Yesterday's Zoo

A little after-note to my conservation memorial post from the other day... if we want the next generation to appreciate conservation, it never hurts to start at an early age!  I found this (not sure why it won't let me post the actual video, here's the link below).  The last Carolina parakeet died in a zoo.  So did the last quagga, the last passenger pigeon, and the last thylacine.  I hope that in the future we are able to keep animals in the wild, or failing that, in zoos... and out of natural history museums.

Yesterday's Zoo

The Conservationists' Memorial

Today would be the 107th birthday of the American naturalist Rachel Carson.  Carson is best known for her 1962 book Silent Spring, an expose of the impact of pesticide use on the environment.  She is credited with helping to call attention to the disappearance of many bird species across the country, resulting in the ban of the pesticide DDT.  She's easily one of the most famous environmentalists of all time.

I found out it was her birthday through a Google doodle - pure chance.  I wonder how many people will go to Google today, curiously scroll their mouse over the doodle, and say "Rachel who?"

It's a sad fact, but we typically don't appreciate conservationists in this country.  Anyone who shows what is perceived to be excessive interest in conservation of the natural world is derided as a tree-hugger or an anti-business, out-of-touch whack-job, likely with communist inclinations.  That there is something vaguely sinister about wanting to protect nature.

It's not just that some people don't want to support environmental causes.  It's that they don't want anyone to.  Example? Sure...

I was trying to raise money for a conservation project a year or so ago; to that end, we were selling some merchandise in our gift shop that was ear-marked, with the proceeds going to conservation projects in South America.  A visitor was looking at one of those items with some interest, but when I mentioned what the money would be going towards (I never thought of saving the Amazon as controversial), she was disgusted.

Why spend money abroad when it could be used here?  Well, I told her that she had a point, and rattled off a few local environmental causes she could support if she wanted.  What, and give money for animals when actual human beings were impoverished and sick and needy?  Well, that's good point, I replied, there are always food banks and soup kitchens that need support.  She looked at me like I was crazy.  What, give my hard-earned money to slackers and bums?

The conversation ended at this point...

The moral of the story: people who lack empathy for the environment tend to lack empathy for people as well.  End of tangent...

I spend a lot of time in Washington, DC, and a major part of any visit to the District is seeing the monuments.  I'm not just talking about the Lincoln and the Jefferson and the other giant memorials - I mean the hundreds of small statues and plaques tucked into parks and squares, hidden behind buildings or guarding a courtyard. It seems like every time I visit, I see a new statue that I have to go over and examine, then go home and Wikipedia to figure out who the heck that was I saw, and why they needed a statue (in case you were wondering, Samuel Hahnemann originated the medical school of homeopathy).  There are statues to generals and politicians and human rights activists galore, as well as to some folks who I'm still not quite sure of.

I don't think there is a single monument dedicated to a conservationist (unless you count Teddy Roosevelt... and that's not really why he got one).  I'd love to change that - maybe a Rachel Carson Memorial, somewhere where wild birds abound, or a William T. Hornaday Memorial, in Rock Creek Park, near the zoo that he founded.  There are a lot of heroes of American conservation.  It would be wonderful to share their stories with the world.

Ideally, an interest in the past breeds action for the future.  There are plenty of great conservationists active in the field, the lecture hall, or the laboratory today, people who are working to save wild animals and the habitats the support them around the world.  There are great role models ready to inspire the next generation to action.  There are already plenty of terrible role models out there today.  It wouldn't hurt to steer kids towards someone whose goal in life wasn't to get famous or make a boatload of money, but someone who actually wanted to save the world.

As far as I know, there is no Hornaday Memorial - at least not one in granite or marble.  Instead, his memorials are the herds of bison that still roam the western US and Canada.  Likewise, I suppose the Rachel Carson Memorial is the one that you hear outside your window every spring day - the song of birds that are still with us because someone decided that they were worth saving.

RIP Dr. Murray Fowler

This week saw the passing of Dr. Murray E. Fowler, formerly of the Sacramento Zoological Society.  Dr. Fowler is best known in the zoo community as the man who literally wrote the book on veterinary medicine in zoological parks - I don't think I've ever seen a zoo, sanctuary, or other wildlife facility that doesn't have a copy of his Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine tucked onto a shelf within arm reach of the vet and curator.

We know a lot less about the medical care of most zoo animals than we do about ourselves... or our domestic animals.  Veterinary care of zoo animals has been largely trial and error.  Part of it was using domestic animals as comparative models - domestic dogs for wolves and other wild canines, cattle for antelope, humans for other primates.  A lot of it has been dumb luck and trial and error. 

That, I'm sure, is how human medicine developed - trial, error, and dumb luck.  What helped zoo medicine develop, however, was that dedicated professionals like Dr. Fowler were willing to compile the known data, research what wasn't known, and spread the knowledge, so that vets at zoos around the world could stop reinventing the wheel and starting building off of each others' knowledge and experiences.  This has lead to increasingly better care for zoo animals (to the point where old age is the most common cause of death for many popular zoo species).  The entire zoo community owes Dr. Fowler a tremendous amount of gratitude, and condolences to his family.

