Elephants or 20 sp. of smaller animals?

As I'm sure all of you are aware space and money (to a much lesser extent) is limited in current zoological institutions, particularly those in urban areas that serve the majority of the zoo visiting public. This has already resulted in the phase out of numerous species in North American Zoos with more to come (see Patrick's link in "Species not in zoos that we'd want to see in zoos"). Elephants and other large animals take up considerable resources compared to smaller less demanding species. By maintaining captive populations of these species Zoo's both individually and on a wider regional collaborative (like AZA) scale are either consciously or unconsciously making the decision not to have a larger number of species in favor of exhibiting fewer larger megafauna species.
My question to all of you is to what extent should zoos continue to exhibit and maintain large demanding species at the cost of not being able to maintain a larger diversity of smaller, less demanding species? Obviously you can exhibit a range of species but it's not realistic for Zoo's to have every large mammal at every Zoo while still maintaining a large diverse collection of smaller less demanding species and caring for all of them ethically, sustaining populations, and maximizing educational and conservation messages.
Finally what benefits do you think Zoo's receive in terms of visitation, length of visit, and ability to imprint both educational and conservation messages by exhibiting fewer species that may be more interesting or captivating to the public rather than exhibiting more species of less demanding animals?

I know the large mammal debate has raged on in this forum, but hopefully this presents a different way of considering the issue.

 

Insert your choice of expletive word here!

I'm sorry, this thread is actually really close to a thread Patrick started that I found just after starting my own thread.

I obviously need to work on my forum manners !
I am sooo embarrassed.

Aaaaarrrgggggghhhhh !

 

lol it's ok, though i like the title, maybe every1 can still use your first thread. How about a simple yes/no, and a small expalination why

ME- 20 eles will raise more funds than 20 other species, depending on whether apes or u mean small marsupials etc. I would say elephants in open range zoos over 20 small animals in large exhibits, basically from visitor point of view. But city, 20 well designed exhibit over eles.

 

OK, I can rectify this somewhat.

In North America there has been a strong trend lately to invest in new exhibits that predominantly are for large mammals that require large expensive exhibits. A lot of institutions seem to be bringing in new species of these large animals, although there is also a smaller number phasing them out. How does this situation in North America compare to that in other regions like Europe and Australia?

I remember reading in International Zoo Year Book or another journal that when the National Zoo opened their small mammal house it was with the goal of helping to jump start sustainable captive populations of many species, however since then North American Zoos have expressed less interest in these species and very few are still viable.

 

what a great idea, if every zoo displayed the same small animal collection, it would be very effective in breeding and co-operation, a shame it didnt work. In aus, we have good co-op to a dregree on smaller managed species such as fishing cats.

 

New Or Planned exhibits at major American Zoos
What species are large fauna and require large spaces varies but I've highlighted with green some probable suspects

Bronx Zoo
Gorilla forest-Colobus monkey, okapi, invertebrates, mandrills, Red river hogs, gorillas, DeBrazza monkey, Wolf's monkey, 4 birds, 19 fish
Madagascar-lemurs
Phase out of Asian Elephants

Cincinnati
Vanishing Giants-asian elephant, giraffe, okapi


Columbus Zoo
mix of different kinds of animals in many new exhibits
Savannah plans have all the large African savanna mammals
Arctic exhibit with polar bears

Calgary Zoo
Elephant Crossing-Asian Elephants
Arctic Shores and Antarctic landing- polar bear, seal, beluga whale (axed), arctic fox, snowy owl, sea otter, 2 penguin species

Denver Zoo
Predator Ridge-African lion, hyena, Cape hunting Dog, banded mongoose, several bird species
Asian Tropics-muntjac, flying fox, malayan tapir, fishing cat, black leopard, Indian rhinoceros, sarus crane, asian elephant, binturong, white-cheeked gibbon

Detroit Zoo
Arctic Ring of Life-Polar Bear, seal, arctic fox
Amphibiville-many amphibian species


This is just a start, but hopefully it illustrates how American Zoos seem to be concentrating a lot on large megafauna species. If anyone's interested I could add to this list. I've probably also forgotten a few exhibits, but I'm confident the ones I've listed are the main money and space consuming exhibits.

 

See my remarks on "Boring" animals on that...

