Hi, I am not quite sure which forum I should post this request in, so if it is in the wrong place I apologise. I am a student studying for a degree in Animal Behaviour and am doing a presentation on captive breeding programmes. I have chosen to use Goodfellow's Tree Kangaroo as my example of a captive breeding programme, I have had some success via these forums and other research in finding out how the breeding programme works, which zoos are involved and what successes the programme has had, but the fundamental question I am struggling with is 'what is the rationale for a captive breeding programme of Goodfellow's Tree Kangaroo' I can make an argument on ethical and sentimental grounds but I would like to include a more 'scientific' answer. Having searched and read postings, both here and on other websites, I am still no nearer to answering the question. I wonder if anyone could give me some guidance on the subject of captive breeding. If anyone has any other information on captive breeding of tree kangaroos that would also be appreciated as the full scope of the presentation '...must include details of the rationale, methodology and results of the breeding programme' Many thanks in advance for help Chieflx
Hi NZ Jeremy, I'm not sure Giant Pandas would be any easier but thanks for the suggestion. I knew it would be a hard presentation to research but I already have an interest in tree kangaroos and had a lot of accumulated information to hand. The main problem (and I think it would be the same for giant pandas) is, if your breeding programme is not designed or intended to release stock back into the wild how do you justify or rationalise the time and/or resources spent? as far as I know the Goodfellow's programme is not designed for reintroduction so other than sustaining a world zoo population, (for a limited number of scientists to study and for a public to view) is there any reasons for their captive breeding? While I think that scientific study and indeed letting the general public know about such wonderful animals is a good thing, does it justify breeding them? In this age of modern technology, the public can be informed in many different ways and scientific study is always better if it can be carried out in situ. Any thoughts on this subject by anyone would be greatly appreciated, Cheers Chieflx
I think you'll find that a great number of animals at zoos (including endangered ones) are mainly breed to ensure zoo populations and hope they can be released into the wild one day (very far) into the future... I was reading about how this will be a new field in zoology in a few years, i.e. how do we train our tiger to be able to survive in the wild... Anyway I don't believe there are any tree kangaroos in NZ zoos, I have seen them at Taronga and Melbourne zoos... Godd luck...
Hmmm. It's a tough one.......... Most of us believe in breeding animal species which are becoming endangered in the wild for ethical reasons. It's hard to come up with severely practical reasons (along the lines of "what's in it for us humans?") I suppose the long-term reason in the case of tree kangaroos is to maintain a zoo based "insurance policy" for possible reintroduction if necessary. Most of the common large kangaroo species are harvested for their meat and hides, but I can't see this happening with tree kangas.(although it could be argued that they are a source of protein to the people of New Guinea.) At the end of the day however it comes down to ethics. The British scientist Colin Tudge put it rather well when he said,"I cannot significally improve on the assertion that it simply is proper for us, as intelligent members of the universe,to try to look after our fellow creatures, and evil for us to do otherwise."
Hi Ara, Thanks for the input, I think you are quite right, it is incredibly hard to find justifications from a purely human standpoint and the more people I speak/correspond with the more I'm convinced it is an unanswerable question, or at least has unlimited variations and justifications. I am also grateful for the Colin Tudge reference, it will help my presentation as I think it sums up what should be our attitude to conservation (which in my opinion can include captive breeding). Could you tell me the article/book it comes from please. Many thanks Chieflx
That quote came from a book called "Last Animals At The Zoo" and was published by Oxford University Press in 1992. In a lifetime of reading I must say that this book (despite its rather uninspiring title) is one of the most important I have ever read. It deals with both the theory and practice of captive conservation breeding, including conserving the animal's behaviour; it's "naturalness", if you like.
You could argue that having natural diversification could help humans find new materials, solutions and medicins for our day-to-day problems. As long as eco-systems are not 100% studied, who knows what is wasting away due to our influences...
