What animals will you IMPORT if given chance?

Lets say that you got the possibility to organise import, or you want zoos to work on such projects, for additional imports of wild animals from their native range countries, animals who face the possibility to lost their native range because of human and other factors (like tsunami for example), what animals you would first want to be sent to more safe places, like in zoos?

I would love to BE IMPORTED, additional:

30 okapis
30 bonobos
20 western lowland gorillas
60 Mountain gorillas
all Javan rhinos
30 black rhinoceros (Eastern subspecies)
30 Koalas (Queensland)
40 West African giraffes
20 Massai giraffes
20 Malayan tapirs
10 Malayan tigers
30 Indochinese tigers
20 Great blue turacos
20 central American bushmasters
30 Golden lanceheads

Among others...

 

40 Sumatran Elephants (Elephas maximus sumatranus)
20 Malayan Tigers (Panthera tigris jacksoni)
4 Pairs of Monkey-eating Eagles (Pithecophaga jefferyi)
50 Marsh Deer (Blastocerus dichotomus)
50 Eastern Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri)
50 Drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus)
All of the Asiatic Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus venaticus) in the World
All of the Kordofan Giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis antiquorum) in the World
Any species of Cetacean I can get my hands on
All the Gobi Bears (Ursus arctos gobiensis) in the World
Any species of endangered New and Old-world Monkey species
Any Reptile and Amphibian species I can get my hands on
Any Marsupial or Monotremes Species

 

Lol great, I wish this to become reality. Anyway, more and more forest, savanas and other areals will gone forever, and animals will face losing their range. At least to save some of them, and conserve them for the future.

 

....... and also the health of the cetaceans !

 

Now more seriously : WHY ?
Most of the species you list-up would be much more benefit from conservation-plans in their native countries and when western zoos would give some help to such programs, this would be much cheaper and ways more effective then bring these species to western zoos.
Taking animals from the wild almost always mean that you have to deal with losses - even succesfull programms like the Californian condor and the Arabian oryx lost animals in the proces bringing animals into captivity.
In other species the losses are even much bigger and the succes was more limited. Examples are Sumatran rhino and Great blue touraco.
Especialy this last species is very difficult to use to captivity and losses are high as I have experienced myself ( death-rate of almost 50 % ! ) and in the literature even death-rates of 80 to 100 % are mentioned !
For species which already have good captive populations ( Bonobo, Okapi, Malayan tapir ) I can't see why there should be brought in new animals ( which also could bring in diseases ! ).
For some species which are already kept in sanctuaries in their native country and from which some are kept in such numbers that the sanctuaries are somewhat "over-populated" - drill is an example - maybe some "surplus" animals could be brought to western zoos but this are only exeptions.
Also for some island-species it could be a short-time solution to bring some into captivity in western zoos like Durrell has done with a number of species but in general I would say, try to create reserves in the native countries or in the worste case breeding-centres ( a good example for this is the Philippine eagle ).
Of course for us Zoonerds it nice to see ( very ) rare species but what is more important: that we are happy or that the animals are happy ???

 

Yeah, somehow I partially agree with this statement.
I mostly taught on animals from their native range countries, wich means that they can be imported from sanctuaries as you already mentioned, not directly from the wild, or after some period of adaptation in captivity there.
I know that some species experience great loses and are not successfully bred in captivity, and thus I don't mentioned such animals, like sumatran rhinos, harpy eagles, or shoebills for example.

But some reasons why should be approved additional imports are:

-Bolstering genetic diversity of captive populations (for example, okapi or koala population in Europe will benefit a lot) and thus more longterm survival in captivity.

-More zoos want and deserve to keep animals from species who are not very represented in zoos, like bonobos for example. Why not, some zoos in Spain, Italy, or even some other zoos (like in Balkans), do not get some bonobos. Zoos in Balkans even don't have any two western lowland gorillas (smalest social group, not solitary gorilla- not acceptable) (of wich there are 470 individuals in european zoos).

-Establishing captive population of animal species for wich there is not captive, ex situ conservation, like forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis), Javan rhinos, mountain gorillas or Indochinese tigers, and from species that at the same time, should easily adapt to captivity.

-Saving animals from the harsh wilderness because there is high probability that they would be killed by poachers, like the accident in Epulu okapi station in 2012, or poaching of more than 1500 rhinos in Africa last year! Or because of loosing range and rfagmentation of population, so there is not realy much space left for one animal population to expand or for animals to find enough mates.

About transmission of diseases, it is best such imported animals first to be carantined in very isolated places, for example edges (eg. Gibraltar) or islands (eg. greek islands), and alternatives-exceptions to be granted from EU, or trough third non-EU countries.

 

We have a lot of troubles keeping a viable population of the (sub)species of
elephants, tigers and rhinoceros that are already represented in zoos,
and you want to add extra (sub)species?
No-one know which species will adapt easily to captivity if they aren't already kept

We should only take animals from the wild if they have absolutely no
chance there or to support a desperately needed back-up population at the
brink of collapse.

 

Can you tell examples of such troubles for keeping viable population of those species, please?

 

I don't even think I need to know much about the various subspecies/species of tiger, elephant and rhino to tell you that wouldn't work out.
Currently the only subspecies of tiger kept worldwide that have sustainable populations in captivity are Sumatran and Siberian. Indochinese are only kept in Asia and the US as far as I'm aware, Malayan are kept in some zoos across the West and likely the East and no Bengal tigers are found in Europe or the USA. This is likely for a reason and it would do much better to save the subspecies where there are already individuals in captivity.

