Just had a read up on Bruny island! I hadn’t realised the prevalence in a native setting anywhere to that extent. The gene is a recessive gene, so both parents need to provide it to a youngster in order to display the colour pattern. I guess the limited gene pool in an isolated population of an island has led to it being more common! Thanks for the new information. Once I’m on my laptop I’ll pin this comment👍
@@zooblether They’re also quite common on mainland Tasmania as well as the actual mainland of Australia, though no where near as common as the islands off the east coast of Tassie such as Maria and Bruny (esp Bruny).
@@boglenight1551You don’t need an island for genetic isolation. Genetic isolation can easily occur on the mainland, because of reduced population numbers or genetic barriers limiting gene flow between subpopulations. Anyway if you would look at the genotypes of those subpopulations you would probably see that the amount of homozygotes is way more than expected, of which you can conclude that their is genetic drift and inbreeding at play.
@@m.meersman2886 Hey Meersman, I never once said that islands are the only regions of genetic isolation. I stated that white bennett’s wallabies are somewhat common ‘in the wild’. Your statements, while accurate, are irrelevant to this discussion.
@@boglenight1551 Neither did I say that you said that. I simply mentioned a possible explanation for low genetic diversity on the mainland, considering that genetic isolation is logical for most island populations. Your observation just lacked any background information, so I supposed you wanted more information about the subject.
One recent effort that zoos have managed to accomplish, together with conservation organisations, is to restore the population of Scimitar Oryx from "Extinct in the wild" to Endangered
This was a really interesting topic to think about! I've always known that rare morphs of animals are a big draw to zoo visitors because of how unique the animal is, even if it's just an albino rabbit as an example. But even if an animal was endangered or worse, it didn't really bring the wowing experience of something truly unique. I believe that maybe zoos should focus on a mix between local wildlife (so that way people can learn about their own ecosystems) and wildlife that isn't common or seen typically by people, even if its not endangered. Ideally then people learn how cool their own wildlife is and learn about wildlife in other areas Edit: I will say that I am ok with morphs or rare forms of animals that wouldn't be typically seen in the wild because they normally wouldn't survive in the wild. It's a good example animal to teach people about genetics and natural selection or selective breeding (depending on how they got the animal). They probably only need a handful of animals to achieve that lesson, but reptiles or birds can be good fits for this.
I feel this is more an issue that should be handled on EAZA or WAZA level. Which probably have the best overview which animals are underrepresented in the breeding programs and can encourage zoos to shelter those. Though there will always be the typical tigers, bears, snakes and such. They are the most popular animals and bring in the most money and attention for the plight of their wild counterparts. By becoming essentially the ambassadors of their habitat, they help conserve not only their own species but also the thousands of wild animals they share their habitat with that aren't cute enough for a poster. Which ultimately is going to matter much more in the long run than the animals in the zoos themselves. Visiting lots of zoos regularly. I am not to bothered that pretty much all of them have tigers. Each tiger has his own character and its fun to get to know them as individuals. Some are pranksters, love to pose or interact with the people or other tigers, while others are more reserved and calm. They have favourite and unfavourite spots, routines or foods. Some love to swim, while others hate getting wet. Offcource variety is nice and I am thrilled when the zoo adds an animal I never saw. But there is just a a deeper understanding of a species you can only get by comparison. As for white tigers. They are currently allowed to go extinct. If you see them in a respectable zoo at all its usually some rescued tiger that is allowed to spend its life. There should be no breeding. Atleast not in a EAZA connected zoo.
Thanks for the detailed comment. Absolutely eaza and global equivalents make these sorts of recommendations! Taxon advisory groups (TAGs) consisting of experts in their respective taxa guide and advise the collaborative work being done. You may have noticed over the course of several years multiple collections suddenly holding the same species, and this is sometimes due to advice from the TAGs to phase out or in different species. I believe the EAZA stance on recessive traits, colouration or otherwise, is to not select for it through breeding, but ultimately through rescue or otherwise there are still plenty of examples. The various zoo bodies are typically membership bodies rather than legal governing bodies and as such, they don’t necessarily have any enforcement ability other than sanctions or removal of the benefits associated with membership. A lot of the guidance or direction that they strive for is therefore reliant on zoos engaging with it positively, which typically most of course do.