From the News: Polar bear selfie lands Toronto students in hot water

Polar bear selfie lands Toronto students in hot water

Dear Zoo Visitors,

Welcome to the zoo!  We hope that you enjoy yourself, but also remember to follow all rules that are in place for your safety and that of the animals.  If you feel the need to violate zoo rules, at the very least don't post a video evidence of it on the Internet.  Because we will find it... and come for you.  That is all,

You Pals,

The Zookeepers

Polar Bears International

Polar Bears International

In an era of hyper-partisanship and politicization, there are few issues more hotly (pun unintended) contested than global climate change (sometimes referred to - inaccurately - as global warming).  Though climate change has the potential to impact the survival of countless species, from insects to elephants, it is most closely associated with those that inhabit the polar ice caps.  It's no surprise, then, that the poster child for the debate is the arctic's most iconic animal - the polar bear.

Polar Bears International (PBI) is, in its own words, "the world's leading polar bear conservation group."  FIfty years ago, when sport hunting was the leading threat to polar bears, that would probably have seemed like a pretty manageable goal.  Today it's one of the greatest conservation challenges imaginable.  Polar bears are primarily threatened by the loss of the sea ice upon which they depend for survival.  The challenges that polar bears face are caused not by a few hunters with snowmobiles and guns, but by billions of people using up the limited resources of a strained planet.  Many of those people live thousands of miles away from any wild polar bears, or will never see one in a zoo.  The threats are made increasingly complex and involved by the interplay of politics, economics, and cultural differences.  Saving polar bears will also be equally complex and involved.

With that in mind, PBI has a multifaceted approach to saving polar bears.  It closely monitors polar bear populations and studies reproduction and demography of wild polar bears.  It attempts to gain more knowledge of the basic biology of polar bears, especially studying how they react to environmental stressors.    It has a vigorous educational outreach campaign.  It also promotes activities that will help slow the impact of global change, such as the promotion of green technologies and lifestyles, and the planting of trees (a campaign which many zoos participate in).  PBI recognizes the value that zoos and aquariums play in conserving polar bears, and partners with "Arctic Ambassadors" to educate and inspire the public.  Zoo polar bears are also used to provide data for PBI research, providing biological samples (blood, feces, etc) that can be difficult to obtain from wild bears.

Polar bears are amazing animals - massive, powerful, silent, fierce, and superbly adapted to their natural habitat.  As adaptable as they are, however, they cannot hope to cope with the rapidly-changing, human-modified world which we are forcing upon them.  If polar bears are to have a future, it won't be by accident; it will be because people around the world were willing to educate themselves and make lifestyle choices to help save one of our planet's most iconic predators... and a whole lot of other species as well.

The Quiet Zoo Revolution, by Jeremy Hance

I always feel really lazy when I just link someone else's article to the blog, but man, this one just knocked me out.  I've always been a firm believer in what zoos and aquariums can do - and should do - for wildlife conservation.  It's always struck me, however, that most facilities just aren't doing enough, with a few institutions (read: a few people at those institutions) carrying most of the weight.  Anyway, a wonderful article, highly recommended...

The Quiet Zoo Revolution, by Jeremy Hance

How the world's best zoos are working to save biodiversity in an age of extinction

What is a zoo? Is it a place of entertainment or education? Of cages or conservation? Beginning around the mid-Twentieth Century, zoos and aquariums underwent a revolution of sorts: they began to see their animals less as captives and more as charges, while viewing their role within the community as increasingly educational. Many abolished barred cages for larger and more natural-looking pens, added enrichment activities to keep animals engaged, and began to take education more seriously, especially as the realization of a biodiversity crisis began to permeate the public consciousness. This revolution in zoos has been well-documented. But a quieter revolution in zoos has also been occurring over just the past twenty-five years. Rather than just stand by the sidelines as species vanish in the wild, more and more zoos have begun funding on-the-ground conservation efforts, some even going so far as launching their own conservation programs. While this revolution has been less visible than spruced-up pens and educational outreach, it signals a widening realization by zoos of the positive—and wholly unique—role they could play in combatting global mass extinction. But the question remains: are zoos doing enough? 

Read the rest of the article here.

