I've found Google Earth to be much more accurate in seeing where there is actual space at the zoo. The monorail path is especially useful in seeing how much space there is in Asia beyond the exhibits, which all encircle a huge group of barns. There is actually a good bit of area right where trains have crossed back over the river. Those exhibits and all the land down toward Asia Plaza could be combined to make a fair set of elephant yards that people could walk by and linger and explore.
That's where the Markhor enclosure is, and it is an extremely hilly and rocky area. EDIT: I just used an area calculator @nczoofan once provided me to check real quick and the entire area of land in between the four paths/service road that surround the Asia overflow parking is roughly 4.5 acres. While an elephant habitat could be built here theoretically, bare in mind that a good amount of that space likely wouldn't be able to be used for an exhibit for various reasons, and I probably accidentally included a good chunk of what is actually the Wild Asia Plaza (it's hard to tell because of the tree cover). Let's estimate it down to roughly three acres to be safe. So now the zoo only has 3 acres to built apparently multiple elephant yards so they can accommodate for breeding, the entire indoor barn, and all of the off-exhibit facilities. That's not even taking into account that staff are probably losing parking that needs to be accounted for and that lot is possibly also used as overflow for the zipline course as well as overflow for the zoo itself. ~Thylo
I was really only commenting on the usefulness of Google Earth to reveal structures and roads we otherwise wouldn't see. I was surprised to find that there was--probably still is--a residence behind the Reptile House where the head keeper lived as late as the 1980s, so I went to Google Earth. I also noticed a structure at the South end of Asia that I think may be their kiwi breeding area.
Boom. Here is an amazing point @ThylacineAlive. A zoo the size of the Bronx can afford to have both the ABC animals all guests and zoo fans love while also providing spaces for the smaller species that desperately need it in AZA facilities. Zoos like the Bronx can house basically entire captive populations and distribute them to other zoos if needed. This allows other zoos to provide space and renovate exhibits to fit the needs of the big ABC animals such as hippos, elephants, and primates. While those renovations displace the lesser known species, the biggest zoos like Bronx, San Diego, Omaha, NZP, etc. can take them on and still have successful programs. The smaller zoos can have the species that bring people in and support their care and conservation while still not eliminating the care of the smaller species. Space is needed for all current species but efficiency is key to keeping populations viable.
In addition to the fantastic points made by @ThylacineAlive and @Echobeast, I think you're kinda making one of the most important points yourself... if no one cares about wild animals "in theory" but rather through first-hand experience, don't we actually need them to experience those lesser known but more endangered species like WCS and NZP do so well? Most New Yorkers know that elephants are endangered, and I'd go so far as to say that a lot of Americans overestimate the risk of extinction of certain species (giant panda, jaguar, lion, etc.) in comparison to even dholes. I was very pleasantly surprised to see WCS make a pretty big deal out of the return of gharial (a species significantly more endangered than elephants or polar bears) to the zoo - Americans benefit a lot more from seeing a gharial live than an elephant. And this is coming from someone who not only LIVES to see elephant behavior in all its glory but specifically loves your namesake NZP elephant and wishes that NZP could do more to make folks get as excited about the scimitar oryxes. ABC animals are good for marketing... but marketing is also good for ABC animals. The public's relative interest in species changes over time. Was there really a red panda or sloth obsession before the internet? Think about the changing perceptions of wolves, hyenas and sharks. For all you know, polar bears and elephants could become an attendance liability in the years to come (I hope that is not the case, but you never know) like orcas have at SeaWorld. We can MAKE less popular species become ABC sensations as a society, and top zoos like Bronx are equipped to do so. I definitely understand that there needs to be a balance, but the lack of 3-4 ABC standards should not be damning, especially on a site like this where I think we should be brainstorming how to excite the public more over dholes. Also, WCS's list of conservation programs doesn't benefit species based on its impact on you as a zoo goer. It benefits species because of the direct impact that works has in range countries. WCS programs include: establishment of new protected areas; improving conservation laws in the USA and developing countries; scientific research that has improved in-situ and ex-situ management; training rangers and law enforcement to combat wildlife trafficking; ex-situ breeding and release of near-extinct species within their range; livelihood interventions around protected areas to wean local communities off of resource extraction; human-wildlife conflict management; and education activities in range countries, including the kind that you've described for Bronx zoo-goers. I think it is ultimately as if not more valuable for a rural kid in India to learn to love the elephants (that his parents hate as a crop-destroyer) than it is for a New Yorker.
