Flawed/short-sighted phase outs, collection plans and general species management

I’m not sure if there are other threads dedicated to this admittedly rather broad topic. I decided to start this because in recent years there have been several decisions made by EEP/SSP/TAG co-ordinators that in my opinion were short sighted and in other cases totally flawed. I’m certainly not alone in thinking this as there are often posts made questioning decisions or the way certain species are managed.

Recently I have questioned why Persian leopards were phased out of most UK, US and many mainland European zoos in favour of Amur leopards. Sure, I am well aware of how few animals there are in the wild, but the Persian/Iranian leopard is also endangered (I was reading an as yet un-published paper which suggests) there are fewer than 1000 animals with very sparse distribution and the pressures on these are far greater than on Amur leopards. The biggest issue I have with the decision to expand the Amur program is that the captive population is heavily polluted with Indochinese leopard genes.

Something which really irritates me is the way Guenons are managed in captivity. More often than not they are found in pairs which as im sure you all know couldn’t be farther removed from the dynamic social groups these species form in the forests of Africa. Is it any wonder the breeding results are so low? As far as I know none of the species are currently considered to have self-sustaining populations. With aging population demographics for all species it’s frustrating seeing reproductively viable females sitting in collections without mates.

Leadbeaters possum, why send groups to Toronto and London? This increases the cost and time involved in transfers in a species with a comparatively short reproductive life. Not surprisingly the species no-longer survives in captivity despite moderate breeding results (after severe bushfires in 2009 there is apparently little evidence this species survives at all).

There are many other examples and perhaps I will share them later!

While I am fortunate enough to be in a profession which grants me access to a lot of the documents which justify some of these decisions there is still often clear holes in the logic.

 

Guenon management is a subject I feel strongly about too and I've posted on this issue in a number of threads where relevant. Overall in the UK probably only De Brazza and Diana monkeys have viable populations, but they are not really selfsustainingg at present. I do agree about the long delays(sometimes running into years) during which females are left without mates while new partners are 'sourced'(or are they simply forgotten about?)- examples; the Diana Monkeys at Newquay and Exmoor. I also think sometimes too much emphasis is put on the role of 'genetic diversity' in the management plans for these species when they occur in such small numbers too-especially if it means good breeding pairs are broken up. A perfectly good breeding pair of Dianas at Paignton(3 young born and reared) were recently split up because genetically they would become over-represented if they continued to breed together, and the male ended up going abroad- yet this was one of the few current productive pairs in the UK.

As you say, the 'pair' syndrom is an artificial one anyway as these monkeys occur in troops in the wild so why isn't this mirrored more in their zoo management too? Only Port Lympne/Howletts seem to make any attempt to keep Guenons in more natural groups but even here they are really only small 'families'. Colchester's 'L'Hoest's are a thriving group too but again I can see some of the offspring being sent elsewhere in future rather than being retained and allowing any interbreeding between relatives.

 

I'm waiting for the people to start shouting "if you don't work at a zoo then you have absolutely no idea how things are done and you're not allowed an opinion".

Pity we're loosing some incredible species in the meantime, I agree most notably guenons (but also hoofstock species)...

 

I don't profess to be an expert but I know in the case of many EEP managed species (like Guenons), there is a genetic 'target' of keeping 90% genetic diversity in 100 years. In effect this means that in a very small population, any frequent breeders may be prevented from breeding too much to prevent them genetically swamping the unsuccessful ones. It seems to me a rather unrealistic method of maintaining or increasing zoo populations, at least in some cases.

 

It'll be a tough decission to make though. What if a viable male has three youngsters with one female and there are more females out there that haven't been represented at all. Would you ship the viable male over to see if you can include those genes into the mix as well, or would you leave it with the succesfull female in order to raise the number of animals...

I don't mind if they move animals about when they already have been succesful in order to see if they manage to include unsuccesful animals into the breeding stock. As long as there seems to be a bigger "plan" behind it all, but sometimes there doesn't seem to be an obvious plan though.