Tiger meets human at the Minnesota Zoo. Physical spaces where people can easily encounter and connect with wild species, zoos and aquariums are unique institutions. Yet in an age of environmental crises, are they doing enough to save species from extinction? Photo by: Tara Harris
Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0519-hance-zoo-revolution.html#32jEKeLbxrMj6pcZ.99

Tiger meets human at the Minnesota Zoo. Physical spaces where people can easily encounter and connect with wild species, zoos and aquariums are unique institutions. Yet in an age of environmental crises, are they doing enough to save species from extinction? Photo by: Tara Harris
Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0519-hance-zoo-revolution.html#32jEKeLbxrMj6pcZ.99

Photo by Tara Harris

Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0519-hance-zoo-revolution.html#32jEKeLbxrMj6pcZ.99

What is a zoo? Is it a place of entertainment or education? Of cages or conservation? Beginning around the mid-Twentieth Century, zoos and aquariums underwent a revolution of sorts: they began to see their animals less as captives and more as charges, while viewing their role within the community as increasingly educational. Many abolished barred cages for larger and more natural-looking pens, added enrichment activities to keep animals engaged, and began to take education more seriously, especially as the realization of a biodiversity crisis began to permeate the public consciousness. This revolution in zoos has been well-documented. But a quieter revolution in zoos has also been occurring over just the past twenty-five years. Rather than just stand by the sidelines as species vanish in the wild, more and more zoos have begun funding on-the-ground conservation efforts, some even going so far as launching their own conservation programs. While this revolution has been less visible than spruced-up pens and educational outreach, it signals a widening realization by zoos of the positive—and wholly unique—role they could play in combatting global mass extinction. But the question remains: are zoos doing enough?
Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0519-hance-zoo-revolution.html#32jEKeLbxrMj6pcZ.99

What is a zoo? Is it a place of entertainment or education? Of cages or conservation? Beginning around the mid-Twentieth Century, zoos and aquariums underwent a revolution of sorts: they began to see their animals less as captives and more as charges, while viewing their role within the community as increasingly educational. Many abolished barred cages for larger and more natural-looking pens, added enrichment activities to keep animals engaged, and began to take education more seriously, especially as the realization of a biodiversity crisis began to permeate the public consciousness. This revolution in zoos has been well-documented. But a quieter revolution in zoos has also been occurring over just the past twenty-five years. Rather than just stand by the sidelines as species vanish in the wild, more and more zoos have begun funding on-the-ground conservation efforts, some even going so far as launching their own conservation programs. While this revolution has been less visible than spruced-up pens and educational outreach, it signals a widening realization by zoos of the positive—and wholly unique—role they could play in combatting global mass extinction. But the question remains: are zoos doing enough?

Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0519-hance-zoo-revolution.html#32jEKeLbxrMj6pcZ.99

What is a zoo? Is it a place of entertainment or education? Of cages or conservation? Beginning around the mid-Twentieth Century, zoos and aquariums underwent a revolution of sorts: they began to see their animals less as captives and more as charges, while viewing their role within the community as increasingly educational. Many abolished barred cages for larger and more natural-looking pens, added enrichment activities to keep animals engaged, and began to take education more seriously, especially as the realization of a biodiversity crisis began to permeate the public consciousness. This revolution in zoos has been well-documented. But a quieter revolution in zoos has also been occurring over just the past twenty-five years. Rather than just stand by the sidelines as species vanish in the wild, more and more zoos have begun funding on-the-ground conservation efforts, some even going so far as launching their own conservation programs. While this revolution has been less visible than spruced-up pens and educational outreach, it signals a widening realization by zoos of the positive—and wholly unique—role they could play in combatting global mass extinction. But the question remains: are zoos doing enough?

Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0519-hance-zoo-revolution.html#32jEKeLbxrMj6pcZ.99

Satire: San Diego Zoo Lays Off 2,000 Animals

What's really sad is that it took me a while to figure out that this was satire.  I started reading it and it all seemed legit for a few paragraphs.  Then something struck me as odd and I looked up and saw it was from The Onion.  Still, the best satire mirrors real life closely...

San Diego Zoo Lays Off 2,000 Animals

Animals Let Out of Cages, Producing 'Leaner, Healthier' Zoo

May 7, 1996

SAN DIEGO, CA—Citing “sagging first quarter profits” and disappointing 1995 revenue figures, the San Diego Zoo announced yesterday its decision to lay off nearly 2,000 animals, including all giraffes, vultures, elephants, snakes and a number of rare Siberian tigers. The creatures, many of whom have been with the zoo for over 30 years, have been released from their respective cages and pens, and are now free to roam the city in search of new homes, food sources and employment opportunities.

The Job Placement Center set up near the zoo's Jungle World exhibit has had no luck placing any of the animals that have come through looking for work. After a two-hour wait, this giraffe was told to brush up on her word processing skills and check back in two months.

“The decision to lay off all these fine, hard-working animals, who have contributed so much to this zoo over the years, was an extremely difficult one,” zoo CEO Jack T. Morgan announced at a shareholders’ meeting yesterday. “We are fully confident, however, that this downsizing will help bring a leaner, healthier San Diego Zoo into the 21st century.”

Read the rest of the article at The Onion online.

Sporcle Quiz: Scientific Names Translated (Mammals)

Scientific Names Translated (Mammals)

Besides helping you identify an animal accurately in any language, the scientific name of an animal can also tell you something about it.  Try identifying some of these mammals based on the English translation of their scientific names.  I tried picking some reasonable ones, without adding any overly ridiculously simple ones (i.e.: "Bornean bearded pig" is Sus barbatus... literally "bearded pig").

