Join our zoo community

AZA Animal Exchange

Discussion in 'United States' started by kbaker116, 3 Apr 2009.

  1. kbaker116

    kbaker116 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    360
    Location:
    Michigan, United States
    I have a couple questions first is there such thing as the AZA Animal Exchange I read a book and it talked about it, it said this monthly TV magazine size booklet had a list of animals, gender, facility name, and price. Does this still exist today? I know they have loans and animals are traded but do they have this. If so how much would a Gorilla, Elephant, or even a Sea Lion cost for a zoo.

    Another question with the AZA code of ethics how can zoos get away with giving animals to unaccredited facilities. For instances the Metro Richmond zoo has a Mishmi Takin from the San Diego Zoo, the Tennessee Safari Park has Red River Hogs, Bearded Pigs, Natal Red Duikers, and other ungulates from the San Diego Zoo. The Animal Kingdom zoo has Mandrills and other primate species from the Buffalo Zoo. These animals are relatively new so how do zoos get away with this or is it simply no where else for these animals to go. I don't mean to throw these great facilites under the bus, but I am interested in this topic please post a response.
     
  2. Buckeye092

    Buckeye092 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    548
    Location:
    Dublin, Ohio, USA
    Most of the time it's space reasons. Takin (particularly Mishmi) are near or at capacity in US zoos. Non-AZA accredited facilities aren't bad facilities - they are great places to hold "extra" animals. And someone correct me if I'm wrong but last I checked DAK was accredited.
     
  3. kbaker116

    kbaker116 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    360
    Location:
    Michigan, United States
    I meant the New Jersey Animal Kingdom Zoo it is a roadside attraction. There are only 8 Mishmi Takins in the U.S. 7 at the Denver Zoo and 1 at the San Diego Zoo they are rare so I don't think space was an issue they should be a high priory.
     
  4. Buckeye092

    Buckeye092 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    548
    Location:
    Dublin, Ohio, USA
    Drills should be a high priority and they are being phased out. Animals that are rare in captivity or highly endangered dont always get "priority." And yes for Mishmi Takin space is an issue because only Denver is holding them in large numbers. San Diego doesn't have any more room for that subspecies because most of their takin space is devoted to Sichuan Takin.
     
  5. taun

    taun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    13 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    3,699
    Location:
    England
    Such small populations are not viable in the long-term, unless they can receive additional animals then is it worth investing time and money into a species that has no foreseeable future?
     
  6. Kifaru Bwana

    Kifaru Bwana Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    7,748
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Holland
    This is the very rationale for Taxon Advisory Groups where entire zoological families are reviewed by a selected appointed group of zoo staff. This is what goes on inside the individual zoo regions (of which EAZA, AZA, ARAZPA and ALPZA are the most developed regions).

    On top is a the level of WAZA and IUCN's CBSG which brings together scientific/zoo staff involved in captive-breeding operations. WAZA is developing an regulated administration of selected cooperatively managed species which have too small populations within each zoo association region and therefore warrants global management.

    To me, the challenge for the coming decade is to gradually move towards global captive species management that is inclusive of all institutions involved with cooperatively managed endangered species breeding or taxon monitoring programmes. Only by this method will relocation of managed species to sometimes unregulated locations be a past tense thing. But remember, many institutions outside the accredition process of the zoo associations are equally involved in valuable captive-breeding operations.

    It is only - and here I do have reservations on transfers (not by loan agreements) - that San Diego and some others are rather indiscriminate in that approach - and I particularly deplore the fact that San Diego has literally disposed of a significant number of rare hoofstock to undisclosed and/or unregulated institutions. Another bad example is the demise of the Rare Equid Sanctuary ... No loan agreements on ownership means that zoos no longer have control over where offspring are going and commercial dealings can be made (a gotspe when this concerns CITES appendix I + II or III species, but a legal loophole inside the US).
     
  7. Jurek7

    Jurek7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    1,758
    Location:
    Everywhere at once
    I think zoos must revise their policy of keeping big, self-sustaining populations with 100 or 200 years worth of preserving genetic variability. This means losing many species from breeding plans and all zoos keep exactly the same species. Instead zoos should keep smaller populations of more species. This would allow education in more topics, would sover more endangered species, and would be insurance because nobody knows what species will become endangered in future.

    Zoos should also press to change over-strict regulations on transport of zoo animals. They are designed for mass transport of meat and domestic animals, but zoo animals are simply better protected against diseases.

    About private holders - there are now more addax and scimitar-horned oryx in private ranches in S USA than in zoos and wild combined. The same is true for some parrots in Europe. Zoos must find some way to use this animals for conservation, instead of pretending they don't exist.
     
  8. Buckeye092

    Buckeye092 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    548
    Location:
    Dublin, Ohio, USA
    @Jurek7: While it would be nice to see more diversity in species in zoos, without self sustaining populations of 100-200 animals, conservation is pointless. While no one likes to think this: zoos are the "ark." They are failsafes for wild populations. If we don't have a self sustaining population and something goes wrong in the wild then we (zoos) could possibly endanger a species even further.
     