Unfortunately, space is limited in zoos. And the space we have isn't used to the best of its ability. While I have nothing against, say, Chilean flamingos, there isn't a need to keeping over 1,500 individuals in AZA zoos. Certainly some of that space could be better allocated to species that are struggling in zoos specifically due to the lack of space! In the cases of these very common zoo animals, regardless of IUCN status, I'd love to see the AZA, EAZA, etc. place population maximums so as they don't crowd out other species. And while I picked on Chilean flamingos in this post- it's far from the only species I feel this way about.
Hey Neil, this is something which the TAGs do to some extent within EAZA. While not capping numbers outright they do identify similar species/housing requirements, and advise to phase out certain species in favour of others. You can see TAG reports online which will basically state species X needs better representation and these species are overrepresented. They’ll then work with zoos to prioritise species most important moving forwards in terms of identify suitable holders.
@@zooblether glad to hear the EAZA does that. I'm more on the AZA side of things, and the AZA TAGs don't really discourage zoos from housing overrepresented species, and in some cases set target population sizes that I'd argue are a lot higher than they should be.
Crazy how zoos and economic pressures function as selection for the inheritance of traits. In a way whole ecologies are having their evolution directed by pressures from the industry of exhibiting animals, ranging from their capture from wild populations, their interactions with wild conservation efforts to the public perception. I think whatever direction zoos should take needs to take this impact into consideration.
I recently visited West Midlands Safari Park in the UK and got a VIP tour. They're the only zoo in the UK as far as I'm aware of that have white tigers and lions. This is fine but the way they brand these animals is terrible. There wasn't any signage or educational content for the cats that would allow you to tell what species of leucistic cat i was looking at. All signs just described the cats as "White lion" or "White tiger." The tour guide through the safari was very new with him admitting it was his third week and his first job at an animal collection which is fine, he had trouble identifying the African hoof stock but he managed and gave us good background on some individuals but nothing on the species as a whole. When we got to the white lion enclosure, which is driven through on the drive-thru safari, he started spewing loads of bollocks about how European zoos have banned the breeding of this incredibly rare species of lion and they're going to go extinct and there's already no white lions in the wild anymore and i was utterly baffled. I felt like I had been teleported into a USA roadside zoo not a BIAZA affiliated organisation i couldn't believe what i was hearing. Now i am studying for my zoology bachelor's and I'm familiar with big cat taxonomy so i knew these were the ramblings of a man trying to fill the silence while looking at the lions. For the other guests who are not zoologists i'd imagine they'd leave caring a lot more about the made up conservation efforts of an inbred unfit cat than any BIAZA affiliation should have their visitors leave as..
Technically no, great white sharks included. An animal whose range goes from the size of California to half the entire globe shouldn't be in captivity.
At some point I’d love to sit down with someone who knows about orcas. It’s obviously such a contentious topic, exacerbated by the fact that so few places hold them. For the species I have cared for I understand much of the behavioural, social and physical requirements for good welfare, as well as any challenges in providing for them. Having never worked with orcas, or researched them at any length my knowledge is limited. Factors like health, natural range size, social groupings which grab the headlines of orca discussions are factors which I have faced with the species in my care, and they can definitely impact welfare. I believe the current situation in Europe and the US, and feel free to correct me, is a total ban on breeding. So what’s fundamentally more important now is caring for those captive individuals. If there are any orca people here please send me an email!
That’s a good question. I can certainly think of examples where that was the intention in zoos. But much like the “rare white tiger” symbolism I’m not sure if that was a selling point or a genuine conservation effort. I’m not too clued up on black panthers. I know I read at some point about Melanism being perceived as beneficial in a jungle environment. So I’d need to understand more about the prevalence in the wild vs captivity to know what the comparison is like. I believe they’re the same species, and can’t think of other examples with two different phenotypes being the norm, but that’s not to say it isn’t.
Arguably they should be able to do both. There’s a lot of positive impact which can come from people looking at and appreciating a carefully curated animal collection.
I don’t think it’s necessary for zoos to have these endangered animals because the species of animals do not make for a good zoo. Of course sometimes it’s nice to see a tiger or a lion, but I feel that they are simply so popular that I don’t get much educational or entertainment value. Plus these animals tend to be expensive and difficult to keep in captivity. I’ve really enjoyed small animal zoos and aquariums many of which hold relatively “common” local animals because it really is impactful on my relationship with conservation. Many of these small animals are understudied and some of the first to be captive bred, and seeing an animal close to home makes me more concerned about the wild populations. Great video!
