Per a discussion on the Discord server and another current thread, I used @TinoPup's Felids of the United States to make a comparison of where subspecific tigers can be found in the US. Here is the breakdown I have come up with so far; asterisks indicate non-AZA: Amur Tiger, Panthera tigris altaica (42 AZA, 6 non-AZA) *Alaska Zoo, AK Blank Park Zoo, IA Bramble Park Zoo, SD Bronx Zoo, NY Brookfield Zoo, IL Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, CO Cleveland Zoo, OH Columbus Zoo, OH Como Park Zoo, MN Connecticut's Beardsley Zoo, CT Denver Zoo, CO Detroit Zoo, MI *DeYoung Family Zoo, MI Erie Zoo, PA Great Plains Zoo, SD Henry Vilas Zoo, WI Hogle Zoo, UT Idaho Falls Zoo, ID Indianapolis Zoo, IN John Ball Zoo, MI *Lake Superior Zoo, MN Lee Simmons Wildlife Safari, NE Mesker Park Zoo, IN Milwaukee County Zoo, WI Minnesota Zoo, MN Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo, NE Oregon Zoo, OR *Out of Africa, AZ Peoria Zoo, IL Philadelphia Zoo, PA *Pittsburgh Zoo, PA Potawatomi Zoo, IN Potter Park Zoo, MI Racine Zoo, WI Riverbanks Zoo, SC Riverside Discovery Center, NE Rolling Hills Zoo, KS Roosevelt Park Zoo, ND Rosamond Gifford Zoo, NY San Francisco Zoo, CA Sedgwick County Zoo, KS Seneca Park Zoo, NY *Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, CA *Six Flags Great Adventure, NJ Smithsonian's National Zoo, DC St. Louis Zoo, MO Toledo Zoo, OH Zoo Boise, ID *ZooMontana, MT Malayan Tiger, Panthera tigris jacksoni (24 AZA, 3 non-AZA) ABQ BioPark, NM Alexandria Zoo, LA BREC's Baton Rouge Zoo, LA Bronx Zoo, NY Audubon Zoo, LA Jacksonville Zoo, FL Fort Worth Zoo, TX Charles Paddock Zoo, CA Cincinnati Zoo, OH *DeYoung Family Zoo, MI Dickerson Park Zoo, MO *EFBC's Feline Conservation Center, CA Ellen Trout Zoo, TX El Paso Zoo, TX Fresno Chaffee Zoo, CA Houston Zoo, TX Little Rock Zoo, AR *Mystic Jungle, FL Naples Zoo, FL Reid Park Zoo, AZ San Diego Zoo, CA Sunset Zoo, KS Tulsa Zoo, OK Virginia Zoo, VA Woodland Park Zoo, WA ZooTampa, FL Zoo Knoxville, TN Sumatran Tiger, Panthera tigris sondaica/sumatrae (25 AZA, 1 non-AZA) BREC's Baton Rouge Zoo, LA Cameron Park Zoo, TX Dallas Zoo, TX Disney's Animal Kingdom, FL Fort Wayne Children's Zoo, IN *Hattiesburg Zoo, MS Honolulu Zoo, HI Jacksonville Zoo, FL Kansas City Zoo, MO Landry's Downtown Aquarium, CO Lincoln Children's Zoo, NE Los Angeles Zoo, CA Louisville Zoo, KY Memphis Zoo, TN Miller Park Zoo, IL Nashville Zoo, TN Oklahoma City Zoo, OK Phoenix Zoo, AZ Point Defiance Zoo, WA San Diego Safari Park, CA San Francisco Zoo, CA Smithsonian's National Zoo, DC Topeka Zoo, KS Zoo Miami, FL Wildlife Safari, OR Zoo Atlanta, GA I additionally took note of AZA facilities that still hold generic tigers; nearly all tigers in non-accredited facilities are generic, but the majority in AZA zoos are now subspecific. Generic Tiger (13 AZA) Abilene Zoo, TX Alexandria Zoo, LA Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, FL Caldwell Zoo, TX Chahinkapa Zoo, ND Dakota Zoo, ND Fort Worth Zoo, TX Franklin Park Zoo, MA Gladys Porter Zoo, TX Landry's Downtown Aquarium, TX Memphis Zoo, TN Oakland Zoo, CA Palm Beach Zoo, FL Of note is how Amur tigers make up around ~50% of subspecific holdings, while Malayan and Sumatran appear to be split at around ~25% each (this is out of about ~100 holdings, including zoos that hold more than one). While this *isn't* an actual population count, it's probable that Amur tigers outnumber Sumatran and Malayan by a sizable margin. Something else of interest is the divide between cold-weather states and warm-weather states: based on my rough definitions of the two, the overwhelming majority (~90%) of Amur Tiger holders are in cold-weather states, while ~80% of Malayan and ~60% of Sumatran are in warm-weather states. Overall, of the ~55 subspecific holders in cold-weather states ~75% hold the Amur subspecies; meanwhile, of the ~40 subspecific holders in warm-weather states ~90% hold the Sumatran and Malayan subspecies. Based on these numbers, it appears that the two tropical subspecies are competing for space in warm-weather zoos, while Amur has much of the northern half of the country to itself. Most of the remaining generic holders for AZA are also in warm-weather states, potentially increasing that competition between the two tropical subspecies.
