Animals in zoos, which to keep, which to throw away

Maybe you feel the title is a little harsh. But now I am going to adress a very important question in zoo management. What I mean is that I am so tired of people on this forum saying like this: I want that species to be in captvity, I want this species in captivity, and bla,bla,bla. What annoys me so much with this is that it goes against the modern zoo concept, yes we can keep many more species in captvity than we do now. But then we have to change or ideology completely, and walk backwards from or modern conservation idelogy to the old poststamp collecting era, that we have long since trespassed. It will also be hard to maintain large viable populations of every species, if we have so many of them in captivity, many of them only present in a few zoos.

All animals in zoos and aquariums today need to have a reason for being there as defined by EAZA, and only so called "flagship species" should be kept. Of the approximately 10.000 species that is in captivity, I think we could do good with below 5000 species, and of those species, I think it is especially important to keep these groups off species in captvity:

ABC species: I think it is important to have as large as possible populations of ABC species, and specimens in captivity as possible, because they are important for most people, and it is these animals normal visitors would expect to see in a zoo. ABC species are maybe the best flagship species, and big cats, primates, bears, elephants, hippos, giraffes, you name it are here to stay, if you like it or not.
Example of a good representative flagship ABC species that is in captivity: Tiger
Example of good representative flagship ABC species that is not currently or in very low numbers exhibited in capitivity: Amazon river dolphin

Endeangered species: If zoos had not existed we would maybe not had any
california condors, przewalski horses, peere davids deer, american bisons, arabian oryx, and several other animal species left. Endeangered species is
the biggest reason to why zoos exist, had it not been for zoos abillity to conserve endeangered species, it would maybe not be possible to justify their existence.
Example of a good representative flagship endeangered species that is in captivity: Giant panda
Example of a good representative flagship endeangered species that is not in captivity: Javan rhino

Representative species: People have to know that there is more to the animal kingdom than just the carismatic species like bears, big cats and elephants. People have to see some of the species that fill up the cracks in between. An example: curently there are over 1000 passerine species in captivity, many in very low numbers, why cant we just keep a few representative species, many of them maybe culturaly important, famous, living in the same biographical area, or species that just sticks out from the rest of them. Another example from the bird world: EAZA have said that some zoos have to cut back in parrot species, only the most charismatic parrot species like macaws, amazons, cockatoos and budgies will be kept there.
Example of a good representative flagship species that is in captivity: House sparrow
Example of a good representative flagship species that is not in captivity: Cant think about any just now.

Odd species: A lot of what have been said about representative species above also applies for so called atypical zoo animal species. I think it is important to also please the zoo enthusiasths in todays society, therefore we still need weird, or rare animal species in zoos, only that we have to cut back a lot in biodiversity and keep only relatively few of the odd species that is, and have been in zoos, to follow the modern zoo consept.

Example of a good representative odd flagship species that is in captivity:
Aardvark
Example of good representative odd flagship species that is not in captivity: Marsupial mole

Besides the animals that fit in the groups above, all animals that do not fit well enough in to the groups, and many species that does fit in the groups should be phased out.

 

Arent anyone going to reply to my thread ? I am interesting in hearing other opinions about animal outphasing in zoos, and zoo management in general.

 

You have a very "new aged" mind about zoo related issues I can see. I myself have a very "old aged" mind about zoo related issues. You will get a lot of controversy either way and both minds are perfectly acceptable either way.

Though my mind is set on the older ways of exhibiting species in zoos I still have a radical idea that if it is not endangered than it certainly shouldn't be in a zoo! I get a lot of grief for this but I stand by this decision completely. ABC animals should not be in zoo in my opinion and they should be left to private breeders. As should rarely exhibited "odd animals." At the same time I need to balance my "old age" zoo mind set with my radical mind set. I love seeing species specific exhibits and not continental exhibits. I've come to dislike "African" exhibits with a passion and I seemingly skip them each time I'm at my regular zoo digs. This being said, you would think I like the old bar and concrete floors. Not true.

Everyone has a different opinion that varies every different way. There is no way to be for sure what will happen with zoos in the future but it looks like it is moving your way. I will say I don't approve of your way though.

Your way would make zoos look all the same, their would be no creativity with exhibits as most would have been done and, keeper experience would be limited ( then again it would be very easy to obtain the experience you need with only 5,000 to choose from) and lastly there would be no reason to go to any other zoos besides your home zoo and maybe a couple others with a lesser known ssp. species. I have to say, though I do not see eye-to-eye with your stance, I understand why you have decided it is best.