 

i think this argument needs a more wholistic approach...
sure, there is welfare and whether or not the needs of large mammals can be met? i say they can...
the cost of investing in such an exhibit. $50 million for an asian elephant forest in sydney might seem steep but given this exhibit is meant to last at last 20 years and given that it will spin more money for in-situ conservation long term and get visitors through the gate id say its a worthy investment.
can you keep a variety of smaller mammals for the same price as an elephant or rhino? not sustainably you couldnt. sure, it costs way more to keep these animals ex-situ but in reality the bigger the species the more likely its going to need ex-situ help. think black rhino, sumatran tiger etc. safety nets people.
finally, genetic theory.
the minimum number to sustain genetic diversity of 90% for 200 years for the following species.....
tiger-with a generation length of 7 years-the effective population is 136
indian rhino-generation length of 18 years-effective population is 53
for an antelope with a generation span of 8 years the effective pop is 115
an oryx-generation length of 10 years-effective pop is 95
same with a reptile of similar length
on the other hand, a small rodent o a generation length of less than a year would need an effective population of 1275.
a bettong or other marsupial with a generation length of 6 years-you need to find 159 spaces.

yes, sure elephants eat and **** alot more. but they also enchant the public, raise revenue and the science learnt ex-situ has a lot more significance for their in-situ management.
in Australia the case for elephants in zoos is even more special given the small number of zoos and low number of species we can keep in this country. in Australia at least id rather see fewer breeding programs for animals like elephants, rhino, big cats and primates with programs for smaller exotic species limited to endangered or charismaic species.
when it comes to conservation work for native fauna let the zoos focus locally.
given the genetic theory behind captive breeding programs you can see how cost-wise maintaining a populaion of elephants over a handful of zoos would be as expensive as running a program for another small species.

 

Hi Glyn

What is the minimum number of elephants required to maintain 90% genetic diversity?

 

@glyn: The problem is that it's still easier to find 159+ places for specimen of a small marsupial than a single good one for a surplus elephant bull-especially if he's not as nice as the bull in the Emmen...

 

do u think so? there are so many variables, but the program for leadbeaters possum petered out due to lack of space/places. and theyre a critically endangered species. the smaller the animal, the shorter the generation time, the more zoos need to be invloved, the higher the level of management needs to go in to record keeping, the more transfers are needed. on a merits basis, species by species, in many cases its easier to argue the pros of keeping 'big animals' than small ones, particularly if the small animal is best conserved in-situ.

 

Hi,

Naturally, this is wrong thinking. First, elephants are popular so "pay" for their upkeep.
Second, elephants are good "ambassador species", which make people interested in nature and conservation in general.

About makinbg small animals popular - this, i think, need another thread.

 

@glyn: Yes, I do think so; the leadbeater's possum's problem might be connected to AUS red tape animal trasnfer regulations-I think zoos like Poznan or Berlin would take at least some if offered. And unlike elephants, these small critters could be distributed either to "backstage" husbandry facilities or even responsible private breeders; something quite unlikely in terms of elephants.

 

Just a couple of points from me...


Genetic Theory

Average generation length is just one factor in determining the sustainability of genetic variability. Effective population size (N subscript e) is an appropriate substitution for number of organisms. In North America the high proportion of female elephants reduces the effective population to roughly half (86.7) of what the effective population currently would be with an equal proportion of females and males (157). The effective population is further limited because elephants live in matriarchal societies with closely related females, and bull elephants often breed with more than one of these females before being shipped off. Smaller animals (that aren’t flighty) can be shipped via airline across continents or oceans making transfer across institutions easier than for larger animals. This tiny gene flow can have disproportionate positive effects on genetic variability and international cooperation would cause greatly increased genetic diversity in small animals.

Generation Length

Generation length tends to increase with increasing size, but certainly not linearly, and certainly not across all lineages or taxa. Pteropus bats can live up to 30 years in captivity, and individuals typically live 9-17 years. (Popelka, V. and K. Francl. 2006. Pteropus rodricensis (On-line) Animal Diversity Web. Accessed February 03, 2008 at ADW: Pteropus rodricensis: Information.). Rodriguez fruit bats reach sexual maturity between 1 and 2 years of age, and only have one young at a time. Their generation length is probably not that different from the 7 years calculated for tigers. Parrots are much smaller than tigers, but have significantly higher generation times that better approximate those of 500 times heavier elephants!

Space

Even if a small rodent needed 20 times the captive population as elephants or other large mammals they would still take up considerably less space. The WAZA minimum standards of space for most small rodents are 1500th that for a similar sized group of elephants, or one three hundredth of that required for tigers. A lot of primates have one thirtieth the minimum floor space requirements of elephants an one tenth of the minimum space requirements for giraffes.
The greater propensity for zoological exhibits of small animals to be in mixed species displays compared to most really large mammals like whales and polar bears further reduces the amount of space required to display more diminutive species.


