This thread is very close to my heart, as it concerns a subject on which I'm writing an article at the moment for consideration by one of the zoo journals. Obviously I can't reproduce the entire article here, but I will attempt to summarise. It pains me to say it, but zoos, for true enthusiasts like myself, are getting quite boring nowadays because they all keep the same, or essentially the same, species that they believe the public (sorry, their "guests", as it seems we have to call zoo visitors now) want to see every time. Zoo directors need to be reminded that zoos exist to save species from extinction. It goes against the spirit of the endeavour to waste valuable and limited resources on common species that are in no need of captive breeding. And before anyone says to me that zoos need their meerkats, their short-clawed otters, their Bennett's wallabies, to make themselves more appealing to...ahm...the visitors, I would remind everyone that for every common species, there are a host of related, but much rarer, species that could be kept instead. The problem is that so few of the present generation of zoo directors are that aware of endangered species, I'm sorry to say. Whereas Gerald Durrell or John Knowles or Ken Smith would deliberately seek out the quirky, the endangered, the little-known, to many zoo-directors today a wallaby is a wallaby is a wallaby, and why spend time trying to source a breeder of one of the rarer rock wallabies when it is so much easier to obtain Bennett's wallabies? As long as the public are happy (they have wallabies to see and they care not that it is the commonest species, as long as there are wallabies on display), that is all many zoos seem to worry about, which is why enlightened places like the Rare Species Conservation Centre in Kent, which concentrates solely on the rare and the quirky, are such a welcome breath of fresh air.
An excellent post zooman64, the lack of rarities & number of commonly seen mammals at London these days (though there are other offenders) is one of my biggest criticisms of that zoo. I have said on several occasions, why is it that places such as RSCC, Hamerton & Exmoor seem to manage exhibiting the unusual, whilst a zoo like London can't? Belfast is another which is a bit out of the ordinary.
Zooman 64 would love to read your article when its done ! I think there ought to be more co operation between zoos and for them to go back to basics - protecting endangered species and hopefully re introducing them back to the wild. I also understand the commercial needs of a zoo it needs the paying public and some smaller animals surely help youngsters engage with animals. If animals aren't being encouraged to breed then they should not be in a collection . Not picking on London or whipsnade or ring Tailed lemurs but London is building a big lemur walkthrough why cant both sets of lemurs get introduced together freeing up space at whipsnade for perhaps keeping another species of lemur there only.
I agree with Zooman64. I would like more zoos to follow the direction of Plzen. It had about 50 species of mammals 20 years ago and now has about 250. Many other zoos are moving in the other direction by cutting the number of species and building larger enclosures for species numbered in their hundreds or thousands in captivity. Plzen has quite a few ABC animals and lots of XYZs (I spent most time looking at a dusky pademelon in 2011, when Plzen was the only Zootierliste zoo to keep this species). Plzen has many species of mammals, birds and reptiles that are the only ones kept in zoos in Europe. Rather than zoos concentrating on the common and popular animals, which have already been saved from extinction, they should try and interest visitors in more quirky animals that can be bred and reintroduced into the wild, if possible.
Another way of dealing with gorillas might be to put females on long term implants in all zoos apart from those nominated by their TAG co-ordinator. Too many zoos are looking after their own short-term benefit, IMHO. For a good number of social mammals there is a clear need for more bachelor groups. But zoos want the press releases that go with cute babies. If their conservation credentials are not going to be eventually tarnished, this issue needs to be addressed.
I just don't understand why zoos cannot work in partnership with each other for a greater good in all species . the ultimate goal must be wild re introduction otherwise then zoos just fall into the entertainment section with theme parks cinema sport etc
Even if a zoo director believes that zoo simply must have cute and popular species, there is lots of underused potential. Lots of zoos keep short-clawed otters, while there is 9 equally cute otter species, threatened and not represented in zoos. Why almost no zoo keeps smooth-coated, spotted-necked, african short-clawed, hairy-nosed, neotropical or southern otters? Lots of zoos keep red-necked wallabies, but there is about 30 wallaby species. Lots of zoos keep zebras, but why Cape mountain zebra is not represented in collections? And if zoos want cute and cuddly animals, there is lots of unknown ones: why eg. not cuscuses and possums, which are cuddly as anything? Why not giant squirrels, or cloud rats?