I appreciate everything that's been said here. Although it may seem my opinion differs, it really doesn't. I was merely mulling over the original post by @Jurek7 that questioned whether in situ conservation funding had increased to the point that the home zoo was being affected adversely. If you note, I always put such thoughts in the hypothetical. We've pushed so long for more conservation in the wild to prevent viable solutions to extinction that we have probably never thought it possible for there to be too many in situ conservation dollars spent. The Bronx is not in the same financial position as other zoos--that's where we started--and @Jurek7 raised a legitimate possibility for that. It's possible he's absolutely right that monies spent abroad are preventing large-scale improvements here, but it's the right decision. Perhaps we found the answer to our original question and find we agree with it. I was stunned to even read it originally, but it's never a bad thing to consider, to think, to reason. That's the benefit of a collective mind on a forum like this. Thylo, I think you interpreted my comments on in situ conservation and made me a straw man against all conservation of species at the zoo. These are two very different things. I was strictly pondering the effect of dollars sent overseas and whether it's possible that number could result in zoo quality dropping below some particular threshold. I am all in favor of the gharials, the maleos, the pink pigeons, the hornbills, the Tahanisi spray toads, the dholes--ok, maybe less enthusiastic about the New England bunny project which probably doesn't require Bronx Zoo science to accomplish-- I love everything you mention, and more, being bred at the zoo for purposes of conservation. I do, however, agree with @Echobeast that a zoo the size of the Bronx should be able to do both conservation and exhibit the ABCs. The ABCs quite simply are the faces of conservation, and people come to see them and leave with a sense of wonder that includes all of the HIJKs as well. Seeing one elephant for 15 seconds is not enough to appreciate its behavior or wonder. And it IS a happy accident that our four bears were all orphaned in 2010, or we might have no bear species at all right now. Primates, ungulates, cats--all good. But the zoo definitely needs more bear species and a place for Happy and Patty to be seen leisurely and appreciated. Remember, the remaining ABC species on Asia Trail can also be found in regular exhibits elsewhere. I truly hope the TV revenues will be used in the park. Lastly, I'm delighted to meet the "Indian lad" who so appreciates my beloved Ambika from afar! Now that's the magic of seeing an elephant! But don't be disillusioned that the zoo does anything to get people excited about the scimitars--they don't for the elephants either. I have been lobbying for years for NZP, Valdosta, and the Elephant Sanctuary to join up for an article in Time honoring the successful lives of the three 72-74-year-old elephant ladies in human care still gracing our presence. Too controversial. Heck, they don't even have a 70th birthday t-shirt of Ambika. Or any elephant since Kandula left. Our scimitar-horned oryx aren't being shunned any more than every other species. The gift shop is filled with plush pandas and sloths of every size--even though I have never spotted one in the SMH or Amazonia. Maybe the real focus on endangered animals would come if there were more animated movies to bring them to stardom the way they did for sloths!
I am not sure about funding, but very likely in the mid of the WCS managers. Don't criticize me. I prefer in situ conservation to jazzy exhibits. I prefer pygmy hippos to bigger but commoner Nile hippos. However it is the public and sponsors who decide. The WCS must ultimately agree with them.
You know I'm sure that BZ would happily do what it wanted to if it wasn't for the lack of funding. One thing I'm hoping for is that the WoD is either redone or demolished. I think what gives us the illusion of the zoo being empty is that much of the former exhibit space is empty, creating the visual of a declining zoo. Given that this is NYC, space needs to be handled better as they have potential for amazing stuff but I do think in-situ programs hold more priority unless someone just donated a ton of money for the Bronx. Also, I think either common or pygmy hippos would be fine for where the white rhinos are right now.
