Moderator note: this topic split from here: Tierpark Berlin News 2019 [Berlin Tierpark] This deserves attention. Wild-caught members of a husbandry-challenged species were brought to Europe with no conservation motive and utter disregard for animal welfare. The aardwolf import was a disgrace.
"Husbandry-challenged" means difficult to keep in a zoo, right? Is there a specific reason, why they are so vulnerable? I didn't hear anything about this before and assumed the Tierpark and other zoos just happened to be less lucky than with other more or less sensitive species (many of which seem to prosper). Having said that, I didn't really like their enclosure very much. It seems better suited for the mongoose.
Yes, Giant Panda means they are a difficult species to keep in a zoo. There isn’t a specific reason as to why aardwolves don’t appear to do amazingly well in captivity, but there doesn’t appear to be much luck with them. In Europe in the past 10 years the only births have all been stillborn or miscarriages, and what was once 11 holders of the species is now a mere four across Europe, only one of which has a viable pair (Hemsley and Hamerton both have single animals, with Hamerton holding single animals of separate subspecies, Novosibirsk has two males and Halle has the pair)...
Aardwolves are extreme food specialists. Their diet consists mainly on termites of the genus Trinervitermes and in most regions it feeds on one species in this genus only. In S Africa it feeds more on Hodotermes termites in winter given the lack of Trinervitermes activity, but this is not a good food source given that Aardwolves feed much less than normal and lose weight. Anteating animals are challenging in captivity anyway, but other specialists like Aardvarks at least feed on a wide variety of ants and termites. Their husbandry was also challenging but their relative generality makes it much easier to adapt to captivity and breeding results in the past 20 years reflect this. This extreme food specialization is the problem of keeping Aardwolves in captivity and letting them thrive. I agree with @Giant Panda here that there is no good reason for Aardwolf imports. I am happy there are Mongoose now in that exhibit, as a large group of Mongoose in a large enclosure makes for an excellent exhibit (see Nuremberg and Beekse Bergen as examples).
Not quite accurate - there was at least one breeding at Edinburgh where the pup was rejected at about 5 days - but more or less spot-on.
Thank you for the specific explanation. The Tierpark keeps a number of tricky animals, including a number of food specialists such as several anteaters. But this sounds like aardwolves still are another category. And I totally agree that there is no need to import animals which are so difficult and not even relevant for species conservation. So far it seems like there may be the exact same development with the gerenuks (very difficult to keep, no successful/ sustainable European husbandry in the past afaik, not endangered in the wild). As much as I love to watch gerenuks (and loved watching aardwolves), it hurts to witness these heavy losses.
Yes - absolutely... Flicking quickly up and down this thread and its recent contributions, leaves me tempted to add corrections to some of it, but I am not going to - not here anyway..
@markmeier Unfortunately, Aardwolfs never did very well in Human Care, altough the Diet isn't the mainproblem nowadays and some animals get very old. The first female at Frankfurt Zoo lived 19 years, but never bred. Until 1990, the Zoo imported 12 Aaardwolfs, seven from Namibia and five offspring from Krefeld Zoo. The Zoo has kept them at two places, one pair at the Roundhouse , the other in the nocturnal house. They never bred there, but at the Roundhouse, between 1985 and 1992 six litters with 18 young in total were born, but only four young could be raised. The zoo kept one female , the three other animals were send to Berlin and Krefeld.
Come on – this is a lazy cop-out. If you're going to post on a discussion forum, either address what you disagree with or what's the point? I, for one, would be fascinated to hear your thoughts regarding the aardwolf import.
While - I think - I understand why you see things in this way, I wholly disagree, for a number of reasons. Aardwolves may be "husbandry-challenged" but I don't believe that this is a reason to 'give up' on them as an animal suitable for human care (any more than is the case, even more contentiously, with Pangolins). The history of zoos is the history of the correct husbandry for different species being 'got'. Gorillas are the most cliched example, with the much quoted comment from the Bronx, from the early part of the last century, that they would never be able to prosper in confinement, but I think there are a number of other, less obvious, examples as well. Just last week I was reading a fascinating piece in the latest issue of Zoo Grapevine about new developments in the understanding of the dietary needs of Slow Loris. Head back to the 1970s, and how many species that we now take for granted would be regarded as being 'difficult'? I think the implication of what is said here by @Giant Panda is that the import might have been justified if Aardwolves were a threatened species but, since they are not, it was not justified. I would counter that in two ways. if something is justified (or not justified) on welfare grounds, the rarity of the species concerned should not be relevant: we cannot have different welfare standards for species depending on their current conservation status. However, I would also suggest that the current (relative) safety of wild populations of Aardwolves is not necessarily something on which a hat could be hung. Human populations in, say, Tanzania, are not going to decrease. Pressure on land is not going to lessen. Climate conditions are not going to get more stable (The Handbook of the Mammals of the World lists drought as one of the major threats to the species). It would not be a wild prediction to make to suggest that, in the not-too-distant future, the status of the Aardwolf might have changed markedly. And, of course, there is the big discussion about whether it is justified to keep an animal in captivity simply because it is an interesting species and the lives of those who come into contact with it might be enriched, regardless of any conservation value that such a move might have. I respect the views of those who think it is is not, but I firmly believe that such captivity is wholly justified. The carnivore house of my fantasy zoo would certainly contain Coyotes, American Badgers, Black-footed Mongoose, Spotted Skunk, African Palm Civet and Lesser Grison - because I would like to be able to see such animals, and I believe that others might share that desire too, and because I believe that a life enriched by being able to do so would be better than a life that did not benefit from just such an opportunity. I for one am very glad that I have been able to see Aardwolves in captivity (hence my having one for my avatar here!). I am disappointed that the species has not become better established, and, if harvested in a sustainable way, I would welcome further imports from the wild to try to achieve such an establishment. I realise and appreciate that not all will share this view!
