Elephants or 20 sp. of smaller animals?

what is it with frogs??????? this is where the macro vs micro fauna argument gets interesting, because frogs have the potential to actually be HUGE ATTRACTIONS. almost everyone like frogs, and zoos generally have splendid displays for them.
taronga, im guessing, has more species of frog than melbourne, scattered across a number of different locations......
*B2B holds green and golden bell frog and white lipped tree frog.....maybe
*theres the standalone corroborree (SORRY if the spelling is wrong SORRY being the operative word) frog exhibit
*Serpenteria has a whole range of species. theres Cane Toads, Dwarf Sedge Frogs, Poison Arrow Frogs sometimes, Green Tree Frogs plus more I cant remember.
but Melbourne Zoos frog exhibit is very very impressive

 

melbourne has:

green tree frogs (aka white's for you foreigners)
dwarf tree frogs
lesueur's tree frog
blue mountains tree frog
peron's tree frog
green and golden bell frog
eastern dwarf tree frog
barred frog
great barred frog
corroborree frog
blue poison dart frog
splashback poison dart frog
dying poison dart frog

and probably a whole bunch more. admittedly however, not all of these are on display at any given time and no doubt the same is true of taronga zoo, i'm sure they have many other frog species.

 

Thats a nice collection of Frogs Pat

 

Yes, as others have mentioned there are potentially thousands of small animals that could be displayed in Zoos!

I'm particularly interested in arctic animals in large part because of the Calgary Zoos Arctic Shores plan.
One note of interest is partly because of Bergmann's Rule (animals at higher latitude tend to have higher mass and be larger because of thermal inertia) the arctic is home to a much higher percentage of larger animals than warmer regions.
Recently many Zoos in North America have developed or plan to develop Arctic exhibits. This climatic realm presents great opportunities to discuss climate change, respect and cohabitation with wild life as exemplified by the Inuit people, Oil spills, pollutants and their accumulation in the food chain, unique physiological and behavioral adaptations to the cold, fishing and whaling etc. In addition the need for buildings is reduced compared to more tropical exhibits.
Practically every North American Arctic display built or planned has polar bears and seals. Sometimes arctic foxes or snowy owls are exhibited as well.

I really think that this presents a narrow view of arctic diversity that the public is already aware of.

The North American arctic is home to an astounding diversity of beautiful birds many of which present unique traits like "underwater flying", and a very gregarious nature that could make for great viewing opportunities. The trick as I see it is to play to these advantages and instead of having uninspiring small displays of a couple species develop your exhibits to the same extent (or more so) and have the same features as other arctic exhibits (like polar bears). My dream arctic display would be a massive (3 acre) walk-through aviary with varying terrain and elevation; tall simulated rocky cliffs; freshwater streams and ponds; saltwater "ocean"; waterfall(s); visually segregated areas (easily accomplished with changes in elevation and rockwork); vegetation, digging areas; sandy areas; large water expanses with wave motion; automatic dispensers of live fish; ice floats; long underwater acrylic tunnels; interpretive displays; viewing points from atop cliffs, just below cliffs, on beaches, and underwater; and most importantly HUNDREDS of arctic birds of numerous species.
You might rightly be thinking that this sounds awfully expensive but I don't think it would be much more expensive than the Calgary Zoos former exhibit plans for beluga whales and polar bears, nor would it take up more space. In fact, I think the resources would remain for a few other smaller arctic exhibits which I'll discuss later.
First I would like to impress everyone by use of picture links of the magnificent array of birds you could display in a large seabird aviary and secondly a predatory bird aviary. I was certainly astounded researching this information. Every species is a true arctic species except for a few neararctic species where the range has been noted. All this information was gathered from a "Complete Guide to Arctic Wildlife" by Richard Sale (2006, Firefly Books:Buffalo, New York). All but a couple are native to Canada and the vast majority are native to the United States, as well.