I can imagine it's a TOUGH job though, persuading zoos to part with their animals just to maintain a breeding program somewhere else. And I believe many of the EEP holders manage it in their free time as well, which is also great. Perhaps the biggest improvement would be made if zoos would give curators or head keepers the education they need and the time they need to properly run an EEP, but i can understand it'll be hard to fit into a zoos' budget...

 

I think you'll find that people that do work in zoos are generally also frustrated by phase outs. I understand why it's done here in Australia but I don't like the large number of animals we are losing.

There are reasons, especially her in Aust. Just because we don't agree with it does not make it flawed.

 

You all are rather rash in blaming the coordinators for the short falls in captive breeding programs. The comments above clearly show that you all dont know the inner workings of the zoo field - a reason to possibly not comment on such things. Unfortunately opinions can and are often taken as facts. And then used as such - something that has happened all too often on this site.

Ask questions if you are unsure, or do the research. I know the AZA's website has several webpages and documents dedicated to this purpose. Please dont just assume or throw around IMHO. Especially when a little research can change a lot.

It should be pointed out that these coordinators do not have the authority that many of you believe they have. Nor do the SSP/EEP or the AZA/EAZA have the authority to just move animals about and tell zoos what to do. Everything published are recommendations.

Think of it as the coordinators are choreographers. And the animals are the actors. But rather than dealing with one director who makes the decisions for the whole scene , they are working with a huge group of directors - many of which have they own opinions one how the scene should be played out.

If you have any further questions, please ask. PM if you like.

But please dont place blame where it is not warranted. And if you want someone to blame - it really is the individual zoos that make the most mess in these programs. They are the ones doing the actual work - the coordinators are only trying to provide direction.

 

Opinions are personal. If they are interpreted as fact theen that is the fault of the interpretor. This is one of a few areas where people that don't work in zoos should be able to share their opinions. They are the ones that vissit the zoos. They are allowed to be disappointed in what they can no longer see.
I know the phase outs are done for a reason, but it doesn't mean people can't share opinions or thoughts. I only find it frustrating when non sooies comment on husbandry practices at institutes or for entire speceis without having ever worked with them.

 

I would support moves of that nature, though would prefer to see the animals assembled more in one place to facilitate such attempts to breed from different individuals. But I accept individual zoos won't want to lose their exhibit animals by sending them elsewhere,even if it would benefit the species overall, so this is not often a workable option. In that respect I believe Twycross sent their non-breeding pair of Whiteside's guenons to a bigger group in France in an attempt to involve them in breeding- very commendable but then Twycross have many other(non-breeding) Guenon species so the loss of one pair as a display was negligable.

I also accept it must be very hard to find suitable parters for some species which are numerically at very low levels. And if we don't work in the Zoos we do not know all the details. But seeing some of these unpaired/unbred individuals in the same non-breeding situations longterm, sometimes for years, does lead one to question whether there are better options available.

I also think sometimes that with certain unusual species such as Guenons, which enthusiasts, such as us, value seeing in our zoos, they are not particularly high on the zoo's own lists of animals they value for display to the public, so while breeding and maintaining viable populations may seem important to us, it isn't necessarily so to them.

 

Very interesting questions. I think some very valied points are made from many of the people writing in this tread. I agree that some decisions seem to be wrong, or short sighted, but at the same time I also have faith that a lot of these decisions have been made with all known factors in mind. The Amur leopard EEP knows about the populted genes. They know about the plight of the persian lepoard. Surely the decisions to phase out the persians wasn't easy. I hope it was made with the best intentions and that it was the best of several bad choices. Maybe I'm naive having this faith, but in matters where I don't know all the parameters I have chosen to have this approach.