Exhibit/Enclosure Number

In Australia the limited number of Zoos makes it more difficult to provide the increased individual spaces required for animals with shorter generation times, however this is not the case in North America and Europe. The problem may be alleviated somewhat by having a couple displays of the same species at one facility or off exhibit holding.




Management

Smaller animals with shorter generation times may require more transfers and records, but currently these costs constitute only a small percentage of the overall budget of a Zoo. Small mammal displays can often be very flexible in species holding. This characteristic makes it easier to manage spaces. Longer generation times decrease the capability for institutional responsiveness to events like an unforseen animal death, especially in tightly managed populations with few spares.


Financial Spinoffs

It is a common perception that elephants and other large charsimatic animals are a financial asset to institutions because they increase attendance. Number of visitors is only part of the story. I think visitors judge the value of their visit partially on how long they get to spend time together with family and/or friends etc. and still be entertained. The average visitor is not going to spend half an hour looking at just one large species. If you make visitors wander though a large number of smaller exhibits that still contain interesting species like monkeys, small carnivores, active rodents, bats, fish, birds, etc. in a more complex environment I think you can increase the duration of their visit. If you increase visit length you can raise admittance prices and increase the percentage of visitors who stay and eat at your Zoo. Having multiple species increases the probability of having different experiences each time you visit the Zoo. This can greatly increase repeat visitation which not only increases admittance but also helps entrench conservation and education issues/information better in visitors minds.
New exhibits at Zoos require significant fund-raising initiatives. Animal Welfare groups love to jump on projects revolving around large megafauna. This pressure can make it significantly more difficult to raise funds from government representatives who want to circumvent conflict, and private companies that are worried about negative publicity. The commotion aroused by animal activists about the Calgary Zoo’s Project Discovery has been centered around the display of polar bears and whales. This controversy has been further utilized to muddy the overall image and reputation of the Calgary Zoo.



Education

Displaying lots of large megasfauna charismatic mammals at the expense of a greater diversity of forms presents a representation of nature that is incredibly biased. Bats alone constitute over 20% of mammal diversity and rodents constitute another 40%. Despite this reality a lot of Zoos have no representatives of either Order , but several species of large cats. A lot of American Zoos exhibit 0 invertebrates. Although I understand the difficulties in exhibiting some of these animals I don’t understand how forgoing adding several invertebrates and small mammals when you currently don’t have any to add another bear species increases visitor education.
The biggest terrestrial animal in Australia is the Red kangaroo. Their maximum weight is just under 200 pounds. A lot of biodiversity hotspots and threatened habitats have no species of large
charismatic mammals. Something else about these areas has to encourage people to protect them.
A lot of visitors come into a Zoo already having a respect for large charismatic animals. The problem is getting visitors to care about and understand the rare flowers and butterflies inhabiting the meadow by their city that is scheduled for development.
Having 20 times the species provides the potential for 20 times the interpretive/educational signs and devices. There’s also more opportunity for people to be inspired by different animals and identify with different behaviors.
Nature is not composed of separate entities (species), but rather an intricate web that directly or indirectly connects every living organisms to every other one. An elephant does not live in isolation it needs other species to survive. These concepts are more easily realized by visitors viewing an exhibit with many small and medium animals and a maybe a couple of large less demanding species exhibited with plants in a zoogeographic section with interpretive devices illustrating the connections between them.

Conservation




It’s usually much more affordable and practical to provide ex-situ conservation help for smaller species. The Calgary Zoo has successfully bred and been involved in the release of critically endangered Vancouver Island Marmots, and Whooping cranes. Northern leopard frog tadpoles have been captured from healthy populations, raised, and later released to reestablish threatened populations. Swift fox have also been released into the Canadian prairies where they were formerly extirpated, and since then have expanded their range and population in the wild. Extensive research has been carried out by Calgary Zoo staff about the factors influencing the success of these introductions and how behaviour and biology contribute to the success of reintroductions. Extirpated burrowing owls have also been studied and released into the Canadian prairies.
Larger mammals are easier to observe and track in the wild. In part because of this the majority of research is focused around larger organisms and vital information like population size, behavior, seasonality of breeding, habitat preferences, etc. is missing for smaller organisms Research conducted on smaller animals in Zoos can have a significant impact on wild populations. Raccoons formerly kept at the Calgary Zoo were given different nest boxes and their ability to extract food within was used as a form of testing the effectiveness of different eastern bluebird nest designs in combating raccoon predation.
Zoo Research analyzing the suspect ability of different frog species to the chytrid fungus, other diseases and solar radiation could help wild populations significantly more than research done on captive elephants to increase the effectiveness of artificial insemination.
The increased money gained from large mammal exhibits does not necessarily go straight to their conservation, in fact the majority of American Zoos do not directly support Elephant conservation, even if they do provide monetary support for other conservation initiatives.