Seabird Aviary

Dovekie (alle alle) highly gregarious; only about 8 inches!
http://www.neseabirds.com/graphics/dovekie2glentepke.jpg
Razorbill (alca torda) gregarious at breeding, less so in winter
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/petitmanan/images/Puffin&razorbill.jpg
Common murre (Uria aalge) highly gregarious
http://www.makro-tom.de/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2814&g2_serialNumber=2
Black Guillemont (Cepphus grylle) not too gregarious
http://www.naturspesialisten.no/aimages/teist3_1119440651_1168812864.jpg
Kittlitz’s Murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) loose colonies
(critically endangered)
Kittlitz's Murrelet, Brachyramphus brevirostris, at Victoria BC
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) small groups (Endangered)
http://blog.oregonlive.com/nwheadlines/2007/08/murrelet.jpg
Ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus) Aleutian islands gregarious
but not highly so
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/09/Ancient_Murrelet.gif

Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) gregarious
Image:Atlantic Puffin Latrabjarg Iceland 05c.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) gregarious
http://www.alaska-adventures.net/image_support/images/tufted_puffin_small.jpg

Common Loon (Gavia immer) gregarious in winter solitary at breeding sites
Google Image Result for http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/images/Photos/gaviimme.jpg
Red throated loon (Gavia stellata) most gregarious of loons
Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/RedthroatedLoon23.jpg

Horned grebe (Podiceps auritus) in general territorial
http://www.chilcotinlodge.com/images/horned-grebe-cropt.jpg

Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) gregarious
http://www.digiscoped.com/files/fulmar1grp.JPG
Leach’s storm Petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) Labrador and Aleutian islands
Eats feces of whales and seals never dives
http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/stats/adu/image/d02-2.jpg

Double crested comorant (Phalcrocorax auritus) Alaska NFL gregarious at
all times
http://www.fnal.gov/ecology/wildlife/pics/Double_crested_Cormorant.jpg
Red-faced comorant (Phalacrocorax urile) gregarious thugh least gregarious
of neararctic comorants
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...d_Cormorant.jpg/396px-Red-faced_Cormorant.jpg


Common eider (Somateria mollissima) highly gregarious drakes aggressive at
breeding
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...rp.jpg/737px-Bristol.zoo.common.eider.arp.jpg
King eider (Somateria spectabilis)
KING EIDERS
Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) gregarious Alaska and tip of Yukon
http://alaska.usgs.gov/science/biology/avian_influenza/species/images/SPEI_JWasley.jpg
Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)
Harlequin duck Facts, Figures, Description and Photo
Long tailed duck (Oldsquaw0 (Clangula hyemalis) gregarious except at breeding
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ng-tailed-duck.jpg/800px-Long-tailed-duck.jpg
Surf scooter (melanitta perpicillata) gregarious except during breeding
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/photos/01-16-07/scoter cropped.jpg
Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) drakes aggressive during breeding
http://www.audubon.org/news/pressroom/CBID/Hi_Rez_images/Northern_Pintail_Howard_B_Eskin.jpg
Greater scaup (Aythya marila)
http://www.charliesbirdblog.com/~charlie/YVR02may06/scaup_comp.jpg
Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata)
http://www.clarkstanton.com/images/shovelerbest.jpg
Red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) gregarious at all times
http://www.capebretonbirds.ca/redbreastedmerganser11.jpg

Willow grouse (Lagopus lagopus)
http://www.shetlandwildlife.co.uk/images/2006/Willow-Grouse-by-Glenn-Over.jpg
Rock ptarmigan (Lagopus muta) more gregarious
Canadian Biodiversity: Species: Birds: Rock Ptarmigan

Sandhill crane (Grus Canadensis) might be better for predatory aviary, gregarious
http://www.adventure-space.com/blogs/adventure-space_presents/sandhill_crane.jpg

Common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) very gregarious
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/0c/20051115210617!Charadrius_hiaticula.jpg
American golden plover (Pluvialis dominica) gregarious at all times
http://redstartimages.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/2006_0503_0217.jpg
Black bellied plover (Pluvialis squaterola) somewhat gregarious
http://www.indianaaudubon.org/guide/jpgs/McCoyBBPL.jpg
Dunlin (Calidris alpine) very gregarious
http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/photos/birds/dunlin-2_1863.jpg
Red Knot (calidris canutus) gregarious, less so in winter
http://www.dcwild.com/images/Red-Knot.jpg
Buff-breasted sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) (Near Threatened)
http://www.birdguides.com/i/articles/000452/thumbnail.jpg
Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) small colonies during
breeding
http://www.cornwall-birding.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/long_b_dowitcher_2.jpg
Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica) gregarious in winter less so during
Breeding
Hudsonian Godwits in the Great Plains
Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) solitary or loose colonies during breeding
http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/photos/sevcik/whimbrel--koliha-mala.jpg
Ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) g. in winter solitary or loose
http://birdsofsanibel.free.fr/images/20040411/Ruddy Turnstone.jpg
Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius) gregarious at all times
http://www.oceanadventures.co.uk/images/Red-Phalarope.jpg