Those are certainly some good points. Local impact is I’m sure much more relatable for many visitors! The limitations of a small zoo often determine some of the animals you can’t hold, which sometimes leads to some really interesting and diverse collections.
Haha, no not on purpose as such, I did try and hide it under a lemur at one point. The truth is, I’m a mere zoologist, not a cartographer, so never bothered to add it! All the animation/cartoons I make myself, but I used a stock map in an early video and just never fixed it! 🌍🤣
No, that’s not what I meant at all! Endangered species, or EW species for that matter absolutely have a place on zoos. There are however limited funds, space and facilities. The greatest impact possible in the next few human generations is a collaborative effort between zoos and in-situ conservationists Etc. to have real impact on species and habitats. Locally rare, rare alleles and common in the wild but unique in captivity species may serve a purpose for an individual collection, but should not be a priority for the zoo industry, and visitors should be well educated about the importance of “less exciting to look at” little brown birds with the potential to be released back into their native habitat. P horses fit that mould too. My understanding is they went extinct or near extinct in the wild before a small population was captured for zoos. Through careful collaboration to mitigate for genetic bottlenecks the population bred successfully in captivity and is now not only a sustainable captive population, but also multiple release sights. Importantly in the scope of this video, they were not only rare in the captive sense, but also endangered in the wild.
Friendly note: white bennets wallabies do regularly occur in the wild, on some islands they actually out number the common colouration
Just had a read up on Bruny island! I hadn’t realised the prevalence in a native setting anywhere to that extent. The gene is a recessive gene, so both parents need to provide it to a youngster in order to display the colour pattern. I guess the limited gene pool in an isolated population of an island has led to it being more common! Thanks for the new information. Once I’m on my laptop I’ll pin this comment👍
@@zooblether
They’re also quite common on mainland Tasmania as well as the actual mainland of Australia, though no where near as common as the islands off the east coast of Tassie such as Maria and Bruny (esp Bruny).
@@boglenight1551You don’t need an island for genetic isolation. Genetic isolation can easily occur on the mainland, because of reduced population numbers or genetic barriers limiting gene flow between subpopulations. Anyway if you would look at the genotypes of those subpopulations you would probably see that the amount of homozygotes is way more than expected, of which you can conclude that their is genetic drift and inbreeding at play.
@@m.meersman2886
Hey Meersman, I never once said that islands are the only regions of genetic isolation. I stated that white bennett’s wallabies are somewhat common ‘in the wild’. Your statements, while accurate, are irrelevant to this discussion.
@@boglenight1551
Neither did I say that you said that. I simply mentioned a possible explanation for low genetic diversity on the mainland, considering that genetic isolation is logical for most island populations.
Your observation just lacked any background information, so I supposed you wanted more information about the subject.
One recent effort that zoos have managed to accomplish, together with conservation organisations, is to restore the population of Scimitar Oryx from "Extinct in the wild" to Endangered
Planet Zoo Franchise Mode players mass breeding rare morphs for CC: *nervous sweating*
Endangered animals should be kept, Rare animals should be looked after (Not really to be in zoos) That’s what I think.
This was a really interesting topic to think about! I've always known that rare morphs of animals are a big draw to zoo visitors because of how unique the animal is, even if it's just an albino rabbit as an example. But even if an animal was endangered or worse, it didn't really bring the wowing experience of something truly unique. I believe that maybe zoos should focus on a mix between local wildlife (so that way people can learn about their own ecosystems) and wildlife that isn't common or seen typically by people, even if its not endangered. Ideally then people learn how cool their own wildlife is and learn about wildlife in other areas
Edit: I will say that I am ok with morphs or rare forms of animals that wouldn't be typically seen in the wild because they normally wouldn't survive in the wild. It's a good example animal to teach people about genetics and natural selection or selective breeding (depending on how they got the animal). They probably only need a handful of animals to achieve that lesson, but reptiles or birds can be good fits for this.
Yeah local wildlife is a really good shout, and arguably allows visitors to take many of those lessons home with them into the surrounding area.
I feel this is more an issue that should be handled on EAZA or WAZA level. Which probably have the best overview which animals are underrepresented in the breeding programs and can encourage zoos to shelter those.
