International Zoo News Vol. 62/2 (No. 411) March/April 2015

Acquainting and Familiarising Two Brown Bears Principles for Amphibian Conservation

Animal Welfare at Zoos Victoria

INTERNATIONAL ZOO NEWS A magazine for the exchange of news, information and ideas between the zoos and aquariums of the world.

Published by Quantum Conservation e.V., Borbecker Straße 10, D-26127 Oldenburg, Germany. Editor: Richard Perron IZN Office: 6 Winchester House, Bishops Walk, Aylesbury HP21 7LD, U.K. Tel.: ++44(0)121 288 7915 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http//www.izn.org.uk International Zoo News is published six times a year; the approximate publication dates are mid-February, mid-April, mid-June, mid-August, mid-October and mid-December. Annual Subscriptions 2015 U.K.: £45.00, Europe £48.00/ €75,00 Overseas, Surface Mail: £48.00, €75,00 or US$80.00 Airmail: £53.00, €80,00 or US$90.00 Subscription cheques (Sterling only) should be sent to the IZN office above and made payable to ‘International Zoo News’ or ‘IZN’. All subscriptions (free of charges) may be paid to IZN’s bankers: HSBC, 2 Walton Road, Aylesbury HP21 7SS, U.K. Account number: 02032570; Bank sort code: 40–08–39; IBAN: GB05MIDL40083902032570; BIC: MIDLGB2102C. Euro payments may be made to IZN at Commerzbank, Neue Straße, 26136 Varel, Germany; Account: 310630901; BLZ: 29040090; IBAN: DE92290400900310630901; BIC: COBADEFF. Non-sterling payments may be made through PayPal (also for all credit cards or direct transfer) plus 4% handling fee to our account: [email protected]. We regret we cannot accept Dollar cheques without $10 extra for bank charges.

CONTENTS INTERNATIONAL ZOO NEWS Vol. 62/2 (No. 411)

March/April 2015

EDITORIAL

82

FEATURE ARTICLES Animal Welfare at Zoos Victoria Amanda Emburya and Hans van Weerd

85

Principles of Program Development and Management for Amphibian 96 Conservation Captive Breeding Programs Luis Carrillo, Kevin Johnson and Joseph R. Mendelson III Obituary: Saul Kitchener 109 Recent births

110

Introduction and Familiarisation of two adult Brown bears in the Animal- and Culture Park Bischofswerda Silvia Berger

111

Letter to the Editor

121

Book Review



126

International Zoo News

129

Miscellany

142

Elephant Potpourri

144

Conservation

153

Cover photo: African painted dog Lycaon pictus by Charles J. Sharp

81

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 82-83

EDITORIAL A fundamental advantage for IZN is its independence. The freedom to criticise and praise is a valuable asset which has sustained IZN throughout its 63 years. This freedom comes with an obligation to be objective, although every observation will depend ultimately on subjective selection values. The ‘Zoo World’ is so diverse and complex there will always be some elements to criticise, chastise and find fault with. By the same token, there is an enormous reservoir of historical and current activity demonstrating real achievement and ambition to be explored and celebrated. The German magazine Stern recently published a lengthy article (1 April 2015) about an interview with Bengt Holst, Scientific Director of Copenhagen Zoo in Denmark. Mr Holst was superb. Although some of the issues covered will raise eyebrows among zoo colleagues in the United States and Britain, the interview is a long overdue statement of the ethics of zoo management with regard to captive breeding. The interview can be seen as a milestone in public relations, giving honest, reasoned arguments and showing an integrity completely lacking in official zoo organisation responses to the Marius episode in 2014. While Marius may have been the impetus for the interview, Bengt Holst broadened the debate by pointing out the anthropomorphic preconceptions of the general public and their lack of knowledge about the realities concerning wildlife and the intentions of zoos. He discussed the options of population management, bearing in mind the limited availability of space, justifying a biological approach over a contraceptive one, pointing out the necessity to maintain a life cycle for a healthy population. Countering the concern over children witnessing the dissection of the giraffe, Bengt stated the need to deal with all subjects honestly and factually. It was an educational experience with expert tutelage and had been done before with other animals without any negative public reaction. “We must respect animals, but not humanise them.” he said. [Man muss Achtung für Tieren haben, aber man sollte sie nicht Vermenschlichen.] Anthropomorphism can lead to undervaluing the natural process. The Disneyland tenor reduces respect for the very individual nature of the animal and its place in evolution and biodiversity. The interviewers must have read Peter Singer because they did try to get Bengt to say where he would draw the line with using zoo animals as food for carnivores. He did not exclude, at some juncture, using surplus non-human primates, but emphasised that on present trends this was unlikely due to the endangered status of all the species. 82

In the era of Facebook and LinkedIn it is not easy to avoid being inundated with information about birthdays and various anniversaries; important possibly for the acquaintance, but of little import or relevance for one’s own life. Not that I am tempted, but reporting all the anniversaries to do with zoos and their staff in IZN would require a doubling of the pages if only one line was used for each listing. That said, being in a good mood, I would like to mention the 80th anniversary of WAZA. Although there have been name changes, through IUDZG and WZO, there has been some continuity despite dramatic changes in both membership and constitution. As an organisation it may still fall far short of representing the ‘zoos and aquariums’ of the World, but it has been notably active in the last thirty-five years establishing a rational ethos for them. Publication of the World Zoo Conservation Strategy in 1993 was perhaps the most significant event in the entire history, laying down guidelines and responsibilities to be followed by all aspiring collections, and revisions have taken notice of attitude and information changes. The hiring of Gerald Dick as Executive Director and the establishment of a functioning professional office in 2008 led to greater efficiency in public relations and participation in many international cooperative efforts. The public profile has been greatly improved and WAZA has done much to address the negative zoo image among conservation organisations. It remains a very select body, not in the very narrow perspective of its German predecessor, but is now based on financial muscle, including the majority of the wealthy national zoos which together comprise the management boards of the regional and international apex organisations as well as ISIS/ZIMS and IZE. This linkage has obvious advantages although it is not always obvious where credit for project funding should be assigned as zoo participation may also appear at regional and international level claims. The celebratory issue of WAZA News in February has several past presidents reflecting on their times in office and make interesting reading. They are listed as ‘part one’ so we can look forward to more in the future. It also announces the 250th WAZA-branded conservation project, the Virginia and Maryland Sea Turtle Research and Conservation Initiative, which can all be surveyed on an interactive global map on their website. Despite the inevitable caveats, WAZA has been beneficial for the zoo community as a whole and IZN hopes their stated ambitions can be realised. Happy 80th Birthday, WAZA!

Richard Perron

83

Publish it in International Zoo News If you have something to say about any aspect of zoo life, a zoo visit, zoo history, enclosures, favourite species, animal breeding, behaviour, feeding, zoo education, biodiversity, projects you are involved with, then send your ideas to [email protected]

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 85-94

Animal Welfare at Zoos Victoria By Amanda Embury and Hans van Weerd Introduction At Zoos Victoria, the delivery of animal welfare outcomes is embedded in all aspects of animal management practices. Zoos Victoria includes three zoos; Melbourne Zoo, Healesville Sanctuary and Werribee Open Range Zoo (For further information about Zoos Victoria please visit www.zoo.org.au.). Zoos Victoria is a member of the Zoo and Aquarium Association – Australasia (ZAA). This paper shares the approach that Zoos Victoria has taken to develop and implement animal welfare initiatives. This includes a clear and articulated position on animal welfare that has taken into consideration the position of not only zoo associations, but also government agencies and animal welfare groups (e.g. RSPCA - Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Australia) on animal welfare.

Animal Welfare Objective The objective of the animal welfare programs at Zoos Victoria is to support continued improvement in the care of animals. Several tactics have been used to achieve this objective: • To develop and implement a process for responding to any animal welfare concerns raised both internally and externally; this may include a formal investigation process. An outcome of these investigations is to identify actions that will prevent future similar events. • To build capacity with respect to animal welfare, including training of staff, development of policy and procedure, and recruitment of animal welfare expertise. • To develop a solid framework in the form of the Zoos Victoria Animal Welfare Code that identifies accepted animal care, including considerations to be made prior to deciding on breeding a species. • To review capacity to provide for the wellbeing of each species and identify potential welfare concerns on an annual basis. This is achieved by the Zoos Victoria Species Selection and Assessment Tool. • To deliver animal welfare interventions. This includes commitment to respond to outcomes of the annual Animal Welfare Survey, and implementation of innovative programs for animal enrichment. • To support evidence-based decision making by use of welfare monitoring, collection of data (e.g. behavioural observations and faecal analysis) and by delivery of animal-welfare based research projects.

85

Animal Welfare Reporting In 2008 Zoos Victoria initiated a formal process for internal animal welfare reporting, and established an Animal Welfare Peer Review Committee to provide oversight of the process. The AWPRC is comprised of staff and community members with expertise and interest in animal welfare, including membership by the RSPCA. Monitoring of animal welfare outcomes is by weekly briefing notes that are also used to compile a quarterly report for review by the Committee. Should any case included in the weekly briefing note be considered to present an animal welfare concern, it may be escalated and subjected to an animal welfare investigation. Moreover, the animal welfare reporting framework provides the opportunity for any staff or community member to lodge a welfare concern report form. Forms are assessed and subsequent actions may involve formal investigation of the alleged case to determine causal factors, with recommendations being made to reduce likelihood of recurrence. These investigations are completed by staff members who have been trained and attained competency in these matters. Transfer (including animal capture and restraint) was the causal factor of 52% of 21 welfare concerns raised over the past 6 years (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Causal factors – animal welfare concerns

86

As Fig 1 shows, other causes of animal welfare cases include escape, predators gaining access to enclosures, unsuitable enrichment items and management-related practices such as nutrition or failure of life support system. In addition to responding to serious events, such as fatalities, it is vital to monitor near misses and minor events. Through early intervention and addressing potential concerns before they become issues, we can hope to defer potential animal welfare cases. Targets relating to animal welfare outcomes have been incorporated into Zoos Victoria’s annual Corporate Plan, including the goal of zero avoidable animal deaths. Performance against this target is monitored.

Animal Welfare Code In 2009 Zoos Victoria developed its Animal Welfare Code. The document clearly articulates the organisation’s position with respect to animal management practices. The Animal Welfare Code considers our animal management practices including enclosure design and maintenance, provision of nutrition and health care, the need for enriching lives, decision-making around breeding, a commitment to the life-long care of animals and use of animals in visitor experiences. Perceived animal welfare concerns raised by staff or community members are assessed against the Code. In writing the document, the position and welfare statements of various kindred organisations were considered including ZAA’s Animal Welfare Statement (ZAA, 2007), the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (DAFF, 2005), the RSPCA Charter (RSPCA, Australia), the World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy (WAZA, 2005) and the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (WAP, 2000).

Species Selection and Assessment Tool In 2010 the Species Selection and Assessment Tool (the Tool) was introduced (Embury, 2013) to aid in collection planning. It provides for an awareness of Value of a particular species vis-à-vis Zoos Victoria’s Zoo-based Conservation (ZBCO) objectives (Embury, 2014). It also defines the Effort needed to maintain that species in the collection. The Tool ensures that animal welfare and ZV’s ability to support positive animal welfare outcomes is a consideration when making species choices. The Effort assessment includes consideration of: • Animal Welfare – to determine if there are any ongoing welfare issues associated with housing of this species in zoos. • Species Health – to determine if there are any concerns associated with the population’s viability such as an increased infant mortality rate that is likely due to high levels of inbreeding within the population, or susceptibility to a disease for which there are no effective controls. • Staff expertise – to determine that we have the capacity and knowledge to provide for the needs of the species The percentage of species identified as having potential animal welfare implications, decreased from 24% in 2010 to 12% in 2013. 87

Animal Welfare Survey In 2011 the annual Animal Welfare Survey was introduced with two key objectives. Firstly; to identify priority animal welfare interventions and secondly to encourage keepers to critically assess delivery of animal welfare outcomes. The survey comprises twenty questions based on our Animal Welfare Code. The questions relate to aspects of animal management including facility design and function, nutrition, physical health, enrichment, training and conditioning and overall daily routines. Keepers are required to complete the survey for all species in their care. For each question keepers can make one of three assessments: • Major concern – requires immediate intervention and/or presents a potential serious risk • Minor concern – no immediate concern but it should be monitored in case the situation deteriorates and/or presents a minor risk • No concern – all is satisfactory, no intervention identified The completed surveys are presented to relevant managers providing them with an opportunity to validate the results and to take immediate action if needed or feasible. With keepers becoming more proficient at accurately identifying any potential animal welfare concern it is anticipated that over time the percentage of changes made by managers to completed surveys should reduce. In 2011, the first year of the survey, 16% of survey responses were determined to be in need of adjustment, in 2012 this dropped to 12% (see Fig 2). In 2013 however the proportion increased to 18% (See Fig 2) presumably as a result of a change in methodology for assessment options. This change was brought about by adoption of the 5 domains concept (Green and Mellor, 2011) for welfare. The increase in 2013 reflects the fact that keeping staff are yet to fully comprehend the notion of positive animal welfare state.

Fig 2. Percentage of Animal Welfare Survey responses adjusted after validation.

88

A new welfare concept Traditionally, the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare (ZAA, 2007) are used as the benchmark for provision of animal welfare. Although an effective tool to determine animal welfare shortcoming (‘negative welfare’), the concept is less useful in determining positive animal welfare states. In 2013 ZAA launched its Animal Welfare Position Statement (ZAA, 2013) based on the concept of the Five Domains of animal welfare. The approach of the Five Domains is based on four physical domains (Environment, Physical Health, Nutrition, Behaviour) and a fifth domain, the affective or mental state (Green & Mellor, 2011). In 2013, as a consequence of Zoo’s Victoria’s adoption of the five domains as the guiding principles for animal welfare assessment options for the Animal Welfare Survey were changed, as mentioned above. The revised assessment options adopted for the Animal Welfare Survey are: • Negative State – substandard, does not meet minimum requirements, lacking, requires intervention • Neutral State – satisfactory, provides for the basic needs of the species, meets all requirements • Positive State – provides for the species needs and includes variation and choice, exceeds requirements Zoos Victoria’s management has now agreed that rather than having mere compliance with standards as an objective for animal facility developments, any animal facility developments must support positive animal welfare outcomes.

Innovative enrichment Zoos Victoria has established a program, supported by a dedicated budget allocation, for the development and implementation of innovative enrichment that provides positive outcomes both for visitors and animal welfare. Ideas for projects are invited from staff, with projects that best meet criteria funded. A component of these projects is to gather data about behaviours before introduction of the enrichment device, and then collect further data to determine impact of the device (Lowry, 2014). The first three projects delivered were selected to provide the following outcomes: • To reduce activity, including foraging behaviour in a bachelor group of gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) • To reduce levels of aggression and provide additional stimulation for a group of Black-capped capuchin (Cebus apella) • To promote fitness and reduce pacing behaviour of Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) – see Fig 3a.

89

Fig 3a. A feeding pole promotes fitness of Sumatran Tigers and enables visitors to observe tiger climbing skills (Photo by Angela McCLoud, Zoos Victoria)

90

A second round of projects is under development with several due for completion by the end of 2014. These include: • ‘Forest Fairy Gym’, a modular climbing frame that will be used to promote arboreal behaviour of Leadbeater’s possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri) • Fruit kebabs and a tortoise-activated shower to promote activity of Aldabran giant tortoises (Aldabrachelys gigantea) - see Fig 3b. • ‘Who’s in Control?’ a project that also includes animal-activated showers for Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae). • ‘Co-operative Conservation’, a project to highlight the intelligence of orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), provide some challenges for a sub-adult male orang-utan and engage visitors with Zoos Victoria’s conservation programs for orang-utans, including the Don’t Palm us Off campaign.