Red legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris) (Vulnerable)
http://www.birdquest.co.uk/tour_images/ai_909.jpg
Ivory gull (pagophila eburnea) (Vulnerable)
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/s...nth/Nov03-Ivory_Gull/Ivory_Gull_Mactavish.jpg

Arctic tern (sterna paradisaea) gregarious at all times
Image:Arctic terns.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It might be advantageous to use small netting to prevent small birds from entering the aviary and stealing food, and if so you could display the following species without much additional cost.
Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)
http://www.birdsasart.com/Lindas-horned-lark.jpg
Varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius) solitary at all times
http://www.surfbirds.com/media/Photos/2002-02-16-maluegvaried.jpg
Yellow warbler (dendroica petechia) highly territorial at breeding sites
http://www.ownbyphotography.com/Yellow-Warbler.jpg
Savannah Sparrow (passerculus sandwichensis)
http://www.surfbirds.com/media/gallery_photos/20050612054940.jpg
Lapland longspur (Calcarius lapponicus)
http://identify.whatbird.com/img/4/2379/image.aspx
Common redpoll (carduelis flammea)
http://www.surfbirds.com/media/gallery_photos/20060319041611.jpg
Snow bunting (plectrophenax nivalis)
http://www.douglloydphotography.com/mediac/400_0/media/DIR_9698/snow~bunting~604.jpg



Predatory Aviary (includes some non-predatory large birds)
Not all birds would be compatible

Whistling swan (Cygnus columbianus)
http://www.damisela.com/zoo/photo/ct4/whistling2.jpg

Greater white-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons)
http://www.indianaaudubon.org/guide/jpgs/BrownGWFG.jpg
Snow goose (Anser caerulescens) relatively tolerant during breeding
http://www.calliebowdish.com/Birds/SnowGeese112405OM_2610.jpg
Emperor Goose (Anser canagicus) (Near Threatened)
http://www.wwt.org.uk/research/images/Emperor_Geese06.jpg
Brant Goose (Branta bernicla) gregarious at all times
http://www.trmichels.com/brant.jpg
Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis) Greenland
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_th...o_2296065_barnacle_goose_branta_leucopsis.jpg

Common raven (Corvus corax) might have to be displayed by itself, but a very interesting intelligent species which plays a very prominent role in native cultures
http://www.slcrr.org/wildlife/raven_1.jpg

Sabine’s Gull (Xema sabini) sometimes takes chicks and eggs
http://www.birdquest.co.uk/tour_images/ai_910.jpg

Bald eagle (haliaeetus leucocephalus) Southern Alaska most of Yukon except
coast
https://epedia.pbwiki.com/f/bald eagle in nest calling.jpg
Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)
http://birdsbybaranoff.com/images/06SB-7101a-northern-harrier a11x14.jpg
Rough-legged buzzard (Buteo lagopus)
Image:Buteo lagopus 29283.JPG - Wikimedia Commons
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
http://www.tulsawalk.com/birding/images/pfalcon2.jpg
Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus)
http://www.freefalconpictures.com/images/WhiteGyrfalcon-RearView.jpg

Snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus)
http://www.focusonnature.com/Snowy_Owl_Brodheadsville.jpg
Short eared Owl (Asio flammeus)
Short-eared Owl Photo

Pomarine Jaegar (Stercorarius pomarinus) kills seabirds
http://www.surfbirds.com/media/Photos/davispomj1.jpg



Other interesting arctic displays could include the shockingly rarely displayed endangered Sea otter (Enhydra lutris), the arctic fox (Alopex lagopus), and the Greenland collared Lemming (Dicrostonyx groenlandicus).
Arctic Hare (lepus arcticus) are a potential candidate for inclusion in a seabird aviary.


If all that wasn't enough you also have bizarre arctic fish and invertebrates ! The Vancouver Aquarium has displayed the following (MARK GRAHAM' & KEN WONG."Captive care of and research on Arctic fish and invertebrates". Inl. Zoo Yb. (1992) 31: 111-115.)