Though there will always be the typical tigers, bears, snakes and such. They are the most popular animals and bring in the most money and attention for the plight of their wild counterparts. By becoming essentially the ambassadors of their habitat, they help conserve not only their own species but also the thousands of wild animals they share their habitat with that aren't cute enough for a poster. Which ultimately is going to matter much more in the long run than the animals in the zoos themselves.
Visiting lots of zoos regularly. I am not to bothered that pretty much all of them have tigers. Each tiger has his own character and its fun to get to know them as individuals. Some are pranksters, love to pose or interact with the people or other tigers, while others are more reserved and calm. They have favourite and unfavourite spots, routines or foods. Some love to swim, while others hate getting wet. Offcource variety is nice and I am thrilled when the zoo adds an animal I never saw. But there is just a a deeper understanding of a species you can only get by comparison.
As for white tigers. They are currently allowed to go extinct. If you see them in a respectable zoo at all its usually some rescued tiger that is allowed to spend its life. There should be no breeding. Atleast not in a EAZA connected zoo.
Thanks for the detailed comment. Absolutely eaza and global equivalents make these sorts of recommendations! Taxon advisory groups (TAGs) consisting of experts in their respective taxa guide and advise the collaborative work being done.
You may have noticed over the course of several years multiple collections suddenly holding the same species, and this is sometimes due to advice from the TAGs to phase out or in different species.
I believe the EAZA stance on recessive traits, colouration or otherwise, is to not select for it through breeding, but ultimately through rescue or otherwise there are still plenty of examples.
The various zoo bodies are typically membership bodies rather than legal governing bodies and as such, they don’t necessarily have any enforcement ability other than sanctions or removal of the benefits associated with membership. A lot of the guidance or direction that they strive for is therefore reliant on zoos engaging with it positively, which typically most of course do.
I love your videos so much! This was very interesting and well put together.
Hey Sparrow, thanks again for your kind comment, glad you enjoyed it!
Unfortunately, space is limited in zoos. And the space we have isn't used to the best of its ability. While I have nothing against, say, Chilean flamingos, there isn't a need to keeping over 1,500 individuals in AZA zoos. Certainly some of that space could be better allocated to species that are struggling in zoos specifically due to the lack of space! In the cases of these very common zoo animals, regardless of IUCN status, I'd love to see the AZA, EAZA, etc. place population maximums so as they don't crowd out other species. And while I picked on Chilean flamingos in this post- it's far from the only species I feel this way about.
Hey Neil, this is something which the TAGs do to some extent within EAZA. While not capping numbers outright they do identify similar species/housing requirements, and advise to phase out certain species in favour of others. You can see TAG reports online which will basically state species X needs better representation and these species are overrepresented. They’ll then work with zoos to prioritise species most important moving forwards in terms of identify suitable holders.
@@zooblether glad to hear the EAZA does that. I'm more on the AZA side of things, and the AZA TAGs don't really discourage zoos from housing overrepresented species, and in some cases set target population sizes that I'd argue are a lot higher than they should be.
Crazy how zoos and economic pressures function as selection for the inheritance of traits. In a way whole ecologies are having their evolution directed by pressures from the industry of exhibiting animals, ranging from their capture from wild populations, their interactions with wild conservation efforts to the public perception. I think whatever direction zoos should take needs to take this impact into consideration.
I recently visited West Midlands Safari Park in the UK and got a VIP tour. They're the only zoo in the UK as far as I'm aware of that have white tigers and lions. This is fine but the way they brand these animals is terrible. There wasn't any signage or educational content for the cats that would allow you to tell what species of leucistic cat i was looking at. All signs just described the cats as "White lion" or "White tiger." The tour guide through the safari was very new with him admitting it was his third week and his first job at an animal collection which is fine, he had trouble identifying the African hoof stock but he managed and gave us good background on some individuals but nothing on the species as a whole. When we got to the white lion enclosure, which is driven through on the drive-thru safari, he started spewing loads of bollocks about how European zoos have banned the breeding of this incredibly rare species of lion and they're going to go extinct and there's already no white lions in the wild anymore and i was utterly baffled. I felt like I had been teleported into a USA roadside zoo not a BIAZA affiliated organisation i couldn't believe what i was hearing. Now i am studying for my zoology bachelor's and I'm familiar with big cat taxonomy so i knew these were the ramblings of a man trying to fill the silence while looking at the lions. For the other guests who are not zoologists i'd imagine they'd leave caring a lot more about the made up conservation efforts of an inbred unfit cat than any BIAZA affiliation should have their visitors leave as..