Fig 3b. Fruit kebabs to promote activity of Aldabran giant tortoises: Photo by Adam Lee

Animal Welfare and Animal Ethics Definitions The terms ‘animal welfare’ and ‘animal ethics’ are often confused. A series of workshops involving Zoos Victoria staff indicated the need for clarity of the two terms and to develop definitions for use at Zoos Victoria. These definitions provide context for discussions at Zoos Victoria and are as follows: • Animal Welfare describes the state of an animal’s health, comfort level and general well-being. An animal welfare state may be negative, neutral or positive and values in response to prevailing environmental, behavioural, nutritional and health conditions. • Animal Ethics considers animal management and use from a human perspective, consistent with our sense of what is right and acceptable. These definitions may not be classic text-book definitions of these terms but they have clearly helped to provide focus in discussions around animal husbandry approaches and priorities (See Fig 4). 91

Fig. 4. Poster with Zoos Victoria definitions of Animal Welfare and Animal Ethics

92

Monitoring animal welfare outcomes The recruitment of a dedicated Animal Welfare Specialist in 2014 has raised the profile of Animal welfare at Zoos Victoria. Our Animal Welfare Specialist is working with Life Sciences teams at the three properties to develop techniques for monitoring animal welfare, and implementing initiatives. To provide evidence of animal welfare states, animal-welfare based research projects are being undertaken. This includes studies of the impacts of visitors on animal behaviour (Fig 5. Penguin).

Fig 5. In response to a study of the impacts of visitors on penguin behaviour at Melbourne Zoo exhibit modifications will occur to increase likelihood of penguins swimming when visitors are present (Photo by Danielle Knox, Zoos Victoria)

93

Collection of base-line data is a further component of animal welfare studies. Behavioural observations combined with faecal analysis will provide an understanding of the ‘normals’ for a range of species. This will support future comparative studies such as the impact on behaviours of enrichment programs, or potential impacts of events such as construction. The software program Welfare Trak® (Chicago Zoological Society ) has been introduced at Zoos Victoria to encourage regular assessment of Animal Welfare states. Welfare Trak is in use at two properties – Melbourne and Werribee for monitoring of gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). Staff at Zoos Victoria have contributed to development of two additional programs, one for pythons (Morelia sp.) and another for Common ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus). Zoos Victoria is supporting development of programs for Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae) and Asian elephant (Elephas maximus). We hope that these two programs will be ready to trial by the end of 2014.

Summary/Concluding Comments Zoos Victoria’s is committed to the support of positive animal welfare states. During the past six years there has been a significant shift in our approach to animal welfare monitoring. The emphasis is now firmly focused on constant improvement. Initially, animal welfare interventions focused on addressing problems or concerns. Now the focus is on providing choice and variation to the animals in our care. This has required a shift in culture which has been supported by training, and initiatives such as funding of novel animal welfare interventions. The results of the various research projects that are now underway, and of our annual animal welfare surveys will help us to further monitor the welfare state of our animals, and will hopefully provide evidence that our animals experience a positive welfare state.

References DAFF (2005) The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. Embury, A (2013) Zoo Animal Collection Planning Tool, in WAZA News 4/12: 15-17 Embury, A (2014) Adding Value to the Zoo Animal Collection in WAZA News 1+2/14:30-32 Green, T. C. and Mellor, D. J. (2011) Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 59: 263-271 Lowry, R (2014) Zoos Victoria’s Willy Wonker (Welfare) Revolution. Presented at 69th Annual WAZA Conference, New Delhi, India RSPCA Australia (not dated) RSPCA Australia Charter. http://www.rspca.org.au/what-wedo/about-us/charter WAZA (2005) – The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. World Animal Protection (2000), Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare. ZAA (2007) ARAZPA Animal Welfare Statement, ARAZPA Newsletter, 74:5 ZAA (2013) The Association’s Animal Welfare Position Statement.

Amanda Emburya and Hans van Weerdb

a Manager, Life Sciences, Wildlife Conservation and Science ([email protected]), Zoos Victoria, and bGeneral Manager, Life Sciences, Melbourne Zoo ([email protected]), Zoos Victoria, Elliott Avenue, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.

94

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 96-107

Principles of Program Development and Management for Amphibian Conservation Captive Breeding Programs By Luis Carrillo, Kevin Johnson and Joseph R. Mendelson III The multiple threats to global amphibians require multifaceted conservation programs to ensure continued survival of what remains of amphibian diversity. The IUCN Amphibian Conservation Action Plan (ACAP; Gascon et al., 2007) identified such programs, based on information available at that time. Among the conservation responses recommended was an organized approach to build capacity and inform a global network of independent captive breeding programs for the most endangered species. In response, Amphibian Ark (AArk; www.amphibianark.org) was launched by three principal organizations: the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), the IUCN-SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG), and the Amphibian Specialist Group (ASG). To meet its mission, AArk has been helping zoos, aquariums and other ex situ (captive) facilities to address the captive components of the ACAP to save as many species as possible. One of the biggest challenges in dealing with amphibian conservation is the huge number of species threatened worldwide. Based on our experience, expertise and observations of various programs worldwide, and on interactions with stakeholders participating in our workshops and courses, Amphibian Ark has developed a set of general principles to be considered in the development phase of an amphibian conservation breeding program.

Species selection for ex situ conservation programs Amphibian conservation biologists face the dilemma of which criteria should be used to prioritize the species to conserve, and thus the resources necessary to commit to the conservation of those species. Conservation resources always are limited, species face different classes of threats at different levels, species may be considered to be of differential value based on subjective criteria such as human cultural importance, or arguably objective criteria such as phylogenetic distinctiveness or ecological roles. While no extinctions are tolerable, some situations may be prioritized as being of more immediate concern than others or the necessary threat mitigation may be more, or less, tractable in some situations. Thus, Amphibian Ark and its partners have designed a tool (Amphibian Conservation Needs Assessment, www.amphibianark.org/pdf/AArk_Conservation_Needs_Assessment_tool.pdf) that is as objective as possible to guide the difficult, and sometimes contentious, process of prioritizing species for conservation efforts, and assessing which forms of

96

conservation response are appropriate. The assessment tool identifies a broad suite of conservation actions, including habitat restoration or augmentation, other threat mitigation such as pollution control, community awareness and involvement, and/or captive breeding for eventual reintroduction.

Northern Corroboree Frog Captive conservation programs for the Northern and Southern Corroboree Frogs (Pseudophryne pengilleyei and P. corroboree), are jointly managed by a range of ex situ organizations and government wildlife departments in Australia, as part of wellstructured recovery programs, which include a wide range of stakeholders. Photo: Meaghan O’Connor, Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve.

Ex situ conservation of a threatened amphibian species should be considered a necessity when in situ conservation cannot by itself ensure the survival of a species and its ecosystem. Institutions considering the development of an amphibian ex situ conservation program should begin by reviewing and considering the results of previous Conservation Needs Assessments in the country/region. The results of all conservation need assessments conducted so far may be viewed on the AArk Assessment Results page on the AArk web site (www.amphibianark.org/assessmentresults/). Assessing species for conservation actions both in situ and ex situ will guide institutions in deciding, with the resources it has (space, staff, funding, etc.) which species should be prioritized for the development of new ex situ programs, which species urgently need field research or protection, etc. The assessment process may also help with gaining governmental authorization and support from relevant organizations such as the IUCN. In conjunction with AArk’s Amphibian 97

Conservation Needs Assessment process, the Guidelines on the Use of Ex Situ Management for Species Conservation (IUCN/SSC, 2014) should be used to help confirm that an ex situ program for each species is warranted, and that appropriate planning, monitoring and evaluation are considered and documented. Amphibian Ark strongly recommends that at least twenty pairs of animals (or groups of individuals) be available as founder animals for establishment of a new ex situ colony. Ideally these would be unrelated and will successfully reproduce, but of course that cannot be guaranteed. Realize that many more than this number may have to be captured to ensure that twenty pairs actually survive and successfully reproduce. You should ensure that there are sufficient numbers of founder animals available, and that they can be legally collected. Amphibian Ark has developed a tool to help calculate the number of founders that should be collected, based on the reproductive biology of the species being considered. The tool is available on the AArk web site (www.amphibianark.org/founder_calculation_tool.htm) and uses data from our Amphibian Population Management Guidelines: (www.amphibianark. org/pdf/AArk-Amphibian-Population-Management-Guidelines.pdf). It is also vital to ensure that there is adequate information to understand what the functional unit is that you wish to conserve (i.e. is the “species” you wish to conserve really a valid species?). Species are continuously evolving through time and there are often distinct but not yet unique subunits (evolutionary significant unit or ESU) in the process of divergence within the species and which might warrant independent consideration. If there is insufficient knowledge of the species, a taxonomic study, including phylogenetic analyses of DNA, should be undertaken before considering an ex situ program for the species. This should be carried out by, or in conjunction with local field biologists to confirm that the proposed program encompasses only ONE evolutionary distinct unit (ESU) before proceeding.

Long-term planning for amphibian conservation programs When ex situ management of an amphibian species is considered necessary and appropriate, the priority should be to establish the initiative within the range country/ area of ecological origin. However, if the perceived urgency of the situation requires it and appropriate infrastructure is not available regionally, then ex situ programs may sometimes be set up outside of the range country/area - ideally while appropriate infrastructure is being established in the home country/range. All ex situ initiatives should be temporary in nature and viewed as just one of the tools that can help in the overall conservation of a species. It therefore follows that strong links between fully integrated ex situ and in situ programs are fundamental to the long-term success of species conservation. This is normally best highlighted through the establishment of a formal Taxon Management Plan that explicitly states the short, medium and long term goals of each component of the conservation initiative. In cases where an ex situ conservation initiative has been established prior to, or in the absence of, a concurrent in situ initiative (e.g. where a political situation currently prohibits in situ conservation measures, or where a disease problem currently invalidates measures to 98

protect wild populations), emphasis should be placed on establishing the appropriate in situ links as soon as it becomes possible to do so, in order to achieve the end goal of having the species safely back in nature. At the organization level, a genuine commitment to captive amphibian conservation programs is essential, from the most senior management to the animal husbandry staff who will manage the program on a daily basis. This is especially critical in organizations such as zoos and aquariums that typically house a wide range of species, where there is competition for funds and resources, and where the primary focus is frequently on larger and more charismatic species. For any medium-long term program to effectively reach its goals there must be commitment to resourcing the program, and to ensuring its effective management.

Southern Corroboree Frog release As part of the exit and release strategy for Southern Corroboree Frogs, captive-bred and captive-reared animals are released into chytrid-free exclosures within the species’ natural distribution. Regular releases to augment the wild population have been taking place for the past 6 years. Photo: Michael McFadden, Taronga Zoo.

99

A key challenge to the success of ex situ conservation programs is ensuring the long-term viability of the program, until such times as the threats facing the species in the wild have been eliminated, and the wild population is once again selfsustaining. In many cases, this can take years, and so ex situ rescue programs might be required to be maintained from five to ten years or more. Long-term viability involves all aspects of the program, such as secure sources of continued funding, consistent staffing and infrastructure, successful health and husbandry protocols, genetic health of the population, and advance planning for housing or reintroduction to the wild of the predicted offspring.

Resources Adequate resources, in predictable and steady supply, are crucial to the success of an ex situ program. Resources include skilled staff, live food, funding, veterinary services, etc. and must be available for the entire duration of the program. Sufficient resources to support the program for its anticipated lifetime must be available for the program to be successful. Establishing facilities and collecting rescue populations is only the first, albeit perhaps the greatest, expense. However, it is insufficient to support only those first-year expenses without operational support for the long term, which may amount to years or even decades. In addition to financial planning, ex situ programs should begin with an established plan for working with partners to mitigate threats in the wild and, where necessary, getting animals back into the wild, as well as how to distribute and properly manage the progeny of captive animals in the interim. AArk has developed a tool that should be utilized before the implementation of any new ex situ program, to ensure that adequate resources are in place (www. amphibianark.org/program_implementation_tool.htm).

Adequate information of natural history of the species or a related one It cannot be emphasized enough how important it is to ensure that enough and adequate information of the natural history of the species is in place before bringing animals into captivity. This information and knowledge will not only help in the assembly of adequate enclosures but also in the attempts to breed the species and to eventually reintroduce it.

Genetic diversity Simple successful breeding of an endangered species in captivity is not sufficient to declare a program a success. In some cases, the founder animals of a species breed one time, soon after being brought into captivity, but never again breed successfully. Attrition of offspring due to natural causes, faulty husbandry, or uncontrollable accident prior to F1 animals reaching sexual maturity may reduce or eliminate the real success of a breeding event. A surprising number of amphibian species may produce seemingly healthy F1 progeny but ultimately fail to produce viable successive generations. There will inevitably be some loss of founder diversity in 100

populations that prove to be difficult to produce F2 offspring, and this needs to be considered when determining founder numbers. Additionally, in some species, a single pair of founder animals may produce many thousands of offspring, and the capacity of the facility is instantly overwhelmed by a single reproductive event (i.e., a single cohort representing a single genetic line) that is relatively unimportant in the absence of establishment of multiple genetic lineages. Because amphibians often are maintained in groups, and individual identification sometimes can be difficult, amphibians can be challenging to manage in captivity in terms of maintaining well-documented pedigrees or genetic bloodlines. Nevertheless, the basic principles of genetic health that pertain to all ex situ conservation programs apply to amphibians. AArk recommends this online tool (http://popfrog. org/) to review the basics of successful genetic management of a long-term multigenerational population and to inform the start-up strategy regarding important factors such as number of unrelated founder animals.

Northern Corroboree Frog breeding facilities Priority considerations when establishing a new program are that under normal circumstances, it should be within the range country/area of ecological origin, and adequate resources, including skilled staff, live food, funding, veterinary services etc., must be available for the entire duration of the program. Photo: Meaghan O’Connor, Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve.

101

Exit strategy and reintroductions Viable and genetically robust cohorts of offspring produced by well-managed breeding programs must be maintained in the long term in appropriate facilities. Once successful breeding begins, the progeny need to be managed in order to liberate space for subsequent generations. These animals, and ideally there should be a great number of them, will require adequate space, food, and staffing that, generally, should be allocated across multiple partner facilities. The exit-strategy or final goal ideally would be to raise them until they may be reintroduced into the wild as part of a coordinated in- and ex- situ conservation program involving all relevant government agencies and regional stakeholders. All captive programs which will result in reintroductions must include appropriate goals, objectives and actions, risk assessments, release strategies and ongoing post-release monitoring (IUCN/SSC, 2013). There certainly are situations where ex situ programs may be started before it is clear that the threats in the wild have been - or can be - mitigated. This realistic situation is a very difficult challenge to confront and may lead to conflicts in priorities and values among stakeholders. Unfortunately, the situation of diseases, such as amphibian chytridiomycosis that is now endemic in the historical ranges of many threatened species, can represent just such a conservation challenge. Such is the case with the Species Survival Plan® (AZA-SSP) for the Panamanian Golden Frog (Atelopus zeteki), led by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in which a large number of genetically healthy lineages of frogs derived from an appropriate diversity of founder animals are maintained in a number of North American zoos. However, the intractable threat of chytridiomycosis across the native range means that the exit strategy is unclear. Alternatively, another AZA-SSP program for the Puerto Rican Crested Toad (Peltophryne lemur) is similarly robust but, after adequate resources applied to habitat restoration and protection in the native range, the exit strategy of reintroductions is accomplishing the goal of establishing viable wild populations. These two examples highlight the importance of developing a robust exit-strategy during the planning phase of any new ex situ program. At a high level, this is factored into AArk’s Conservation Needs Assessment process so that the reality of mitigating the primary threat(s) to any particular population or species is considered and appropriate priorities given to those species.

Alternative rationale for ex situ breeding programs Planning an ex situ program for amphibians that is relevant to conservation may include goals other than ultimate reintroduction of captive-produced offspring of a critically endangered species. AArk has identified a number of such programs that are important and may well fit the needs, mission, and possible limitations of specific institutions. These alternative conservation roles, outlined in the Conservation Needs Assessment tool (web link above) include “Ex Situ Research” in which animals in the program are explicitly being produced for purposes of research, which may be in the 102

realms of laboratory research (e.g., controlled studies of the pathology or veterinary treatment of chytridiomycosis) or to develop and refine husbandry techniques. Such exploratory husbandry research may involve a small number of a threatened species, or a surrogate species that is closely related with a similar biology. In either case, the goal is to inform subsequent ex situ programs with the focal threatened species. An ex situ program for a non-endangered species may be warranted if the stakeholders decide that a surrogate program is the best plan, for example in order to train new staff or troubleshoot new facilities or protocols using a non-endangered species but closely related or ecologically similar species.