Seastars
Crossaster papposus
http://www.marlin.ac.uk/imgs/Species/Echinodermata/o_cropap.jpg
Leptasterias sp
http://www.biology.lsu.edu/webfac/dfoltz/lab/Leptasterias.jpg

Sea Urchin
Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/Wlr/waterres/marine/photos/img/seaurchins/urchin.jpg

Soft coral
Gersemia rubiformis
http://www.elasmodiver.com/BCMarinelife/images/soft-coral-2.jpg


Anemones
Urticina sp'
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...iscivora_1.jpg/800px-Urticina_piscivora_1.jpg
Hormathia sp'
http://www.tauchprojekt.de/fauna/hormathia_digitata.jpg


Bivalve Molluscs
Hiatella arctica
http://www.spirula.nl/images/nl_soorten/marien/Hiatella_arctica.jpg
Mya truncata
Serripes groenlandicus

large Isopods
http://www.blogadilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/isopod00.jpg
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03mexbio/feb14/feb14_220.jpg
Arcturus baffini

Arctic Fish pictures
RUSALCA Cruise Photographs


Gadidae (codfish)
Boreogadus saida
Arctic Cod - Boreogadus saida

Zoarcidae (eelpouts)
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/russian-american/fish-photos/PolarEelpout-B-Sheiko.jpg
Gymnelis viridis
Lycodes polaris
L. reticulatus

Cottidae (sculpins)
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/russian-american/fish-photos2/ArcticStaghornSculpin-Sheiko.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/russian-american/fish-photos2/Antlered_Sculpin.jpg
Icelus sp
Myoxocephalus
quadricornis
M. scorpioides
Cottunculus microps

Cyclopteridae(lumpfish and snailfish)
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/russian-american/fish-photos2/GelatinousSeasnail.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/aro/russian-american/fish-photos2/Festive_Snailfish.jpg
Eumicrotremus derjugini
Liparis sp




So, I am very interested in what everyone thinks of these exhibits, and that includes the "elephant people".

 

I have not listed all of the bird species native to the Canadian arctic, but excluded numerous drab colored species or species already similiar to those I've included.

 

In colder climates, like Calgary, some of these species will need to be housed indoors in the coldest days of winter, but fortunately I don't think super cooled caves and the like used to keep polar bears comfortable even in climates like Calgary would be necessary. You could also temporarily move some birds into warmer zoogeographic themed buildings in exhibits with permanent resident birds.

 

@Taccachantrieri: huge posting, but very informative. You certainly listed off a number of bird species that would fit in well at the Calgary Zoo. I've been excited for years regarding the long-gestating Arctic/Antarctic exhibit that is reportedly going to cost at least $133 million. Calgary has shown itself to be a progressive zoo, and perhaps there were be a few bird species (besides the penguins) in the new area of the zoo.

 

whilst i totally understand zoos reluctance to exclude them, it always makes me turn up my nose how many "arctic" exhibits include penguins!

fortunately, sunny australia has our own native species here, but i have always been keen on the idea of us getting more types, since essentially every antarctic species has washed up here at some stage or another.

i think the rules are now any that turn up must be brought into captivity, so maybe next time some rockhoppers turn up - their ours!!! (taronga, you got your fiordlands)

 

@Patrick: the Calgary Zoo exhibit will be Arctic and Antarctic, but I'm not sure which penguin species will be in the collection. Also, I'll bug you again to check out Phillip Island...it's just down the road from you!

 

little penguins............there is actually an unpublicised colony under the st kilda pier!

funny enough, both my housemates take tours to the penguins once or twice a week. i wouldn't even have to pay - but i've never gone!!

 

Originally the Antarctic Landing exhibit was going to house king penguins, macaroni penguins, and rockhopper penguins. Now the Calgary Zoo has added sea otters to their plans, and one of the three penguins will not be held. I'm assuming it will be either the macaroni or rockhopper.
The Arctic Shores exhibit will house snowy owls.


If the Calgary Zoo had originally planned Arctic exhibits like the ones I described earlier I'm sure they would have had a much easier time securing private donations, and maybe even federal funding. ZooCheck would have had a much harder time protesting exhibiting birds in a massive aviary.

With a very tentative and conservative federal budget, the Calgary Zoo will now have even more trouble securing federal funding. To make matters worse I don't think the rich oil companies are all that eager to finance Arctic exhibits. Oil sands extraction requires the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels. Currently Alberta is responsible for about a third of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions, but is home to only one tenth of the countries population! If Ed Stelmach retains his position as Premier he will allow emissions to rise for 14 more years or so!

 

The interesting thing in regards to the Province of Alberta is that it is financially booming, and even with a conservative budget could easily afford to splash out cash on a major attraction such as the Calgary Zoo. What is truly astounding is that the zoo generates close to 1.2 million visitors per year...in a city of only 1 million people. They are reportedly one of the very few zoos in North America that have more visitors than the population of the city that they are contained in.

