are talking about potentially hundreds of entries -- both current and historical -- across a whole continent, in a context where the database may require that each one needs to be changed individually -- and where that may actually mean three or more separate entries need to be changed for each zoo (retic, roth, generic, and whatever other categories may have been entered). So even though previous individual or smaller corrections may have been completed more quickly, we're really talking about a more complicated thing when it comes to a species that's so prevalent in so many zoos.

-- Remember that the incorrect entries may nevertheless contain data and sources which the admins may want/need to maintain or carry over -- since they do show that someone saw/signed/had a source proving there's a giraffe, even if it wasn't the subspecies claimed.

-- Remember that the zoos themselves are often the cause of the errors (having signed/claimed to have a subspecies they don't in fact have).

-- As a result of the incorrect identification by the zoos themselves, we are asking ZTL to, in effect, adopt a higher standard of proof than they may have previously had to (when they could normally rely on what was seen/signed).

-- Remember that we ourselves are trying to bypass ZTL's normal procedures by seeking changes continentally, instead of submitting them one by one, zoo by zoo, the way this would normally be handled (For good reason, of course. But we should at least acknowledge that we're asking for something that they may not be set up for).

-- Remember that even after ZTL has corrected the entries for all the American giraffes, the zoos themselves don't seem to be changing their signs and data, so ZTL is going to have to come up with a strategy for addressing this long term. Otherwise, each and every time a contributor visits a zoo, they are going to CORRECTLY follow ZTL's rules about how to source things, report what they saw (or were told they saw), and accurately report what was signed -- and in the process inadvertently reintroduce the erroneous subspecies. Over and over in perpetuity. (Or at least until American signage catches up with the standards that we are asking them to use).

-- Remember that we're asking for all of this at a time when they've just opened themselves up to the whole world, when entries are flooding in from everywhere (not just America), and where some of the policy and strategy questions we're bringing up may look more complicated if they're trying to think about how they'll address them everywhere.

Again, I can certainly understand that it's frustrating to true experts (like all of you!), who have studied these animals for years and know this information forwards and backwards. But I really hope we can give the admins the benefit of the doubt and not assume that they're ignoring things or that they're unwilling to make corrections. Surely there must be enough other entries that we all can work on in the meantime, and circle back to the problems a little bit later after they've had a chance to catch their breath?
Click to expand...

A big thank you for this! It sums it up perfectly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top