In general, new species are added because zoos want to import them. Species already on the import list which are not currently (or no longer) in the country are generally there for historical reasons.
One more interesting note from the bowels of the census regarding Goodfellow's tree-kangaroo: "Taxonomically unique; uncertain as to whether able to import additional specimens from the range state. Able to import from AZA institutions......Export is currently restricted and the paperwork to export is not in place for GTK. ASMP reviewing whether to phase out Goodfellow's Tree Kangaroo in favour of Lumholtz Tree-kangaroo."
That last line perturbes and alarms me! Is the issue identified not the horns of the ox that need to be fixed by ZAA? BTW: ZAA is the global species coordinator I believe and also closest to its natural range in Papua and has the largest population of all regions! Work by your strengths I would say!
I could not agree more lets look at all the options first before thinking of yet another phase out but it seems to be the mind set of some within the ZAA!
That is either an outdated or misguided assumption, considering that Goodfellow's has been nearly or completely phased out of AZA institutions.
This really cements how out-of-touch with reality the ZAA is with the reality facing teh worlds wildlife. Goodfellow's tree kangaroo is an endangered species. It is a marsupial, a class of mammals that our zoos are arguably the world experts at keeping. Not only that, we actually have good success with breeding this species and relatively speaking a decent amount if them zoos in this county. This species also comes from our most immediate neighbouring country, a country who's strongest diplomatic ties are to our own. As these Australian bushfires have illustrated, we no longer get ample warning when a species might go from endangered to extinct. Especially not when action takes years of red tape before anything practical can be done. All populations of endangered species in captivity need to be treated at precious. Its not a given we are going to be able to add-to or replace those populations. Especially not with the self-serving attitudes and procrastination our zoos exhibit. If the Goodfellow's tree kangaroo population is in need of new genetics from the wild to safeguard the captive population, then I would argue that no developed country on earth is better equiped to take the lead on that than Australia. The question the ZAA should be asking itself should not be "Goodfellow's or Lumholtz?" but instead "How can we secure a healthy population of Goodfellow's and Lumholtz?"
I agree that holding both species would be ideal but knowing the ZAA record of having "One or the other" mind set having less is better
I'm told the male at TWPZ is still alive. Perhaps (in the email to you) they meant that it is not on display?
That’s interesting; this was the exact email response I got from the zoo: No sorry we no longer have the African Forest Buffalo. It’s not the most detailed response so I tried to find out more but I never got an answer back, as I mentioned in the relevant post.
I think it is most likely deceased. I will leave it on the "former" list with a note that it may still be alive.
Due to the problems facing native wildlife (Australian bushfires may have wiped out countless species...), I feel that Australian zoos should be putting more effort into breeding endangered native mammals, rather than getting more exotic species.
The inherent problem with that, is that for local visitors at least, exotic species drive footfall and thus income.
I can't answer that question, Zorro, but David Fleay's Zoo is doing a good job and doesn't depend on exotic species to attract visitors. Why can't more Australian keep long-footed potoroos? Would they need more space than the over-represented meerkats. Similarly, why are Goodfellow's tree kangaroos being phased out, despite being an endangered species.
As is explained above Goodfellows are not being phased out, but the suggestion is being assessed. Surely 'toothlessjaws' is right and there is space and interest in Australian zoos for 2 spp of Tree Kangaroo? Potoroos (however lovely and in need of help) would never been seen by the public as a subsitute for Meerkats, but again there must be space for both. One species (however important) does not automatically have to displace others.
Sorry, Andrew this is not what is happening in many zoos. Look at the way that some large ABC species are being given much larger enclosures, while they are not part of any reintroduction programme. These enclosures often replace those of less popular species, which are phased out, despite being endangered.
You are right, in one area. Zoos with huge enclosures and limited numbers of 'large ABC' species are indeed very popular with both the public, and on sites such as this too. It is fortunate that in most countries there is a wide variety of zoos of all sizes, which should allow a good diversity (even an increasing number) of species to be maintained. I remain hopeful that Australia will find space for more than one spp of Tree Kangaroo.
David Fleays is a Sanctuary for ONLY native Queensland animals which are found in Queensland also Many Australian zoos are doing a very good job breeding endangered animals a lot of which would be not well known to the overseas public.
@Dassie rat. Also Fleays is actually owned by the Queensland government and is very heavily subsidised by them.