I agree to a point, but it's not like the 'old days' where we can send the like of Gerry Durrell or David Attenborough off to the tropics to collect some animals for us all. There is much more to it. However, if the pillars of justification for modern zoos are still education and conservation I'm afraid we've all learnt from watching short-clawed otters by now and we probably have enough captive diversity in European zoos!
I think alot of people forget that zoos are a business first and have to make money in order to house the rarely seen zoo animals and set up programs to return them to the wild. I would say about 80% of visitors to zoo don't care whether its a critically endangered species of wallaby or if its a bennets wallaby they just see a kangaroo. They're not interested in what species of lemur it is they just see a monkey. RSCC is different to most zoo because it doesn't market itself to the general public it reaches out to the enthusiasts and therefore justifies charging a higher price for entrance than Joe blogs would be willing to pay for seeing such few species that they would want to see. Most zoos do try and cooperate with each other but alot is down to stud book keepers that wouldn't allow most of what your suggesting in this thread.
I agree with most of the Zoochatters here. Many of the animals that are common in captivity have relatives that are just as charismatic and attractive. Some of these could be brought into zoos, bred and potentially released into the wild. Many zoos seem to pretend that they are conserving ABC species, when there is already a more than viable population and no intention of returning any to the wild. Zoos just need to have a balance. If they co-operated with each other about which species to keep, each zoo could have a distinctive collection, which would encourage people to visit several zoos to see different species, rather than seeing a fairly similar collection at each zoo. Also, I fail to understand why zoos don't encourage people to see their unique species. I liked my last visit to Prague Zoo, where there were signposts to the new gharial enclosure. How many people visit zoos to see gharials? I like them and I hope Prague Zoo encouraged other people to see an endangered crocodilian.
Whilst I'm all for seeing new and varied species in zoos I'm not sure the emboldened part of the argument stands up that well. If we're taking in species to breed them and then re-release this assumes there's a protected "wild" to release them into. If there is a protected wild then there's arguably no need to bring them into captivity in the first place as presumably they'd breed better (left) in the wild than in captivity. Sure there's the argument that a species might have to be held in captivity for a few generations before there's protected wild to release them into but generally this doesn't seem to happen. I know Aspinall has released animals into the wild in recent years but it's not really worked well (though I personally wonder about about the motives and preparedness of these moves, but that's for another time). A slightly more nuanced argument might be to bring them in as "ambassador" animals and link them to conservation projects to protect their natural environment, just to protect species diversity, to learn more about them to assist in the wild or just research in general. Bringing endangered species in from the wild is a big step and has to be properly thought out and justified. Bringing in common in the wild species which are rare in captivity is a far more straightforward (and justifiable) activity, in my opinion, but unfortunately doesn't fit well with most "society zoos" aims -maybe that's why some of the more obscure animals (in the UK at least) are tucked away in the privately owned zoos. All the above said, I (like at least a few others I suspect) am a hypocrite when it comes to the crunch. I may have high minded ideals about the rights, wrongs and justifications of bringing in a certain species and how it's kept but when I get a whiff of a new species in the country my first question is, "how soon can I get there?".
I think it's basically a case of zoos being honest about conservation. I agree that the amount of suitable habitat for many species is decreasing rapidly. Hence, the idea of zoos having hundreds of captive individuals of certain large species for 'conservation purposes' is dishonest if they are being kept for financial reasons, rather than any attempt at reintroduction. This means that zoos should be encouraging an interest in smaller species that can be reintroduced into the wild. By decreasing the diversity of species, there is an impact on smaller, less popular species, which could die out in the wild. If there is no captive collection, those species will be extinct. There is a long list of species that are now extinct, but were kept in zoos. I remember a time when most people hadn't heard of meerkats. Yesterday's 'From Our Own Correspondent' had an item about pangolins, while there was a news bulletin on Friday about Irrawaddy River dolphins. I would like zoo visitors to be interested in a far greater range of species, rather than just the ABCs.
Fair argument, and.. ....absolutely, I think that could start a great cycle -more visitors interested in obscure species, more zoo visitors/receipts, better zoos. I think starting the cycle's probably the holy grail.