Some clarification: obviously, the subspecific nature of tigers is a matter of some debate on this forum. My listings are not meant to take a side in that debate, they are a reflection of management practices and geographic origin of the founder population. If anyone wants to mentally superimpose their own taxonomy on this list, be my guest
As you point out, I do notice (and fully support) the location of Amur tigers in northern/cooler states and Sumatran and Malayan in southern/warmer states. I wish the AZA would do the same with leopards and open more space in the north for the Amur leopards they currently work with. Then bring in a warmer subspecies for the south. Arabian leopard would be ideal but not realistic, so how about Indian or Sri Lanka or Indochinese or Malayan? BTW I have seen a couple non-AZA facilites that claim to have Indochinese tiger. As far as I know there are none of these in the USA. Malayan were split off from Indochinese several years ago and it could be these facilities are simply using the old lumped taxonomy. Or maybe they are generic tigers and whoever they got them from told them it was Indochinese.
I have my own doubts about some zoos' claims to having subspecific tigers - but of course, without knowing the origin of individual animals I have no way of verifying those doubts. The matter is complicated by non-AZA facilities whose claims probably are valid, as a few zoos are either known to collaborate in breeding programs with accredited zoos (Alaska Zoo with polar bears, for instance) or were once AZA themselves and have simply continued to hold subspecific animals despite no longer being accredited.
Personally, I think their is a big difference between a formerly accredited zoo like the Alaska Zoo and most of the non-accredited zoos in this country, which consistently mislabel animals. I like to err on the side of caution, so I don't believe these animals are purebred Amur tigers, African leopards, Barbary lions or critically endangered Bactrian camels. Maybe some are, yet with these populations its best to not trust less scientific institutions often baseless claims.
I didn't realize Alaska used to be accredited. In general I agree with you here, but where to draw the line on the bold section is ultimately somewhat subjective and potentially provocative - for example, Hattiesburg has never been accredited AFAIK but their previous Sumatran tiger went to Dallas, implying that they do actually hold subspecific animals. Fortunately, there were far fewer of these questionable holdings in the Felid thread than I was expecting - so as far as the list I posted here goes, we're talking about maybe 5 zoos max that don't actually hold what they claim to. I've already spotted a couple more missed zoos on my list that should be added - I will consider whether to reformat when I do so.
I misspoke on the Alaska Zoo. I meant to refer to them as a zoo that works with multiple SSP's. Same thing goes for Hattiesburg, which has been moving towards AZA accreditation for more than a decade, and may finally apply soon. Since both of these zoos work with the SSP's they are in a different situation than most non-accredited zoos. I believe there are some great non-accredited zoos (I visited Sylvan Heights yesterday for example, but they are in the same boat at the 2 zoos you mentioned) yet there are 2000 animal institutions in this country, and most are not great from an animal welfare situation and really don't rely on the science that guides modern zoos. I know its provocative statement, but having visited several (and often regretted giving them any money), I stand by it. Most have no interest in the genetics of the species or what subspecies it is, they simply need animals to fill their cages. Meanwhile, the AZA made a bold decision more than a decade ago to phase out generic tigers and to ban the breeding of white tigers. I think they are both great decisions, that have allowed the management of 3 subpopulations.
All tigers in AZA zoos when the split occurred were traced back the Malayan population. The issue is whether we believe all zoos that label their tigers indochinese, actually have malayan tiger. And considering how small the AZA population was at the time of the split (maybe around 25-30 if I am remembering correctly), I am highly skeptical of those zoos claims.
Awesome list! I have been lucky enough to see all 3/4 of the subspecies so far in U.S. zoos. Small note. This place was accredited by the AZA again in 2017 or 2018.
Afaik Arabian Leopard will likely be sent to foreign zoos one day, but these are more likely to be European zoos than the US. It gets a little complicated, though, since the EAZA already manages Amur, Persian, Sri Lankan, and now Javan Leopards are programs. It really would be nice to see the US take initiative and work with at least two subspecies. ~Thylo
Correct. I was more referring to the whole Indo-chinese/Malayan stuff that was being discussed a bit and the ones that are labeled as Indo-Chinese. Sorry that was not clear.
The North-Chinese population is currently also still managed separately, so actually 4 decently sized programs and then the Javan with a handful of holders. I think it would be best for the US to start with the Indian and/or Indochinese subspecies.
As Indochinese leopard has very hard situation and I would see the programme for them as valuable, why considering Indian leopard? This ssp has a lot better situation than many other leopards including Javan or mentioned delacouri.
Indian would probably be the easiest to obtain, so in a certain way more realistic then the Indochinese. Indochinese (and Arabian) are more interesting for conservation, but I imagine them to be harder to obtain. By the way, the use of ssp might be a bit confusing here. It took me a good minute to realize you where not talking about a species-survival-plan but meant subspecies.
Agreed, it would be probably easier than with many other subspecies (or "populations" as it depends on new/older taxonomy) but I still doubt it would be reasonable as Indian leopard seems to "cope" with surviving better than other subspecies already mentioned. If there would be space and possibility to start a new programme I would put all the work into maybe more challenging but also more sensible project(s), as Indochinese or Javan (or Arabian) leopards need urgent actions more. For Javan I would go also with argument that something already started. Wouldn't be possible to do the same as with Baird's tapirs - move the programme to US? I'm sorry for confusion, I definitely didn't mean to do this, I get used to "ssp = subspecies" too much...