This, I think, is absolutely correct. I'm not trying to say that the WCS's unparalleled commitment to conservation isn't financially affecting the zoos in any way because it very obviously is. I just find the notion of criticizing the institute-- which has single-handedly or very nearly so saved entire species from extinction-- for focusing too much on conservation to be ridiculous and contradictory to what we as a general group all claim we want zoos to do. I think the thing to remember, though, is that any money spent on conservation is money taken away from the zoo's ability to create new exhibits. This is true for all zoos. The WCS happens to focus very heavily on conservation, and therefore that is money that could be going towards the zoos and aquarium for new exhibits that just isn't. That's just the way it is, and if we all want zoos to focus on conservation as much as we say we do, that's a sacrifice we're all going to have to accept. The WCS donates significantly more than any other zoological organization to conservation programs, that's hundreds of millions a year. That money could go to new exhibits, I'd imagine Central Park or Prospect Park could do quite a lot if they were handed an extra $200million* or so. I'd imagine Bronx could save up for a brand new multi-million dollar African savanna pretty easily with all that extra cash. But that money is not for the zoos, it's for their conservation programs. I'd imagine if they stopped spending so much on conservation, everyone here would be very upset with them, even if it did come with a flashy new bear, hippo, or chimp habitat. The reality of the situation is that the organization only has so much money to spend each year, and they very clearly have their priorities set. If we want to praise the WCS for spending so much saving wildlife, we shouldn't then chastise them for not spending some of that money on the zoos. Now as @reduakari mentions, the situation is not going to be as clear cut as any one of us think and there are surely other aspects beyond finances at play here. As far as conservation goes, though, I personally don't want to see the WCS spend one penny less on actually saving the wildlife we want them to be exhibiting. *Someone will need to remind me what the actual numbers are, I keep forgetting admittedly and I'm not entirely sure where to find them. I did find this website, but I'm not sure how exactly to interpret all those numbers The zoo is doing both conservation and ABCs, though. I know that ABCs get visitors through the door and that they are very important, especially for major zoos. Bronx has them, though! In fact, Bronx has more than most other zoos in the country. Off the top of my head, the only US zoo that I know has more ABCs than Bronx is San Diego, a fact that I and others would criticize them for due to the often questionable exhibitry and husbandry standards that come at the cost of having so many bears, elephants, and primates. I've done this already repeatedly so I'm only going to do it one more time to get my point across, but here are a list of species that Bronx keeps which we would generally consider to be ABC animals: Domestic Sheep Domestic Goat Domestic Pig Common Warthog (ambassador animal) Domestic Zebu American Bison Dromedary Camel Giraffe Southern White Rhinoceros Indian Rhinoceros Grevy's Zebra Domestic Pony Domestic Donkey Indian Elephant Aardvark (questionable, but most people know what an Aardvark is at this point) California Sea Lion Asian Small-Clawed Otter Western Red Panda Brown Bear Fennec Fox (I've found that most people nowadays know what these are, too) African Lion Amur Leopard Amur Tiger Malayan Tiger Snow Leopard Southern Cheetah (ambassador animal) Spotted Hyena North American Porcupine Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Domestic Rabbit Linnaeus's Two-Toed Sloth Giant Anteater Western Lowland Gorilla Gelada (baboon for all intents and purposes) various small primates such as capuchins, squirrel monkeys, and tamarins Ring-Tailed Lemur Domestic Guineapig Red Kangaroo (ambassador animal) Toco Toucan various owls and raptors, including Bald Eagle various parrots/cockatoos various cranes Indian Peafowl Chilean Flamingo American Flamingo Little Blue Penguin Magellanic Penguin Southern Ostrich Emu various crocodiles various large boas/pythons various venomous snakes Komodo Dragon Aldabran Giant Tortoise T hat's 54 general ABCs not counting all the individual species in the "various" groups. From that list, the only big name ABCs missing are hippos, sea turtles, and sharks, the latter two of which are kept at the New York Aquarium. All three of those missing from Bronx are generally the ones that you'll find missing from zoos the most often, as well. With Bronx's tentative Pygmy Hippo plans, the WCS theoretically will have all the big name ABCs between two parks anyhow, with all but the two marine animals being kept at