Lastly, I can say that the few animals you said that zoos have saved from extinction are not enough to even justify why zoos should focus on fewer species. All the animals in zoos have no hope for release into the wild, other than species of herps or insects. Nor will their children or their children's children. It's an unfortunate cycle that many people don't realize... Your best hope for saving a species is keeping what wild animals are left in the wild and protecting them. Bringing them to zoos just means more pathogens to deal with and more of a hassle it will be to get them back into the country. That's why many aren't released. Though their are a few that have been placed back into their original country, it is surely not enough to say that we are saving species. We are saving them from extinction, but are we really saving them from extinction in the wild? Even if zoos did focus on fewer species than they do know, there is no definite assumption that these species will help wild populations.

Disclaimer - I know people will disagree with me, so take what I have just said as my opinion. I also only have very limited experience so my opinion is coming from that experience.

 

IMO zoos should keep those animals which they like to keep and to show to the public. I agree that no animals should be taken from the wild just for filling enclosures in zoos but for conservation proposes I think it still is allowed - in co-operation with conservation societies and the home-countries.
Also confistcated animals still should find a place in zoos.
Phasing-out sertain species is IMO a bad idea because nowbody knows what will happen with the species in the future ( an exeption being mutations and hybrids - think about white tigers, hybrid giraffes and so on ).

 

I am actually agreeing in most of what you are saying Pacarana. Yes you could describe me as modern when it comes to collection management, but I too have a fair bit of love to the good all taxonomic displays, and other things that sticks out of the ordinary. Though I have not said that all zoos are going to look the same, I have just asked for a more critical approach when i comes to which species that are going to be kept in captivity, and which to "throw away" Dont take me wrong I love zoos that dare to do something new, (I am also so tired of seeing ex number of giraffe and ex number of antilope, zebra and ostrich in a savannah exhibit in a zoo, it is almost an clishe now) and I love some of the zoos that still sticks to the old displaying methods. It is just that, that if zoos are going to be good and modern, and follow the modern principals of the 21.century, they have to cut back much in species !

 

Zoos (especially AZA zoos) are in fact cutting back species. It is a fact (a fact most ZooChatters dislike).

I do think there is a place for non-endangered animals. Every animal has its place in the ecosystem and I would hate to imply that non-endangered ones are somehow less important. Our zoo is preparing an exhibit for orphaned grizzly bears that we will get either from Alaska or Wyoming (both state agencies have bears to offer). I am not sure if they are endangered or not, but assuming they are not, the purpose for us showcasing them is to tell the story of orphaned or "problem" bears that cannot be left in the wild and encourage people to live in a way that will reduce this problem.

An easy way to maintain or even increase zoo species without going back to small enclosures is to have a greater variety of small animals. Almost every zoo has lions and tigers, but how many have oncillas or jaguarundis or margays or golden cats or black footed cats. All five of the species I just mentioned could easily be displayed in the same space that one tiger exhibit takes.

 

Im a volunteer at Melbourne Zoo, and at Zoos Victoria (the state zoo organisation which runs Melbourne Zoo, Werribee Zoo and Healesville Sanctuary) for animals to be kept, they must fit into the "gameplan" as one (or more) of 5 different roles as a species:

ENGAGEMENT SPECIES: these are species which people (particularly children) can relate to, because they have seen them on tv or they may have humanlike characteristics. Examples include Meerkats (seen on TV show "Meerkat Manor") and Capuchin Monkeys (humanlike - and seen on film "Nighttime at the Museum").

AMBASSADOR SPECIES: these are the high profile species who are the face of a current conservation campaign. Examples include Orangutans which are the public face of the Sustainable Palm Oil campaign. Sumatran Tigers are also part of this campaign and are high profile.

RESEARCH SPECIES: these are at the zoo because research is being done on them.

ARK SPECIES: these are at the zoo so that a population can be bred up in case the wild population becomes extinct or is close to doing so.

I cant remember the name of the 5th catagory (Ive left a message to find out and will post it when I know), but from memory it has something to do with breeding.

The point is that all species have some sort of role to play. If a species fits into more than one of these catagories than it becomes a higher priority for the zoo to house than a species which doesnt really fit into one of these catagories.

I hope this helps.

 

OK - got them now. "Engagement Species" is actually "ENABLING SPECIES" (but the description of the role is correct) and the 5th catagory is "RECOVERY SPECIES" which is about breeding up a population.