I have found my new role model: "The downside of collective management, where zoo enthusiasts were concerned, was that it made animal collections more predictable. “For me, who goes around to zoos—looking at them, examining them, providing a critique, comparing them—it’s obvious that all zoos are ending up with the same things,” said Brown. Richardson didn’t want to keep the same animals as other zoos, and he set up the Dallas World Aquarium so he wouldn’t have to. “Daryl is a rebel,” said Juan Cornejo, a former scientific adviser. Richardson never answered to a board of directors. He rejected nonprofit status, freeing himself from depending on wealthy donors." Richardson's approach was normal in the past, there is somewthng wrong with the over-caution, homogenisation and bureaucratic stagnation of supposed world class zoos today. In the UK this is called Jersey-ification, but people forget Durrell could not open Jersey Zoo today.
It is a simplification as we do see space for zoos to specialise and go into species that are not covered by other zoos. At the same time the collective management is needed as else you would lose many of the species that are in zoos these days. Don't forget the possibilities just to go and catch some new animals is not possible and desirable anymore. Zoos would be gone already if that would be the case.
True collective management is neccessary, but its also biased re: phasing out species. And entire taxon groups become neglected, even if they have conservation needs, as you know. This is why I say I'm against zoo conservation, its not the principle, in fact ppl should do more for things like frogs and passerines. Rather I'm a skeptic of the approach, especially as regards limited gene pools and last minute action. Today it feels less like genuine attempts to save anything, than a stifling bureaucracy that frowns on change, and cynically starts media campaigns for charismatic megafauna for which it is too late. Whereas genuine conservation efforts are connected to the Aspinalls and Durrells - individuals with passions, not really a collective effort. Perhaps individuals can't do much alone, but if stadardised zoos were really genuine, they would display differing priorities about species. This is not to say all conservation zoos are insincere, only that many seem not to be: like zoo education, it seems not to be taken seriously anymore, when ppl such as Richardson are condemned for innovation. Apart from maintaining stock, conservation in zoos is merely an angle pushed as a moral justification nowadays, yes?
I get your point, though frogs are a very bad example, as recently both zoos themselves and zoo sponsored breeding centres in the native range have done a lot for frog conservation. To me it seems that you see a very shaded area, extremely black and white. Partly, there are certainly some zoos that only say they do conservation, but there are so many examples nowadays from San Diego, to the WCS, to Durrell, to Ouwehands, Burgers Zoo, Zurich and many other zoos that spend A LOT of money on conservation, depending on the organisation that can be millions of dollars per year. Were these not zoos, that money would not have flowed into conservation. Do these zoos do a lot of ex situ conservation, no not really and could they potentially do more: probably. But the point is that these are businesses, so a certain amount of space is needed for all the ABC's and others to draw the visitors in, without the visitors no money for real conservation. There has been enough recent research pointing to the fact that zoos can play a role in conservation directly by ex situ breeding programs, but it is also pointed out that their role on the grand scheme of things is very limited. And slowly but steady zoos are more and more becoming involved in conservation and institutes like EAZA are getting more involved in this, the problem of such efforts is that they are very slow going, but that doesn't mean they are going the right direction. Such things take time and zoos are slowly getting there. Personally I think Richardson is a very bad example, his reasonings have very little to do with honest conservation it seems and more with ego boasting. Zoos like Magdeburg can also bring in new and rare species regularly, by showing a real interest and close collaboration with private breeders, not by messing around like Richardson seems to do.
I think just looking at the pygmy sloth case is a very good example on how not to acquire new animals and indeed Richardson is collecting a nice collection, but is it conservation............. And Sealpup zoo conservation is much more than last minute rescue actions. I think your view of what zoos do on conservation is very limited and too influenced by your personal preference to see rare and odd animals.
Additionally, if a species' wild population crashes unexpectedly and it's a fact they'll go Extinct without outside influence (e.g. Kihansi Spray Toad) what's wrong with a zoo or zoos conducting a last minute rescue action? How is this not conservation? ~Thylo
Because genetic diversity = long term prognosis. Some actions give humans a warm glow inside, but merely delay what had become inevitable. Broad reserve populations need to have been established in advance, in such cases.
But you can't predict such things all the time. What are we to create captive populations for every species that might become endangered down the line? And in the example I gave the species is doing just fine. ~Thylo
What you are saying is when a smoker gets a heart attack, there is no need for getting him to the intensive care because his long term prognosis is bad anyway and he should just never have started. Though it is true he should never have started, there is absolutely no reason not to try to save him. The long term prognosis of a small relict population is not the same as DOOM, the prognosis is a higher chance of extinction than a bigger population. If small populations are always doomed because of genetic bottleneck etc, Zoochat would not exist....
One can predict things better than some people, like yourself, seem to think: for example the passenger pigeon was predicted to be at risk whilst still numerous. Outright, unpredictable crashes like the Tassie devils are rare, and as their example shows, may be non-anthropogenic by nature. Anthropogenic pressures can however be predicted, to determine risk to species, populations or at least their ecosystems. And its not as simple as endangered: some species regarded as E are in better genetic health than others, whilst other species need preemptive captive action at V or even NT.
I am saying preventation is better than cure, and though people find it unsavoury, doctors do have to decide to pull the plug, take expensive action, or let nature take its course to use resources somewhere else, to better effect. No one suggests pulling the plug on (say) Sumatran rhinos, but such last minute interventions have borne little fruit in return for financial outlay, largely because the patient's health was already in steep decline. Save critically endangered rarities, such as Sumatran rhinos and orangs? Sure. Just make sure you do it in time, or spend it somewhere else. Si?
Sorry, but that is not what you were saying in your previous posts, which stated rather bluntly that prevention is the only option, which is demonstrably not true. I agree with you that prevention is better than cure, but that was not what you were saying before.
Two successful last ditch rescues that come to mind are Californian Condor and Mauritius Kestrel, with Pink Pigeon and Echo Parrakeet not far behind. Then of course, Pere David Deer, Nene, Przevalski's Horse and European Bison.
But after a crisis point, nothing is really cured. Keep fighting for someone whose death is imminent anyway? Or turn away, and help where you can.
What was/is the genetic health/diversity of each these species? Pere David's for example are doing fine as a stock: are the Cali condors? Remember the other day, the news article about low genetic diversity causing probable pathologies in woolly rhino populations. And the fragmented populations of late Pleistocene megafauna, were surely less vulnerable than captive founder populations taken as a last ditch attempt.
So you're suggesting that any species who is saved via a last ditch effort has really only been delayed in its extinction? What of all the species listed above which have worked out fine? ~Thylo
Hardly a good example. True, the story of the Laysan teal shows that having a single fragile population is risky, but that is true for many island endemics. Laysan teals do still exist today and I doubt they would without that last ditch effort.
You are completely missing the point here and just add bits that you did not mention before just to be not completely wrong anymore. Following your reasoning both European bison and American buffalo, southern white rhino, black wildebeest and many others should have long been extinct or at least be on their last legs.
Never did I say they weren't on their last legs, nor did I say such was impossible. Rather that after a bottleneck, the descendants are not the same as the ancestor: genetic diversity has been lost, and thus future potential to evolve as regards things like disease resistance. Does anyone think the Sumatran rhino might realistically have been saved by captive breeding when it was attempted? Or we will see Asian cheetahs all over India one day?