A different matter is the guenons. Maybe gerenuk can explain why they are so often kept in pairs rather then matrilinear groups (which would be the best) or multi-female groups (which I think would be problematic but better then pairs)? I doubt individual zoos are to blame in many of these cases, but I have no doubt some zoos would be unhappy sending all their females away so that one zoo could get a large group. People are people, even if they are zoo directors, curators and coordinators.
The problem then is also what to do with all the surplus males. Suggestions?

And Pertinax, I would like to ask you why you (again) talk about diana and debrazza monkeys having viable populations in the UK. They are not managed on a UK level. As far as I know all species in EEP:s or ESB:s are considered european populations (with the exeptions where parts of Asia, Africa or Australia are also part of certain programs).

 

Its a bad habit of mine, stemming from the days when species weren't managed on a European level. I am aware that's the case nowadays. What I really meant by referring to the 'UK population' is the number of zoos they can be seen in in the UK- not that they are managed here as a seperate population anymore. With several species I have the feeling if they die out (become nonviable) within the Uk zoos that still have them, they might well not re-appear again(from Europe) so to some extent its still an isolated 'sub-population' though not managed as such.

With regard to why they(Guenons) are kept in pairs so often rather than multi- female groups. My take on this is that the sex ratio at birth is roughly even so males and females eventually become available in roughly equal number to make up fresh pairings for new holding zoos. Once a zoo has a pair, its often difficult to later introduce additional unrelated females even if they do become available, so breeding is from one pair only. Due to low numbers, and the desire to avoid any inbreeding and maintain the genetic diversity, the young are usually moved on to make up fresh unrelated pairs elsewhere, so matrilinial lines don't develop and the groups don't get the opportunity to increase into sizeable numbers.

So nowhere has sizeable troops of Guenons, as they would occur in the wild. Yet zoos manage to keep other primates; e.g. Baboons, Barbary Apes and Mandrills in much larger numbers. Good healthy breeding Guenons can produce young at a similar rate to these other species. So what are the differences involved that prevent some real troops being established?

 

Thanks for the explanation Pertinax

You are probably right in your assumtions about the guenon pair keeping, and your explanation together with the low numbers of most species is probably why no larger groups are created. However, I think there should be lagrer groups created. Perhaps (probably?) that would boost the population. Breeding males could be exchanged every few years so that no male would be over represented.

There would be a big problem with surplus males, as guenon males unlike baboon-, barbary macaque- and mandrill males usually doesn't accept other fertile males in their proximity. This would then require a lot of zoos to hold single males, which I guess wouldn't be very a very attractive idea to most. Perhaps they could be housed with other species.

I wonder if this could be tried?

 

That is really the ideal, isn't it- larger matrilineal female groups that remain stable, and the breeding male is exchanged every few years to allow outbreeding, balance the genetic represention and prevent father/daughter matings, all in one go. But as you outline, it creates problems with the excess males produced, both the 'retired' breeders and surplus young ones bred. I can't see many zoos being interested in them as singletons, whereas in the 'unrelated pair' situation it becomes a more attractive proposition.

I believe its a case where management constraints of this nature mean it is very difficult to replicate natural groupings- unfortunately. But while the zoo populations of several of the guenon species remain so low, I have the feeling they won't get wider zoo 'exposure' than they do now, yet they are amazing monkeys.

I have managed not to refer to the 'UK population' this time- you are correct it doesn't exist as such in this day and age.

 

I noticed, thank you.

 

I have worked at a large US zoo for over a year. Which I feel is irrelevant because it certainly isn’t too difficult to make ones self familiar with the “inner workings of the zoo field”.

Im pretty sure that most people on this site are aware that these groups only make recommendations and it is up to the owner of the animals concerned what happens to them. Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my fist post. The point I am trying to make is someone is to blame whether it be program Coordinator or Curators I am going to return to the examples used above.

Guenons. A pair of Diana monkeys recently left a UK collection to go to a new Scandinavian holder. It’s my understanding this was done through the coordinator. Why were these animals not moved to a collection which already held them? I know it’s very difficult to merge two groups of primates but why is not being tried?
I firmly believe the way Guenons are managed in captivity needs to change while there is still a chance some species can be retained.