the Bronx. This is why I really don't understand what all the complaining is about Bronx's ABCs, they're there. The argument that they need multiple Great Apes and multiple bears when they already have so much is rather silly to me, not to sound rude. Ambika, I'm not trying to strawman you, but I responded to what you wrote yourself. You complained that, "For a zoo of this size, the collection should be determined by what species are most endangered and what SSPs need more members breeding," but in the prior sentence complained that, "Every new species is smaller than one it replaced..." completely ignoring that by bringing in smaller species, they are determining their collection "by what species are most endangered and what SSPs need more members breeding." Now this may be more of a strawman, but from your arguments it honestly sounds to me like you're simply upset that the zoo isn't carrying more of the ABC species you personally like seeing the most. Why does the zoo "definitely need more bear species"? How come the lack of them (along with secondary Great Apes and a hippo for other members) seemingly completely overshadows everything else that they already have? How comes all the primates, ungulates, and cats get summed up as "all good" but the fact that they don't have that one more thing means that the zoo isn't doing enough? These questions are for everyone, not just Ambika. It's been claimed repeatedly that the zoo's ABC stock has multiple geriatric and disappearing animals, but besides for the elephants no one wants to actually clarify which species those are. The argument of the normal visitor's perspective keeps being brought up, and rightfully so. Does anybody really think many people visit the zoo and say, "Yeah they had Grizzly Bears and gorillas, but they didn't have a second bears species or a second ape so I'm disappointed. Not sure if I'll come back"? I doubt it. Of course, the presence of these additional animals could slightly enhance a visitor's experience overall, but I don't think anyone is really being disappointed by the lack of secondary species, they probably don't even notice apart of the occasional visitor who didn't realize Tundra died two years ago. I'm sure every once in a while someone makes a passing comment about hippos, or pandas, Polar Bears, or maybe orangutans, but I can't see anyone being upset about their lack of presence to the point of not wanting to visit anymore. Yes new developments and new species will excite people and get those who haven't visited in a while to get back to the gates, but did the more recent additions of gharials, Komodo Dragons, giant tortoises, anteaters, sloths, Amur Leopard, and white rhinos not do that at the time? Not to mention the very recent additions of the rhino, Cheetah, and giraffe paid encounters. The zoo is adding more ABCs for visitors to get excited about and revisit more, but everyone just wants to talk about the few that they don't have yet or can't make room for. The zoo is huge, but it's not infinite. If it made room for all the ABCs in the world then there wouldn't be much room for all the smaller stuff you guys want them to simultaneously keep. The one point here I do agree with is that 15 seconds or so is not enough time to appreciate the elephants and that the zoo needs to emphasize this endangered species more, especially since they do so much work with them in the wild. I really don't think a grand new exhibit complex is smart, or even necessary, but I do wish something could be done to emphasize the species and the work they're doing with them in the wild. Finally, not to keep arguing a pedantic point, the zoo adopting four bear cubs (one of which isn't even alive anymore) seven whole years before their last Polar Bear died is not a "happy accident". Regardless of how much time passed between the cubs arriving and Tundra dying, the zoo had Brown before the cubs arrived, and they still have other Brown Bears besides the three remaining cubs. They should still have a few Grizzlies bts. Why? I don't know, but they're there. The two Grizzlies currently at CPZ came from Bronx, in fact, and had been at the zoo since 1995. Even if Bronx never adopted the four cubs, there would still be bears at the zoo. ~Thylo
There's a second tiger enclosure on the monorail? I only recall the one; or, are you saying that space is the repeat of Tiger Mountain? That would certainly be a fair bit of space for small to medium sized pack, and break up the monotony of hoofstock. My only concern for that space would be visibility. I didn't have the greatest sight lines on either trip, and the operator never actually stopped to let you get a good view. Otherwise, any zoo that can and wants to house dholes is a plus in my book. They're quite the interesting species. This is bitterly disappointing to learn. I had hoped that a zoo of The Bronx's caliber would have sourced the proper animals!
