Predicting Extinctions

Reintroduction would be immensely difficult but I believe that what @Dassie rat is getting at is less advocating reintroduction and actually a more philosophical point.

I think what he is questioning is why are these endangered subspecies of leopard, tiger and lion in zoos if they cannot be reintroduced ?

Furthermore, why are zoos congratulating themselves and marketing themselves as the saviours of these subspecies when keeping them ultimately defeats the objective / purpose ?

You could make the case that Carl Jones argues for persuasively IMO that we should be looking more at the genetic "domestication" of zoomix tigers and lions of no value for conservation but that attract visitors rather than keeping endangered subspecies in conditions which defeat the objective of their conservation.

 

Then why did he say in situ? Even if he did, these places would firstly have to be built, bring in no income, be protected from poachers and their transfer would serve little to no purpose - they are still in captivity, whether or not they are in their native range is fairly irrelevant in this context.

They are bringing in money and inspiring people to get involved in conservation, very simply. And while I am certainly concerned about the plight of smaller, less known species, there is no doubt that tigers and other megafauna bring in much, much more money than their smaller and lesser known counterparts. You can be philosophers all you want, it won't result in any concrete action since what you propose is off the cards and impossible, not to mention unhelpful and inefficient. Personally, I see no reason at all for it.

 

No one is saying that they don't bring in money or inspire people to care about conservation but rather that keeping endangered subspecies of the tiger, lion and leopard in zoos is rather self defeating when you consider the actions that are necessary for their survival in-situ and their overall wellbeing in captivity.

As I've mentioned Carl Jones has argued persuasively that we should be looking at keeping genetically "domesticated" zoomix tiger, lion and leopard as viable alternatives that are of no conservation value but still keep visitors coming through the doors and paying to see them whilst also lessening the stress that these animals experience within zoos.

I really hope you get involved in conservation one day @amur leopard by the way because then you can use the word "concrete action" meaningfully with a fuller sense / grasp of what it means and entails within the context of species conservation

 

@Carlos M This is a little bit off topic but still relevant within the context of this thread in terms of conservation but does the zoo you mention keep native and endangered freshwater turtles ?

 

Last time I went there (now more than a year ago), they supposedly keep Central American Snapping Turtle (Chelydra rossignonii), which are classified as Vulnerable, and also Central American River Turtle (Dermatemys mawii), classified as Critically Endangered. However, I don't actually remember seeing that last species, only the former one years ago. So I fear that maybe those species aren't kept anymore, even though their enclosures are still there but possibly empty.

 

There is a picture in the gallery of a mixed species enclosure at the Aurora zoo with caiman and numerous freshwater turtle species.

Is this the enclosure they were being kept in ? or was it another?

By the way, will PM you about something.

 

No, that's not the enclosure. The enclosure in the picture is supposedly home to Painted wood turtle (Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima), Northern giant musk turtle (Staurotypus triporcatus), and White-lipped mud turtle (Kinosternon leucostomum), along with Spectacled Caiman. However, last times I went the enclosure was only home to Mesoamerican slider (Trachemys venusta). Maybe the signs are outdated, or I'm misidentifying the animals. But in the gallery there's a picture of a some subaquatic exhibit in construction, which I believe is the one that ended up being the supposedly home to the species I mention formerly.

 

Thanks for that info @Carlos M ! much appreciated!

Ah I see, well it wasn't a bad looking enclosure from the photo though there looks like there were a lot of animals kept together within it and perhaps too many.

I'll have a look and see if I can find that exhibit that you mentioned, it would be interesting also to find out what happened to that ex-situ programe for those particular species.

 

While tiger and leopard are examples with different subspecies with extreme differences, there are some that I believe could, should, and in some cases are, being mixed. These include Sloth and sun bears, red panda, giraffe, etc.

 

I think the difficulty we have (within a captive situation) is that the definition of what is acceptable to hybridise varies not just from region to region, but from zoo to zoo; and changes over the decades. These changes are often difficult to reverse.