Learn to Love Latin

I took four years of Spanish in high school, but never learned to speak it especially well (which makes it all the sadder that I'm the most fluent Spanish-speaker at my zoo, meaning it's my job to translate...).  I took a semester of Swahili in college while I was studying abroad; that I did much better with.  It's not surprising - high school Spanish was a book-language, used only in one class a day, whereas the Swahili I was living, breathing, asking for directions and ordering dinner.  I was immersed in it.

In a very different sense, I've also been immersed in another language for as long as I've worked with animals: Latin.  However, I don't speak Latin.  Couldn't conjugate a verb to save my life.  Still, it's hard not to pick up a little when you are around animals.  Let me explain...

See?  Even he is having a hard time with his Latin... and that was back when people actually spoke it!

Next time you are at the zoo or aquarium, check out the nearest animal identification plaque (or click on one of the Species Fact Profiles on this blog).  It'll tell you the animals' name - lion, giraffe, etc.  It will also in all likelihood have a second name, two (sometimes three) words long, usually in italics.  That is the Latin, or scientific name, which is what scholars and professionals will use to identify the animal.

Why have Latin names - just to make us look smart, show that we earned that college degree that earns us the right to shovel poop at minimum wage for a living?  Latin names serve an actual purpose.  For one thing, they help reduce confusion about identifying animals, especially between folks from various parts of the world.  A lion may be "lion" in English, but it is "leon" in Spanish, "simba" in Swahili (or Disney), or "sinha" in Hindi.   Scientists in the US, Spain, Tanzania, and India might not know the common name in each others tongues, but all will understand Panthera leo.  Conversely, common names may be used in different places to refer to different animals: Asians and Latin Americans may both refer to their big jungle cats as "tigers", but  Latin names help differentiate between the actual tiger (Panthera tigris) and the jaguar (Panthera onca).

Differences may exist in names within a single country. Here in the United States, if you show ten people the same picture of a large, tawny native feline and ask them to identify it, you may get half a dozen names: puma, mountain lion, cougar, panther, catamount and more, all in common use somewhere or other.  The animal is still Puma concolor.

Puma concolor - a cat of many names

Scientific names also come in handy when referencing how species are related.  Our understanding of animal-relatedness is based on a system of classification by the Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus: living things are broken down into "Kingdoms" (Plants, Animals, Fungi, etc); members of a Kingdom are divided into Phyla, then Classes, Orders, Families, Genera, and Species.  The two words of a scientific name are the Genus and Species.  I feel like it works best to think of them as a person's name - let's say you have the Jones family, with two brothers: Bill and Harry.  You'd call them (obviously) Bill Jones and Harry Jones, with the shared last name showing that they are akin.  In the Linnaean system, it would be Jones Bill and Jones Harry (or, more likely, Panthera leo and Panthera tigris, lion and tiger, respectively).

Zoos utilize Latin names to varying degrees.   Mammal keepers tend not to use them too much, at least not it day-to-day usage; everyone knows what a giraffe is, after all.  They will use them, however, for official paperwork and record-keeping.  Bird folks use them more, reptile and amphibian people use them a lot, and fish and invertebrate people might use them exclusively.  It makes sense - reptile and amphibian common names are often descriptive and (to be honest) unimaginative, so the Latin names are more descriptive and accurate (there's over 10,000 species of bird - you try coming up with a memorable name for each one).  Plenty of species don't even have common names, only Latin ones.

I trip over Latin names plenty of times.  For one thing, I almost always see them written and rarely hear them spoken, so I'm never sure on the correct pronunciation.  Also, the names tend to change: species are lumped together, or (as is more common) broken up into more species, or names are reworked to change our understanding of how species are related.  It's confusing, and can be hard to keep track of.  It is essential, however, for keepers and aquarists to keep up on scientific nomenclature in order to communicate with their colleagues at home and around the world.

And besides, how awesome is that, being able to say you're a (sort of) Latin-speaking  zookeeper?

What's that?  I mentioned earlier that some Latin names are three words?  Well, that third one is the subspecies... and that is a whole 'nother can of worms...

Species Fact Profile: American Flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber)

American (Caribbean) Flamingo

Phoenicopterus ruber (Linnaeus, 1758)

Range: Caribbean, Coastal Central and N. South America, Galapagos Islands
Habitat: Lagoons, Estuaries, Mud Flats, Lakes
Diet: Crustaceans, Mollusks, Insects, Worms, Algae
Social Grouping: Very Large Flocks
Reproduction: Monogamous, no breeding season, courtship in very large groups, conical nest of mud, single egg is incubated for 27-31 days by both parents, chick leaves the nest after 6-8 days and fledges at 13 weeks; chicks can breed at one year of age, but usually don't until they achieve adult coloration at 3-5 years
Lifespan: 45 Years (Wild), 75 Years (Captivity - Maximum)
Conservation Status: IUCN Least Concern, CITES Appendix I