I meant that the space is a repeat of Tiger Mountain. I understand why they have a tiger in that enclosure of course, but it'd be nice to have a different carnivore in such a lush species. Visibility would definitely be an issue since people often have trouble finding a full grown Amur Tiger in in there. I think a whole pack of Dholes would be a bit more active and easy to spot in theory, though. Well to be fair, they would have had to go to Madagascar to get them ~Thylo
This thread has been moving at quite the clip, and I haven't been able to keep up! Though, it feels like Thylo and my text sessions writ large! Somebody mentioned Andean Bears and Queens Zoo. If there's one place that's getting hosed by the WCS, it's Queens. The largest borough and its zoo deserve better. While I applaud the WCS for wanting to house American animals the whole thing is rundown and a bare bones effort seemingly keeps it open. I assume nobody has yet fixed the giant hole in the sign in front of the zoo either. Queens Zoo doesn't need to be, say, as large as The Bronx, but a cash infusion would certainly help improve its current exhibits and bulk up its collection. A jaguar would help out, as would a handful of the many birds of prey found throughout the Americas. Now I need to go back and read through the rest of this messages.
I found this funny because I remember someone (I think @sooty mangabey) saying they thought Queens was the least rundown and seemingly best run of all the WCS facilities I personally have only visited once so can't comment much but I enjoyed Queens, though I thought that their animal collection be use some sprucing up. Does anyone know if Queens has any expansion options? The zoo's current grounds are currently fairly small and I don't think much else major could be done there. ~Thylo
Sorry I meant to cover this earlier. Do you mean the New England Cottontails? They're only at Queens afaik, but they're a highly endangered species in the wild with only one other zoo working with them to my knowledge. Why shouldn't the WCS be working with them? ~Thylo
That distinction would go to Prospect Park for me. Queens didn't even have ticket booth attendants when I visited! I also have only visited once, but it didn't leave a good impression. I don't necessarily dislike it, but I didn't like it either. I appreciate the housing of American animals for the locals who will probably never see them in the wild, but I have or had all of them in my proverbial back yard at one point in time. I can see that. I only managed to see the tiger because he was right up near the tracks. I think he was either in the pool or getting out of the pool. If the monorail operator actually stopped for a bit it might be easier to spot whatever. That's probably an issue with operations and park management though. re: dhole activity level In my experience with them in the wild, they're incredibly active in cool weather and in the evenings. If it's too hot, they turtle up under the nearest tree or shade offering and wait for more favorable climes. Given New York's summers, my concerns with them would be them spending most of the day largely out of sight if they were on the monorail. Tundra's old exhibit should theoretically keep them visible throughout the day/year/whatever.