Hopefully this isn't too late to help you... Tree kangaroos (Dendrolagus) can be exceedingly frustrating to study in the wild. They inhabit dense rain forests, are arboreal, and often nocturnal or crepuscular. In New Guinea tree kangaroos are threatened partially by human hunting. As a result tree kangaroos there are even wearier of humans than they normally would be. These difficulties can prevent proper data collection altogether or at least make research efforts more expensive and prolonged than they would be for animals that are easier to study. To circumvent these problems researchers can choose to study the animals in captivity instead. Captivity allows greater control as well, permitting easier experimental manipulation of variables such as group composition, diet, etc. A study such as that done by U Ganslosser in 1979 looking at tree kangaroo communication would have been very difficult to accomplish in situ. If you are a researcher looking for trends or problems faced in numerous taxa usually the only feasible option is to study zoo animals. Frankham, Richard and Wilcken, Jonathan conducted their 2006 study ‘Does Inbreeding Distort Sex Ratios’ (Conservation Genetics 7(6): 879-893) on numerous Zoo animals including Dendrolagus matscheii. Glas, R.; De Leo, A. A.; and Delbridge, M. L., et al (1999) utilized samples from the Melbourne Zoo and Melbourne University as well as a sanctuary to conduct their analysis on genetic change in kangaroos. Conservation wise some Zoos are making meaningful contributions. The Calgary Zoo was the first zoo to support tree kangaroo conservation and research programs in Papua New Guinea. Calgary Zoo supported researchers have censored populations and work with locals to learn tree kangaroo natural history. Calgary Zoo funds have also helped train New Guinea researchers and students helping to foster local conservation support. Of course, the Calgary Zoo could always engage in these programs if they didn’t have tree kangaroos, but the fact that they do encourages them to continue funding. Having tree kangaroos at Zoos also promotes awareness of a group that otherwise might go largely unnoticed, especially because of the difficulty of filming them in the wild. This not only helps widen public awareness, but also the awareness of individual scientists who might be encouraged to study tree kangaroos. Tree kangaroos are very easy to incorporate into education messages. I believe that two of the most important biological educational messages are evolution and diversity. Even if they are not explained in light of tree kangaroos, I believe slight exposure to these animals alone can spark individual enlightenment on these issues. Simply put they are kangaroos that climb and eat foliage and fruit, how cool is that? Hopefully when students learn about evolution in school they can draw from personal experiences of animals observed, like tree kangaroos, to help augment and develop their understanding. The costs associated with keeping tree kangaroos are relatively low. They do not have to be kept in nocturnal displays as they will adjust their activity levels partially in response to feeding schedules. Tree kangaroos can be kept in relatively small spaces, and do reasonably well in captivity. Unfortunately, few Zoos have developed exhibits to display them. Since 1996 (76 individuals), the North American Matschie’s Tree Kangaroo population has decreased to 47 individuals. The only recent exhibit developed for them in North America that I can think of was a renovation at the Calgary Zoo, which did not add to their tree kangaroo holding capacity. Matschie’s tree kangaroos are a great display SSP animal with their brilliant coloration, interesting morphology, cute factor, and quite active habits that deserves a greater presence in North American zoological institutions. Of course, that is not an easy thing to do with the importance Zoos place on elephants and such. Ganslosser U. 1979. SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LIFE AND PLAY BEHAVIOR OF DORIAS TREE KANGAROO DENDROLAGUS-DORIANUS. Zeitschrift fuer Saeugetierkunde 44 (3): 137-153. Glas, R.; De Leo, A. A.; Delbridge, M. L.; Reid, K.; Ferguson-Smith, M. A.; O'Brien, P. C. M.; Westerman, M.; Graves, J. A. M.. 1999. Chromosome painting in marsupials: Genome conservation in the kangaroo family. Chromosome Research 7(3): 167-176
Taccachantrieri, Thank you for your post, it is a wonderfully constructed argument and as I still have a week to finish the work has arrived in plenty of time. I particularly like the imaginative way in which it can help evolution studies, that is something I (and certainly my tutors) have never considered. It is also good to find out that a zoo in Canada is involved, I knew about US, Australian and European programmes but even doing a google search for tree kangaroos does not bring up any reference to Calgary or any zoo in Canada. Many thanks once again for your insights and for the sources you have referenced, Cheers Chieflx