 

@Tacca,

Wow that is some post..!

I agree wholeheartedly with you, especially about the financial spinoffs, education and conservation sections...

We've had a few threads on here previously about the animals people expect to see at a zoo and it usually runs something along these lines:

Elephant
Rhino/Hippo
Giraffe/Zebra
Big cats
Monkeys

I personally believe there is a market for zoos with creatures no bigger than say 50 kg... This maybe because my favourite exhibits at zoos are usually the reptile house, the insect house, the amphibian house and the aquarium usually (excluding very large snakes, crocodilians and very large fish) animals under 50 kgs...

Another opinion of mine is this kind of zoo would suit a small city/town where in 10 - 20 acres they could exhibit as many species as a large metropolitan zoo of 50 - 100 acres and make a real contribution to conservation as you stated... A large zoo with this 'plan' could exhibit and have breeding groups for a couple thousand (!) species and as you stated the education value of seeing so many variations speaks for itself...

Another thing no one mentioned (it has been touched on) is the life expectantcy to size ratio in many reptiles being much greater... There are many lizards, turtles and tortoises under 2 feet that can live 40 - 80 years in captivity...

 

@Taccachantrieri: I welcome Your last post-after all, it amplifies my viewpoint... However, just two small remark: while I agree-patrick will like to hear that, too-that the "charismatic megafauna" is too well presented in zoos in comparison to chiroptera, insectivora etc., there are a few things I'd like to remark:
-one problem with smaller animals is their often lack of attractiveness for the majority of the public due to being "small furry greyish-nocturnal rat-thingys" that often are rather elusive and shy-and thus not appretiated by the many hotfooted visitors. Changing this attitude of visitors won't be easy; Grzimek's Nocturnal Building is a nice example for that with ad-and disadvantages. Secondly, there's also the problem with the diet & general husbandry: a lot of the smaller mammals f.e., especially a large number of bat species, but also pangolins desmans, shrews, moles are hard to impossible to keep; I doubt that the attraction-costs-ratio would make many zoo directors switch to them.
-one should also not forget the importance of larger mammals as keystone species of their habitat as well as the varying lengths of fertility periods/sexual maturity in various species (an increasingly important problem in terms of the zoo rhinos & elephants populations!)
Personally, I would enjoy a zoo filled to the rim with bats, solenodon, hoopoes and dozens of Corydoras catfish-but I think most visitors wouldn't appretiate it. Therefore, I do think that at least a few representatives of the "charismatic megafauna"(maybe even one more space-demanding but highly popular-like hippos f.e.) should be part of also urban zoos.
@NZ Jeremy: You forgot to list penguins, apes, bears & flamingo... There already exist a few zoos of the "less than 50kg" category-and some of them are actually pretty interesting: Vogelpark Walsrode or Jurong's Bird Park are nice examples, and many public aquariums & reptile zoos might also fall into that category (not counting overfed sharks...).
And there's even a small German zoo specialising in keeping only the smallest representatives of various animal groups, domestic breeds etc.:
zoo der minis Aue - Minitiere maXSimal!
Nevertheless, most "traditional" zoos cling to their larger species-after all, they're still the ones that bring the crowds in...see "Flocke" in Nuremberg & "Fu Long" in Vienna.

 

Attendance

I think the Montreal Biodome and Montreal Insectarium provide pretty poignant example that you don't need large mammals to attract crowds. The former attracts an average of over 930,000 visitors a year, whilst the latter attracts over 400,000 visitors a year. Combined these two visitation rates exceed that for the Toronto Zoo (about 1.2 million a year). Admission for adults at the Toronto Zoo is $20, which is only $4 more than either the Montreal Biodome or Insectarium. All this occurs in spite of the fact that the largest mammals in either Montreal institution are two capybaras, and the Toronto Zoo has elephants, pygmy hippos, cheetahs, lions, white rhinoceros, indian rhinoceros, gorillas, river hippopotamus, polar bears, jaguars, grizzly bears, polar bears, leopards, orangutans, two tiger subspecies, komodo dragons, and sharks. Both cities have similar populations, similar surrounding populations, and both are international tourist destinations. What's even more striking is that the Toronto Zoo has more bird, and reptile species than the Biodome and similar numbers of fish species! Another interesting note is that the Biodome has little more than 120,000 square feet of exhibit space, half of which is devoted to ecosystems of the region!
If the Montreal Biodome was bigger and had several exotic ecosystems I think that they could significantly improve their attendance and possibly sit eye-to-eye with the Toronto Zoo.
If you look at most Zoo's mission statements they do not include anything about attracting the maximum number of visitors possible. Wouldn't it be better if the 25% fewer visitors of zoological institutions left better educated and more inspired by the natural world?


