China, "generously offered a gift for Brazil": a pair of Pandas for Rio de Janeiro Zoo. Im wondering if is really a gift or the same loan contracts most Pandas outside China are under, the article only mentions they will be donated by the chinese. China doará pandas ao zoo, primeiros da espécie na América do Sul - Rio - O Dia
It says in the article that everything related to them (the pandas) will be financed by the Chinese government but any offspring produced will be sent to China, so I would imagine that the zoo will not have to pay any rents but will not own the pandas. I guess from the article that the panda exhibit will be located within the zoo.
Carlos! no new land adquired, there was even a project to move the complete zoo, but nothing so fare! The pands will get a area inside the old zoo, I just dont remember where!
The article mention it, but how sure it is I dont know, Brazilian Zoos never give out public and correct announcement's one deals, deaths, acquisitions and dipositions of animals. But maybe the chinese will be so kinnd to us brazilian's and not charge the 10 million USD for the rental! Indeed the exhibit will be inside the actual zoo, no new land and the project one move the complete zoo to a new area is quiet.
I'm ultimately very glad that this fell through , as it would have entailed (unwarranted in my opinion) focus and funding being diverted to pandas at the cost of native species. It is hard enough to raise awareness of the conservation of native Brazilian wildlife / biodiversity in the zoo-going public with the staple African and Asian megafauna (Lions, tigers, giraffe , elephants, rhino, gorilla , chimp etc.) which invariably become the focus of attention , space , and often funding, without having pandas added to the mix. I support the idea of slowly phasing out exotic species in favour of a focus predominately or even entirely geared towards native / endemic species.
I don't. Imagine that the people in Brazil (or in South America in general) also wanna see exotic megafauna as we in Europe or North America do. Further more, exhibits for those animals can be built much cheaper and the chance of getting more space for animals is also bigger then in most zoos in European countries NORMALLY/MOSTLY. However, I agree that - because of the political circumstances -, giant pandas could be an exception (= not an exotic species that MUST bee kept in a South American Country) Awareness of conservation of native wildlife is important, no question. But like zoos in Europe or North America, zoos in Brazil are (or at least should be) able to fight on both places.
In terms of having more space, I would say that this is contingent on whether a zoo is located in an urban or rural environment. A rural environmental typically allows for more space for enclosures and perhaps a greater diversity of species kept. However, unlike Europe / North America, zoos in Brazil and Latin America are predominately located in urban environments with high population densities such as mega cities or smaller industrial ones. The ubication is largely out of necessity as culturally it is not a norm for people to make journeys into rural areas of the interior in order to visit zoos. Hence the founding of an institution of that type within such a rural environment would be impractical for financial reasons. Within the urban environment zoos are typically located inside pre-existing green areas or parks which on average are pretty large which in the long term may mean that an institution may have a little more breathing space than your average European or North American zoo but in the long term expansions are difficult to impossible as green areas are swallowed up by urbanization.
Agree, although some "green areas" in the suburbs of cities in Brazil are much better conected (with public transport) after Football WC and Olympics then they were before. So a journey in those "zones" is not that "onerous" anymore. What I meant ref. costs: Because of the size of Brazil in comparison with e. g. Switzerland, land (and so building new zoo exhibits or new zoos) is much cheaper in general, although getting more space COULD be much more difficult for a zoo in the heart of a brazilian megacity then for a swiss zoo in a rural area (although those rural areas are small when you compare it with rural areas in Brazil, the US or even Germany) .
I agree there is a desire to see exotic species , but I believe the notion that visitors expectations are predominately geared towards seeing exotics has been conflated and is a rather lazy and generalized belief. Furthermore, I think this kind of assumption actually does have a negative impact because it leads to a greater valuation of the exotic over the native. In regions like Europe and North America which are comparatively low in biodiversity and a lower need for conservation it might be ok and understandable to prioritize exotics but Latin America has some of the highest (if not THE highest) biodiversity rates of plants and animals in the world. For example, take this case that occured recently in Brazil of a well intentioned but ignorant girl who as a statement of protest against the burning of the Amazon created a body painting featuring the Amazon rainforest burning with giraffes and elephants in the background. The girl was slammed on social media ( and wrongly in my opinion as I hate twitter mobs and bullying of that kind) and the case was highlighted because many felt it revealed a total lack of awareness towards native biodiversity. Makeup Artists Giraffe Tribute To Amazon Fires Slammed - Ananova Many on social media criticized the Brazilian education system and suggested that it revealed flaws , but zoos may also be said to be organs of education couldn't they ? and I personally can see a strong connection between the two. There are some examples of zoos in Brazil that do amazing work in environmental education of the public about native biodiversity , those that come to mind are Sorocaba zoo , Bauru zoo and Gramado zoo , but the overall trend is unfortunately the opposite. Furthermore , there is the issue of funding and finance. Latin America is a region of the developing world and unquestionably it just does not have the same economic resources that are available to zoos in the developed or "First world". The costly emphasis on maintaining non endangered African and Asian megafauna in zoos has been criticized even in Europe and the United States. So consider if you will what impact this prioritization has in terms of the funding of conservation programes of native species. Ultimately the developed world of Europe, the USA, Canada , Australia etc. have both the resources and the luxury to focus their attention on maintaining zoological collections of African and Asian megafauna. However, I believe that the prime focus of zoos in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico should, out of necessity and given the dire need of ex-situ conservation, be centred on native biodiversity.