chieflx, the rationale behind goodfellows tree kangaroo CBP is much the same as it is for other endangered species. generally zoos no longer suggest that most CBP's are specifically taylored to produce animals fit for reintroduction. in the case of most populations of endangered species the main threat to their survival in the wild is loss of habitat and poaching. neither of these issue are resolved in the majority of cases and therefore protection of individuals already in the wild is a much more practical way of achieving conservation results than placing a captive-born animal in the same, less than desirable scenario. in some cases however, things get so bad for animals in the wild that the insurance population of zoo animals does become a valuable asset. low numbers and loss of genetic diversity can all lead to a continuing species decline in the wild even after its habitat is adequately protected. in these scenarios zoo animals can be reintroduced. both boosting numbers locally but also, in some cases, genetically reinvigorating the remaining wild population as well. in even more extreme cases the species becoming entirely extinct in the wild, often spurs the political will to protect the species, when zoo populations again can be called apon, to build up the wild group from scratch. however, this is far less than ideal for a number of reasons. that backup for the worst-case scenario is therefore in my mind justification enough to have a captive "bank" of rare species. but in addition, with modern zoo thinking, the captive animals can actually indirectly support their wild counterparts in another way. research into the breeding and husbandry of a captive population can often tell us a lot about an animal. and therefore sometimes this research can be helpful in the understanding of how best to protect the species in the wild. an example would be, that by breeding tree-kangaroos we can learn how often they breed in an ideal environment and thus determine how quickly populations may bounce back. secondly, the public display of the species can offer an platform for zoos keeping tree-kangaroos to educate the public about the species plight and conservation awareness in general. ideally the zoo actually uses this support to directly channel funds from the interested public into conservation projects that directly benefit the species in question. this is an area that zoos need to work harder in - in my opinion - but its something they have the ability to do and do participate in for certain species. anyhow thats my belief. CBP's ideally provide both a viable genetic backup for wild populations through reintroduction, a research opportunity and a platform in which to gather support for their in-situ conservation. however the former reason of reintroduction is not the most cost effective way to support the species in the wild and is currently not often utilised. since the situation has not yet gotten to the stage where it is necessary. thus zoos tend to no longer continually flout "reintroduction" as their reason for keeping a species as it is misleading to those uneducated in the realm (most people).
You're welcome chieflx Tree kangaroos do have a very low rate of replacement because of the long time young spend associated with their mother which can be about two years in duration. In the wild average life span is less than 14 years, so if all young survive a female will only produce about 6 young in her lifetime. You could also look at the importance of learned behavior to tree-kangaroos and how that relates to keeping animals in captivity for multiple generations in an environment that does not permit expression of natural behaviors. An article you may find of use is Clem Tisdell and Clevo Wilson, 2004. In a study of Brisbane Australia citizens only 36% reported that they knew of the existence of tree kangaroos, 64% did not. Only 3.4% of the sample knew that two species of tree kangaroo live in Australia, which could partially be attributed to guessing, as 11.3% of respondents gave a wrong answer. Clearly with respect to this species knowledge remains inadequate despite possible exposure from media, school, and the internet. After learning about several species, including tree kangaroos, and being exposed to preserved specimens of tree kangaroos the percentage of respondents who favored tree kangaroo protection rose from 85.8% to 97.5%. When respondents were asked how much they were willing to pay for conservation of three species (tree kangaroos, golden shouldered parrots, and hawksbill sea turtles) their support rose from $58.76 per year to $73.82 per year after learning about these species. After receiving information pamphlets with photographs on all species and attending a presentation focused on mahogany gliders respondents shifted their support (constrained via percentages allocated to different species) away from more common well known species like koalas and red kangaroos to rarer less known species like tree kangaroos and mahogany gliders. Not all people can give large amounts of money to conservation causes, so it is important that their money is going to species that need protection and support the most. Education wise you could also make a strong point about tree kangaroos and biogeography. Clem Tisdell and Clevo Wilson. 2004. The Publics Knowledge of and Support for Conservation of Australia's Tree-kangaroos and Other Animals. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 2339-2359
