What are the other two or three that you were thinking of out of interest? I assume Chester is among them, but then there is also Berlin, Beauval, ZSL? I might start another thread about best collections for conservation worldwide, because I'm particularly interested in that aspect of zoos. Sorry for slightly derailing this thread, but I hope it will only be a temporary diversion.
Thanks MRJ, for getting these notions and arguments out of our system. I personally do honestly hope from this day forward all talk of breeding programs overseas with Tassie devils may dry up completely. I think we are on the same page over that. Nevertheless, I fully hold onto the line that the issue of surplus individuals should be dealt with at home only. Exporting surplus Tassie devils abroad creates a subterfuge world and may still open the sluice gates to individual zoos stepping out of line irrespective of the guidelines given out to them by the recovery program in Australia / Tasmania. Best to avoid. Mind you, I am not and never have been saying the international community give up on Australian threatened species, it is just making the best use of captive facility spaces (which to my mind have to increase rather than decrease at a rate and speed not seen to this day). The central part of my argument remains that taking up spaces overseas is best given over to species that need spaces urgently for existing conservation breeding programs of local and exotic species (too frequently I read news items were one of the complaints remains that more zoos need to get involved), not to mention the total spaces needed to set up new programs of species urgently requiring a captive breeding component in their recovery in country or ex situ. Thus export of surplus is simply counterproductive and - excuse the expression - a no-brainer. The challenge to save our threatened habitats, species and ecosystems globally is far to important to be mired in a space issue discourse when this can be avoided more easily and addressed more effectively at home.
I signalled that today too, either this or another thread on conservation and ex situ conservation work. EAZA has a full database on Conservation Programs but it is not accessible publicly. So, we end up somewhat guessing from news items and PR communications from zoos as well as other sources and personal experiences to know the full breadth and width of ex situ conservation work zoos are doing globally.
By no means - @amur leopard asked for clarification on my remarks about Prague being one of the most important European collections in that regard which is not the same thing as suggesting that these are the *only* European collections which have any role in conservation projects.
OK, got that settled. I would think zoos like Arnhem-Burgers, Antwerpen, Paris-FMNH, Berlin Zoo-Tierpark, Москва-Moskva, Bioparque group (Espagna), Parco Natura Viva, Amersfoort, Wroclaw, Dvur Kralove ..., just a few that came to mind. But certainly not the entire list of those fitting the bill.
I think you are grossly overestimating actual contributions. Unfortunately the Prague annual report is only in Czech, but from what I gather they only have an annual revenue of ~10 million euros. It is therefore pretty much impossible for them to be this high. Maybe @Jana or @HOMIN96 can give an actual figure on what Prague contributes to conservation but with Jersey, London, Chester, Zürich and Frankfurt I can easily think of five zoos that spend >1 million euros annually and there will be many more, which is something I think Prague is highly unlikely to do. I mean no disrespect to all the stuff that they do and they are at a disadvantage being located in a far less strong economy which leaves less room for a "luxury" expense as conservation...
Annual report for 2019 is not available yet and in 2018's one there isn't any number mentioned. But given the fact that Prague has the "2 crowns from ticket" policy, we can calculate that the minimal amount of money that went to conservation efforts in 2019 is little bit short of 110k €. Well given this information about negotiations went public and the fact that the Australian side is seemingly willing to negotiate about that with European and possibly even with US zoos means that they probably see some sense in it. Either that or they've been offered panda-like amount of money...
When Copenhagen received the Tas.devils, one of the main arguments for them getting the species was that they would built a breeding facility, which they did, under the presumption that it would be the start of an eventually self-sustaining non-Australian population. It's why they –from the start– have had a handful of exhibits for the species instead of just one. When the move was first proposed by Tasmanian politicians, it appeared to catch everybody by surprise, the receiving zoo too. It really did not seem like the Australian breeding centers/people in charge of the local program had a ready plan for sending animals abroad, although the local captive population already was large. A princess was the catalyst, but a reasonable management plan for the transferred devils was still necessary. So, an agreement was reached where Copenhagen would be a "test" facility; to see if sufficient breeding could be achieved outside Australia (northern hemisphere–opposite seasons, short lifespan) to have an eventually self-sustaining non-Australian population. There had been breeding in earlier decades at other non-Australian zoos, but never at levels approaching self-sustainability and each of those populations invariably died out after only a few years. Old devils as "ambassadors" was a more recent idea, only initiated years after Copenhagen had received and begun breeeding devils as planned. We've all seen politicians/authorities around the world that sometimes make rather peculiar and illogical decisions, also when dealing with animal conservation and management. Do I feel confident that Australian politicians/authorities will continue allowing transfer of devils (incl. old "ambassadors") in the next decade or more? Do I feel confident that American politicians/authorities will continue allowing transfer of sea otters (incl. sterilised "ambassadors") in the next decade or more? No, not at all and if someone had asked me about European politicians/authorities the answer would be the same. In other words: as long as non-Australian zoos rely 100% on continually receiving devils from Australia, they are always just one illogical political decision away from losing the species again. With a species as short-lived as the devil, this could happen fast. However, once self-sustaining populations have been established in more than one country/continent, it reduces the risk of the species disappearing from zoo's in all but one country based on the whim of politicians/authorities in just that one country. This leads to related discussions. I have heard some that suggested that devils outside Australia are of little value because they're quite unlikely to be transferred back to their native country in the future. However, I suspect most people on this site recognize that zoo animals are not only for conservation, but also education. Otherwise zoo animal diversity could rapidly be downsized. For example, many of the non-Australian mammals kept in Australian zoos either are 1) not threatened, 2) unlikely to ever be returned to their native country, or 3) rely on "new blood" from zoos in other continents because of the very small local founder population. The first two and to lesser degree the third are shared with zoos of Europe and North America.
I agree education is a valid reason for a zoo to hold a species,and indeed so is providing an interesting collection of animals for visitors to see. It was (still is?) Australian government policy in exporting animals that they be part of breeding programs. What the government did not want is zoos coming back every decade or so for a new group of animals to replace those that had died. I agree with this policy and think zoos do have a responsibility to maintain viable populations so as to not be a burden on wild populations. However the Copenhagen devil transfers happened before the recovery program, certainly before it matured. With surplus older devils available there was no barrier to providing them to zoos around the world, while at the same time opening up spaces in the recovery program. I will say maintaining a sustainable population of any dasyurid in zoos is difficult as they usually have to be bred in their first year and have a short breeding life. The result is that numbers breed up quickly, all available spaces are filled and then breeding stops. The population quickly ages and breeding becomes impossible so the population eventually dies out.
Due to covid-19 crisis, the transfer of the two devils has been delayed to 2021. Des petits nouveaux à la Ménagerie
Copenhagen just received 21 Tassie devils from Australia. 9 of them will stay in the zoo and 12 others will go to Belgium, France, Germany and Hungary. 登录 Facebook | Facebook
21?! Wow. Presumably the animals going to Hungary will be going to Budapest. Will the remaining animals go to the zoos in the respective countries which already have them, or will they go to new locations? Surprised to hear Prague aren’t included as I believe their individuals are getting quite old now.
I'm hoping the UK will get a couple as well. Dudley zoo would be the candidate as they are supporting the Transmania Devil project.
Planckendael Belgium will get them (so probably from Copenhagen then?). We were there 2 weeks ago, and there was a sign at the enclosure that soon there will be Tasmanian Devils again.
In the original Facebook post, Hungary was still mentioned. But the post has since been updated to mention only Belgium, France and Germany.
I'm probably missing something, but as the Facebook post does not mention the UK, does that mean the plans for Edinburgh to acquire Tassies have been abandoned?
