hey guys
ive just got back from a two week trip around europe where i visited many zoos in france, spain, italy and the netherlands. here in europe a wide variety of species, much greater than that in australia, can be seen. this reflects the large number of zoos in the region and the european zoo association, just like arazpa, maintains endangered species programs for threatened species.
there are two categories; eep which stands for european endangered species programs and the lower priority esp or european species programs.
just as in australia, these programs have made reccomendations as to what species will be kept. it is good to see the high level of participation in the programs across all zoos and the level of success many of these programs are having, from an elephant calf in artis zoo, amsterdam to the establishment of white crowned mangabey colonies in rome's biopark and barcelona zoo. not all species are doing quite so well (often because of a lack of unrelated founders)-goodfellows tree kangaroo for one is held by only 5 institutions now and with little breeding activity in the region sadly looks like dying out. with the majority of managed species the programs are working quite successfully and in all institutions, more than 25% of the species are threatened with extinction.

whilst ive been away a number of interesting points were raised, particularly by patrick. your comments about the old world monkeys in the u.s were poignant. to concede that some species will probablly die out in the future is ineveitible although coordinated ssp have really only been around for a little more than two decades now, so if you consider the lifespan of a primate and the extended maturity/generation time, the true value of these programs may be yet to emerge. oner species to consider is the south american squirrel monkey, whicjh in europe has been the subject of major husbandary reforms and these are beginning to be reflected in its improved captive status.
the level of genetic variability in these programs may also increase in the future through partnerships with in-situ programs.
secondly, whilst i agree with your views on in-situ conservation programs like the endangered primate rescue centre, i dont believe they represent the only way to save wildlife. captive propogation, wherever it is located, is pointless unless there is somewhere to reintroduce the animals. so even when these programs are located in the animals range state, many of these counties are termed developing. if you were to look at an atlas of the world you would quickly find that most biodiversity hot-spots are located in non-western nations, and the resources that are avilable there for wildlife preservation are secondary to the needs of the countries economic growth, as brazils pending decision on whether to convert the remaining half of the amazon to agriculture demonstrates.
political turmoils also affect species status. i have cited before mountain gorilla programs, as well as sumatran orangutans and indian rhinos as prime examples of species whose ongoing future is directly concerned with political oucomes (civil war, legalised logging and anti-poaching/wildlife protection measures). the survivial of the latter two could depend on zoos in the future, particularly orang-utans which were recently assessed as the great ape species most likely to become extinct, even beating mountain gorillas. however, locating breeding centres in the animals natural range is great for raising local awareness and keeping costs down. the zoological society of london acknowledges this and is helping to rebuild kabul zoo in afghanistan, baghdad zoo and is also assisting the development of a vulture breeding centre in india and is coordinating the desert gazelle and ibex breeding centre in the middle east. the intention is to safeguard the local threatened species in those areas, and in some cases to establish secondary populations of these species in western zoos by sourcing them from these zos.
but sometimes it could be viewed as keeping all the eggs in one basket. that is why african wildlife authorities have recently relocated endangered black-faced impalas to san diego wap, barcelona zoo and pretoria zoo.
kiwi and native bird breeding programs in nz are great. they have resources available to commit, international standard zoos with amazing staff, experience and facilites and there is little chance of a political coup??? china and saudi arabia are also protecting their wildife with valuable outcomes (panda, crested ibis and chinese alligator pop's have all jumped recently)
on the other hand, decades of hard work in rwanda and nepal, and even india (though i am not calling it a third world country) are being compromised by poltical instabity or corruption.
i concede that although not all cbp are working, i would never state that these programs hold little value for species conservation though. off the top of my head i can think of dozens of species of mammals, birds and invertebrates that survive only in zoos or have done so at some stage in the past. and sadly, in the future this list is only going to get bigger. mountain bongo, scimitar horned oryx, arabian oryx, mhorr gazelle and przewalki's horse are just some of the ungulates who have been 'saved' by captive breeding programs. in the future, the amur leopard with its perilously low wild population could survive only in zoos.
a review of the valuable work done by the jersey wildlife presevation trust should also serve as a model of the potential of zoo cbps. whole island eco-systems have been saved by jersey zoo, and techniques developed on analogue captive animal groups can be used on wild animals.
as for wider conservation values, your suggestion that cbp should be teamed with insitu programs is already a reality-just look at the swag of money taronga has commited to asian conservation projects along with its rainforest development. money has been dedicated to almost every major species group in the exhibit-elephants, primates, birds, tapirs, turtles. and were talking about rehab centres, building fences to protect reserves and habitat restoration. an excellent example of the wide scope of todays zoos conservation efforts.
following the boxing day tsunami, london zoo raised enough mony to regenerate 100 hectares of devestated mangroves. what about wellington zoos commitment to asian rhinos, despite the fact they dont have a rhino. adelaide zoo has done this before too, generating funds with behind-the-scenes tours of its asian rainforest.
in the u.s a number of zoos sponsor whole reserves in western african nations, protecting countless hectares of wilderness and extending expertise.
back in south australia, monarto zoo is seeking funds to develop areas for african lions, hunting dogs, hippo and black rhino as well as to develop an endangered species propogation centre for its local fauna. thumbs up to monarto. and thats more room for our zoos to hold these species, thereby more effectively contributing to the global program.
and here in europe, zoos are have similar programs for their local wildlife, ranging from rescue and rehabilitation to breeding and reintroduction. in the future, rome's biopark will hold only species that continue to or historically ranged in italy. an amazing zoo, amazing attendance and amazing potential to influence public attitude about conservation. barcelona zoo has an extensive range of exhibits focussing on the wildlife of the iberian region. a winding trail climbs through a simulated mountain wilderness past deer and chamois, eagles, vultures, owls, reptiles and critically endangered iberian wolves.
in england, whipsnade zoo is actually a recognised site of special scientific interest because of the high level of biodiversity it protects. london zoo is the same.
so i guess, what im trying to say is that when you consider zoos were never set up for conservation, that they are suported by governments who increasingy expect economic rationalisation (that even hospitals and public schools are not immune to) and frequently lack adequate infrastructure than we really should be praising them for what is probablly the most radical and dynamic evolutions of any public institiion in the world.
zoos are in an arms race for wildlife. and their slogan that captive breeding programs save wildlife is just that. whilst it might seem like a comercial justification, its really a slogan meant to reinforce a point that is extremely important but frequently lost on a western society of over consumers who so often dont comprehend how much we are screwing our planet over.