Discussion The principles outlined here derive from our experience in working with amphibian conservation breeding programs around the world in a wide variety of types of facilities, institutions, and programmatic scopes. Important concepts such as biosecurity, genetic management, and long-term secure funding are simple to consider. However, maintaining their integrity over the many years that a new program will likely be needed is a real challenge given the realities of personnel changes, or changes in the nature of threats to amphibians. Because most ex situ conservation programs are developed in response to emergency situations, stakeholders are sometimes required to balance the contradictory realities of developing a secure long-range plan in a short amount of time. This can result in the ironic situation where funds are available to build a new building, for example, but program managers cannot be assured that funding will be in place for two keepers in that facility ten years from now. We cannot emphasize strongly enough the crucial importance of planning for the logistical and genetic management of the animals in the program and the need for a realistic exit strategy. Our experience has repeatedly shown us the mistakes and resources wasted when programs are overly ambitious in scope - trying to save too many species, for example - or when they failed to plan for the simple eventuality of raising or placing thousands of metamorphs. Similarly, significant changes to the long-range plan must be very carefully considered and can involve making difficult or controversial decisions, such as declining to take in a large group of critically endangered frogs that were unexpectedly confiscated at the airport or culling offspring if the captive population outgrows available holding space, and reintroduction to the wild is still not yet possible. Amphibian Ark’s mission is to ensure the survival and diversity of amphibian species, focusing on those that cannot currently be safe-guarded in their natural environments. We help to coordinate conservation programs implemented by partners (zoos, aquariums, museums, universities, NGOs, and private conservationists) around the world, with our primary emphasis on programs within the range countries of the species, and with a constant attention to our obligation to couple captive conservation measures with necessary efforts to protect or restore species in their 103

natural habitats. The AArk web site (www.amphibianark.org) contains a wealth of information to assist with all aspects of ex situ amphibian conservation programs, and AArk staff ([email protected]) are always available to provide specific advice, training and support to individual amphibian programs. With appropriate planning, resources and commitment, all ex situ organizations are able to implement and support conservation programs for threatened amphibians, thereby taking a positive step towards saving some of our most threatened species. If more organizations are willing to follow the principles outlined in this article, to work with species that have been assessed as needing urgent ex situ programs, and to be well-prepared to commit to a potentially long-term program, we can reduce the chance of losing more species, and ensure the survival of those species that most need our help.

References Gascon, C., Collins, J. P., Moore, R. D., Church, D. R., McKay, J. E. and Mendelson, J. R. III (eds). (2007). Amphibian Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 64pp. IUCN/SSC (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, viiii + 57 pp. IUCN/SSC (2014). Guidelines on the Use of Ex situ Management for Species Conservation. Version 2.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. 15 pp.

Luis Carrillo1, Kevin Johnson1 and Joseph R. Mendelson III2 Amphibian Ark. Email: [email protected] 1 Amphibian Ark, 2 Zoo Atlanta

104

APPENDIX I

Husbandry and Biosecurity Standards

Husbandry and biosecurity standards can be divided into three categories based on the intended Role of the animals in captivity. Basic Specimens maintained ex situ for Conservation Educational* purposes with no requirement for research and no prospect of release to the wild

•

Separate footwear per room and/or footbaths at entry/exit

•

Treatment/decontamination of any and all waste water from enclosures and rooms housing amphibians prior to discharge/disposal

•

Incineration of all amphibian enclosure waste – soil, leaves, plants, food items, faeces, bodies (after post-mortem examination), if the species is held in an area outside of the range area of local origin.

•

Scheduled water changes – automated or manual

•

Water free of pathogens and other chemical contaminants

•

Escape-proof housing of a size appropriate for species

•

Pest-proof housing (rodents, cockroaches, ants etc) to prevent pathogen transfer and/or predation/escape of amphibians

•

Appropriate cage furnishings wherever necessary

•

Exposure to natural light (or good artificial equivalent) if exposure is normal in natural history of the species

•

Appropriate temperature for natural history of the species (mean temp)

•

Appropriate food, dependent on species – with supplementation (vitamin/mineral)

105

Intermediate Specimens maintained ex situ for Ex Situ Research* purposes with no prospect of release to the wild All Basic standards, but also: •

Individual instruments (tongs, nets, bowls, tanks, pumps, filters etc) per enclosure and/or species

•

Change gloves (non-powdered) for each enclosure

•

Design of enclosure should minimize keeper/animal contact

•

Maximize use of automation in water quality maintenance/watering

•

Maintain a consistent/directional flow of husbandry routine – from low risk and high importance species/individuals to high risk and lower importance species/individuals

•

Climatic conditions (lighting, photoperiod, temperature, rainfall, humidity, etc) should follow the natural cycle for the species and be automated wherever possible

•

Highest level of record-keeping

Advanced Specimens maintained ex situ for conservation breeding purposes (Ark/Rescue/ Supplementation)* with the ultimate expectation of release to the wild All Basic and Intermediate standards, but also: •

One species or local assemblage of species per room/unit

•

Separate uniforms per room (stays in room)

•

Food coming from known and trusted source; 3-month period of familiarization with natural food types recommended prior to any release, if the species is a dietary specialist that might find it difficult to locate a particular food. (Ensure that natural foods are collected from the release site, as a number of pathogens, including chytrid, can live or survive on insects).

•

During pre-release familiarization, monitor condition of specimens to determine fitness for release – thorough health screening including regular and frequent PCR screening for chytrid fungus over several months

NB – ex situ includes any and all animals removed from their wild habitat whether within or outside of their native range and country.

106

APPENDIX II

Conservation Roles

Simply keeping and breeding threatened amphibian species in captivity does not in itself equate to conservation. As part of a genuine amphibian conservation initiative, the ex situ captive management should not only form part of the recommended conservation action for the species, but must also have a clearly defined role in the conservation of the species or its habitat: a) Ark – An amphibian species that is extinct in the wild (locally or globally) and which would become completely extinct without ex situ management. b) Rescue – An amphibian species that is in imminent danger of extinction (locally or globally) and requires ex situ management as part of the recommended conservation action. c) Supplementation – An amphibian species for which ex situ management benefits the wild population through breeding for release as part of the recommended conservation action. d) Ex Situ Research – An amphibian species undergoing specific applied research that directly contributes to the conservation of that species, or a related species, in the wild (this includes clearly defined ‘model’ or ‘surrogate’ species and husbandry research). e) Conservation Education – An amphibian species that  is specifically selected for management – primarily in zoos and aquariums - to inspire and increase knowledge in visitors, in order to promote positive behavioural change. For example, when a species is used to raise financial or other support for field conservation projects (this includes clearly defined ‘flagship’ or ‘ambassador’ species).

107

From Catch to Delivery Our fish is suitable for human consumption and is of a very high quality, because we have refrigerated trawlers who process the fish directly on board, freshly frozen and stored being transferred to our own Coldstore ashore. We sell our fish to several customers and markets and also to the zoos and dolphinariums in Europe and all over the world. We have a lot of experience for many years now. All our fish is block frozen, poly-wrapped and packed in a carton strapped twice. We have following fish available: l l l l l

Hering Mackerel Blue Whiting Horse Mackerel Sprats

l l l l l

Capelin Squid Freshwater Fish Shrimps Smelt

All in different sizes on request, and to be sold on actual weight base. Parlevliet & van der Plas B.V. Voorschoterweg 31 2235 SE Valkenburg ZH The Netherlands www.parlevliet-vanderplas.nl

Tel. 0031(0) 71 - 789 01 81 Fax. 0031(0) 71 - 789 00 01 Sales Contact: Ms. Mieke Leuning [email protected]

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), p. 109

Obituary Saul Kitchener 1938-2015 “I think it’s important to make rounds to be able to make a decision at some time in the future because you got to know what’s going on with the various animals, various exhibits.” Saul Kitchener, the former longtime director of the San Francisco Zoo, who presided for 13 years with no-nonsense professionalism, died on February 7th 2015 of cancer at the age of 76 in his Sonoma home. Saul was a zooman in the true sense of the word. He was a student of the game, often outspoken, a mentor to many younger professionals and loved the zoo profession. He started his zoo career in 1963 at the Oklahoma City Zoo as curator of primates. Among primates, he loved the nonhuman species that were less inclined to countermand his directives. He later became General Curator, in 1966, at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, Nebraska. His experience even included a very short stint working at Al Oeming’s Game Farm in Canada. In 1968 he became General Curator at Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo and later was promoted to the position of Assistant Director. Saul left Chicago in 1975 to become director of the San Francisco Zoo, a post he held until his retirement in 1988. During his time at the zoo he built the Primate Discovery Center, Penguin Island and Gorilla World. He was able to bring the Giant Pandas as well as the Golden Monkeys from China to the zoo. He oversaw the 1984 visit of two Chinese pandas, the 1985 escape and seven-week-long search for two patas monkeys and the 1976 escape of a sore-footed jaguar from the zoo hospital. On that occasion, it was Mr. Kitchener himself who fired a tranquilizer dart to recapture the animal. Saul’s wisdom and stories were captured in his interview with the Zoo & Aquarium Video Archive project (www.zoovideoarchive.org). “Saul didn’t mince words,” said his friend Mark Rosenthal, curator emeritus of Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo. “He was outspoken on subjects he was passionate about. To Saul, taking care of the animals was the easy part of running a zoo.” He is survived by his wife, Barbara, and by his son, Joshua. 109

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), p. 110

Recent births ABQ BioPark, U.S.A.

Chimpanzee

Pan troglodytes

0.0.2

Brevard Zoo, U.S.A.

Meerkat

Suricata suricatta

0.0.3

Chester Zoo, U.K.

Sumatran tiger

Panthera tigris sumatrae

2.1.0

Cotswold Wildlife Park, UK

White rhino

Ceratotherium simum

1.0.0

Flamingo Land Zoo, U.K.

Rothschild’s giraffe

Giraffa camelopardalis rothschildi

0.1.0

Knoxville Zoo, U.S.A.

Chacoan peccary

Catagonus wagneri

0.0.2

Los Angeles Zoo, U.S.A.

Hippopotamus

Hippopotamus amphibius

0.0.1

Lowry Park Zoo, U.S.A.

Clouded Leopard

Neofelis nebulosa

1.0.0

Melbourne Zoo, Australia

Western lowland gorilla

Gorilla gorilla gorilla

0.0.1

Nashville Zoo, U.S.A.

Clouded Leopard

Neofelis nebulosa

0.2.0

Oklahoma City Zoo, U.S.A.

Western lowland gorilla

Gorilla gorilla gorilla

0.0.1

San Diego Zoo, U.S.A.

Hippopotamus

Hippopotamus amphibius

0.0.1

San Diego Zoo, U.S.A.

Jaguar

Panthera onca

1.0.0

Santa Barbara Zoo, U.S.A.

Masai giraffe

Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi

0.1.0

Zoo Miami, U.S.A.

Clouded Leopard

Neofelis nebulosa

0.0.2

Zoo Miami, U.S.A.

Arabian Oryx

Oryx leucoryx

0.0.1

110

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 111-120

Introduction and Familiarisation of two adult Brown bears in the Animal- and Culture Park Bischofswerda By Silvia Berger The animal park and its bears The animal- and culture park Bischofswerda is a small affectionately designed park-like green area, which provides an opportunity for relaxation and recouperation in a familiar atmosphere. Two hundred animals of 60 species are accommodated on a floor area of one hectare and can be perceived with all senses. Moreover, the school and leisure rooms provide comprehensive support for various events or environmental education, which enables interested visitors to immerse into the explorative world of animals. Since 2002, we have been implementing the concept `Bear & Co. in the smallest Zoo‘[Mit Bär & Co im kleinsten Zoo], which has been a particular challenge for our small animal park. We attach great importance to conservation and the breeding of endangered animals. Therefore we keep large and small bears, like raccoons, coatis or brown bears, but also animals which share their habitat with bears, such as Arctic foxes and Snowy owls. The park´s collection also includes domestic animals as well as indigenous wild life. Over eleven years we have retained and developed the animal park in accordance with our concept. Brown bear breeding is a thing of the past The animal- and culture park Bischofswerda has been keeping brown bears since 1980. They play an important role in the history of our park. Our first brown bears, Olympia and Mischka, were 10 weeks old when they came to Bischofswerda from Tierpark Hirschfeld. Over the years, Olympia gave birth several times, but in 2001 Mischka had to be euthanised because of a bone disease. Much to our surprise, on 12 January 2002 Olympia gave birth to a male cub. Since 2002, our female Olympia had lived together with her son Balu. The enclosure for our brown bears was rebuilt in 2007 in order to meet today´s welfare requirements and husbandry conditions have been improved since the reconstruction. Nevertheless, the breeding of brown bears is not planned for the future and this is why Balu was castrated. On the 8 January 2013, just before her 33rd birthday, Olympia had to be euthanized due to complaints associated with old age. She was in veterinary treatment for a long time, but her condition had rapidly worsened so that she had to be released from her suffering. After her death the eleven year old Balu lived alone in the enclosure.

111

Our new enclosure:

Individual housing was never considered On the day Olympia was euthanized, a meeting of zoo representatives in the area of Oberlausitz – Niederschlesien took place coincidentally in the animal park Bischofswerda. Kathrin Witzenberger, the senior curator of Hoyerswerda Zoo, was participating. She explained that one day earlier, on January 7th, their 43 year old female Grizzly bear Sussi had to be euthanized. Her daughter Jane aged 17 was left alone. Thus, Jane shared the same fate as Balu. 112

Discussions that day at the conference were held concerning the possibility of keeping the two bears together in Bischofswerda. After having examined other alternatives we contacted Hoyerswerda Zoo again. We decided to relocate the Grizzly bear Jane to Bischofswerda as there were numerous advantages for both animal parks. Eleven-year-old Balu fitted perfectly to the five years older female Jane. Additionally, the construction of a new facility in the Zoo of Hoyerswerda was nearly finished. Jane was moved to Bischofswerda in order to create space for two new animals. Instead of Jane, two male brown bears from the national park Bayrischer Wald moved into the new facility. Bringing together two subspecies of the brown bear Ursus arctos would be an interesting combination and a further aspect to our bear concept. Thus, we had the opportunity to show a male European brown bear Ursus arctos arctos and a Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis.

Transport and initial stages The transport was prepared in great detail. We used a universal crate from Hoyerswerda Zoo. The crate, made from stainless steel, was originally built for tigers and accordingly very large and heavy. The actual transport was tested some days earlier to avoid any unpleasant surprises. The transport box was collected from Hoyerswerda and we tried to place it in front of the slider of our facility using a telescopic crane. After we had resolved some of the apparent problems in this final test, the relocation of Jane was assigned for 6 March 2013. With help of the IZW (Institut für Zoo- und Wildtierforschung Berlin), Jane was loaded into the transport box. Before that, she was examined by a veterinarian and anesthetized. The journey to Bischofswerda was able to begin at 1:15pm, after the antidote to the anesthesia showed impact and Jane awoke. With our Ford Ranger we arrived at Bischofswerda around 2:15pm. The transport box was driven to the outdoor facility of the bears and placed in front of the gate to one of the indoor boxes. In a lengthy and strictly monitored process the box was finally opened. After a while, around 2:45pm, Jane left the box very slowly and walked inside. She lay down on a straw bed which had been prepared for her in the indoor room 2. One day later, around 3:40pm, the slider to Balu´s Inside room 1 was opened, but the grids separating the compartments remained closed. Thus, the bears were able to see and smell each other. Jane was agitated during the day and the night; she pounded forcefully and persistently against the metal slider and reacted aggressively to the zoo keepers. However, she stood away from Balu, who was twice as big, and avoided contact with him. On the 8 March 2013 Balu was released into the outdoor facility giving Jane the opportunity to examine his indoor room. She moved slowly and cautiously and sniffed a lot at the floor and the walls. The indoor room is fitted with three huge visitor windows with electric wires in front of them. The moment she touched a wire she received a shock and reacted with numerous attacks. Then she ran to the duct, 113

where the keepers were observing her, and threw herself against the grids there. Her efforts brought her one metre under the grid door. This was her first experience of electricity.

During the first week Jane seemed not to accept her new environment: she refused food during the first four days and was very aggressive towards the keepers. However, this changed in the second week. She began to build a nest with the provided straw. Furthermore, she examined the food and exhibited preferences. More and more Jane calmed down and began to be quiet and collected. Additionally, she slept increasingly longer on her straw bed, but she avoided the room where she had had contact with the electric wire. On 11 March 2014 Jane walked into the outdoor facility alone. She touched the electric wires several times and went back into the indoor facility again. She did not avoid the electricity, but attacked the wire. The huge windows for visitors in the outdoor facility were unfamiliar for her as well. In Hoyerswerda she had lived in a trench where the visitors watched her from above. Now, the visitors stood behind the windows in full size. Thus, she attacked the windows again and again touching the electric wires too. To reduce her discomfort we placed rush mats in front of the windows which was a good solution and helped a lot. Additionally, we put a warning band on the electric wires, but this had no effect. Later, we used a cordon to keep visitors at a distance.