No booth attendants!? Was it free Wednesday for something? I do enjoy PPZ a lot as well. Queens needs a bit of a pick me up animal-wise, especially from South America. Spider monkeys or at least tamarins/marmosets would be a great start. A better aviary selection would be good, too, but I'd imagine they need mainly/entirely winter-hardy species. Red or Mexican Wolves instead of the "Coyotes", too. I think a small aquatics/herp house in the wetlands area would be a good idea. Adds an indoor aspect during the winter and would allow for various North American herps/fishes/inverts to be displayed. Maybe focus on the Hudson for fish or something. A Wyoming Toad on-exhibit wouldn't hurt so bad I don't think either That makes sense re: Dholes. I've always seen them rather active but I have limited experience and never seen them in full on summer heat. ~Thylo
**There are extra bears at the Bronx beyond those four we see, in the exhibit and on TV behind the scenes?! I don't know where or why they're being hidden, but the end result is that the public certainly isn't seeing them. ** I think an educational array at the Bronx Zoo should have more bear species, because people need to know how many bears are in trouble. No matter what you say, the zoo currently holds one species, one of least concern of endangerment. The zoo has a fine assortment of cats, ungulates, primates, birds, and crocodilians, enough to let a visitor see the extent of the problem across species. But the problem isn't palpable with with 15 seconds or no time with a species. **Perhaps I don't understand what an ABC species is. My definition would be (usually) large animals that people think of as exotic and special that are held only in zoos---a complete enough representation that someone leaving the zoo will have experienced firsthand enough to know the full breadth of what is endangered and could be lost without action. Not to seem rude, but you sound rather silly claiming that domestic donkeys, ponies, pigs, sheep, and goats are such animals just to increase your number. I'd also say it's not fair to count any species that can only be seen through a pricy paid encounter, which, to be honest, makes a day at the Bronx extremely expensive for one/a family already paying for parking, entry fees, and extras like Asia, the Congo, etc. It's not accurate to say we can all see the kangaroo, the binturong, the warthog, the golden eagle, the crested porcupine, or the owl, or now the sloth; these animals are deliberately not on exhibit to keep them something special enough to generate an upcharge. If we took off all the special areas with an additional fee, that removes all of Asia and the great apes too. ** I think it's wise to note that replacement species seem to be chosen to suit the available enclosure. I maintain that a zoo of this size should be choosing what species to hold by what is needed most by SSPs, not by what there is room for, because most zoos don't have as much space and can't accommodate large endangered animals. If the species chosen are those most in need of SSP participants, great. But the reason for the selection matters. If the choice is made solely to avoid building anything, then perhaps the cart is in front of the horse. Only by experiencing animals at the zoo will people be moved to contribute to the BronxZoo for conservation in the wild. Investments in the park are investments for conservation funding. ** Finally, kindly stop insisting that I am anti-conservation simply because I am exploring the current expenditure of funds and wondering if it is the most effect ratio between park and conservation. I have not been one of those who complain that the zoo does nothing, so stop treating me as if I am. Let me say it again:. I support conservation at the zoo. I support conservation in the wild. As a member, I am ideologically and financially supporting both, putting my money where my mouth is. I'm not criticizing the zoo, nor am I the cause of plague, war, and pestilence in the world. Get off my back..
Yes. This is the kind of program, like the spray toads, that seems to be very fully established in its range, with a large number of people working in situ. I was thinking that such organizations may be a bit more autonomous now, perhaps with their own non-profits and funding, and that WCS could would no longer need to give start-up amounts to keep operations going. Of course, keep breeding animals to be returned to the wild, but perhaps reduce financial support somewhat.
Three* One of the four cubs seems to be longer be at the zoo (I assume it died, but it could just be off-exhibit or sent elsewhere). I still don't see what that has to do with anything, as if the three cubs never came to the zoo then some of the Grizzlies would just go on-exhibit instead as they were before. Your argument was that without the cubs the zoo would be bear-less, I was just pointing out that that's inaccurate I never said they counted as being on-exhibit. The zoo only has one bear currently, yes, and it is Least Concern, yes, but it's still a species native to the US that has a lot of conflicts with people and whose range has become severely shortened within the continuous states. Again, the argument still comes down to "it doesn't matter how much the zoo has, the fact that they don't have that one additional thing means they're lacking", or at least that's how it reads off to me. Your initial claim was that the zoo doesn't have enough ABCs because they only have one bear, now you've moved the goalpost to saying they have a lot of ABCs but the elephants are displayed poorly and they need more bears for educational purposes. If that's your opinion that's fine, but I'm free to