• Stand 1.2-1.45 meters tall with a wingspan of 1.5m, weight 2.2-2.8kg (males are slightly larger)
• Long legs (longest in proportion to body size of any bird) and long neck; they often rest the head on the body so as not fatigue the neck
• The characteristic bright pink color comes from carotenoids in the algae and crustaceans in the diet
• Until 2002, the American flamingo was considered to be the same species as P. roseus, the greater flamingo (found in the Old World)
• The large size of the American flamingo allows it to feed in deeper water than other flamingos, often submerging the whole head underwater to filter prey with its muscular tongue
• Parents feed their chicks "crop milk", a nutritious secretion from their oral crop, similar to human milk
• Do not migrate, but are very nomadic, and will travel hundreds of kilometers in search of food; they show little site tenacity and don't often return to birth location or previous flocking sites
• Highly colonial, but territorial when feeding, they will "fence" with other flamingos that come too close
• They often stand on one foot, usually while in the water, but it is unknown why - to conserve body heat? To reduce exposure to aquatic parasites?
• Breeding is believed to be induced by the presence of other flamingos - they breed best in large groups.  Some zoos use mirrors in their flamingo enclosures to simulate a larger flock size
• Threatened by disturbance and loss of habitat, they will move readily in response to habitat pressures

Zoo Joke: Bad News

A zookeeper goes away for a week-long conference.  He is driving home, eager to see his wife, when he decides to stop off at work and see how things have been while he was away.

"Hey Bob," he says to the first keeper he meets coming in the gate, "how were things this last week?"

"Not so good," his coworker replies sadly.  "The tiger died while you were away."

"What!  That was my favorite animal in the whole zoo!  That's heart-breaking."

"Yeah, it was very sudden, very unexpected."

"I wish you had broken the news a little more gently, this is quite a shock."

"What do you mean?"

"Well, you should have called me one day and told me that he had a cold, nothing too serious.  Then, the next day, you should have called again and said that it was pneumonia.  The next day, you could have said that he was in the vet hospital and that you were doing everything you could to save him.  By the next day, I would have been ready for the news."

"Oh... sorry.  Yeah, I guess that would have been easier on you."

"Oh, well, never mind me, I'm just upset, that's all.  I better get home and see how my wife's been.  You won't believe it, but she didn't call me once while I was away."

"Oh... um... well... before you drive home, I think I ought to tell you... she has a cold."

From the News: Philly zoo lets lions and tigers roam outside exhibits

Philly zoo lets lions and tigers roam outside exhibits

An Amur tiger walks over the new Big Cat Crossing at the Philadelphia Zoo in Philadelphia May 7, 2014.

Reuters/Charles Mostoller                                         

Well, I was getting ready to write a review of the Philadelphia Zoo, but it looks like I'll have to push that back until I see how this newest feature works out.

Every once in a while, technology, showmanship, and genius come together in a zoo setting to produce a new way to experience animals.  Underwater viewing has changed the way that we exhibit a range of animals, from hippos and crocodiles to penguins and polar bears (and, in at least one German zoo I've seen pictures of, elephants).  Reversed lighting has revolutionized the exhibition of nocturnal animals.  A big trend which a lot of zoos - Louisville, Point Defiance, Denver - have started is the rotating exhibit, moving animals between enclosures.  It provides the animals with more space and more variety, while also promoting activity and exploration.

Philadelphia, it seems, has added a new element to the equation.  They aren't the first zoo to do something like this (at the very least there is National Zoo with its orangutans), but they might be the first to plan an entire zoo along these lines.

There are a lot of questions to be answered still.  How much will the animals use them?  How will other animals react to the sight of a tiger or jaguar strolling around the zoo?  What if animals sit down in the middle of the tunnels and refuse to move?  What will they be like to maintain and clean?  And, of course, what happens when Mr. Lion decides to take a potty break with a crowd of school children directly beneath him?

All will be revealed in time, I'm sure.

Documentary Review: Life in Cold Blood

"Reptiles and amphibians are sometimes seen as simple, primitive creatures.  That's a long way from the truth.  The fact that they are solar-powered means that their bodies require only 10% of the energy that mammals of a similar size require.  At a time when we ourselves are becoming increasingly concerned about the way in which we get our energy from the environment and the wasteful way in which we use it, maybe there are things that we can learn from life in cold blood."

For several decades, David Attenborough has been the name in wildlife documentaries.  His career started off in the 1950s, making nature programs in association with the Zoological Society of London, including a few field expeditions to record zoo staff collecting animals around the world.  He is perhaps best known for the stunningly beautiful Planet Earth, documenting species and habitats never before filmed.

The work of Attenborough's that has impressed me the most, however, are his Life series: Life of Mammals, Life of Birds, etc.  So, a few years back, I heard that Attenborough was continuing the series with a five-episode miniseries on reptiles and amphibians, I could hardly wait.  The result was the incredible documentary, Life in Cold Blood.

Reptiles barely factored into Planet Earth, and amphibians far less so, so I was a little pessimistic about how the documentary turned out.  I needn't have worried - Attenborough's subjects may be smaller and more cryptic than those in his other documentaries, but he does a wonderful job of highlighting them nevertheless.  Unlike in Planet Earth, Attenborough is more than an off-screen narrator in this series; he is actively engaging with his subjects, whether holding up a mirror to coax an anole into displaying, or using a specially-treated face-mask to demonstrate the defense response of a spitting cobra.