114

115

Still, Jane was eating less or nothing in the next two months, slept the whole day and pounded against the slider at night. Her behaviour towards the keepers depended on her mood. Sometimes she was calm and interested, sometimes ignoring or aggressive. Furthermore she had to get used to snow. Carefully sniffing, she started to walk on the cold snow. Later she ran around, pawed and built small heaps with her nose. Since the middle of June a relaxed and calm relationship had developed between the keepers and Jane. The Inside room 2 was accepted as sole property and refuge by Jane. Due to her noisiness in the night-time, Jane was let out during the night. Observed via night vision camera, she straggled night by night through the outdoor facility. With only a few minor exceptions, she walked in a clockwise direction, always the same route. At around one or two o´clock in the morning, Jane went swimming in the water pool, even during wind and rain. During daytime she was asleep. Both bears were still separated and could see each other through the slider. From the 12 March 2013 on, the outdoor area was opened for each of the two on an alternating basis. Balu had access to the outdoor area during daytime, whereas Jane was able to enter it during the afternoon and the nighttime. Balu was used to this procedure and had no problem with this solution. From the March 21st onwards, Balu showed strong interest in Jane. He lay on his back near the slider and grumbled quietly. He played in the water pool, while he was watching Jane lying in her facility. Jane remained relaxed and observed him, looking at him out of the corner of her eye. Only rarely did the two respond to one another directly. From time to time Balu felt asleep next to the slider and showed aggressive behaviour only during the feeding time. However, Jane only showed aggressive behaviour when she felt stressed, for example, if Balu was directly behind the slider near her drinking bowl. They had still been separated and this was recognized quickly by them. Balu placed food in front of the slider, but Jane was not always happy with that. After June 2013, Jane had shown growing interest in Balu as the mating time was at its peak. Additionally, Jane seemed even-tempered. She ate regularly, walked her rounds during nighttime and was often outside even during mornings while Balu had to wait inside. Finally, she also avoided the electric wire and accepted the visitor windows as a border. Consequently, Jane´s urge to move and the bears´ growing interest in each other had caused us to begin with the direct introduction of the bears.

The Introduction After four months of habituation, the physical introduction took place on the 10 July 2013 when we closed to the public. A veterinarian with a capture gun and firefighters with a pressure pipe stood in the background. The introduction of two adult and unfamiliar bears was a new experience for us. We knew it was a risk to join two adult animals since the 500qm facility exhibited limited alternatives. The togetherness started around 6pm. Shortly before the great event Jane roamed in the outdoor facility looking around again and again. She seemed to sense that something was different. She ate nuts and apricots strategically scattered on the floor outside. This was her preferred food and 116

therefore used as a reward by the keepers. As soon as she was in the back area of the facility the slider was opened for Balu. Both bears immediately had visual contact, but stayed calm. Jane stood up on her hind legs to see Balu behind the trees, whereas Balu went one step back. At 6:37pm both bears moved slowly towards each other. But while Jane was vigorous, Balu seemed to be unsettled. Nevertheless, the bears touched each other with their noses soon, sniffed at each other and snorted deeply. Shortly thereafter Jane lowered her backside, showing Balu her readiness to mate. Hence, Balu waited not for too long and mounted Jane immediately.

10 July 2013 first contact

We knew that Jane and Balu would not be easy to separate again. Again and again Jane exhibited her receptivity. A mating ritual had developed. Occasionally, Balu went swimming, while still keeping an eye on her. Jane walked around. As soon as she passed him and disappeared behind some stones, Balu jumped out of the water, ran after her and cut her off. It was not possible to separate the bears by means of food, so they shared Jane´s sleeping box and went outside in the morning. Jane hovered over Balu as well and seemed less fearful at his side. As soon as Balu disappeared, she looked excitedly around and ran after him. However, she dared not to go into his area, the Inside room 1 and the ante room to that. Bruno likewise followed her, even at night-time, when she went outside. He lay down on a stone and lifted his head, as soon as she passed him. However, in the Indoor room 2 a strong hierarchy was in force. Jane was in authority and pushed him aside, when he lay down on her nest. Nevertheless, they ate together and slowly, swimming began to become a joint activity. The consequences of the 117

permanent mating behavior began to emerge. Balu had no more strength, so that he trembled with his hind legs. Jane imposed herself on Bruno and growled when he refused to mate. Thus, Balu had to bite in her neck, showing his dominance, and mounted her, pressing his full weight on her, so that she slumped down. Jane was tireless and gave him the opportunity to mount again and again, even though she was much smaller than him. After one week, Balu seemed exhausted and slept a lot. Furthermore, he rejected Jane more often and Jane showed her frustration by hitting him with her massive paws. Balu remained calm and withdrew from her. One of these paws hit Balu´s nose, so that it bled. This happened on the 18 July 2013 and Balu was separated from Jane to settle the situation.

18 July 2013

The bears remained separated during the night and slept in their respective sleeping boxes. Thus, there were no further conflicts. At the end of August mating behaviour decreased and calm returned. From time to time both of them slept together in a mold outside or separated in their inside rooms. Jane seemed very confident when she walked around the outdoor facility. She walked round and round creating a solid trail on the floor. This behaviour was never observed before. In the mornings, when the keepers cleaned the outdoor facility, Jane pounded hardly against the metal slide until she was let out. She had evolved a stable relationship to the keepers, although both sides viewed each other with skepticism. Moreover, Jane had developed a great appetite; she has fed on fruits and vegetables as well as eggs and honey. Once in a while she licked some vitamins from a spoon the keepers offered her. Her aggressive behaviour had abated. Nevertheless, caution was recommended since Jane is a vigilant and incalculable bear. 118

As time went by, both bears got accustomed to each other. Usually, Jane remained outside, she needed the exercise. Now she was used to the daily routine and was allowed to stay outside even during the night. Balu remained in his Indoor room 1 during the night, which was a good solution because the bears were able to spend some hours on their own.

Jane at the visitor window October 2013

Since December 2013 Jane has became calmer, more adjusted and has slept in the indoor facility during the day. Moreover, she has seemed even-tempered and she occasionally has allowed Balu to rest with her in Inside room 2. Balu has been the more calm and subservient animal, continuously observing her, knowing she would exploit the situation if he would turn his back. Then, she would pinch his posterior to show him that she isn´t to be taken lightly, even if she is much smaller.

To sum up: One year after the introduction the bears live in a respectful and peaceful relationship. Our zoo keepers care for both bears and meet their daily needs. Furthermore we found a good solution by separating them during night-time. The behavioural observations and data collection, conducted by Juliane Gude over many months, together with the resulting possibility to intervene in case of imminent danger were the key to the success of the introduction in our animal and culture park. 119



Balu and Jane in harmony

Silvia Berger (Tierpark Manageress) Email: [email protected] Text translated by Kristina Knezevic Lebenshilfe Bischofswerda e.V. Tier- und Kulturpark Bischofswerda Carl-Maria –von-Weber-Str. 13 01877 Bischofswerda

120

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 121-125

Letter to the Editor Dear Sir, This letter is in reference to a “Media Review” report by Mr. Herman Reichenbach in International Zoo News Vol. 61, No. 6 (2014), pp. 453-458, regarding “Death at Seaworld:--“ by D. Kirkby, and “Blackfish:--“ by G. Cowperthwaite. Among the many articles and responses that have been written regarding both of the above Orca topics, the “domestication” concept has not been explored except that it is mentioned in the second sentence of Mr. Reichenbach’s very thoughtful and enlightening article. His point, in that sentence is that there are people among us who feel that only domestic animals should be exhibited in zoos. That observation may already be very close to the truth. Between the concepts of “domestication” at one end of the live animal continuum and the (so-called) “wild/free” species at the other, there are the Zoo-maintained animal collections that fall largely in between--animals that are neither entirely domestic nor wild. I believe that this third category should be explored and conceptualized in order to provide a more real, flexible and pragmatic context for zoo-managed species. On the one hand, domestic species of animals (and plants) are, simply put, a product of human innovation (excluded here is the “domestication” of some aphids by certain “herding” ant species, etc.) On the other hand, there are those animals that live in the “wild” (which is managed in nearly all cases) in a state of “freedom” (basically a romantic myth). Studies on various species’ spacial needs in the “wild” are often used as benchmarks for management of zoo species, and just as often taken to an extreme by “extremists”. Other than for some Children’s or Farm Zoos, traditional domestic species (i.e. dogs, cats, horses, etc.) seldom serve as exhibits in mainstream Western European or U.S. zoos. In fact, the first generation progeny born to wild-caught founders in captivity have taken their first step toward that species’ domestication. Zoo environments, animal management staff and the public represent unavoidable selectivity pressures to which all future generations must adapt. Domestic breeds of animals have evolved as a consequence of goal-oriented selective breeding by Humans--they are not a product of natural selection. In spite of efforts among zoos to raise progeny as close to being “wild” as possible, generations of progeny beyond F-1 fall somewhere between completely domestic and completely wild. An example would be the California condor reintroduction project which, in spite of exemplary efforts to reintroduce birds that are deemed essentially “wild”, nevertheless has less fear of humans than their ancestors as evidenced in the Grand Canyon population. Moreover, and on another level lions, elephants, rhinos and others within nature park boundaries where eco-tourism is fostered, have had to make substantial adjustments in response to the 121

pressures created by vehicles and people that arrive in ever increasing numbers. Animals can be very adaptable to change which favors reintroduction programs for many species. In fact, if removed from a managed life-style, a domestic animal may survive as “feral” if it is adept enough to meet the challenges of a life under unmanaged conditions. Examples would include horses (mustangs), cattle (long horns) and too many bird killing house cats. Whenever food is provided for animals being maintained under managed conditions including in captivity, interaction with humans (directly or indirectly) is inevitable. One consequence is a reduction of the fear threshold between both the keepers and the kept. However, that does not mean that increased levels of domestication results in animals that are increasingly tame or benign! Just because a fear of people has atrophied over generations does not mean that tameness has filled the void. There are many instances where domestic pigs, cattle, horses and dogs have harmed or killed their care-givers. So, what is a captive-born Zoo Animal if it is neither a domestic or wild creature? Once that nebulous characterization of a zoo-bred creature is given a name, space needs for each species needs to be determined. The question of minimum space requirements should be discussed on the basis of zoo and aquarium requirements into which the animal has been propagated, and not modeled solely on researchderived space needs of its “wild” counterparts. For example, does every breed of dog need as much space as a wolf? Or every breed of cow need as much space as a Wisent? In fact, do Humans need as much space as our “hunter/gatherer” ancestors? To push the issue further, could urban-dwelling Humans, who often prefer to ride than walk, have become, to some extent a product of self-domestication? How valid, then, are space requirements for elephants when data is taken from wild populations instead of animals that are maintained in the service of Mankind, including circuses, lumber camps and zoos? Space needs for natural populations of wolves, Banteng or wild horse species vary both in location and time and have limited application when considering the needs of parallel breeds of domestic species including dogs, cows or Clydesdales. If we recognize that some level of domestication is inherent in successive generations of highly intelligent creatures such as Primates, Elephants, and among the several kinds of Cetaceans that are prized by Oceanariums, then to what extent do their progeny require the amounts of space that their founders needed? There exists among many zoos and aquariums an obvious disconnect, almost an aversion to the idea that any of the so-called “wild” creatures in their possession might in any way be “domesticated”. If Zoo-bred animals are not entirely domesticated in the same sense as horses, dogs and cows, then perhaps another term is needed-maybe something like “Zoo-bred acclimates” or “semi-domesticates”. In fact, the greatest majority of zoo-exhibited specimens has been captive-born and is not a genetic and/or behavioral product of selectivity based solely on natural conditions. This is partly due to a tendency by zoo personnel to save, not abandon any offspring, even those with observable deficiencies that would render it unfit if it were 122

born in a natural ecosystem. Based on the foregoing, it is up to Zoos and Aquariums to identify minimum space requirements of their charges at species specific levels. Instead of arguing defensively about standards that others less qualified may postulate, it appears that Zoos and Aquariums need to take on this task as a mandate since the health and wellbeing of the very animals they are managing is at stake. Who, besides experienced staff in Zoos and Aquariums are the most qualified professionals to make such judgments? This is where a defining word besides “domestic” or “wild” needs to be created that would pertain to those species that have been zoo, aquarium or captivemanagement bred. Just as with humans as well as their companion domesticated breeds, the need for space to accommodate hunting, gathering and/or flight is no longer necessary. Likewise, it is the same for creatures that are being managed, regardless of their being bred in zoos or for domestication purposes. Giraffe, Orcas, Elephants and Antelope in order to be content and healthy, spend their lives in zoos or managed locations relatively free of those stresses that have produced specific survival traits, the hallmarks of their forbearers before they were brought out of nature. Askania Nova in the Ukraine, for example has raised herd-strength groups of Eland and other (mostly hay-burner species) for decades under managed conditions. Quite likely any group of naïve, captivity-altered Eland trans-located back to their natural habitat from Askania Nova would suffer a substantial “hit” by predator species until or if reacclimation (as feral Eland) would take place. The assumption that domestic horses or cows need as much space as Przewalski horses, Kiangs or Bison is, of course, absurd. Generations of domestic animals underscore this point. That Giraffe cannot function within the space allocations of most zoos is likewise absurd given the adaptability of this creature. What about Elephants? There are centuries of evidence that elephants will do very well in spaces much more limited than in the wild. And what about Orcas and dolphins? Space by itself, as everyone is aware does not provide for the needs of any animal including Humans. It is, in fact, the quality of the space coupled with its design. Since the space needs for cows and horses do not approximate the extent of what is needed by their wild relatives, then a rewrite should take place for Orcas and dolphins under captive circumstances, taking into account that they are becoming domesticates, and not trans-located immigrants out of nature. In other words, one set of stresses (i.e. those that characterize success for a species in the wild) are exchanged for a quite different assortment of stresses that characterize success among domestic animals (i.e. whether it be a thoroughbred, canine champion in a dog show or a show cat). Since there is no stress-free ride to be found in any kind of environment anywhere for any of us then let’s work for what’s best for each as well as all of us. For me, the shock of reading about and witnessing the footage concerning the Orcas in question coupled with the perceived callousness of the Seaworld corporate responses led me to question some of the basic zoological park and aquarium practices 123

of maintaining non-domestic species in captivity for purposes of public education. In fact, I had long felt that the “educational” story lines promulgated about Shamu and other cetaceans as marvelously benign animals in order to sell tickets were delivering the wrong messages. I had hoped that these institutions would ultimately develop informative programs that would depict a more truthful message and image of these highly intelligent sea-going carnivores. Did the Seaworlds, at the corporate and the front-line staff levels start to believe their own messages about the “benignness” of Orcas? Or, to use another example, bears should not be depicted to the public as “teddy bears” since their care-givers might begin to believe those myths. Regrettably (and we hope rarely), Human casualties can be expected by animals maintained under zoo, aquarium and “controlled-wild” circumstances regardless of whether future generations of off-spring are domestic, wild or somewhere in between. Largely due to carelessness or ego, it is a fact that over the millennia some numbers of farmers have been killed or injured by bulls, stallions and occasionally a dog. Among zoo-bred species including future generations of bison, eland and tigers we can expect casualties to occasionally (and unfortunately) happen. Concomitantly, there is an equally vital need to address the physiological, behavioral and mental/emotional needs of zoo/aquarium maintained species. Professionals in our fields should be able to borrow selectively from beyond the zoo and aquarium world for important clues from such resources as agriculture, circuses and trainers. Discretion is required since too much space can be as detrimental as too little in some cases. For example, among certain birds and reptiles “peck-order” aggressions may amplify if available space is excessive to their needs in a managed environment. In fact, needs for space that is species-appropriate cannot be addressed by applying simple cubic measures alone. Rather, the solutions lie in how those spaces are configured, especially if group hierarchical aggression is to be minimized. In fact, our professions should continue to think creatively as efforts are amplified to meet those needs (i.e. often termed “behavioral enrichment”) whether the animal in question is a Porcupine, an Opossum, a Chimp or an Orca. There have been many arguments and opinions expressed at all levels of media to ban or at least control further management of Orcas in captivity. The “rightists” who have been basing their arguments on data derived from wild populations have been given far more credibility and latitude than observations on specimens of those same species in “real world” zoo and aquarium environments suggest. As long as there are Humans, I believe that zoological parks and aquarium facilities housing living, biological creatures will always exist. However, Zoos and Aquariums need to take the lead in addressing what zoo and aquarium-bred creatures really are as well defining their needs in establishing realistic space requirements for their captive bred animals. A line exists that connects the domesticated animal breeds (on the one hand) with the wild bred creatures (on the other). Aquarium and zoo-bred generations of live animals occupy species-specific loci on that extensive continuum and those needs must be dealt with realistically. Too many fingers have been pointed at zoos by individuals and institutions ill-equipped to criticize. Who 124

truly knows more than committed zoo and aquarium professionals about the subject of how much space is needed at species--indeed individual--specific levels for the animals they care for? Broadly put, zoo and aquarium administrators need to work as equals with frontline animal management staff as species-specific care needs of their living animal inventory are negotiated. Their qualified staff should be the best possible resource to speak on behalf of their charges’ needs. Discussions need to begin in order to set new standards by redrawing and updating requirements for animals bred beyond F-1.