respond to it, just as you're free to respond to me and so on and so forth. What do you want them to do for a bear anyhow? Polar Bears aren't available, Giant Pandas aren't an option, Asiatic Black Bears are a phase-out, Sun Bears are a phase-out, American Black Bears I'd assume you find to be "too common", Andean Bears are already kept and bred by the WCS and adding them to Bronx would be robbing Queens of their star attraction, and the Sloth Bear program hasn't been seeing any successful births from the European imports. This isn't a Bronx problem, it's an AZA problem. There just aren't many bears available besides the native non-endangered ones that AZA zoos have to work with. As for the elephants, I already agreed with you. An ABC is any animal that visitors find cute, fuzzy, cool, or otherwise entertaining that they'd know off the top of their heads and will usually get visitors through the door. Usually the charismatic megafauna such as rhinos, elephants, giraffes, Great Apes, bears, big cats, and dolphins are the typical examples, though the latter seems to continuously lose its popularity. Smaller species such as Meerkats, Red Pandas, otters, anteaters, small monkeys, prairie dogs, wallabies, penguins, flamingos, crocodiles, giant tortoises, etc. are all still examples of ABCs, though, even if they perhaps aren't always as popular as their larger cousins. Even though many on here have praised the zoo's animal encounter programs, I agree that animals generally held bts shouldn't inherently count but I added them simply because the zoo does keep them. I didn't include the Crested Porcupine on my list, though, I included the NA Porcupines which are in the Children's Zoo, as is the sloth (they have more than one) and one of their owl species (others are kept elsewhere in the zoo). I didn't add the domestics to "increase [my] number", however, I added them because they are ABCs. You were apart of the conservation on the 'species you hate' thread regarding the merits of pettings zoos and farmyards in zoos iirc so I'm not going to get into that here. If you'd like you can reread the arguments made by others on that thread for why they definitely belong on the list. I think you're being a bit disingenuous with the prices, though. The extra exhibits are included in the base ticket, you have to specifically request the ticket that doesn't include them. Zoos don't keep education animals "to keep them something special enough to generate an upcharge" either, they're there for both on-ground and off-ground education programs and shows. Yes you can pay for special encounters with animals both on and off-exhibit, but that is not their sole purpose. I also don't think it's fair to say that the animals found on the monorail and in CGF don't count either simply because some people have to pay a small fee to see them if they didn't get the base ticket or have a membership. I agree with you entirely, but your argument as it's used here is still moot because that's exactly what Bronx does. The zoo has roughly 120 mammal species on-exhibit, at least 1/3-1/2 of those are large species that the zoo is maintaining populations of as per SSP recommendations or as their own programs. Nearly the entire remaining AZA population of Indian Hog Deer is consolidated at Bronx, and many of their other ungulates are kept at only a handful of AZA zoos. They also have four out of the five big cats (as well as abnormally large tiger populations for two SSPs), probably the largest gorilla population in the US, keep two rhinos, and are the only current breeder of Geladas. The zoo is maintaining SSPs for large mammals. You keep repeating that a zoo Bronx's size should be choosing what species to hold by what is needed most by SSPs, but what I keep repeated that you're not understanding is that the small obscure mammals you're complaining about are what the SSPs need more holders/breeders of the most. Personally, I'd rather a zoo keep a large collection of large mammals and a large collection of small mammals at the cost of not having a massive collection of either than a zoo than only prioritizes one over the other. Looks at the San Diegos for example. I think it's fantastic that they maintain so many large herds of ungulates rarely kept in captivity between their two parks. But at the same time, they have almost no small mammal species and therefore are not helping any of those programs. I literally never said any one of these things. I also clearly stated that my questions/comments were posed at everyone, not just you. For someone accusing me of strawmanning you... I'm still confused here. The "large number of people working in situ" for the spray toad are the WCS researchers. Also, the species is Extinct in the Wild with any animals currently in Tanzania having been bred at and transferred from the Bronx, so why would the WCS no longer be needed? If the WCS stopped working with the species then they'd probably just go Extinct. As for the cottontail, who are all these other people working with the species besides the WCS? Roger Williams Park Zoo and.....? ~Thylo
** Finally, kindly stop insisting that I am anti-conservation simply because I am exploring the current expenditure of funds and wondering if it is the most effect ratio between park and conservation. I have not been one of those who complain that the zoo does nothing, so stop treating me as if I am. Let me say it again:. I support conservation at the zoo. I support conservation in the wild. As a member, I am ideologically and financially supporting both, putting my money where my mouth is. I'm not criticizing the zoo, nor am I the cause of plague, war, and pestilence in the world. Get off my back..
