Just wondered what determines a zoos collection ? what is the thinking behind it ? Why have Lions not tigers for instance? I assume we all acknowledge space as a factor and knowledge on the species.
Its really situational. Its based on the zoo's budget, the topography, sometimes the weather, also theming on other areas of the zoo, what needs holders (If part of the AZA), what is available, probably many more reasons too that I just don't know about.
Particular interests of the director and/or the curatorial staff Requests from the general public Recommendations from Marketing staff, consultants, etc Results of a Master Planning process It's much more personal on the one hand and driven by forces outside the zoo, on the other than you might guess
I think the must have are: Lion, tiger, leopard, brown bear, elephant, rhino, hippo, griaffles, antelope, deer, bug house, night house, bird house, monkeys and apes.
To throw in what the others have said, laws may influence which animals are put on display. Sometimes the legal standards for keeping a species in a country are very high, and a zoo either can't afford to meet those standards or doesn't want to bother. Sometimes laws may also influence availability of a species, where it's difficult or impossible to import what you're looking for.
I'm just going to tease this along a little. Why must you have this set of animals ? What happens if space dictates? What makes a zoo decide say Lioin over Tiger or Hippo over rhino . if you could say have gibbons plus one great ape which species
Ok so a few things could narrow that list down. If the zoo is making an African complex in Europe, that would mean no bears, lions, tigers, or deer. Maybe eliminate elephants since Asian ones are more common. These animals are eliminated because they aren't from Africa. No lions because of only Asian lions in Europe. If you were building an African complex in Europe and your zoo had financial issues and is bad at raising money, it would eliminate elephants, hippos, and all the "houses" as well as all the animals labeled in the first list since elephants, hippos, and houses are expensive. So the only really interesting animals in a African exhibit in Europe at a zoo with a limited budget would probably be apes, leopards (idk what leopard species are in Europe) giraffes and hoofstock, and maybe rhinos. You would need to have lots of less flagship animals or smaller ones as supporting cast members. On the other hand, if you were making an African complex in the U.S., and you had to narrow down from premierfong's list, you would eliminate tigers, bears, and deer since they aren't from Africa. You wouldn't eliminate lions since there are African lions in the U.S. If the budget was restricted, you would eliminate elephant and hippos. So there would be a much larger list of animals to have in a U.S. Low budget zoo African complex than in a European zoo low budget African complex.
There are lots of African lions in Europe According to Zootierliste, the numbers of collections are as follows. Barbary lion [P. l. leo] = 22 collections [of course, the purity of these is very questionable] Kalahari lion [P. l. vernayi] = 4 collections African lion [no ssp. status] = 226 collections Somali lion [P. l. somaliensis] = 1 collection Transvaal lion [P. l. krugeri] = 46 collections [a fair few of these are the white lions, but there are tawny individuals as well] Southwest African lion [P. l. bleyenberghi] = 19 collections. These numbers also exclude any/most of all African lions kept privately, plus the possibility that African lions could possibly be imported from certain African countries [though not sure the likelihood of this - I would love to see Masai lions come into an ex-situ programme given the decline in Kenya]. Also, if you are on a limited budget and wanted to do things properly, I would say great apes are also out of the question
I think that demand comes into this from the public. I imagine most of the public would expect to see at least one big cat example in a small to meduim size zoo. And taking it from there i assume they would want to see lions or tigers and probably both to be honest. Would a zoo be viewed the same if it had say Puma & Jaguar as its big cats probably not.
Garyjp, I think you are right, but if it had something like Pumas and Jaguars iy also depends on what else they have as well as big cats.
I believe ZooElephantsMan is making the more basic mistake of assuming there *are* no African species of deer
Of course it partly depends on the country. Here in the USA, it depends if they are part of AZA or not. If not, then often it is whatever animal the director or staff like. This is based on obtainability of course. If they are part of AZA there are a lot more constraints. Even here there is still some leeway, which goes back to staff preference (which may or may not be based on public desires).
A commoner mistake is the assumption that living marsupials are only endemic to Australasia and the Americas. There are a few species of Asian marsupials that get ignored by most people.