Too many reptile documentaries follow the Steve Irwin model of emphasizing the danger and destructive power of the animals - lunging crocodiles, crushing pythons, striking vipers, all that.  It's all about which animal can kill you the quickest and in the most gruesome fashion, and the subject animals are reduced to cold-blooded killing machines with no instinct other than kill and eat.  Attenborough portrays reptiles and amphibians in a much different light.  He succeeds in presenting a multi-dimensional view of the animals, with complex behaviors and surprisingly social lives.  I kid you not, I thought my girlfriend was going to cry during a scene with a shingleback skink (Attenborough calls them "sleepy lizards", an absurdly cute name) that refused to leave the body of its mate, which had been hit by a car.

Like in his other series, Attenborough eschews the classic footage that is seen in every documentary over and over again in favor of new, exciting footage.  In the crocodilian episode, for instance, you won't see crocodiles ripping up zebras, but you will see crocodiles cooperatively hunting for fish in pitch blackness.  In the lizard episode, you won't see Komodo dragons at a carcass, but you will see newly hatch lace monitors exploring the termite mound where they were born.  Some of the most unique footage comes from the amphibian episode: Japanese giant salamanders battle underwater, while Panamanian golden frogs communicate with semaphore-like waves of their hands (this series includes the last ever footage of Panamanian golden frogs in the wild).  Each episode ends with a great behind-the-scenes special, describing how footage or data was captured.

Life in Cold Blood does a fantastic job of portraying reptiles and amphibians not as dull brutes, barely sentient beings, but as creatures that are as complex and unique as birds or mammals.  My only regret about the series was how short it was.  It could have really done with another two or three episodes...

Zoo Review: Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens

If any single exhibit put the Jacksonville Zoo on the map, it would be the award-winning Range of the Jaguar.  The largest jaguar exhibit in the US, it’s a sprawling, multi-part exhibit that displays several jaguars, increasing the odds that someone will be up and about doing something interesting (maybe even fishing – it’s the only big cat exhibit I’ve ever seen with underwater viewing).  Behind the jaguars is the Lost Temple, which serves as a Neotropical reptile/small mammal house.  Anacondas, sloths, dart frogs, and other animals are found along the dark, stone corridors.  Outside, additional displays feature tapirs, giant anteaters, and primates before entering one of the most beautiful aviaries I’ve ever seen, with a crystal clear pool of turtles and giant Amazonian fish in the center.  Despite all of the ibises, ducks, herons, and parrots found here, it is (as usual) a mammal that steals the show – giant river otters, seen through an underwater viewing window along one side of the aviary.

Range of the Jaguar is actually several jaguar exhibits, with cats constantly moving between exhibits and between on- and off-exhibit holding areas.

Fish, turtles, and giant river otters compete with the birds for visitors' attention in the Emerald Forest Aviary

Even more expansive than the South American collection is the African one, seen along the Plains of East Africa.  Lions, leopards, and cheetahs are found along the trail in handsome exhibits, but the greatest views are of the sweeping ungulate yards.  White rhinos, zebra, okapi, and various antelope mingle with tall African birds (including imposing goliath herons) as they strut across the plains or mingle at the waterhole.  A massive tree alongside the boardwalk holds a (wild) colony of endangered wood storks, which nest at eye level with visitors.  Completing the trail is an African reptile house (specializing in many of Africa’s deadliest snakes – puff adders, green mambas, Egyptian cobras), a series of enclosures for small mammals and birds (hyraxes, vultures, fruit bats), and African elephants.  Giraffes are found just off the trail in their own spacious yard, where they can be viewed from an observation deck.

The zoo does equal justice to native wildlife on Wild Florida.  The collection here is wonderful, but it’s exhibits are probably the least impressive of the regions in terms of size and complexity.  Starting off with American alligators, the trail leads past black bears, white-tailed deer, and bobcats.  Critically endangered Floridians (and former Floridians) seen include Florida panthers, whooping cranes, and red wolves.  At the end of the trail is the zoo’s third reptile house, this one focusing on native species (a very cool feature is that the larger displays allow indoor/outdoor access for the occupants).

Other residents of the zoo are the primates (gorillas, bonobos, and mandrills), Magellanic penguins, and a small Australian area, featuring kangaroos, lorikeets, and cassowaries.  A former koala house has been re-imagined as a frog conservation center, giving visitors a behind-the-scenes look at the work zoos do to halt the amphibian extinction crisis (the Puerto Rican crested toad is especially highlighted here).  A massive African aviary – along with a series of smaller adjacent ones – is located alongside the train tracks that run through the zoo.