Ray Pawley References:

“Ant Ranchers?”; Casey A. Gilman; Endpaper; NATURAL HISTORY; Feb. 2015; Vol. 123; #1; Pp. 48. 2. “Media” commentary; Herman Reichenbach, Media Review; INTERNATIONAL ZOO NEWS; Vol. 61/6; No. 409; November/ December 2014. 3. “Death at Seaworld: Shamu and the Dark Side of Killer Whales in Captivity”; David Kirby; ST MARTIN’S PRESS; 2012. 4. “Blackfish: Never Capture what you can’t control”; Gabriela Cowperthwaite; OUR TURN PRODUCTIONS; 2013. 1.

125

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 126-128

BOOK REVIEW VON ELEFANTEN UND MENSCHEN by Fred Kurt. Haupt, Bern, 2014. 285 pp, 198 ill. ISBN 978-3-258-07809-0 (hardback). RRP SFr 49.00 or €39.90. Is a zoo a zoo if it doesn’t have elephants? The world’s first zoo to be called a zoo, ZSL London Zoo, gave up a 170-year-old tradition of exhibiting elephants at the turn of this century, yet if one (at least at the time of writing) looks up what the contributors to TripAdvisor have to say about the Regent’s Park menagerie, the top entry is headlined “No elephants!”. As the historian Elizabeth Hanson wrote in Animal Attractions (reviewed in these pages in 2004, Vol. 51, pp 426 ff), in America at least “most zoos considered the day that their first elephant arrived as the day they became ‘real’ zoos.” Next to dolphins and great apes, elephants now appear to be the taxon animal-rights people love to hate most in zoos, but they are undeniably (like large primates and cetaceans) very popular with the public that do get to see them. Certainly at the zoo in the city I live in (Hamburg), the elephants are the darlings of the visitors, and every new birth brings in additional waves of crowds. Hamburg doesn’t have a quarter of London’s population, nor does it get anywhere near as many tourists, yet Tierpark Hagenbeck annually attracts a higher attendance than London Zoo. Elephants may not be the only reason, but they definitely help. Fortunately for us in Hamburg, the Tierpark is also one of the apparently few zoos in Europe whose elephant husbandry enjoys the full approval of Dr Fred Kurt. The Swiss mammalogist Fred Kurt has been studying elephants for 55 years now. His first scientific paper (in French) described his research on sleep behaviour among elephants in Swiss zoos and circuses. In 1962 he was appointed an assistant to Heini Heidiger, the legendary director of Zürich Zoo and widely considered the father of zoo biology, and although Kurt left after earning his doctorate to do largely conservation work, he has been associated with the zoo of Switzerland’s largest city on and off ever since. Last year the zoo inaugurated its new, 11,000-square-metre elephant complex, the Kaeng Krachan Elephant Park, and as a kind of souvenir it sponsored publication of Kurt’s synthesis of what we now know about the Asian Elephant and especially the history of its relationship to mankind. Despite its coffeetable format and plethora of some 200 photographs and graphics, Von Elefanten und Menschen (On Elephants and Humans) is as ambitious an introduction to the species as one could hope for. Its illustrations should make it attractive even to those interested in elephants who cannot read German. Better, of course, if one can decipher the text; his critical analysis of elephants in captivity, whether in zoos, circuses or logging camps, is well underpinned by statistics and insightful graphics. In some ways Von Elefanten und Menschen is an updated edition of Kurt’s first monograph of 126

the species, Das Elefantenbuch – wie Asiens letzte Riesen leben (Rasch & Röhring, 1992), with an almost identical format, a rather similar layout, a couple of identical illustrations, and the same somewhat pedagogical style of writing. But much has been learnt of elephant behaviour and medicine in the last two decades, and Kurt offers a fresh look at his – and so many others’ – favourite animal. Elephants were apparently first tamed in South Asia about 3,500 years ago, but as Kurt reminds his readers, tamed animals are not necessarily domesticated ones. As beasts of burden and war elephants, they became a staple of the cultures of South and Southeast Asia – regions in which neither the domesticated horse nor the camel would flourish – but rarely were elephants bred, and when, then from cows captured pregnant. Kurt describes and illustrates exhaustively the various methods by which elephants were captured and broken over the centuries, and it can make for painful reading. The first circuses, travelling menageries and zoos, whether in Asia itself, Europe or America, acquired their elephants at least indirectly from the same sources. The first elephants conceived and born in Europe were only bred in 1906 in the zoos of Vienna and Berlin. Editha in Berlin survived for hardly three weeks, unfortunately, but Mädi in Vienna thrived for 38 years, until the zoo’s destruction towards the end of World War II. In America the first elephant, Columbia, was born a quarter century earlier, in March 1880 in the winter headquarters of the Cooper & Bailey Circus in Philadelphia (not in the zoo there, which phased out its own elephant husbandry in 2006). She lived for 27 127

years, until put down in 1907 as a “killer”. She was not, of course, the first to suffer that fate, nor the last. One subchapter of Kurt’s book carries (in translation) the sensationalist heading ‘Mass deaths in zoos and longevity’, but the title is (fortunately) misleading. His subject here is really the aging population of elephants in zoos in general, but particularly in North America. If the trend continues unhindered, he suggests, as wild-caught elephants cannot be imported into the United States or Canada, elephants may disappear from North American zoos. Not only Philadelphia Zoo among the premier institutions on the continent, but those of Lincoln Park, Chicago, and Detroit too, for example, have phased out elephant husbandry as well, appeasing the animal-rights movement apparently strong in many regions of the United States. Even the Bronx Zoo, New York, despite its 100 hectares, has announced that it will give up keeping elephants once detrition has made its current group too small for adequate care. Breeding in North America is not as unsuccessful as Kurt suggests, but achievements are frequently made outside the sweep of the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation in central Florida, for example, has bred and raised over two dozen elephants during the last two decades, but reading Kurt’s book, one wouldn’t know the place even exists. Although frequently critical of elephant management in what he considers substandard zoos, Kurt’s ire is reserved for circuses and, in South and Southeast Asia, temples. Circus enthusiasts point out that elephants in the ring at least enjoy behavioural enrichment, but Kurt reminds one that many of the popular tricks that elephants are often expected to perform – standing on their heads or hind feet, to name only two – are bad in the long run for joints, bones and cartilage. Working elephants in the logging industry have been largely displaced by machinery – as have many jobs for lumberjacks, for that matter – but temples keep festival elephants under frequently cruel conditions. The biggest problem the Asian Elephant faces, however, as a species if not an individual, is possible extinction. No longer needed as working animals, their range in densely inhabited and heavily deforested South and Southeast Asia is shrinking rapidly. Bulls of course suffer from the universally illegal but nevertheless hardly unabated ivory trade. On the entire continent only 50,000 wild elephants are currently estimated to survive. The breeding programmes of zoos and, yes, circuses may not be able contribute much to restocking wild populations, but by keeping zoos self-sufficient they are essential in promoting elephant conservation. The sensual joy the public experience when seeing, hearing, smelling live elephants cannot be even remotely compared to feelings engendered by the small screen of a television or computer, no matter how good a nature documentary may be. Kurt illustrates well the path good zoos have gone down to keep and breed Asian Elephants in a way accommodating to the needs and wants of the individual animal as well as the species. Unfortunately, that has also led my local zoo to phase out elephant rides.

Herman Reichenbach 128

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 129-144

INTERNATIONAL ZOO NEWS Cincinnati Zoo, U.S.A. The zoo has just announced that a litter of African painted dog Lycaon pictus puppies living at the zoo will be named after characters from the Batman mythos. “The names of the painted dog puppies are Riddler, Bruce, Alfred, Hugo, Luke and Oswald for our six boys. Lucy, Quinn, Selina and Ivy are the four little ladies,” Dana Burke wrote to the zoo’s official blog. “If you didn’t catch the theme here, it’s Batman (don’t worry, I wasn’t that familiar with it either). Some are characters from the show, a couple from the comics, some from the motion pictures and others from the animated series. It all started when the one puppy we could distinguish from all of the others had an upside down white question mark on his back.

This one clearly had to be called Riddler. The rest just followed.”

129

Monkey World – Ape Rescue Centre, United Kingdom The Primate Care Staff at Monkey World – Ape Rescue Centre have welcomed a new baby Sumatran orang-utan (Pongo abelii) to the park – the 2nd in the last two months. Six-week-old baby girl, Rieke, arrived from Berlin Zoo and was introduced to her new adopted brother, five-month-old Bulu Mata, who came from Budapest Zoo in December after his mother sadly died unexpectedly.  Rieke, a tiny baby girl, was born at Zoo Berlin in Germany on 12 January 2015. Her mother, Djasinga (aged 11), rejected her at birth and so the team of zoo keepers had to intervene to care for the critically endangered infant. Having gained over 800g since birth, she was strong enough to make the big move to the orang-utan crèche in Monkey World, where specialist Primate Care Staff took over her care. Both babies are doing very well – they are eating well, faeces are good and they are gaining weight nicely; Rieke now weighs 3.00kg and Bulu Mata weighs 4.53kg. The babies spend a lot of time together, but they sleep separately (for safety, as Bulu Mata is bigger and more mobile than Rieke) until Rieke is able to sit up on her own. For now Rieke can just roll over and crawl.

The 6 other orang-utans in the Nursery are very interested in both babies and in the coming weeks when Rieke is able to sit up the other youngsters will be able to visit and play with them. 130

Monkey World’s Director, Dr Alison Cronin, said “It is an amazing international effort to provide two orphan orang-utans with the very best opportunity to grow up with others of their own kind. Zoo Berlin and Budapest Zoos have done a wonderful job in caring for these very vulnerable infants and we are pleased to be able to offer specialist care and facilities throughout the rest of their childhood.”

Toronto Zoo, Canada

A bio-energy company, Zooshare, is partnering with the zoo to build a 500-kilowatt biogas power plant that will transform animal manure and food waste into ecofriendly, renewable energy that can be sold back to the province. The Toronto Zoo currently disposes of its manure at a composting site on the east side of its Scarborough property, where the manure is left to decompose into fertilizer. ZooShare is currently awaiting government approval to build on the current site of the zoo’s composting grounds. Once built, the biogas facility is expected to recycle 3,000 tonnes of animal manure and 14,000 tonnes of food waste per year, using waste food from a grocery store chain in the area. It will also reduce carbon dioxide emissions by an estimated 10,000 tonnes per year. The Toronto Zoo says it expects construction to start this summer, with power production planned to begin in March, 2016. The zoo says it will make at least $50,000 annually from the project, while ZooShare’s approximately 300 investors will earn seven per cent interest on their investment bonds over the first seven years of production. ZooShare executive director Daniel Bida says he raised $2.2 million for the project over 18 months by opening it up to the Ontario public as an environment-friendly investment opportunity. “I really believe in biomass and the impact it can make if we use our organic waste as a resource, instead of chucking it in a landfill like it’s a problem,” Bida said.

Phoenix Zoo, U.S.A. The Phoenix Zoo is facing up to what it calls an “embearassing” mistake regarding one of its animals. Zoo officials say they were planning to transfer Luka to the Nashville Zoo in Tennessee when they discovered that the two-year-old Andean, or Spectacled, bear is a female, not a male as originally thought. According to Phoenix Zoo, Andean bear cubs’ genitalia are undeveloped before the age two making it very difficult to determine gender. The zoo said employees there also hadn’t handled the bear very much because it was doing very well with its mother. The zoo said Luka still might go to Nashville, but now that they know he’s a she, it opens up other options for the bear’s participation in a breeding program.

131

Suryabinayak Zoo, Nepal The Nepalese government has given its approval to establish an internationalstandard zoo at Suryabinayak in Bhaktapur to keep captive animals brought from various parts of the country and beyond. A Cabinet meeting approved the proposal, including the feasibility study to set up an alternate zoo, submitted by the Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation about five years ago. Concerned over the lack of adequate space and problem in proper management of the increasing number of captive animals in the country’s only Central Zoo at Jawalakhel in Lalitpur, authorities were working to come up with an alternative site for an international-standard zoological garden and recreational centre for captive animals for years. The new zoo will cover an area of around 245 hectares. The proposed site is spread over seven community forests and the forest users have agreed to provide their respective areas for the zoo under certain conditions. The Jawalakhel-based zoo was set up in 1932 by Juddha Shumsher Rana for his private pleasure. It came under the government in 1951 and was opened to the public in 1956. Currently, the zoo covers an area of six hectares and houses 35 species of mammals, 420 birds of 53 species, 33 reptiles of 11 species and 320 aquarium fish of 17 species. Over 1.5 million people, including domestic and foreign tourists, visit the zoo annually.

San Francisco Zoo, U.S.A. There have been allegations that upper management at the San Francisco Zoo eavesdropped on employees using a radio communication system as a bugging device. San Francisco Zoo’s executive director Tanya Peterson and its vice president of operations Robert Icard both have radios equipped with spyware potentially giving them the capability to listen in on zoo employees’ private conversations without their knowledge. A whistleblower contacted a union steward to say he had heard zoo officials secretly listening in on an employee and making fun of the way that person talked. The union, representing about 100 non-managerial employees at the zoo, claims that this type of “eavesdropping” could be in violation of both state and federal laws and that they are calling for a full investigation. Peterson said in a statement that the zoo’s recently purchased radios were not intended for listening in on the private conversations of zoo employees. “Zoo management has no interest in monitoring conversations of its employees,” she said. She also said that the emergency monitoring function on the new radio system was a vendor feature designed to assist with medical and safety emergencies.

132

Honolulu Zoo, U.S.A. and Asa Zoo, Japan Honolulu Zoo has entered into a sister zoo affiliation with Asa Zoo in Hiroshima, Japan, the first such endeavor for Honolulu Zoo. Preliminary discussions to establish this relationship began several years ago when Ken Kawata, retired Staten Island Zoo curator, visited Asa Zoo. Ken had been requested by retired Honolulu Zoo officials to informally approach the Asa Zoo director in this regard, during his tour of Japanese zoos in 2008. Ken was told by the Asa Zoo director that he favored this concept and outlined the protocol to become a sister zoo. After receiving this information from Ken, zoo’s officials began the sister zoo process. One tradition of sister zoos is a formal exchange of zoo animals. Asa Zoo is well known for its breeding programme of the Japanese giant salamander, or Hanzaki, which are considered a national treasure. Since Honolulu Zoo is scheduled to build a new exhibit complex for reptiles and amphibians, its officials recommended that the Hanzaki, which reaches a length of over 1.5 m (five feet), be featured in Honolulu Zoo’s future displays. Asa Zoo agreed to send Honolulu Zoo several of their cherished Hanzaki. As part of the sister zoo ceremonies, in July 2014 Honolulu Zoo Assistant Director, now Director, Baird Fleming and Curator of Reptiles and Amphibians Laura Debnar visited the Asa Zoo. Since Hanzaki have not yet been bred in America Honolulu Zoo will seek this challenging conservation goal. Honolulu Zoo has the added advantage in that its staff has established skills in raising difficult to breed amphibians.                  