Around 30 years ago, it was accepted by every accredited zoo that Bornean and Sumatran orangutans should not be hybridised as they are seperate species. There is currently a moratorium on the breeding of hybrids - some of which are only in their 30’s and will live several decades more.

There appears to be little consensus on how chimpanzee populations should be managed. Many (including every Australasian zoo) happily hybridise the different subspecies; whereas a handful of European zoos maintain populations of purebred Western chimpanzees; while others have Central chimpanzees.

Ideally, decisions need to be made universally (like with the orangutans) and followed long term; otherwise in the future, we’re just undoing the work of previous generations if we declare their current work invalid/obsolete.

 

Yes, totally agree with you on that point @Zoofan15 , I think there is always a need to be consistent and to think and plan towards the long-term in both in-situ and ex-situ conservation.

 

Giraffes are split into several different species, which are then split into a couple of subspecies with recognisably different coat patterns and differing characteristics. I’m not saying they couldn’t be able to survive in the wild in another species’ or subspecies’ range, I’m saying that by letting one subspecies go extinct is essentially cancelling out hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, meaning that the animals that now live there are less adapted and the ecosystem is less productive and efficient. The same goes for the others you mention, who all have fairly big differences between the subspecies with the potential exception of sun bears.

Generally speaking though, the subspecies of the species you mention are not normally held as different identities - they data they have a red panda, not a Styan’s red panda.

 

Giraffe was definitely a stretch and I almost didn't include it for that reason. Both bears and the red Panda I do think should be managed only at the species level. Same with African lions.

 

While on the subject of megafauna overtaking the eyes and attention of zoo visitors: it’s a double edged sword in my opinion. Zoos have many aspects they need to hit on to not only be popular enough to bring in funds but also help with conserving endangered species. Some of the lesser charismatic species are displayed yet it appears at times they are severely overshadowed by megafauna almost always other than specific exhibitions such as reptile houses or aviaries. But whether they are displayed or kept behind the scenes, the lesser known species who are in need of help should be at or near the front of conservation efforts at zoos. The megafauna are BIG incentives for visitors to go to zoos and be a reason for their funding, they are so far a key part as well and may not be changing since some of those megafauna species also being endangered. I do like the push that some zoos and aquariums to promote some of their lesser known species. The Aquarium of the Pacific has a fantastic collection of amphibians, a good majority being vulnerable/endangered species. On my last visits, people of all ages were interested or at least would want to see these species. And as for their more recent expansion, Pacific Visions, delta smelt are a key specie exhibited and speaks on the importance of indicator specie for an environment. These exhibitions are big help and awareness for species that would otherwise only ever be kept off exhibit. Unfortunately, some species that were mentioned such as the Vaquita, are likely to be extinct. Certain species are doomed no matter what efforts are done, but if there is a chance to help maintain a secured population propagate, it should and needs to be done. But this effort is solely not on institutions, it’s on all of us.

 

Perhaps that is the solution. If a species is not part of a reintroduction programme, just keep it at the species level in zoos and breed sparingly. If it is part of a reintroduction, keep subspecies pure so that the progeny can be introduced to the wild.

 

Quitobaquito Pupfish along with its home, one of the only permanent water sources in the Sonoran Desert will go soon, I think.

 

I think that there is more of a chance of the population on the Mexican side of the Sonoran desert going extinct rather than the one in Arizona / the USA.

I do think it will be taken into captivity / ex-situ long before it gets to the point of a die off in the wild though.

Nevertheless, yes, with climate change on the horizon and a projected increase in desertification across that region the future in-situ does look bleak for the species and many other pupfish in Mexico and the USA.

 

Really? I know the population on the US side (along with the pond they live in) is being hit hard by the border wall.

 

All biodiversity is being hit hard by the absurd border wall.

 

Let's hope Biden tears it down asap, hopefully that will be in time to save whatever wildlife is still left.