As for rhinos, we already have a lot of trouble breeding black, white and Indian rhinos. Sumatran rhinos do not do well in captivity, and proof of this is Cincinnati finally relenting and giving Harapan to a sanctuary in his natural homeland. And we know barely a thing about Javan rhinos as is! It would be a lot better to do research in the wild or sanctuaries with them before even beginning to consider whether an import is necessary.

And elephants are extremely difficult to keep in captivity in decent conditions not just because of their size, the scope of their homerange in the wild and their mentality towards captivity, but also to breed them. Stress is such a big thing with them, and bringing extremely intelligent animals (like apes, elephants and cetaceans) into captivity from the wild does not do them good.

The same thing goes for tigers in regards to home range and mentality, not to mention that big cats as a rule do not travel well.

 

I think that giving diet high on iron (grass, alfalfa and hay from they), was the reason for failure of establishing a captive sumatran rhino population, and that is (or was) big probem, also for black rhino population, who is browser.

Grass and alfalfa contain 100 to 1000 times higher amount of iron than browse from ficus trees, olive trees and probably all the trees.

 

I agree with vogelcommando. The days of mass importations of wild animals are over, except in very specific circumstances such as emergency situations that he mentioned (examples include the Montserrat orioles and mountain chickens taken to Jersey when threatened with near total habitat destruction during the volcanic eruption).
I think that in future there will have to be ever closer co-operation between zoos and in situ breeding programs. This may well involve exchange of breeding stock to widen genetic pools and the establishment of back-up programs to guard against disease or disaster in the home country. If a local program is very successful, but reintroduction is not possible, then zoos may provide extra capacity to extend the program: for example if the rearing project with Madagascar pochards produces more birds than the available habitat can carry and no further sites for reintroduction are available (which I very much hope do and do not happen respectively), zoos in Madagascar and around the world should take the surplus. Zoos could also take surplus individuals which are not required for the local program or for reintroduction for other reasons, perhaps because they were injured or hand-reared. Just a few unrelated individuals could make a big difference to zoo breeding projects.

Alan

 

I completely agree with you GL!

In my opinion, the cooperation between zoos and in situ conservation projects should
also involve private keepers (only serious keepers) who can help with husbandry
and provide more space, especially for small species (like rodents and small birds) which are of limited interest to zoos, as they do not draw public in.

 

There is so much to tell about this subject and I will do it species by species but fist I want to ask you one question Nikola : Have you ever seen a shipment of freshly imported animals ? I hope you didn't because its not a nice sight ! I've not seen freshly imported mammals but in birds, herptiles and fishes the sight can be very depresive.... Even if there are no death animals among the import - which is however rarely the case - the animals look terrible and normaly have at least smaller wounds, in birds broken feathers and dirty allover, heptile s normaly refuse to eat during transport so they are mostly very skinny and in fish also wounds are not rare !
In the 1980-ties and beginning 1990-ties have visited many dealers and seen a lot of freshly imported birds and herpiles and I do have quite a lot of photos of them. I have to look for them and when I've found them I will up-load some so you can see that 'simply' import 20 animals of this species and 50 of that is not alway in the benefit of the individual !

 

No vogelcommando, I have never seen freshly imported wild animals tough. Just on net, but not in live. I would love to see photos that you have.

 

What animals will you import......

Importing Mountain Gorillas would almost certainly be unrealistic and destructive. It is almost impossible to capture wild Gorilla infants without killing the family members who try to defend them, and losses among these traumatised infants have historically been high.
While Sumatran Rhinos can be difficult, London Zoo had two individuals in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century that both lived into their third decade.
I would agree that we need to concentrate on the species already held in captive culture.
One tiny personal ambition: I would like the necessary accommodation and funding to import fifty Cotton Pygmy Geese. Not in need of conservation breeding -- I just like them.

 

The story goes on. You want to bring in 30 Okapis. As already discused in one of your other threads it doesn't make sense because there is already a healthy captive population and if new blood-lines should realy be neccecery sperm of a wild animal could be collected which would also prevent to bring diseases into the captive population. I also doubt if the D R Congo will give export papers for a few Okapis ( and surtainly not for 30 ! ) and also CITES will make difficulties for the export and import of such a number ! Another question is where do you want to house this number of Okapis ?
For Bonobo all the above is exactly the same !
20 western lowland gorillas : the studbook-keeper already has difficulties to find homes for the surplus males in the current European and North American populations so why bring in more animals. The few zoo without Western lowland gorillas which want to start keeping the species can easiely provided with animals from the current population.
60 Mountain gorillas : where will you house them when its already difficult to find new homes for the Western lowland gorillas ? Also I doubt if one of their native home-lands will give you export-papers because they are an important touristic attraction which brings lots of money into the country, esp. in Ruwanda. And how will you collect 60 wild Mountain gorillas - catch complete families ? I guess you will get a LOT of trouble with anti-zoo people and even within the Zoo-world many would not understand it !
I leave it with these for today.... to be continuated.

 

Oh no, no killing of animals - like adult gorillas for taking the infants, but capturing whole famillies. If that ever will happen, but it is good to have captive population of mountain gorillas, as every ape is going well in captivity, if given necessary conditions and social groupings.

 

Okay, maybe it was better to wrote cumulative importations, eg. 30 okapis in 10 years, not alltogether in one year for example. But there are so much zoos without gorillas, so they won't take them?

 

What animals......?

Not convinced that it is possible to capture a whole Gorilla group and persuade them to settle in captivity......