Yuki Taguchi, Hanzaki specialist. Photo: Asa Zoo

133

Denver Zoo, U.S.A. The Denver Zoological Foundation Board of Trustees has selected Shannon Block to become the next President/CEO of Denver Zoo. As the CEO of Rocky Mountain Cancer Centers, the largest and most comprehensive provider of cancer care in Colorado, Block brings wide knowledge of strategic planning, business operations and revenue generation to the 117-year-old community jewel, Denver Zoo. As the new CEO of Denver Zoo, Block will ensure the zoo achieves its mission to secure a better world for animals through human understanding. In this role, she will oversee more than 300 employees, 659 volunteers, nearly 4,000 wild animals and 85 acres, as well as the zoo’s robust international conservation programs. Block will serve the Denver Zoological Board of Trustees which consists of 46 voting members including 39 regular members, four Mayoral appointees, Denver’s Manager of Parks and Recreation and the zoo’s volunteer chair. 

Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium, U.S.A. In a move to compensate zoo visitors for the lack of a particular live species, Humpback Whales 3D, an underwater adventure directed by two-time Academy Award®-nominated director Greg MacGillivray and narrated by two-time Golden Globe® nominee Ewan McGregor, will premiere at Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium’s Lozier IMAX® Theater. Set in the waters of Alaska, Hawaii and the remote islands of Tonga, the film exposes audiences to the lifestyle of these 55-foot, 50-ton aquatic mammals, which were on the verge of extinction in the wild about 50 years ago. Humpback whales have a vocal range that is among the broadest in the animal kingdom, but only the males produce the unique and complex songs for which the species is known. Scientists are uncertain of their purpose, but the songs are thought to be used by males to attract a mate, challenge another males of the same species or for echolocation, biological sonar used by animals to navigate or forage for food. The IMAX® is now considered a paid feature within the Zoo.

Chester Zoo, United Kingdom Chester Zoo remains the most popular paid-for visitor attraction in England outside London, new figures have revealed. The zoo welcomed a record 1,432,867 visitors in 2014. Managing director, Jamie Christon, said: “2014 ended on a real high with the busiest year in our history and we’re off to a flying start in 2015. “This year is a ground-breaking year for the zoo too with the opening of our new development Islands. It’s the biggest zoo development of its kind in Europe providing a window on the world of conservation in South East Asia.” The Islands project, which opens in June, will recreate habitats from six areas in South East Asia - Panay, Papua, Bali, Sumatra, Sumba and Sulawesi - and provide a home for a number of animals classed as critically endangered in the wild. 134

San Diego Zoo, U.S.A. Scientists at the San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research revealed that they decided upon the artificial insemination procedure for Bai Yun after a couple of mating sessions with Gao Gao, a male panda at the zoo, were unsuccessful. This is not the first artificial insemination process for Bai Yun. Her first cub Hua Mei was also born following artificial insemination in 1999 using sperm from Shi Shi, a male panda at the facility that died in 2008. Sperm samples of Shi Shi are still available at the facility's Frozen Zoo, which has been used to get Bai Yun pregnant. Bai Yun was born in September 1991 at the Wolong Giant Panda Research Center in China. She was sent to the San Diego Zoo in September 1996 as part of a complex agreement between the American zoo and the Chinese research center. "Bai Yun is the mother of Hua Mei, the first surviving Giant panda born in the United States," per the San Diego Zoo. In the past, Bai Yun also gave birth to five cubs sired by Gao Gao all by the natural way. At 23 years the female panda is towards the end of her period of reproduction. Zoo officials suggest that they want Bai Yun to reach maternity for the last time. San Diego Zoo officials could soon request Chinese government officials to let Bai Yun and the 25-year-old Gao Gao to retire at the San Diego Zoo in emeritus, nonreproductive status. The zoo will then hope for the Chinese authorities to send another young panda couple as part of the breeding program. Giant pandas have been studied extensively; however, their reproduction process is still a mystery. The male and the female do not normally stay together but come in close proximity only during breeding periods. Following a successful fertilization, a female panda normally gives birth to a cub in around 135 days. San Diego Zoo officials suggest that they are examining Bai Yun's urine on a daily basis to see if the panda is pregnant.

Sichuan Giant Panda Research Centre, China Although San Diego and Edinburgh Zoo have problems with getting their Giant pandas to mate, the Chinese have been showing the way. Lu Lu and partner Zhen Zhen mated for an impressive seven minutes and 45 seconds, setting a new record for the year at the Sichuan Research Centre. A video of their sexual antics means that ‘stud’ Lu Lu is now the talk of China and has been given the nickname ‘The Enduring Brother’, says The People’s Daily. The pair were pitted against another couple of pandas, Yi Bao and Jin Xin, who only managed one minute and 20 seconds of love-making. The average length of a ‘romp’ between two pandas is between 30 seconds and five minutes, making Lu Lu’s efforts all the more impressive. Breeders said they watch the creatures having sex so they can understand their mating habits, and encourage them to reproduce in the future. 135

Zoos Victoria, Australia Zoos Victoria has unveiled a groundbreaking $30m “master plan” to save 20 key species from extinction, with the federal government looking at adopting a version of the strategy on a national level. The strategy has identified the vertebrate species most likely to be wiped out in the next 10 years and has devised funded plans for each species to save them from this fate. The list of species is dominated by animals associated with Victoria, such as the Mountain pygmy possum, the Leadbeater’s possum, the Eastern barred bandicoot and the Orange-bellied parrot. But the plan includes other species tended for by Zoos Victoria, including the Tasmanian devil and the Lord Howe Island stick insect, which has been largely killed off on the island that named it due to rats, but now has a sizeable captive population in Victoria. The five-year plan sets out costed actions such as $3.56m for the eastern barred bandicoot, with $580,000 of this to be used for a “fighting extinction dog squad”, which comprises a team of trained Maremma dogs that will guard bandicoots from predators such as cats and foxes. Breeding Tasmanian devils and looking at whether they should be released on to mainland Australia will cost $3.4m over five years, while reintroducing the Southern corroboree frog back into the wild, where just a handful of the small colourful animals exist, will cost $3.69m. Establishing an insurance population of Brush-tailed rock wallabies will cost $430,000 and a plan to save the Mountain pygmy possum and the Helmeted honeyeater will cost $4.27m. A further $38,500 is needed to store genetic material of endangered species in freezers. Zoos Victoria has raised around $1.6m in donations for the plan and has committed $10m itself, but will require government or private sector funding for the rest of the $30m. Rachel Lowry, director of wildlife conservation at Zoos Victoria, said the strategy aimed to reverse the decline of animals in the wild, rather than simply shelter them in captivity. “We’ve been in the position before where we’ve recorded extinctions and we can’t come to work every day and think that that is our role,” she said. “This plan hones down to the animals we are set to lose first and makes sure we are more proactive, that we aren’t too late to save them. “We don’t want to say we gave it our best shot but lost – we want to give them the very best chance. Zoos in the past have just got involved when things have got dire but we want to position ourselves a bit differently now. “There seems to be a growing acceptance among some academics that we need to triage species but I fundamentally don’t agree that some species have to become extinct. I think we have a poorer future when we agree to that.” 136

Lowry said she was most worried about the Eastern barred bandicoot, which is now extinct in the wild in Victoria, the Southern corroborree frog and the Helmeted honeyeater. The plan sets out breeding programs as well as partnerships with other groups and government agencies to ensure that there is suitable habitat to release animals back into the wild. Innovations include the “bodyguard” dogs and a training program for Helmeted honeyeaters, which teaches them to dive for cover when they see a goshawk – a key predator of the dwindling species. Gregory Andrews, the federal threatened species commissioner, said he was impressed by the plan and wanted to adopt a similar strategy at a national level. “I think this is an excellent document because it explains the problems and sets out clear actions for recovery,” he told Guardian Australia. “This is a benchmark and [federal environment minister] Greg Hunt has asked me to use this as a template for the Australian government to follow, to turnaround Australia’s unacceptable rate of extinctions. “I don’t want to pre-empt anything but we will see actions and targets.” The federal government has provided funding for the guard dogs program, as well as money to support the Eastern barred bandicoot, the Southern corroborree frog, the Bent-wing bat and the Helmeted honeyeater. But Andrews would not say whether further funding was forthcoming. The Victorian government also would not commit to specific funding, meaning it is likely that private donors will have to be found to ensure the $30m target is reached. A spokeswoman for Lisa Neville, Victoria’s environment minister, said the state government “will continue to work with Zoos Victoria to discuss its ongoing needs”. While the Lord Howe Island stick insect was not native to Victoria, Melbourne Zoo was the only one able to breed the insects, she said. It needed $465,000 to avoid extinction.  Foreign animals on the list include the Philippine crocodile and Grevy’s zebra from Northern Kenya.  “We are not relying on just breeding animals and putting them out in the wild and hoping that will do the job, ... there is a lot of innovation in the plan,” Ms Lowry said. For example, it includes $580,000 to set up a squad of highly trained dogs to protect endangered animals from foxes. This was based on the successful use of Maremma dogs on Middle Island, near Warrnambool, to protect the local penguin population.  The five-year total costs were created because animal-lovers were getting “donor fatigue” and wanted to know the total cost needed to save an animal, rather than being asked for small sums every year.   However, saving species from the brink of extinction was not supported by all conservationists.  Professor Hugh Possingham from the University of Queensland has previously said that money and research should focus on keeping animals off the threatened list, rather than trying too late to save them.  

137

Twycross Zoo, United Kingdom Blueprints of a new £55 million masterplan set to transform the zoo into one of the best in the UK over the next 20 years have been unveiled. Work already begun on the Giraffe Savannah enclosure, with an open-air paddock and a high-level viewing platform, will be completed by early April when the animals return. The Gibbon Forest - a four-moated island complex – is scheduled to open in the summer, followed by Chimpanzee Eden, which is planned to open in 2016.

Chimpanzee Eden

Other plans for the 34-acre site include the largest children’s water-play area in Leicestershire, an extension to the Orangutan house, and a new café. Zoo bosses say these developments will improve animal welfare standards by creating habitats that more closely resemble those of the natural, wild environment, as well as improve the visitor experience by providing more immersive, entertaining and educational visits. The aim is to double visitor numbers at the site, which first opened in 1953 and is now run as a registered charity with a worldwide reputation for its specialist care of primates. Dr Sharon Redrobe, chief executive at the zoo, said: “We are embarking on an awesome project with a vision for the 21st century. “We already attract over half a million visitors, including more than 33,000 schoolchildren, every year but we are in the middle of a catchment area of 20 million people, so we want to play our part in helping to build a thriving business and leisure culture in this region. “At the heart of this masterplan lies a passionate commitment to the fundamental 138

importance of environmental education and practical wildlife conservation, which is shared by all our dedicated staff.” Twycross is the only zoo in the UK to house all four types of Great Apes - gorillas, orangutans, bonobos and chimpanzees - and is well known as the home of the popular TV chimps, who appeared on PG Tips commercials in the 1960s. “Changing public attitudes means such use of zoo animals is no longer considered acceptable,” said Dr Redrobe. “Modern zoos are not simply regarded as places of public entertainment, but as important centres of conservation and animal behavioural research. “The changes we have planned are truly visionary and will provide new opportunities for public engagement, allowing visitors to explore the wonders of animal behaviours up close and also to observe living science in action.” At the unveiling of the project Dr Mary-Lorraine Hughes, chairman of the zoo’s trustees, said: “We have 150 different species and this is a very costly business which is run without any government funding and relies on visitor revenue and donations. “This redevelopment plan reflects the need to constantly adapt and evolve as a visitor attraction. Phase One goes ahead with the support of NatWest.” Professor Alice Roberts, patron of Twycross Zoo, said: “I am delighted to be the patron of Twycross Zoo. It’s one of the best places to see our closest living relatives, the great apes, including orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos. But Twycross Zoo is about much more than just keeping animals to look at. We can learn a lot about apes (and indeed ourselves) by studying them closely, but these animals are also under threat of extinction in their natural habitats. “That’s why, alongside education and research, Twycross Zoo is strongly committed to conservation. Visiting the zoo, to see the primates and all the other animals there, helps to support the work of the zoo and raise funds for conservation projects.”

Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, United Kingdom Durrell is delighted to announce the latest success in their 28-year journey of saving one of the worlds rarest tortoises from extinction. The golden-domed ploughshare tortoise, the most threatened tortoise on the planet, exists only at a single remote site in Madagascar. A team from the world renowned conservation charity made a gruelling two day 150km journey to Beaboaly in Madagascar; where along with local dignitaries, schoolchildren and representatives from partner conservation agencies, they celebrated the release into the wild of 20 captive bred ploughshare tortoises Astrochelys yniphora. With this release they have reached a major milestone and a goal that was set over ten years ago – to put 100 animals back into the wild. Richard Lewis, Durrell’s Madagascar Programme Director said, “For me personally this was the fruition of ten years hard work. When Durrell first proposed the idea of releasing ploughshares, many experts said that it couldn’t be done. We had to make 139

the rule book ourselves, and to-date this release is still one of the few successful tortoise reintroduction projects in the world.

Photo: Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust

When Durrell started working in Madagascar in 1986, the ploughshare tortoise was on the brink of extinction, decades of uncontrolled burning had decimated its habitat. There have been a number of challenges and setbacks in the project. Just when the team thought that they were on the verge of successfully changing the species population trend, the black market value of the ploughshare’s stunning golden shell rocketed, leading to a renewed pressure on the tortoise from illegal wildlife smugglers. Now the scale of poaching threatens the future existence of the species and conservation efforts are focussing on anti-poaching, law enforcement and capacity-building. Despite the fantastic achievements to date and this, the latest positive step in Durrell’s ongoing ploughshare programme, the species remains dangerously close to extinction. Without Durrell’s efforts over the last three decades the world could very possibly have lost the ploughshare tortoise, already.

Press release

140

News from Japan Ueno Zoo: Vasectomies were performed on two of the Zoo’s Japanese macaques, males Aji and Kajiki. This was done to relieve overcrowding and to give the other males a chance to mate. Dismantling of the old office building was begun in October 2014. In its stead, plans are being made to construct an “Animal Center”. Tama Zoo: On February 14 2014 an egg of the Red-and-green macaw Ara chloropterus was hatched by artificial incubation. This was the first breeding success since the birds arrived at the zoo in 1962. Tokyo Sea Life Park: In July 2013 the fry of Fine spotted jawfish Opistognathus punctatus were put on exhibit. The fish are gathering pieces of coral and seashells to make caves for themselves. Inokashira Park Zoo: The pond was drained for a month, from the end of January 2014 to the beginning of March, in order to clean the pond of trash and invasive species. OshimaZoo: On rainy days the Ring-tailed lemurs huddle together under a roof, but the Barbary sheep stay outdoors and frolic in the mud. Tobu Zoo: On August 3 2014, a male baby Lion-tailed macaque was born at the Tobu Zoo and was named “Taka”. This species is in danger of extinction in the wild, and it is recommended that it be proactively bred in captivity. Saitama Children’s Zoo: Three koalas are scheduled to arrive in January 2015 for the first time in 28 years. Three monitor officials first came ahead of time from Australia to check the zoo’s environmental conditions and gave their approval. Ishikawa Zoo: The Ishikawa Zoo every year rescues some 400 wild birds and after treating their injuries returns them to the wild. However, the zoo is concerned about releasing juvenile raptors because they are still inexperienced at hunting. For this reason, the zoo decided teach the birds three skills: jumping up from a low position to strengthen their flight muscles; learning to return on call from a long distance; and learning to pounce on a food item used as a lure. Birds that learned these skills were able to survive. The birds were released after they learned to seize feral pigeons and baby chicks. Ueno Zoo: Polar bears in captivity both in Japanese zoos and in zoos around the world are diminishing in number year by year. The main reason for this is the diminishing number of Polar bears in the wild due to habitat degradation prompting governments of countries inhabited by the bears to limit exportation of these animals. The situation is compounded by the fact that the Polar bear is a difficult animal to keep and breed in captivity. In order to maintain the number of Polar bears in Japan, four zoos in Hokkaido initiated a project for the communal breeding of the animals. Since 2011 the bears have been moved around in the various zoos of Japan, with the result that a total of 10 babies have been born since the project was started. In the future the zoos plan to accommodate any wild Polar bears that are captured because of sickness or injury. Japanese zoos are now preparing living quarters, management training, and educational programs for the public. 141