 

I understand we can house so many more species in place of housing large species. But these large species generate more attraction from the public and create the concept of a flagship species. If you can generate appeal and attraction towards an animal that can in turn act as a conservation umbrella for all the other species in their habitat.
Some popular ones:
Tiger, Polar Bear, Elephant, Rhinoceros, Okapi, Florida Panther, Jaguar, Giant Panda
...and the list continues.
Of course this only works if the zoos supports programs that projects the species's habitat and not just the species.

 

@okapipr: this friendly debate has been raging for some time on ZooBeat, and it's truly difficult to decipher just how the large, mega-fauna mammals influence a particular zoo's attendance figures. But consider this: the Montreal Biodome in Canada has only four exhibits, each filled with fish, inverterbrates, birds, and only a handful of tiny mammals such as marmosets. That establishment receives almost one million visitors every year...and so the Biodome goes to show that wildlife organizations do not need mega-fauna such as bears, tigers, elephants, etc. The Montreal Insectarium has 400,000 visitors, far more than many open-range, safari-style zoos. All for a bunch of insects!

 

The concept of flagship species is not the universal answer for conservation, or perhaps even a very good one.
How would you use very large megafauna and the concept of flagship species to save biodiversity hotspots (See Biodiversity Hotspots - Home) such as New Zealand, Southwest Australia, New Caledonia, Madagascar, the Mediterranean etc.?
In fact try mapping large mammal diversity onto a map of biodiversity hotspots and see how closely they reflect one another.
Even if elephants occur in a biodiversity hotspot they may not occur there in sufficient numbers to sustain healthy populations. Additionally there may be other less biodiverse areas where elephants do occur that through protection would better serve elephant conservation. Having elephants in parks could even threaten numerous other species as evidenced by the call for elephant culling in Africa.

A lot of people argue that large mammals like elephants shape ecosystems but if thats the case why do some areas with essentially the same large mammals have such different arrays of endemic species, like the three hotspots all in southern Africa?

Furthermore a lot of Zoo conservation efforts centered around large animals protect those species instead of entire ecosystems.

A lot of my other comments with citations can be found on earlier posts on this thread.

 

Taccachantrieri - you probably realise that birds are difficult to keep well. Even for bird freak, they rarely are so entertaining as in the wild - cannot easily forage in flight, easily damage ornamental feathers, tend to sit motionless etc. But you might like aviaries in Rotterdam, Dresden and Rostock.

Rotterdam has two neighboring aviaries - Dutch wetland and Mediterranean. Plans to add indoor Africa area with giraffes. Idea is that birds are moved between aviaries depending from season. Ruffs display few meters from you.

Dresden has set of Tundra/Taiga themed aviaries and one walk-thru. One has snowy owls with arctic foxes, another dipper with underwater viewing. When I was there, everything was resting between bushes so dipper looked like coal tit and like chaffinch.

Rostock has wetland/coast themed aviary with waders, terns, ducks etc. Perfectly recreated vegetation biotopes - beach, bog etc. They probably replanted mosses and bushes from nearest nature reserve.

Summary: each is not competition, but complementary to usual big animals. And size is not like elephant paddock - maybe a little less than elephant house. And no bird is rare. But lots of fun with birds.

 

@Okapikeeper the examples you gave me are all smaller animals that I think are important animals for Zoos to display. My point is that if you can raise compassion for smaller animals you can protect every ecosystem, but if your visitors walk away only caring for large charismatic animals like elephants and polar bears they are not going to feel as compelled to protect EVERY ecosystem, because not all ecosystems have such animals.

How do you get more bang for your buck by protecting large species? Sandy J. Andelman, and William F.Fagan, (2000. Umbrellas and flagships: Efficient conservation surrogates or expensive mistakes?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Volume: 97 Issue: 11 Pages: 5954-5959) tested the appropriateness of big carnivores, charismatic species, keystone species, and wide-ranging species, for determining areas of conservation. In the Columbian Plateau ecoregion protecting habitat specialists instead of charismatic species can preserve more than twice as much biodiversity for the same land costs. He also found that using distribution data from a random set of species to plan reserves would result in conservation of as much or more biodiversity than flagship, umbrella, or indicator species.
Jeremy Kerr (1997. Species richness, endemism, and the choice of areas for conservation. Conservation Biology Volume: 11 Issue: 5 Pages: 1094-1100) analyzed preliminary reserve designs for protecting carnivores. These reserves protected an invertebrate diversity equivalent to a randomly selected area.