Is it okay to keep orcas in captivity?
Technically no, great white sharks included.
An animal whose range goes from the size of California to half the entire globe shouldn't be in captivity.
No, it's not morally okay, but ethically, kind of.
At some point I’d love to sit down with someone who knows about orcas. It’s obviously such a contentious topic, exacerbated by the fact that so few places hold them. For the species I have cared for I understand much of the behavioural, social and physical requirements for good welfare, as well as any challenges in providing for them.
Having never worked with orcas, or researched them at any length my knowledge is limited. Factors like health, natural range size, social groupings which grab the headlines of orca discussions are factors which I have faced with the species in my care, and they can definitely impact welfare.
I believe the current situation in Europe and the US, and feel free to correct me, is a total ban on breeding. So what’s fundamentally more important now is caring for those captive individuals.
If there are any orca people here please send me an email!
What about melanism? Are dark coloured animals like black panthers selected for like white animals are?
That’s a good question. I can certainly think of examples where that was the intention in zoos. But much like the “rare white tiger” symbolism I’m not sure if that was a selling point or a genuine conservation effort. I’m not too clued up on black panthers. I know I read at some point about Melanism being perceived as beneficial in a jungle environment. So I’d need to understand more about the prevalence in the wild vs captivity to know what the comparison is like. I believe they’re the same species, and can’t think of other examples with two different phenotypes being the norm, but that’s not to say it isn’t.
Love your videos so much ❤
Appreciate that a lot! Thanks
What zoo did you use to work at?
i think zoos should try too conserve and rescue animals instead of just keeping them for people to look at
Arguably they should be able to do both. There’s a lot of positive impact which can come from people looking at and appreciating a carefully curated animal collection.
@@zooblether I totally agree and zoos should also teach people about the animals and bring awareness to endangered species and how they can help them
I don’t think it’s necessary for zoos to have these endangered animals because the species of animals do not make for a good zoo. Of course sometimes it’s nice to see a tiger or a lion, but I feel that they are simply so popular that I don’t get much educational or entertainment value. Plus these animals tend to be expensive and difficult to keep in captivity. I’ve really enjoyed small animal zoos and aquariums many of which hold relatively “common” local animals because it really is impactful on my relationship with conservation. Many of these small animals are understudied and some of the first to be captive bred, and seeing an animal close to home makes me more concerned about the wild populations. Great video!
Those are certainly some good points. Local impact is I’m sure much more relatable for many visitors! The limitations of a small zoo often determine some of the animals you can’t hold, which sometimes leads to some really interesting and diverse collections.
@ Zoo Blether all of your maps doesnt show england and ireland. is that on purpose?
Haha, no not on purpose as such, I did try and hide it under a lemur at one point. The truth is, I’m a mere zoologist, not a cartographer, so never bothered to add it! All the animation/cartoons I make myself, but I used a stock map in an early video and just never fixed it! 🌍🤣
@@zooblether keep it, make a joke something like that on the channel
You’ll have to keep an eye now!
3:10 And you've just went gainst EVOLUTION. Random, genetic mutations are just that, it isn't evolution, evolution requires the ADDING of new DNA.
Not sure what you mean. New DNA from where?
Endangered animals should be kept but efforts should be made to make holistic conservation plans
Absolutely! The one Plan approach aims to both guide captive management and lead on in-situ impact.
IF your video had its way the Przewalski's horse would have gone extinct entirely.
No, that’s not what I meant at all! Endangered species, or EW species for that matter absolutely have a place on zoos. There are however limited funds, space and facilities. The greatest impact possible in the next few human generations is a collaborative effort between zoos and in-situ conservationists Etc. to have real impact on species and habitats.
Locally rare, rare alleles and common in the wild but unique in captivity species may serve a purpose for an individual collection, but should not be a priority for the zoo industry, and visitors should be well educated about the importance of “less exciting to look at” little brown birds with the potential to be released back into their native habitat.
P horses fit that mould too. My understanding is they went extinct or near extinct in the wild before a small population was captured for zoos. Through careful collaboration to mitigate for genetic bottlenecks the population bred successfully in captivity and is now not only a sustainable captive population, but also multiple release sights. Importantly in the scope of this video, they were not only rare in the captive sense, but also endangered in the wild.