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 142-143

Miscellany A few years back, a friend who works with elephants told me about an animal communicator she met, who reported she had a telepathic conversation with an aggressive zoo elephant. The communicator claimed the elephant really liked her — so much so, in fact, that she said the elephant had wanted to put his massive head in her lap. Unbelievable! And in fact, it was. If indeed the animal communicator had received a message from the elephant, she had grossly misinterpreted it. A child might show trust and affection by laying her head in your lap, but an elephant who does this is trying to kill you. They use their heads to squash irritating individuals like a person grinds out a cigarette butt with his shoe. Misinterpreting an animal’s motives or behaviour is easy to do. We want to understand animals — and we want them to like us — and this colours our perceptions. A zoo veterinarian about to do an exam on a Tasmanian devil, a carnivorous marsupial the size of a small dog, noted with pride and relief how calm the animal seemed in her presence. “Look,” she said, pointing to his wide open jaws, “he’s so relaxed he’s yawning!” It was then that the animal bit her. What looked like a yawn was really an attempt to warn the veterinarian to stay away. The “yawn” was what’s known as a gape-threat, the animal’s effort to advertise the power of its strong jaws and sharp teeth. Such mistakes may lead people to conclude that an animal is mean, or its behaviour is senseless or even crazy. We like to congratulate ourselves when our own wise behaviour saves us from the animal’s viciousness. An excellent example of this is when people “narrowly escape” being “eaten” by a white shark. Most humans actually survive white shark “attack” — this despite the fact this animal can weigh more than a ton, has a sensory system that can detect the electrical current of a beating heart, and 300 razor-sharp, serrated teeth capable of severing the head from a two-ton bull elephant seal. Do you think a person can escape such a predator? Not likely. People survive because the shark never intended to eat them in the first place. Particularly when the person is on a surfboard. From below, where the shark is coming from, a human looks like a seal. But the shark instantly realizes the mistake and spits the person out. Another error people make is concluding an animal does something for “no reason.” Once, when I was in Borneo at Birute Galdikas’s orangutan study and rehabilitation camp, a volunteer who was smitten with the orange apes rushed up to one particular female she had met just the day before. She wanted to hug her. The orangutan promptly slammed the woman to the ground — “for no reason!” the woman said in hurt dismay. But the orangutan had a perfectly fine reason for her behaviour: She didn’t feel like being grabbed by a stranger. 142

During this same visit, Galdikas’s husband, Pak Bohap, told me through a translator that sun bears — small, short-haired ursines that look like fat, short-legged rotweillers — were vicious and untrustworthy beasts. As proof, he explained that a sun bear had once, years earlier, attacked him “for no reason.” How terrible! What was he doing, I asked, when he became the victim of such an unprovoked attack? The answer: He had been stuffing her cub into his shirt. Even if it’s not evident to us, animals have reasons for what they do, usually excellent ones. They have the same basic motives we do. They want to eat when they’re hungry and sleep when they’re tired. They love and protect their mates and their babies. They sometimes want company and other times want to be left alone. We can’t always assume that animals experience and react to the world exactly as we do; otherwise dogs would not eat horse manure, and fish would try to escape from the water. But in the ongoing practice of trying to understand what happens in an animal’s head, there’s a far worse mistake than assuming animals think like we do — and that’s assuming that animals’ thoughts and motives are nothing like our own. What is far more interesting than the mistakes we can make when misinterpreting an animal’s behaviour is the fact that quite often — despite our very different bodies and different sensory systems — we understand each other very well indeed. Our views on many matters are often strikingly similar. Consider a Stockholm University study of the aesthetic values of different human faces. The researchers presented undergraduates with photos of the faces of 35 young men and women and asked them to choose the most attractive ones. Then they asked a group of chickens the same question. The chickens’ preferences overlapped with those of the humans 98 percent of the time. Why should this be so? Possibly both humans and chickens favour symmetry. Interestingly, it’s well-documented that chickens and people recognize each other by the same means: by looking at the face.

Sy Montgomery

Sy is a naturalist and the author of more than a dozen books including the bestseller “The Good Good Pig.” Email: [email protected]

143

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 144-152

ELEPHANT POTPOURRI Center for Elephant Conservation, Florida, U.S.A. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus plans to gradually phase out the use of elephants in its circus act, a move made largely in response to growing public concern about animal welfare.  “There’s been somewhat of a mood shift among our consumers,” Alana Feld, the executive vice president of Feld Entertainment, told the Associated Press. “A lot of people aren’t comfortable with us touring with our elephants.” In a press release, Feld Entertainment, which produces the circus, announced plans to remove all 13 of the Asian elephants currently travelling with the 134-yearold circus by 2018 and relocate them to the Ringling Bros. Center for Elephant Conservation. The center, established in 1995, is a 200-acre facility in central Florida that’s home to more than 40 retired Ringling Bros. elephants. It’s a huge move for Ringling Bros. — and for animal welfare. Elephants, the world’s largest land mammal, are renowned for their high emotional and social intelligence, qualities that make the stresses of captivity and performance even more acutely troubling to human observers. Greek philosopher Aristotle once wrote that elephants are “the animal which surpasses all others in wit and mind.” Elephants express a variety of behaviours, including those associated with grief, play, social altruism and language. Elephants have even been shown to understand human body language, an awareness previously thought to only exist in dogs. If the move by Ringing Bros. to retire its most intelligent performing animals isn’t enough motivation for SeaWorld to reconsider cetacean captivity, its bottom line may be: SeaWorld’s stock has collapsed since Blackfish’s release, and its CEO was recently forced out after its stock hit an all-time low. Scientific condemnation may not motivate corporations to retire performing animals, but an increasingly reluctant ticket-buying public might.

Woolly mammoth cloning Scientists have spliced DNA from the woolly mammoth into living elephant cells, opening up the possibility of bringing back the long extinct animal. Over 3,000 years after the mammoth went extinct on Wrangel Island, scientists have successfully brought to live mammoth cells in a lab, they said. Scientists have replicated the genes that make elephants different from mammoths — their hairiness, bigger ears and fat beneath their skin — and successfully inserted them into an elephant’s code. Mammoths are closely related to Asian elephants, so that the Harvard scientists didn’t need to fully create a new cell. A new technique was used by George Church, 144

a Harvard professor of genetics, which lets scientists make specific edits to DNA and copy and paste in certain bits of code. The living cells represent the first time that mammoth genes have been alive since they went extinct roughly 3,300 years ago. The last of the species lived on an island in the Arctic Ocean, and scientists took genes from there for the experiment. Mammoth cells are easier to find than other animals of a similar time, because many of the remains have been buried in permafrost, preserving them like a freezer. That has led to particular interest in whether the mammoth could be revived through cloning — but not everyone agrees that cloning bringing the species back to life would be an ethical decision. Scientists worry that the cloning procedure could involve experimenting on many living elephants.

Sketch by Mauricio Antón

Dr Tori Herridge, an expert in mammoth anatomy from the Natural History Museum, asked “whether or not the justifications for cloning a mammoth are worth the suffering, the concerns of keeping an elephant in captivity, experimenting on her, making her go through a 22-month pregnancy, to potentially give birth to something which won’t live, or to carry something which could be damaging to her. And all of those aspects... I don’t think that they are worth it; the reasons just aren’t there.” Cloning mammoths could also lead people to be lax about the extinction of living animals, according to other experts. Professor Alex Greenwood, an ancient DNA expert said: “We face the potential extinction of African and Asian elephants. Why bring back another elephantid from extinction when we cannot even keep the ones that are not extinct around? “What is the message? We can be as irresponsible with the environment as we want. Then we’ll just clone things back?”

145

Zimbabwe, Africa Zimbabwe has said it will export dozens of elephants to raise money for conservation after hunting revenues fell when the U.S. banned the import of ivory from elephants hunted in the southern African nation. The move to export up to 60 elephants to countries that include China, France and United Arab Emirates has angered animal welfare groups, who say the plan is cruel. Environment Minister Savior Kasukuwere said during a tour of Hwange National Park in western Zimbabwe that, at 53,000, the elephant population was twice the park’s carrying capacity. He said although the government was being criticized by conservationists, Zimbabwe was allowed to export elephants as long as it met requirements set by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Kasukuwere said the restrictions introduced by the United States last year had reduced hunting revenue, which was critical in the conservation of animals. “We are between a rock and hard place but we have chosen to be decisive. We have a situation where Hwange has more animals than it can carry, what do you want us to do,” Kasukuwere said.

---------------------------------------------------------

No stranger to controversy, the 91st birthday celebrations for President Robert Mugabe have been criticised both at home and abroad, although some of the accusations are difficult to verify and may be false. The elephant meat donated to President Robert Mugabe for his 91st birthday was not served to partygoers, as had been reported. An elephant was shot three days before the party in Victoria Falls. It was given to the organisers of the party by farmer Tendai Musasa, but they did not want the meat, the Southern Eye newspaper reported. “The meat was reportedly rejected and returned to the Woodlands community for villagers to share,” the report said. The news that Mugabe was to serve two elephants at his 28 February party caused outrage from animal rights activists and prompted international headlines. Before the party, villagers from the Woodlands area of Victoria Falls complained that the elephants were not Musasa’s to give away. They said that by donating elephants, Musasa was depriving them of revenue. Musasa’s claim that the elephant shot was a “problem animal” which needed to be put down to teach the rest of the herd a lesson was also in doubt. The farmer reportedly told the Southern Eye from Namibia: “I have no comment on that issue for now.” The opposition Movement for Democratic Change was quoted as saying Mugabe should have cancelled his party as the funds spent on it could have been better spent on service provision. The Southern Eye reported that beef, kudu and buffalo was served. Eight cakes were also donated. 146

An elephant hanging Some of the details of how an Asian circus elephant named Big Mary became the victim of a lynching in a stony little east Tennessee town are obscured by the gauze of time. But as kooky as it sounds, it’s a true story. It happened nearly a century ago, in 1916. The chain of events began as Big Mary and four other elephants from the Sparks Circus lumbered toward a water hole between their matinee and evening performances that Sept. 12 in Kingsport, Tennessee. According to the prevailing narrative, Big Mary strayed toward a succulent watermelon rind discarded along her path. Perched atop Mary’s broad shoulders, handler Red Eldridge used his bullhook to persuade her back toward his preferred route. When the elephant again pivoted toward the watermelon, Eldridge whacked her hard, digging into her flesh with the barb of the bullhook. With that, Big Mary reached back with her trunk, plucked the scrawny Eldridge from her back and body-slammed him. She then squashed his head like a grape under her platter-sized foot. Ed Stewart, president of Performing Animals Welfare Society, a Galt, California, sanctuary for elephants and other former circus beasts, said he thought of Big Mary when Ringling Bros. announced last week that it would stop using elephants by 2017. “She’s an example of why we should never have put these animals in such unnatural situations in the first place,” Stewart told The Justice Story. “This elephant was simply acting like an elephant. They are inherently dangerous, and I don’t blame her for what happened. I blame those who put her in the circus. It’s their fault.” A century ago, Tennesseans didn’t see it that way. Townspeople who witnessed Mary’s deadly fury were stirred to chant, “Kill the elephant!” Someone in the crowd plinked five or six shots from a .32 revolver into her thick hide. She barely noticed. The death of Eldridge quickly became a crisis for Charlie Sparks’ circus, a middling operation that had survived 25 years on thin margins by making one-day stands at railroad whistle-stops like Kingsport that Barnum & Bailey wouldn’t bother with. Local authorities wanted to hold the show in town for an inquiry. But Sparks had to be in Erwin, Tennessee, the next day — then on to Johnson City, Rogersville, and so on. Sparks surely didn’t want to leave Big Mary behind. She was his star, with marquee billing for more than 20 years as “the largest living land animal on Earth,” a skosh taller than P.T. Barnum’s famous Jumbo. If Big Mary had the longest tenure with the Sparks Circus, the handler she killed had the shortest.

147

Red Eldridge was a drifter who had signed on just 36 hours before he died, when the show stopped in St. Paul, Va., where he was pushing a broom. He had no circus experience, but the callow newcomer was handed a bullhook and assigned to marshal a 10,000-pound pachyderm. Big Mary’s destiny was sealed when a loopy Kingsport magistrate issued an ad hoc decree ordering her execution — to “hang by the neck until you are dead,” the Tennessee protocol for a human being convicted of murder. Charlie Sparks gave shrugging concession, which allowed his show to go on. An improvised gallows was waiting the next morning when the circus pulled into Erwin, Tennessee, 40 miles down the rails from Kingsport. Virtually the entire population of the town of 2,500 assembled for the spectacle. Big Mary was positioned beneath a 100-ton crane made to lift railroad cars. A necklace of stout chain was cinched around her head and linked to the crane, which slowly lifted the poor beast off her feet. She dangled briefly, then fell with a bone-cracking thud when the chain broke. “It made a right smart little racket when the elephant hit the ground,” according to an eyewitness quoted years later in a local magazine story. Big Mary writhed for more than an hour while someone fetched a thicker noose chain. Mercifully, the job was completed on the second go-round. The Sparks show rolled on again the next day, leaving Big Mary buried in the Erwin railyard. For decades, the bizarre lynching escaped notice, and the identities of those involved — beyond Sparks, Eldridge and Big Mary — were scrubbed as the tale was passed down in local history. But the story has been resurrected in several recent books, and it has emerged as a bullet point among infamous elephant atrocities since the Ringling Bros. announcement. “Mary sounds to me like an elephant that was fed up,” said Stewart, the circus animal advocate. For more than 30 years, his sanctuary group has urged a ban on traveling elephants. He said he now expects other circuses to follow the Ringling Bros.’ lead. About 100 elephants now perform in American circuses, half for Ringling. A ban on elephants and other wild animals in travelling circuses takes effect this year in England. And many U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, have banned the use of bullhooks, the device that apparently touched off Big Mary’s fury. “There have been circus-elephant protests at the grass-roots level all over the country,” Stewart said. “The handwriting is now on the wall. This must end.” Taken from an article in The Justice Story

148

149

Woodland Park Zoo, U.S.A. As IZN reported [vol. 61/6 p. 463], Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo had announced in November they will be shutting down their elephant programme and will be sending their two remaining Asian elephants, 35 year old Chai and 47 year old Bamboo, to another zoo. They had been planning to expand and add elephants, but after hearing from The Elephant Task Force they decided to do the opposite. “One thing has become clear: our two female elephants, Chai and Bamboo, need to be part of a larger social herd to ensure that their social welfare is best met,” said the zoo’s CEO Deborah Jensen at a press conference. “We’ve been thinking about this for a long time. We’re disappointed that we’re not able to grow the elephant herd here in Woodland Park Zoo, but the welfare of our animals is our top priority.”