OK - This is the most important statement in any of the above thread. We have proved that with appropriate care and modern diets the species can be very long-lived in captivity. The issue is that the ethical and skilled supply of the founding stock appears to be the problem. The source of the foundation stock from South Africa and Namibia which came to zoos in Germany and the US (and latterly Hamerton) was highly experienced in the successful capture and slow and careful acclimatisation of adult animals. Our original stock was captive born (and parent reared) in Namibia from adults collected by him in South Africa. These animals bred at Hamerton 3 times with the sucessful hand-reaing of a pair of pups which lived for many years. We lost the mother before she could breed again. The problem then was the horrible milk and minced meat diets we had to use. We developed our own powder based diet which could be reconstituted with water, which was better, but now the animals do very well on commercially available SDS Mazuri Anteater diets. This product is of patchy quality, but Aardwolves do better on it in our experience than do the species it was developed for. If we could combine the ethical sourcing of enough suitable animals, with todays diets, I firmly believe that the species is pefectly suited to captivity, and would do as well as Anteaters or Aardvarks. From the little I know, Pangolins are possibly in quite a different league. The issues regarding the import of the Tanzanian animals, or other species such as Tarsiers or even North American Porcupines, I am not going to be drawn on.
I also love Aardwolves and I really enjoy seeing them, but I respectfully disagree with most of your statements. I think that this is to be done on a case by case basis and I think that both for Pangolins, Gorillas and for Loris there are reasons that do not apply to Aardwolves in my opinion. Gorillas are extreme crowd-pleasers (as well as already critically endangered), zoos had much to gain with establishing a captive population. Pangolins are also a unique taxon and the whole order is critically endangered, so they would be important education and convervation animals (if they could be established). The question here is whether educating Americans and Europeans is going to solve an Asian/African problem, if this puzzle will be cracked. We also have to accept that the 70ies was a different era and animal welfare standards were quite frankly of a different standard, things that were acceptable back then, are not so anymore, and this is something you have to work with, regardless of whether you agree with it. The whole Pangolin controversy shows that trial-and-error is much less accepted than it was before. I guess we are lucky PETA and consorts only really "care" for a few big mammals, otherwise there would have been outcries already. It is increasingly clear that zoos can save some species from extinction, but space is limited in zoos and it is clear that we cannot save all species. So choices have to be made and quite frankly, Aardwolves would not make it to any priority list. Over 20% of mammal species is already endangered and Aardwolves are not and it is unlikely that they will become (more) threatened than many others giving their wide range and occurence in several countries (S Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania) with excellent national park systems and their ability to survive outside such parks. There are a lot of other species currently living in Tanzania that would profit more from a breeding program, especially as they live in areas where human pressures are extremely high: forests and wetlands. Puku, Udzungwa red colobus and Kipunji are much higher priorities than Aardwolves will likely ever be. They are unique, that is true, but so are many others. We will likely see the continued presence of 2 hyena species in zoos, which is 50% of the whole family, a score better than many other families achieve, so on taxonomic grounds there are also no reasons. If zoos are to remain relevant in terms of conservation we need more than "I like to see this species" and have stricter plans of which species to keep and which not. I very much like Aardwolves and Gerenuks, but I think we have to accept that these are species that if they cannot be sustained, they should be ceased to be kept. I do not agree with many that admitting a species is better not kept is a defeat for zoos, I see it as a strength as zoos do not need to keep every single species and knowing your limitations is better than bragging.
Mmmm... the one comment I would make on all this post is that 'if they cannot be sustained, they should be ceased to be kept' would apply to many, many more spp than the two singled out here. A drastic reduction in zoo diversity would result. I personally think that would be a pity....