I was lucky enough to visit the zoo shortly after the opening of its newest exhibit – Land of the Tiger.  The exhibit attempts to recreate the magic of Range of the Jaguar – its tiger exhibits are connected with shift tunnels that take the big cats over the heads of astonished visitors.  Side displays hold otters, hornbills, and two species of Asian wild pig.  Komodo dragons are found nearby.

In 2003, the zoo’s name was officially changed to emphasis some of its most stunning assets – the lush gardens that fill the park.  The Savanna Blooms gardens in front of the giraffe exhibit are surpassed in beauty only (in my opinion) by the Asian Monsoon gardens, near the tigers.  The later is nearby the Trout River, a beautiful place to stroll between the animals.  The gardens serve to highlight the zoo’s best advantage: climate.  With a year-round growing season, plants are lush and abundant, while many animals are able to remain outdoors year round. 

The tunnels above the visitor pathway allow the zoo's tigers to travel from one exhibit area to another, crossing directly over the heads of astonished visitors.

Even the parts of the zoo which I found the least impressive – the Australian area and some of the exhibits (Florida’s wolf and bear, in particular) still compared favorably to many zoos, and nothing I saw really looked that old or outdated.  There were lots of visitor amenities, grounds were clean, and – despite being a busy day – crowds were very manageable.  I attribute this to the zoo’s layout; unlike many zoos, no animals are visible from the main pathway.  To see any animals, you must take one of the looping side trails.  This, I suspect, improves the flow of traffic and keeps crowds from bunching up.

Jacksonville Zoo has grown tremendously over the past several years and has quickly taken its place as one of the most respected zoos in the country.  It will be very interesting to see what new developments the near future will bring.

Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens

Zoo History: The Last Parakeet

"I say that such persons as have discovered and travelled those parts, doe testifie that they have found in those countryes... parrots"

- Sir Humphrey Gilbert, 1583

They probably didn’t know it, but the visitors to the Cincinnati Zoo in 1918 were among the last humans on earth to see one of the most beautiful birds in North America.  It was certainly a relatively small bird, only about a foot long, but it certainly would have made an impression on anyone who saw it.  For one thing, it was one of the most colorful birds native to the United States, with its bright green body and a golden face, darkening into orange on the face.  Like the other members of its order, it was a chatty bird, constantly making sounds (some sources say it could be heard two miles away), and it was an active one as well. 

It was Conuropsis carolinensis, the Carolina parakeet, now regrettably gone from this world.

Despite the name, the Carolina parakeet wasn’t just a denizen of the Deep South (though being a parrot, it seems more believable to picture it in humid bayous).  It roamed up and down the east coast up to New York, and sometimes as far west as the Dakotas.  It must have been an impressive sight, watching large flocks of loud, beautiful birds descend on fields or swoop through the forest, feeding on fruits and nuts and seeds. 

Unfortunately, the parakeet had a lot going against it when Europeans entered the scene.  For one thing, it shifted its culinary attentions to agricultural crops, which typically has never endeared a species to farmers.  Also, it was loud, highly visible, and very conspicuous, the kind of target that attracted the attention of anyone with a gun.  The beautiful colors of the bird made them desirable as pets, and many were trapped to become cage birds.  Its natural curiosity and intelligence also posed a threat, as it came into contact with domestic fowl and the diseases they carried. 

At any rate, the species declined rapidly, with the last confirmed (more on this later) specimen seen in 1910.  Soon, all that was officially left of the species was a pair at the Cincinnati Zoo.  “Lady Jane”, the female, died in 1917.  On February 21, 1918, her mate, “Incas” followed her.  With his passing, the species was lost.  In 1939, the species was declared extinct.

Like many extinct species, such as the Tasmanian tiger, rumors of survivors floated about for decades.  Unfortunately, none of these sightings proved conclusive, with all of the submitted pictures or footage depicting feral parakeets, or being too poor of quality to be identified.  Perhaps Incas wasn’t the very last bird – maybe a lone survivor or two held out for a little longer.  Regardless, the species is now almost certainly lost.  So little was known about the parakeet – one fact that I found tantalizing yet unconfirmed was that the bird’s meat was poisonous.  John J. Audubon said that cats that ate parakeets shortly died, perhaps as a result of the birds’ feeding on toxic cocklebur seeds.

One of the saddest aspects of the extinction of the Carolina parakeet is that – like many other recent extinctions – it was preventable.  First of all, there’s the obvious fact that, had there been the will, the species could have been saved in the wild.  Farmers could have tolerated some losses.  Public sentiment could be brought against practice shooting.  Efforts could have been made to protect wild parakeets from the diseases of chickens. 

What’s also true is that more of an effort could have been made to save the species in captivity.  By all accounts, parakeets bred well in captivity – when the effort was made to do so.  I wonder how many other now-extinct species – the quagga, the thylacine, the great auk, even the dodo – could have been saved if captive breeding programs like those we have today could have been implemented back when those species were alive.  Sure, they didn’t have artificial insemination, or our understanding of population genetics back then, but that wasn’t the problem.  What they really lacked was the will.