35 year old Chai. Photo: Deborah Wang

After the zoo announced their intention to send the elephants to Oklahoma City Zoo, instead of to an elephant sanctuary, the Friends of Woodland Park Zoo Elephants lodged a legal challenge. A King County judge ruled on April 3rd that the Woodland Park Zoo has the legal authority to move the two elephants to the Oklahoma City Zoo, rejecting claims that the city of Seattle is the true owner and should have the final say about transport of Bamboo and Chai from Woodland Park to the Oklahoma City Zoo. 150

Combating poaching According to the latest figures from CITES, more than 20,000 elephants were killed in Africa by poachers in 2014 and nearly 1,300 rhinos. This was a huge increase over the 62 rhinos killed in 2007, according to the World Wildlife Fund. The Lindbergh Foundation recently launched its Air Shepherd programme, which uses remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) to help stop the poaching of elephants and rhinos in Africa. Using new technologies — computer-controlled drones to spot poachers and make it easier for rangers to find them across Africa’s massive landscape. Test flights done by Air Shepherd’s partners have proven promising. “In the past six months where we’ve been operating in Africa, we’ve arrested a lot of poachers,” said Dr. Thomas Snitch, who, with his colleagues at the University of Maryland, has been researching and testing this use for the technology. Quietly developed and tested for two years with an investment of $2 million, this capability has proven to be extraordinarily effective in over 1,000 hours of flying. No elephants or rhinos were lost anywhere and anytime they flew. Computer data is vital in telling the drones where to fly. The computers process data to predict where the animals will be each night, Snitch explained. And where there are elephants and rhinos, there are often poachers. The drones are put in the air over those heavily-trafficked areas, and using infrared cameras send footage back to drone operators. When poachers are spotted the operators can then alert nearby rangers to intercept them. Snitch said the drones are also helpful in collecting additional data about the habits of the animals and poachers. The animals aren’t the only beneficiaries. Wildlife in Africa is a huge source of income because it draws tourism. Without the animals, the tourism industry and many livelihoods are at stake. “We are saving jobs. And I think that’s the real key to this,” he said. Wildlife crime is also “historically and inexorably linked to the exploitation of local communities and poor people,” according to the Elephant Action League. Terrorist groups, including those affiliated with al Qaeda, fund their violence, in part, with profits from illegally trading ivory and rhino horns, according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Al Shabab, the extremist group that carried out an attack that left at least 148 dead at a Kenyan college this week, brings in between $200,000 and $600,000 a month from Ivory, alone, according to the Elephant Action League (EAL). “In effect, ivory serves as one of the lifelines of al Shabab, enabling it to maintain its grip over young soldiers,” reported, Andrea Crosta, the Executive Director of EAL. The negative impacts of poaching are arguably more vast than the African terrain, which is why those developing and supporting Air Shepherd believe the project is imperative. The Lindbergh Foundation has launched a crowd funding campaign to raise funds to field teams for the seven African countries that have indicated an interest of implementing this new capability. 151

Human-Elephant conflict mitigation Due to the growth in the human population, traditional habitat of both African and Asian elephants has been severely reduced. Confrontation between elephants searching for food and human farmers protecting their crops is an everyday occurence. Most of the time only crop or building damage results in these encounters, but all too frequently human and elephant deaths or injuries happen. Various methods have been tried to prevent elephants causing crop damage with varying rates of success. Keeping elephants away before they can cause damage is the ideal, but often relies upon an investment in equipment, such as trenches, fencing or electric deterents, which is beyond the resources of the small farmer. Other, more subtle methods have been used with bee hives and very prickly plants which exploit the elephant’s aversion to them and can divert the animals to less sensitive areas. As a last resort, shouting, banging of drums, fireworks and capsicum spray have been used as a defence. Now, a refined version has been added to the auditory arsenal. An attempt has been made to deter cropraiding elephants Elephas maximus by using playbacks of threatening vocalizations using felid growls and human shouts. For this purpose, two sound-playback systems were tested in southern India: a wireless, active infrared beam-triggered system to explore the effects of night-time uncertainty in elephants’ assessment of predatory threats and a passive infrared motion detectortriggered system for closer-range playbacks. Using the first system, 90% of cropraiding attempts using tiger Panthera tigris growls, 72.7% using leopard Panthera pardus growls and 57.1% using human shouts, with no statistically significant difference among the three sounds, were determined. Using the second system, playbacks of tiger and lion Panthera leo growls deterred 100% and 83.3% of cropraiding attempts respectively, with no statistically reliable difference between the two, although video evidence indicated that elephants were more fearful of tiger growls. Results indicate that playbacks of threatening sounds can be effective in mitigating human–elephant conflict, particularly in bolstering existing deterrent methods. Elephants are intelligent animals and have long memories. Experience will show if a combination of currently available deterents has any long-term effect. Getting elephants and humans to coexist is a prerequisite for the survival of the species. 152

International Zoo News Vol. 62. No. 2 (2015), pp. 153-159

CONSERVATION Ili pika Ochotona iliensis Native to a remote region of China, this tiny mammal, known as the Ili pika, doesn’t know it’s a member of an endangered species — and neither do most people. Rarer — and perhaps cuter– than the panda, there are less than 1,000 of these teddy bear-like creatures living in the Tianshan mountain range in the Xinjiang region of northwestern China, says conservationist Li Weidong. Li discovered the pika, formally known as Ochotona iliensis, in 1983 and named it after his hometown, Ili. Last July, Li spotted and photographed the elusive creature for the first time since the early 1990s. He estimates its numbers have declined by almost 70 percent since its discovery. “I discovered the species, and I watched as it became endangered,” he told CNN. “If it becomes extinct in front of me, I’ll feel so guilty.”

Photo: Li Weidong

153

In 2008, the animal was listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, but there’s no official organization or team dedicated to studying or protecting it, according to Li. The mammal, only 20 centimeters long, lives on sloping bare rock faces and feeds on grasses at high elevations. Li says the pika’s habitat has been affected by global warming. Due to rising temperatures, glaciers have receded and the altitude of permanent snow has risen in the Tianshan mountains, forcing the pikas to gradually retreat to mountain tops. Ili pikas were originally found at elevations between 3,200 to 3,400 meters, he said. Now they have retreated to elevations of 4,100 meters. “They have nowhere else to retreat,” he added. It’s also a solitary animal and is not as vocal as other pika species, so if predators are near, Ili pikas are not able to alert each other. In 1983, when Li first came across the mammal, nobody knew what it was. Two years later, Li found another two and it was declared a new species. In the decade following, Li and his colleagues conducted a number of studies, including a census at 14 different sites. However, in 1992, Li left Ili to work with Xinjiang Academy of Environmental Protection in the regional capital Urumqi. No studies were conducted on Ili pika in the following decade. No one saw the pika, either. In 2002 and 2003, Li, with a team of volunteers, conducted a fresh census. Despite spending 37 days searching the mountains for the pikas on seven separate trips, they came up empty handed. However, by analyzing droppings and snow tracks, Li, along with Arizona State University biologist Andrew Smith, was able to conclude that the Ili pika population had seen a dramatic decline. Together they calculated that there might be 2,000 mature animals, down from 2,900 in the early 1990s. The research, published in 2005, recommended that the animal should be listed as endangered. In 2007, Li retired early to throw himself into searching for the pika. Last year, he organized a group of 20 volunteers to conduct another survey with infrared cameras. This time, on the second day of the field trip, they finally spotted a pika, who jumped and stepped over Li’s feet while he was trying to photograph it. The volunteers dubbed it a “magic rabbit.” They concluded that there were fewer than 1,000 Ili pikas. “This tiny species could be extinct any time,” said Li. “They don’t exist in the sites where they used to be anymore.” Li funds the research with himself, along with donations and occasional grants from organizations like the World Wide Fund for Nature. He says he has spent more than $32,000 of his own money over the past three decades and he has to raise funds to pay for gas. But what upsets Li most isn’t the lack of funding. It’s the lack of official recognition for the Ili, and other pikas’ plight. The Ili pika isn’t included on China’s List of Wildlife under Special State Protection - the Department for Wildlife and Forest Plants Protection, under the Ministry of Forestry, said it was in the process of updating the list, but declined to 154

give any further details. Li and his volunteers have been calling for the establishment of a nature reserve to help protect the animal. “I’m almost 60, and soon I won’t be able to climb the Tianshan Mountains,” he said “So I really hope that an organization will have people study and protect the Ili Pika.”

Mexico In light of Mexico’s upcoming ban which will prevent animals from being used as performers in circuses, the country is now faced with the challenge of finding homes for over 2,000 tigers, elephants, giraffes, zebras and other exotic animals. Although the ban does not technically take effect until July 8th, many circuses, in the face of huge financial losses, have already shut their doors and are beginning the difficult task of relocating animals who, in many cases, were born and raised under big top tents and have no experience in natural habitats. While the legislation was undoubtedly made to protect animals from the cruelty that routinely occurs as a part of circus life and while it will certainly save the lives of thousands of exotic animals in the future, even the people who so passionately lobbied for this new law are worried about the fate of the animals currently owned by circuses in Mexico. At this point in time, circus owners and employees have little choice but to wait and see what government resources will be made available to them. “We are waiting for a response from the government about what will happen to our animals,” said the president of the national association of circus owners and artists, Armando Cedeno. To make matters even more dire, Cedeno estimates that the actual number of animals needing to be relocated is much higher than the government’s official estimate: possibly almost 4,000 rather than 2,000. Although many circus employees, like 45-year-old animal tamer Bruno Raffo, have come to love the animals in their charge, the cost of caring for these animals makes keeping them as non-performers impossible. Simply feeding the 13 tigers in his charge costs Raffo 3,000 pesos ($194) daily, and there are numerous other costs such as facilities and veterinary bills. “I’m going to stay here with the animals to see what can be done,” said Raffo, but he cannot feed and care for the animals much longer. While exotic animals across Mexico languish in their cages in the yards of closed circuses, government officials are rushing to evaluate facilities which could potentially house the displaced animals. However, zoo officials are less than thrilled with the proposed solution. According to Juan Arturo Rivera, Mexico City’s director or zoos and wildlife, it is “not feasible” for zoos to take in the onslaught of new animals who were raised in entirely different environments, while still maintaining safely and a high quality of care. Private zoos in Mexico have offered their help, but agree that the transition will be very challenging. 155

Mexican Wolf Population Survey 2014 The Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) has completed its annual year-end population survey, documenting a minimum of 109 Mexican wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico at the end of 2014. At the end of 2013, 83 wild wolves were counted. This is the fourth consecutive year with at least a 10 percent increase in the known population – a 31 percent increase in 2014.

Mexican grey wolves Canis lupus baileyi. Photo: FWS

“In 1982, the Mexican wolf recovery team recommended a population of at least 100 animals in the wild as a hedge against extinction; until we initiated the first releases in 1998, there had been no Mexican wolves in the wild in the United States since the 1970s,” said Southwest Regional Director Benjamin Tuggle. “Although there is still much to be done, reaching this milestone is monumental!” “This survey demonstrates a major accomplishment in Mexican wolf recovery. In 2010, there were 50 Mexican wolves in the wild; today there are 109, a more than doubling of the population in Arizona and New Mexico. With our Mexican wolf population consisting of wild-born wolves, we expect the growth rates observed this year to continue into the future. We have every reason to believe that our efforts at reintroduction will continue to be successful,” said Arizona Game and Fish Director Larry Voyles. 156

In spring of 2014, the Interagency Field Team (IFT) successfully implemented a field technique in which genetically valuable pups were transferred to a similarly aged litter of an established pack. During the count operation, the IFT captured one of the two pups that were placed in the established pack during 2014, which confirmed this “cross-fostering” technique as an additional method for the IFT to improve the genetics of the wild population. In addition, the IFT conducted 14 releases and translocations during 2014, some of which provide promise for the wild population’s genetic health in the future. “Testing and implementing new management techniques, such as cross-fostering, can help us improve the genetics of the wild population,” said Tuggle. The experimental population is growing – now our strategy is to focus on establishing a genetically robust population on a working landscape.” The results of the surveys reflect the end-of-year minimum population for 2014. Results come from population data collected on the ground by the IFT from November through December of 2014, as well as data collected from an aerial survey conducted in January and February 2015. This number is considered a minimum number of Mexican wolves known to exist in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, as other Mexican wolves may be present but uncounted during surveys. The aerial survey was conducted by a fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter. Biologists used radio- telemetry and actual sightings of wolves to help determine the count. The results from the aerial survey, coupled with the ground survey conducted by the IFT, confirmed that there are a total of 19 packs, with a minimum of 53 wolves in New Mexico and 56 wolves in Arizona. The current survey documented 14 packs that had at least one pup that survived through the end of the year, with two that had at least five surviving through the end of the year. The 2014 minimum population count includes 38 wild-born pups that survived through the end of the year. This is also considered a minimum known number since it might not reflect pups surviving but not documented.

FWS Press release Kasane, Botswana Heads of State, ministers and officials from 31 governments met in Kasaneto reaffirm their determination to scale up their response to the global poaching crisis and adopted crucial new measures to help tackle the unprecedented surge in illegal wildlife trade. “World governments demonstrated here in Kasane how they are turning the commitments in the London Declaration into tangible actions on the ground and strengthening their resolve to see the job through,” said Steven Broad, Executive Director of TRAFFIC. Important progress has been made, but the war against illegal wildlife trade will only be won if governments continue scaling up their efforts and working together to turn these commitments into concrete results. 157

Looming extinction of 15 animal species Climbing rats, seabirds and tropical gophers are among the 15 animal species that are at the absolute greatest risk of becoming extinct very soon. Expertise and money is needed to save them and other highly threatened species. A study (Conde, D. et al. 2015. Opportunities and costs for preventing vertebrate extinctions. Current Biology 25(6)) concludes that a subset of 841 endangered animal species can be saved, but only if conservation efforts are implemented immediately and with an investment of an estimated US $1.3 billion annually to ensure the species’ habitat protection and management. Researchers developed a “conservation opportunity index” using measurable indicators to quantify the possibility of achieving successful conservation. To estimate the opportunities to conserve these species the researchers considered: 1. Opportunities of protecting its remaining habitats, which are restricted to single sites. Important factors are costs, political stability, and probability of urbanization. 2. The possibility to establish protected insurance populations in zoos: Important factors are costs and breeding expertise. They computed the cost of, and opportunities for, conserving 841 species of mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians listed by the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) as restricted to single sites and categorized as Endangered or Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List. While the study indicated that 39% of the species scored high for conservation opportunities, it also showed that at least 15 AZE species are in imminent danger of extinction given their low conservation opportunity index. The 15 species with the lowest chances for survival in the wild and in zoos are: Amphibians: 1. Bay Lycian salamander Lyciasalamandra billae, Turkey. 2. Perereca Bokermannohyla izecksohni, Brazil. 3. Campo Grande tree frog Hypsiboas dulcimer, Brazil. 4. Santa Cruz dwarf frog Physalaemus soaresi, Brazil. 5. Zorro bubble-nest frog Pseudophilautus zorro, Sri Lanka. 6. Allobates juanii, Colombia. Birds: 1. Ash’s lark Mirafra ashi, Somalia. 2. Tahiti monarch Pomarea nigra, French Polynesia. 3. Zino’s petrel Pterodroma madeira, Madeira. 4. Mascarene petrel Pseudobulweria aterrima, Reunion Island. 5. Wilkins’s finch Nesospiza wilkinsi, Tristan da Cunha. 6. Amsterdam albatross Diomedea amsterdamensis, Amsterdam Island.

158

Mammals: 1. Mount Lefo brush-furred mouse Lophuromys eisentrauti, Cameroon. 2. Chiapan climbing rat Tylomys bullaris, Mexico. 3. Tropical pocket gopher Geomys tropicalis. Mexico Their low chance for survival is due to at least two of the following factors: High probability of its habitat becoming urbanized Political instability in the site High costs of habitat protection and management. The opportunity of establishing an insurance population in zoos for these 15 species is low, due to high costs or lack of breeding expertise for the species.

Tropical pocket gopher

Bay Lycian salamander

Tahiti monarch

Wilkin’s finch

“Although the cost seems high, safeguarding these species is essential if we want to reduce the extinction rate by 2020,” said Prof. Hugh Possingham from The University of Queensland, adding: “When compared to global government spending on other sectors - e.g., US defense spending, which is more than 500 times greater -, an investment in protecting high biodiversity value sites is minor.” Prof. John E. Fa said, “Our exercise gives us hope for saving many highly endangered species from extinction, but actions need to be taken immediately and, for species restricted to one area an integrative conservation approach is needed.” 159

Notes for contributors The editor welcomes original contributions, of any length, from feature articles to short news items. Although we are unable to pay for articles, every author will receive two free copies of the issue in which the article appears. These may be submitted in paper form, on CD/DVD disk or by e-mail as attachments, preferably in .DOC, .RTF or .ODT format. Contributions should be accompanied by colour and/or black & white photographs, figures and tables where appropriate. Illustrations may be either as hard copy photographs or in digital form (.tif and .jpg are preferred), but slides are acceptable if they have strong tone contrasts which make them suitable for reproduction. When drawing up figures and tables, contributors should bear in mind the limitations of the IZN format which rests on A5. The general style of articles should follow the examples in the printed issues and the advice for contributors on our web site http://www.izn.org.uk/. Times New Roman is the preferred font. The editor reserves the right to alter material without prior consultation; where major changes have been made, the revised texts will be sent to authors for their approval before publication. The copyright of all original material published becomes the property of IZN unless otherwise arranged.

Source Material IZN depends for much of its material on the generous cooperation of its readers; approximately half the contents of every issue is reprinted from zoo publications sent to us from around the world. At present, however, we receive nothing from many subscribing institutions. We will be grateful to any zoos or aquariums who add IZN to their mailing lists for newsletters, annual reports and other publications, and in return we will, wherever possible, transmit their significant news to our readers.

Translations Many important zoo articles are published in languages other than English. The editor is always grateful for offers to translate foreign material for publication in IZN. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of all material published in IZN, the editor can take no responsibility for any remaining errors. Opinions expressed by contributors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher or the editor.

All original material in International Zoo News is copyright throughout the world. However, items may be reprinted providing they are credited to this publication and a copy of the reprinted material is forwarded to the editor. ® 2015 International Zoo News ISSN 0020–9155 Printed by: Schüling Verlag, Falkenhorst 4, D-48155 Münster, Germany