Relatively minor point, but I'd argue that the last survivor of a sub-family which last shared a common ancestor with the remaining hyena taxa about 15-20 million years ago is taxonomically notable
As a side note: I really enjoy this discussion. In one way or another, I appreciate both lines of argumentation. This topic has been a reoccurring interest for me, particularly in the context of Tierpark Berlin which has successfully started and established various breeding populations (including some difficult species) but of course also experienced a number of losses and complete failures. So I often experienced the great excitement that comes with watching rare (and some rather exceptional) species for the very first time in my life. Or even the joy when they started to breed. But I also do remember some occasions of bitter disappointments (the most recent ones actually being said Aardwolves and Gerenuks, even though the latter may still have a chance I would hope). If I am entirely honest, I only started to get more interested in the complex background over the process of quite some years, with fresh new species coming and sometimes going again. For quite some time I would just be thrilled each time (even now I would lie, if I denied looking forward to watching Sifakas soon). And I still believe that all these species, the many successes and even some of the failures led to a great expertise in the husbandry of an extremely wide range of animals concentrated in Tierpark Berlin. But by now, I also understand and welcome, if a specific animal or group is send somewhere else to get better possibilities to prosper and breed. And if a sustainable population can't be established, I also understand 'giving it up'. In a way it's still a good thing though, if we don't need to worry about Aardwolves and Gerenuks in the wild.
The simple comment if a sustainable population can't be established, I also understand 'giving it up' could remove many (most?) spp from our zoo collections. What do you mean by 'sustained', how long, how many generations, how much genetic diversity. Combined with the looming on-going result of the European 'invasive' species legislation, this could be a major threat to zoo diversity... It is very simplistic to single out just two species, when there are hundreds more which could fail your 'sustainability' test and therefore be either banned, or just 'given up on'.
@sooty mangabey and @Andrew Swales: Thanks for your responses. To add to @lintworm's comment... This continues to be a false equivalence. Maintaining populations of challenging species with established husbandry – knowledge often gained through horrific trial-and-error – obviously raises fewer issues than starting from scratch with wild-caught animals. What’s done is done. If gorillas weren’t threatened and had never been in captivity, would you advocate the decades of animal suffering needed to establish them? That’s the more relevant question. Also, for the record, I posted to draw attention to the import of eastern aardwolves. I’m glad @Andrew Swales believes aardwolf nutrition has been cracked, but that’s far from the whole issue in this case. No, conservation status doesn’t affect welfare needs*, but it introduces trade-offs between welfare (the individual level) and conservation (the population/species level). In situ work, for instance, can involve actions only justifiable on conservation grounds, e.g. trapping invasives inhumanely almost invariably has a net cost for welfare. Hence, sentiments like this are naïve: “if something is justified (or not justified) on welfare grounds, the rarity of the species concerned should not be relevant”. In and ex situ, we routinely prioritise biodiversity conservation over animal welfare. On your second point, ZooChatters (and zoo directors) who like rare species use a few well-worn cases to argue we cannot predict population declines (saiga, passenger pigeon, etc.). In reality, resources are limited and evidence-based conservation science is more effective than random guesswork. Take your drought example for aardwolves. Conservationists have developed sophisticated models based on species distribution data and the latest climate projections. We have identified hundreds of species which are common today but threatened by global warming. If conservation were the rationale for importing aardwolves, why not import species we know are in danger? Why choose one with large and stable populations, especially when it involves hugely stressful weaning? Why not partner with academic institutions and invest in climate envelope modelling beforehand? Answer: because conservation is a convenient excuse for keeping non-threatened rarities. *Although, in general, traits associated with endangerment (range restriction, dietary specialism, etc.) are also associated with welfare issues in captivity. There’s no point rehashing old arguments, but can we at least agree that – from an ethical standpoint – rare animals in chronic stress trump the odd ZooChatter’s acute elation? I loved seeing eastern aardwolves as well, but that was vastly outweighed by the suffering they endured. The same is true of your fantasy carnivore house. For some species, constant proximity to other carnivores is extremely stressful. Nadja Wielebnowski and co’s clouded leopard research is the best-known example… and major zoos still build them exhibits next to tigers (Pairi Daiza) and snow leopards (Wroclaw). Keeping numerous species in small numbers also leads to unsustainable captive populations with low genetic diversity (remind me again how much you value ex situ breeding programs…) and makes comparative welfare research impossible. In other words, it’s bad for both conservation and animal welfare. Fair enough, but I feel this issue matters. The zoo industry's failure to condemn the import – and, in some cases, their support for it – reflects very poorly indeed. Right, but this is the is/ought fallacy. Why would it be a pity? And for whom?
I’m glad @Andrew Swales believes aardwolf nutrition has been cracked, Why there is a need to miss-quote what I said as a direct result of being asked to elaborate, is a question for the poster. What I did say above is that our animals were doing very well on commercially available diets - which actually produce very mixed and variable results with the species they were 'designed' for, (and so the diets for other supposedly sustainable species is far from being 'cracked').
Well, for like 90% of zoo employees and I'm sure big majority of the general public would notice too. Diversity is important, so people are still motivated to visit. And from employee's point of view using my situation why would I travel all the way to Pilsen and Jihlava, when I have perfectly fine ABC collection of Brno 15 minutes from home knowing that my help there is always wanted and appreciated? It's the diversity that does that. In Brno, I would never have the on-hand experience with so much unique species I have in those two (ok there some other reasons as well, but that is for a wholly different thread and I don't want to rant here much) that Brno just can't match. That would explain why is "Mazuri diet" a rude word for some people.