Leadbeater’s Possum. Why would anyone in their right mind divide a small and unstable captive population across three Continents?

 

I think what frustrates me the most if that zoo's readily sign up to be part of EEP's and SSP's, so they can turn around and spout figures of what percentage of there animals are involved in breeding programmes and so on, yet when it comes to actively being involved, swapping animals, transferring young etc they are so hesitant. Whilst coordinators can only make recommendations surely everyone zoo in the EEP signs up knowing those recommendations are made for the best of captive population and therefore should be followed. It is not just the coordinators who work on these recommendations but the EEP's species committee as a whole can be involved.

Now imagine the frustration of a group of people putting in X amount of hours of work for free to have collection after collection decline or refuse to move animals. Financially who wants to move out an animal unless its a problem, the transport costs and paperwork involved are labour intensive but at the end of the day if the EEP recommendations are not followed then populations can cease to become viable or sustainable. EEP's are generally acting for the future but zoo's want the now as now is where the money is.

With this in mind it is no surprise compromises or so called 'flawed' decisions are made. Im sure every EEP coordinator has an ideal plan in their head of how things should work out but unfortunately they have to then deal with the reality of zoo's not cooperating, transfers being cancelled, health restrictions stopping moves and so on and so on.

I believe every EEP/SPS/ESB coordinator is genuinely interested in ensuring future generations and genetic wellbeing of the species they work with, but unfortunately egos, red tape and money scupper best laid plans.

 

Breed and Cull policies.

This seems a good place to raise this subject, as it can be a highly charged issue, whereas people looking at this thread will perhaps be less emotive about it.

Edinburgh Zoo recently received a lot of bad publicity/critisism over an EEP recommendation which they acted on, to euthanase a pair of young Red River Hogs which were surplus and could not be found an alternative home(in an EAZA zoo), whereas the subsequent litter has been 'saved' due to adverse public opinion.

So do people on here think 'breed and cull' is a realistic management tool in the Zoo situation when it can create bad publicity for the zoos if it comes to light?

 

I'd say the debate would be about wether a ZOO is allowed to cull animals in their care. Animals that are produced for the food industry are culled every day, and a large part of the debate would be if zoos are allowed to cull animals as well (their predators have to eat anyways, and the animals culled have a better live then many feed-animals).

My opinion is, and always have been that zoos are responsable for the animals in their care. Therefore, they shouldn't cull any of their animals on the account of EEP recommendations, unless it's totally unavoidable to keep the species alive in zoos. This means a VERY strict breeding policy, where only animals are bred that can either be housed by the zoo itself or has takers before the animals are born.

The only viable reason to cull animals that I have sofar come across, was the fact that blackbuck have a 50-50 birth ratio, but only a few males are needed. According to many zoos, bachelor herds are not possible because the males will attack and kill each other. In that case i believe a zoo could cull some of their males in order to keep the species alive in captivity.

Other then that, I believe many zoos could easily prevent breeding of unwanted animals by either contraceptive, or keeping the sexes apart. There's almost always no need to cull

I also like to add that in many countries it's illegal too, another good reason not to cull...

 

Good points raised here, So it is actually illegal to cull animals in some countries, could you please elaborate, i. e. , what countries etc, thank you.

 

So there are really two angles;

1. The ethical/moral issue.

2. Practical considerations e.g. bad publicity that can ensue.

Longterm contraception is supposed to render females infertile in some species- not just Suidae. I have also seen that happen in carnivores and primates in the past. Single sex groups are an option in some species but not others- it has been suggested for the Red River Hog programme.

I normally have no qualms about euthanasia in zoos generally- for reasons of sickness, old age, or other situations that can't be avoided, but this policy of breeding young and then putting them down, just to keep the adults ticking over in 'natural' conditions I do have some uneasiness about. I also think it may be laying Zoos wide open to criticism from the public too, if they are found out, as happened at Edinburgh.