Husbandry/Reproduction

Yes, a lot of smaller species are currently hard to maintain in captivity, but there are still a lot of species to choose from that adapt well to captivity.
Polar bears and tigers are notorious for engaging in stereotypic behavior. Elephants in urban Zoos continue to live below their potential lifespans, and newborn mortality is around 50%.This still occurs in spite of years of research and improvements, and hundreds of elephant care specialists. Conditions and husbandry techniques for larger mammals are improving and will likely continue to improve, but are still lower for some larger species kept at Zoos than that for less studied smaller species that aren't exhibited as frequently.
With research and experience husbandry of smaller animals will increase. Part of the problem is that experience is being lost as North American Zoos eliminate or don't maintain their populations of smaller animals.
Exhibiting more species with similar dietary needs can increase efficiency and reduce costs. Just purchasing an item in higher quantities often saves money. With several insectivorous species some Zoos could even maintain and breed their own insect food reserves, or they could just remove surplus insects from their new invertebrate exhibits.


Keystone Species

An individual insectivorous bat catches hundreds of insects every night. Multiply that by the number of individuals in some colonies (20 million from Bracken Cave in central Texas) and you have an enormous regulator of insect populations! Frugivorous and nectivorous bats play a vital role in spreading seeds and pollinating plants that are not only vital in maintaining forest ecosystems and aiding reforestation efforts but also help maintain plants of economic importance to humans. Snakes and other carnivores feed on bats, and countless other organisms are associated with bats parasitically or commensally.
Habitat destruction, poisoning, disease, and hunting by ranchers in the North American prairies, especially in the recent past has led to a detrimental decrease of black-tailed prairie dog populations. Mirroring this trend have been the populations of the numerous species that depend on black-tailed prairie dogs. Black-footed ferrets went extinct in the wild, burrowing owl populations plummeted and the other 170 species of sympatric vertebrates that depend on black-tailed prairie dogs have been affected. Black-tailed prairie dogs even play an important role in aeration and maintenance of communities of plants around their burrows.
Keystone species are hardly limited to larger mammals.

Attitudes of Visitors

It may be hard to teach some visitors to admire smaller animal species but it doesn't mean that Zoos shouldn't strive to change visitor perceptions. A lot of Zoo directors dozens of years ago would have scoffed at the suggestion of displaying gorillas in vegetated exhibits, or even the importance of naturalizing the surroundings of exhibits.

 

Great message Taccachantrieri, and I was shocked at the visitor numbers for the Montreal Biodome. Almost a million a year? I plan to visit this summer, and might take in the Insectarium at the same time. It is intriguing to contrast the visitor numbers with the Toronto Zoo, as that place has 10 km of walking trails and over 5,000 animals. For being one of the larger zoos in the world, I was expecting an attendance figure of more than 1.2 million. Your point is a valid one: perhaps captive wildlife organizations do not require large, mega-fauna animals.

 

a great example and post Taccanchantrieri,

unfortunately it won't get you far around here. the world is littered with examples of successful zoos that thrive without big mammals, even in the face of zoos that do have such creatures. what i find though is that there are an aweful lot of people who drum up just about any possible excuse they can to justify continuing to keep such animals in substandard environments. sometimes they do this subconsciously, without even realising it.

the sad truth is there are people within the zoo industry who feel "their" zoo is or has the potential to be among the best the the world. and for a long, long time the guage in which a zoo was measured was that of its animal collection. elephants, giraffes, rhino etc, were absolute staples. and unfortunately despite all the talk, there are many that have failed to shift from this mindset. i bet if i offered a pair of sumatran rhinos to the calgary zoo they would say yes, and they would convince themselves that they could care for them.

the public isn't driving zoos to keep animals like elephants, it the zoos driving the public to expect to see elephants.


anyhow, i'll now let sun wukong give you a perfect example of the blind pro-urban-elephant argument that i'm talking about.....

 

If a place that only has insects can generate visitor numbers of 400,000 then that is truly astonishing and plainly illustrates that people will see quality exhibits and interesting collections regardless whether or not there are a herd of elephants jammed onto a couple of acres. The Montreal Biodome also has only small mammals (penguins, rodents, maybe a few small primates) and gets a million people per year! Who needs megafauna? These two Canadian organizations have proven that money can be made without the use of "big name" animals.