One of my other concerns is that the concept of charismatic species will result in reserve designs that are prioritized and designed for those species. A reserve with small corridors can congregate prey species. Predators will naturally be attracted to these areas and negatively impact prey populations. Of course, Zoos love to house predators and raise awareness of them, so some of their visitors may not see this as a bad thing even if it threatens more endangered sensitive species! A lot of money is spent in North American parks for things like small corridors over roads, but most small species are too skittish to use them anyways.



Bird exhibits might sometimes house inactive animals that don't exhibit their full range of natural behaviors, but how is that different from most large mammal exhibits? Are pacing polar bears with mangy algae infested coats that much better than inactive birds? I think part of the problem too is that birds don't tend to get the same resources. Obviously their activity level would increase just like polar bears if they could capture live fish.
Finally if you admit that small animal exhibits are complimentary to large mammal exhibits than surely you wouldn't think that exhibits just housing the latter which seem to be more popular today (San Diego 40 million renos, Los Angeles Zoo 40 million elephant exhibit, etc.) are ideal, now would you?

 

I understand your arguement. However I may not have made mine clear. Its not necessarily the large megafauna, but the flagship species. When it comes to politics and the people that create and protect these reserves - they will protect what they find appealing or economical to them. A species does not need to be large to be a flagship species, but many are. It is clearly easier to showcase megafauna, not just to raise money, but also build support in-situ. Without the support of the locals you will never be able to protect that species and their habitat.

If a zoo exhibit is themed for a flagship species and its habitat, the focal exhibit should be of that flagship species. Each ecoregion usually has more than one flagship species. When it comes to showcasing a habitat in a zoo, you can't hold every species in that area...so a zoo must prioritize what species the public will attracted to and what species are interesting enough to engage the public.

In order to protect the predators (or any megafauna), a good conservationist would also protect the prey and the prey's needed resources. By conserving the top the food chain a reserve could effectivly protect all of species below the predator. A 10,000 acre reserve for the Florida Panther doesnt fully procect the panther thus the need to link reserves that are 100+ miles apart to insure that heavy urbran/suburban developement will not turn these reserves into islands But 10,000 acres can hold an effective genetic population of fox squirrels, pileated woodpeckers, gopher tortoise, and lubber grasshoppers.

The biodome is the only canadian facility that I have visited and they have their flagship species - Hyacinth Macaw, tamarins, beaver, lynx, st lawrence river tank, penguins. And i think the biodome is the only major animal attraction near/within the Montreal metropolitan area. Plus from a visitor's standpoint, biodome offers a unique, kinda futuristic style of animal exhibition that one cant truely find in the americas. An exhibition style that can often be found in Europe. Animals aren't the only reason people want to visit zoos.

P.S. Very few american zoos only build a new major exhibit for one species. None of San Diego's big ticket exhibits hold one species. The elephant exhibit showcases life in southern california during the pleistocene (ie the La Brea tar pits come to life). And the Los Angeles Elephant exhibit is centered in the middle of the zoo with various viewing areas showcasing different parts of asia with smaller species located at or near the viewing areas from the respective region. That just the popular way of exhibit species nowadays. Otherwise major zoos would only hold a few hundred species and not the several hundred that they do. If they do, those zoos obviously want to be a breeding center for that species - a concept which every species needs at least 1 or 2 to have an effective genetic population.

 

@Taccachantrieri
Wow, somebody in Zoobeat who reads scientific articles. Rarer than baby sumatran rhino!

You raise valid points, but you seem to think that is either-or situation. Both flagship species and other approaches work, depending from local situation.

Yes, conservation actions for different groups of animals are very different. Large mammals can live in area which lost microhabitats of invertebrates, but (perhaps more often) you have national parks which lost big animals but invertebrates remain.

In practice, good conservation plan often uses flagship species to raise funds, but details are tuned to preserve whole range of biodiversity.

In zoos and conservation organizations, flagship species are used most often in extremely broad sense: raising interest in whole wildlife. So layman is drawn to zoo to see elephants, or to WWF with image of giant panda, but he learns something about whole nature. Some people learn it only in most broad sense, that "rainforest is important". Some people become deeply interested in small mammals, invertebrates and specialized ecoregions. This is how one leads to another.

BTW, can moderator keep eye that threads are revelant to topics?