  9. zooman

    zooman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    1,831
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria, Aust
    I do agree with you.

    It's just is a orangutan still a orangutan if there are none left in the wild?

    People seem afraid to say this. There is no chance left for orangutans in the wild in the next 10-20 years. Will the orangutans in captivity be used for a reintroduction to the wild. I really doubt the wild will ever return! Not being a pessimist just a realist.
     
  10. okapikpr

    okapikpr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    2,944
    Location:
    Florida
    This is what the AZA policies are regarding animal disposition. No where is it stated that AZA accreditated zoos cannot send their animals to non-AZA accreditated zoos:

     
  11. Ituri

    Ituri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    3,144
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Thanks for posting that okapikpr, I've been wondering myself what the actual guidelines were.
     
  12. Jurek7

    Jurek7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    19 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    1,758
    Location:
    Everywhere at once
    I meant that there should be smaller insurance groups for more species.

    Because it is hard to predict which animal becomes critically endangered in future. And because, fortunately, after animal was wiped out, situation in the wild often changes for better only after few years or decades, so very big breeding groups aiming for preserving species in zoos for 100s of years are not needed.
     
  13. kbaker116

    kbaker116 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    360
    Location:
    Michigan, United States
    That is very true. I have seen some great non-AZA accreditated facilities but I have also seen some really bad ones. What I guess I am trying to point out is that some animals are being put in terrible situations. I am reading a book called Animal Underworld. It was published in 1999 but some of the factors still apply today. For instance roadside zoos and auctions have been seen with many rare and endangered animals. Here's an example.

    An Accredited Zoo is flooded with Bongo Antelope and decides to get sell 2 pairs to another zoo. When nobody buys then they go for free. Still no takers and they are sold to a nice Non Accredited Zoo. Later in the year that same Non Accredited Zoo takes all four to an Exotic Animal Auction. They are then sold to a ranch in Texas that provides canned hunting opportunities.

    Why does this happen? I think that its wonderful for zoos to breed endangered species but I believe that it shouldn't be done unless there is room in the zoo world for them. Either that or AZA accredits more zoos. I don't know what do you think?

    Watch this video to see what I mean.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: 6 Jul 2017
  14. elefante

    elefante Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    1,474
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA
    I think that if a zoo wants to sell something to a non-accredited facility then an inspection should be performed. It would be good too if they had some way of preventing the animals from being sold to things like hunting preserves and circuses. Zoos should also not be breeding unless they know the animals can go to good homes, not just to attract visitors. On a different note, does anyone know how often elephant families are broken up? I know that is a very stressful ordeal for elephants to go through.
     
  15. kbaker116

    kbaker116 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    360
    Location:
    Michigan, United States
    Glad you agree with me. I am not quite sure about that question you should start a thread asking that. I would think when separating cows they do it in pairs or small groups and moving them that way. For bulls their isn't as much emotion because they leave the herd and go by themselves anyway.
     
  16. elefante

    elefante Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    1,474
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA
    I know that separating bull isn't traumatic but with cows it can be extremely traumatic.
     
  17. zebedee101

    zebedee101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    436
    Location:
    Yorkshire UK
    Animal Kingdom is really a pet store, everything has a price!

    http://www.animalkingdomnj.net/
     
  18. kbaker116

    kbaker116 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    2 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    360
    Location:
    Michigan, United States

    Animal Kingdom is a pet store and zoo. I guess what I mean to say is that I'm confused by your post. Everything has a price? Rare and Endangered animals shouldn't have a price. They should only be held by people who can respect them and take proper care of them. Animal Kingdom Zoo and Pet Store is not a place for these animals. It is a roadside zoo. Not a place where zoo animal surplus should be placed.
     
  19. zebedee101

    zebedee101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    23 Jul 2008
    Posts:
    436
    Location:
    Yorkshire UK
    Sorry for the confusion and we are in total agreement on all of your points. What I was trying to get across is that unfortunately it seems that the zoo is really just a store front and everything has a price tag on it, even the rare and endangered animals, in my eyes that makes it a store, not a zoo. My english (uk) sometimes doesn't translate to english(usa) as well as I'd like! Animal Kingdom in NJ is a place I have never visited and was suprised to see that they giraffes there. Having lived in NJ for 8 years and worked at an AZA accredited zoo for that time, it was an establishment that I had never heard mentioned. Therefore it doesn't even appear known about to the zoo community. The animal underworld book previously mentioned highlights the issues with surplus zoo stock, especially when new exhibits dictate the loss of other species to make room. It seems that rare and exotic animals are treated as saleable commodities and that if no other accredited zoo wants them they are offered to none accredited zoos and then down the chain to exotic auctions where they can end up in pet stores or canned hunts.
     
  20. elefante

    elefante Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    12 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    1,474
    Location:
    North Dakota, USA
    The fact that some of them end up in canned hunts is the worst. That is why I sometimes worry when I see something like an addax calf. Will it end up on somebody's wall later?