In case it wasn't picked up from the other thread, Oregon has the only Bornean elephant in NA, and it was recently announced that she is pregnant. The father is non-Bornean, either Samson or Samudra.
These are wonderful lists and lead to further thought. Bronx, for instance, is actively breeding its adjutant storks, and they have an entire female colony and two males from its breeding pair. But where can this program go without some outside genes at another institution? I know there is an SSP for the adjutants, but are there even breeding recommendations for all these others who only exist in one facility?
I heard it at the zoo last week on Members night from a keeper. I could have been mistaken. They are hoping to get enough birds to ship out to other zoos to start breeding, so I assumed that meant they, Bronx, alone were breeding on an SSP recommendation. But my question that was left unanswered--how can other zoos breed without unrelated birds--perhaps should have told me that there might not be SSPs for species held in only one facility. However, this isn't quite as dumb as it sounds in retrospect. There are expert ornithologists from all over the country who could conceivably form an SSP of advisory members, if not holding members. How many of these facilities breed their specimens? Are there SSPs for species held in only one facility? I agree, at first blush, it sounds like any species held in only one place faces a dead end at some point.
The only other holder of Lesser Adjutant in the US is Racine; I don't know if they breed or not (I would guess not).
I started poking around, and Wikipedia of all places says the Bronx Zoo is one of three zoos breeding adjutant storks. I only took it from an earlier post the Bronx was the only one. But if there are three, and unrelated birds are needed, why wouldn't there be an SSP for the species?
@AmbikaFan Hopefully this answers some questions/clarifies things: I have no reason to doubt that they are doing that, but to clarify: breeding and exchanging animals doesn't necessitate an SSP. There are several species that zoos breed and exchange with each other whose breeding is managed informally/on an institutional level rather than by a formal program. It sounds like Bronx is cooperating with a couple other holders at the informal level to grow the population. Zoos could acquire unrelated birds from private holders, non-AZA facilities or from abroad. But additionally, many zoos can and do breed related birds if no other individuals are available. Inbreeding is avoided to the extent possible, but most zoo populations have experienced it either recently or sometime in the past. The more vulnerable the species, the more likely zoos might be to take that risk. In general, no. SSPs are required to have a minimum number of participating institutions (either 2 or 3, can't remember which) in order to be initiated. SSPs may still function if it drops below that number, but usually species that are only at one facility are managed on an institutional basis - no need for people outside of Bronx Zoo to be involved with a breeding plan for a species exclusively breeding at Bronx Zoo, for example. Again, an SSP is not necessary for zoos to cooperate breeding and exchanging animals. It is a useful management tool for populations of a certain size or scope, but for only three or fewer facilities with a handful of individuals, it may be more of a hindrance and time-consuming venture to set up a formal program right now. Additionally, the TAG may not recommend starting a program for that species; if that's the case, that could be a contributing factor to there not being an SSP.
Thank you so much for explaining this. I had never considered how such rare species were managed. Let me ask a hypothetical using a real example:. Once an animal becomes so rare that there are only a few specimens, does one institution start trying to reproduce in human care and then more join in, like with the California Condor? There seem to be at least five places breeding these and making real inroads into passing laws eliminating lead ammunition, the primary cause of death (birds eating lead in carcasses shot with that ammo). Is there now a formal SSP that has evolved?
Well, I can't really answer your first question, but to your second, yes there is a California Condor SSP now.
So Storm's Stork just squeaks an SSP with SDZ, Bronx, and Fort Worth. I was wondering how that worked giving the state of their population...
Yes, although there have been more holders at one time historically. Also, I think another zoo currently keeps the species off exhibit, though I’m not certain of that. I think also that all of SDZ’s storks are currently at the safari park.
Yeah, definitely. Not just for the species you mentioned, but also Panamanian golden frogs, Wyoming toads, Houston toads, Haitian giant galliwasps, Aruba Island rattlesnakes, Puerto Rican crested toads, Cyclura iguanas, Bali starlings, golden lion tamarins, pied tamarins, Perdido Key beach mice... and so on. Some of those might have already been kept in zoos, but I know that at least several of them started out as a nucleus population taken from the wild to one or a handful of facilities, bred up, and then expanded to many zoos. An SSP is usually drawn up early, with the intention of managing the population effectively from an early stage. Haitian galliwasps, for example, started as a Nashville Zoo conservation project that then spread to other facilities once they had bred enough lizards.
I was thinking that having an SSP from the start could only help and not hurt. First, it uses knowledgeable minds from zoos that don't carry the species. More importantly, having an SSP would seem to be an impramatur of sorts. It gives the effort an official seriousness of purpose that might help in getting species from the wild or from far-flung reserves that otherwise might let an injured specimen die. I think of Bronx's reputation in getting the gharials or Oregon's in getting Bornean elephant Chendra. A zoo might have its own reputation, but an AZA SSP would surely add almost an advertisement, "We're serious here. Please send us specimens." Thanks again for explaining the protocal, Coelacanth.
I do think it's true that an SSP or at least an endorsement from a coalition of AZA people, rather than just individual institutions, does carry more weight. That's sort of the idea behind TAG recommendations: recommending not to obtain certain species discourages member facilities from doing it because if they do, they might not receive cooperation or support from other institutions with that species. This maximizes space for formal programs or species that a group of professionals within the AZA thinks are worthwhile investments. If you're further interested, this thread details several American zoos that cooperated to establish a breeding population of pangolins within the AZA against the recommendations of an AZA committee and a consortium of pangolin researchers and conservationists: Several US zoos receive pangolins.
Thanks again. I've been watching that. At what point does the AZA disapprove and threaten accreditation? Pittsburgh decided to keep FC with its elephants and lost its accreditation. Several zoos haven't met the 3-elephant requirement, yet I haven't heard of threats. How does the AZA react to outright disobedience like with the pangolins? How egregious can a zoo be (assuming animal care and safety standards are solid) and still not be in trouble?
Specifically regarding the pangolins, nobody in the AZA forbade the zoos from acquiring pangolins; the TAG in charge of overseeing husbandry and collection planning for pangolins (and other similar animals) recommended against it. Zoos buck TAG recommendations all the time, so that in itself is not unusual or egregious. This particular instance was a big venture outside the realm of comfort though, and it caught a lot of backlash. Generally, it's hard to tell where the AZA draws the line on pulling accreditation; I think it usually depends on the individual zoo and circumstance. They seem to have increased their standards and their willingness to revoke accreditation in the last few years (that would be an interesting discussion itself!). Zoos already in the AZA at this point have pretty good standards of care, but whether they are up to par and whether or not certain cases count as egregious is ultimately a personal opinion, and up to the individuals/committee assigned with evaluating members for re-accreditation.
That's a discussion I'd like to see. Personally, I'd be inclined to think that doing more for pangolins than less could only be good. The East Asian varieties at the very least need assurance colonies.