Yes , to a certain extent you are right , but travel even within a Brazilian state nevermind across several is actually very expensive in terms of driving or taking buses or plane flights (there are no rain networks sadly for historical reasons). For that reason the contact with zoos that your average Brazilian has is typically formed by visits to the zoo in his/ her home city or town or to a zoo that may be visited as a side attraction if it is located in the proximity of a major tourists attraction such is the case of parque das aves in Iguazu or the zoo in Rio.
Looking at the fact, that ratings in zoos worldwide about the most beloved species showing more or less the same results (Lion, Elephant, Hippo, Gorilla etc.) I have to disagree here. It depends what you consider as megafauna: Going from the size of a big cat or ape upwards, most species from Asia or Africa ARE endangered (Asian Elephant, many ungulates like all asian rhinos, all big cats etc.) and space for ex-situ programms is welcome. However, I must confess that most if not all latin american countries can not mess with European or North American countries (or Australia) financially. But cheapter solutions (and still good solutions ref. animal welfare) for ex-situ-programms (and even keeping non-threatened exotics) are possible in Brazil and Co. as well.
Well I agree with you that those animals you mentioned are popular with the zoo visiting public , but I would also like to see visitors experience the beauty and learn of the plight of native species such as the Muriqui , the buffy headed marmoset, the jaguar , the black lion tamarin, the giant anteater , the tapir , the maned wolf, the golden lance head viper , the pampas cat etc. Many Brazilians are unaware that these incredible and beautiful species even exist within the country. Furthermore , I would contend that it is absolutely crucial that visitors experience native species for several reasons. As I mentioned in a previous comment , travel between states in Brazil is expensive and so a great many Brazilians do not get to see distant parts of the country and their wildlife such as the Pantanal and Amazonia. In the case of Amazonia which is going up in flames and being cleared for agriculture it is crucial that the average Brazilian experiences and knows what biodiversity is being lost in order to raise awareness that may next time an election comes around translate into the voting into office of an administration which does not flagrantly violate the countries natural resources and biodiversity for crass material gain. To add to that , Amazonia is really just the tip of the iceberg , in Sao Paulo for example there are both the Cerrado and Atlantic rainforests which are typically the most neglected ecosystems in terms of conservation. As a result vast areas of these biomes are being cleared for agriculture and livestock production literally a mere hour or two outside of Sao Paulo city. To my mind the more focus that is put on exhibiting animals from these biomes the greater the chance of zoos playing an active role in inspiring people to care about what is happening instead of the public viewing these ecological catastrophes through a vague and hazy lens as something that does not matter. I know, that many species from Asia and Africa are endangered but I am particularly thinking of a journal paper that came out a couple of years ago that suggested that zoos worldwide showed a worrying propensity to maintaining megafauna from those regions that were not endangered such as various kinds of antelope , zebra , hybridized giraffes etc. But even with megafauna from those regions which are recognized as endangered species , my point is why should they be kept (considering the costs and space that they take up) or prioritized in Latin American zoos at the expense of native species which are endangered when we are facing the sixth mass extinction event ?
Again, I generaly absolutely agree. I guess the point we differ is how much (percentage?) latin american zoos should ALSO care about exotic species and where/when a native endangered animal should be priorized before an exotic.
I think that obviously zoos in Latin America should care about exotics but never more than native biodiversity and the former should never be prioritized over the latter. In terms of exotics , a lot of African , Asian and Australasian megafauna kept in zoos in Brazil are elderly and non breeding animals and I believe there is obviously a strong need for a duty of care to these individuals. These creatures are also very popular and beloved of the keepers and visitors and in some cases hold a local celebrity status and when they pass away they are sorely missed. But I think there is also undeniably a need for long term strategic thinking too. For example , when these animals reach the end of their lifespans in zoos and pass away, should they be replaced by others of their kind ? In my opinion I don't think they should at all and I strongly support the idea of this kind of natural and gradual phasing out of exotics from zoos in the region. What should ideally follow (I believe) should be a renewed commitment and focus on the ex situ management of native endangered species and the implementation of environmental education to visitors regarding this.
So then you take millions of latin americans (and their children) the chance to ever see living exotic animals and the chance to built an awareness that those exotics should be protected too (Don't tell me watching animals in TV is the same). Also, exotic animals may be ambassadors (and maybe better ambassadors) for threatened local fauna. (Teacher to the children: "Imagine, not only tigers/elefants suffer from destroying their environment but also our jaguars/tapirs. We have to take care to the nature worldwide so that we can save both species" - there might be better examples of course but you know what I mean). Another point (although this is not really a megafauna-case): The breeding and reintroduction of some marmoset/tamarin species in Brazil works very well NOW. Why priorize those species in latin american zoos ANY LONGER over an exotic and endangered species of similar size, where protection in its country of origin isn't that succesfull or has even failed? Specially, when conditions (e.g. climate) would be more or less the same. If we wanna safe endangered animals in zoos worldwide, we also need all the available space there. Finally: My opinion is, that it depends on each case, if latin american zoos should priorize to keep (and breed to save them from extinction) local animals over exotics.