Being younger than 96, I myself have never seen a live Carolina parakeet.  I have, however, seen museum specimens, as I have for a host of other now-extinct animals.  I wonder sometimes how many of the species we have in zoos today will make their last stand there; that 100 years from now, we won’t talk about how the last orangutan, the last black rhino, breathed its last breath at this zoo or that one.  A monument to Incas and Lady Jane now stands on the grounds of the Cincinnati Zoo, where the Carolina parakeet lived its last.  It is a small building, resembling a Japanese pagoda, that is one of the zoo’s old aviaries.  The parakeets share their mausoleum with another once-plentiful North American bird that was destroyed by man and went extinct at the Cincinnati Zoo – the passenger pigeon.

Spit... Spat... Sput?

The above photo was shared on social media by the Reid Park Zoo in Tuscon, Arizona earlier this week.  Since then, it's gone viral.  I've seen it plastered all over the internet, and the last time I checked the Facebook photo had 2000 shares.  

The animal in the background is a guanaco ("won-ack-o"); the easiest way to think about it is a wild llama - like the wolf is the wild ancestor of the dog, the guanaco is the wild ancestor of the llama.  Like llamas and other members of the camel family, guanacos will spit to express their displeasure.  It is a slimy, foul-smelling stuff, which they can fire with considerable accuracy.  

Guests at our zoo go in terror of the prospect of being spat upon, right up there with skunk spray it would seem.  Some will back up nervously at the sight of a (distant) guanaco or llama.  Some kids will even refuse to pass in front of the exhibit without considerable coaxing from their parents.  Others - evil little brats - will attempt to spit at the animals ("the best defense is a good offense!"), but thankfully have nowhere near the range of the camelids.

Something that blows the minds of many visitors - I've never been spat upon.  Ever.  Not in over a decade of working with five of the six camelid species (vicunas have eluded me, alas).  I've deserved it, too - I've shorn alpacas (which have no sense of humor about it), wrangled camels for injections, and snatched sickly baby llamas away from their well-meaning but non-milk-producing mothers.  No one has ever spat at me, knock on wood.  I mean, I've had a spider monkey drop diarrhea in my hair before, and I can't imagine it would be worse than that anyway.

When I see stuff like this online, part of me sighs thinking that it only spreads the spitter stereotype about llamas and their kin.  I also grumble about people thinking that the animal is only spitting because it's unhappy with people.  Then I sit back, remember to lighten the heck up, and enjoy the funny post.  I wonder if we could so something like this at our zoo...

Of course, our animals would have to spit once in a while, first.

Jane Goodall, on Zoos

Jane Goodall has been hailed by one biographer as "the woman who redefined man."  Her years of field research into the lives of chimpanzees have completely changed not only our understanding of our nearest animal relatives, but of our own species as well.  Among her most famous discoveries were the use of tools among wild chimpanzees (i.e.: using twigs to "fish" for termites) and that chimp troops will go to war in order to expand their territories.

Dr. Goodall doesn't spend much time out in the field these days.  Instead, her years at Gombe have instilled in her a passion for chimpanzee conservation and welfare.  She has been a vocal advocate for chimpanzees both in the wild in Africa and in captivity around the world, and has been especially active in promoting the welfare of chimps in laboratories.

So, probably the world's most famous wildlife biologist and a prominent critic of the way that animals are often kept in captivity - what does she have to say about zoos?

Charlotte Louise Daniels, a student at the University of Chester in the United Kingdom, decided to find out.  After attending one of Dr. Goodall's lectures in Edinburgh, Ms. Daniels was given the chance to ask the primatologist what role she felt zoos had to play in the conservation of chimps and other great apes.  The response:

"You know, there's a fallacy that life in the wild is wonderful and perfect and that everybody should be out there. There's so many of the places that I've been that chimpanzees and gorillas there in complete uhm, you know, a lot of them live in fear as the logging companies move in and they're caught in these snares. They're pushed from one area to another which means another community will attack them, and they're killed. 

So on the other hand there are zoos keeping apes and other animals that shouldn't be there because they don't have the facilities, they don't have the money, they don't have the know how, and they should be closed. But then what do you do with the animals. But if you have, if you can be in a country where you can raise the money. Where you have keepers who are dedicated and educated. Where you have a zoo going public that kind of understands. Where you have proper educational materials. Where you have some scientific research going on. Where you put a percentage of your profit to helping research conservation in the wild, then they provide a way of, particularly children, but not only children, coming up close to an animal they may never have the opportunity to see in the wild. 

And while yes you can see amazing documentaries, when you're actually with an animal in a good condition, in a good environment, you can sense its beingness. You can look into the eyes, you can smell it, you can hear it that's different from looking at even the best photographed animal in film, because you know that animal is not looking at you. and I've watched children just today when i visited the chimps here looking through the glass making eye contact, seeing a child put its hand to the glass and the chimpanzee the other side doing the same, that child will never be the same. And so they do provide a very good tool for education and that in turn will lead to people being more active about conservation."

Thanks to Charlotte Louise Daniels for posing such an important question, and, more importantly, for helping to share the answer!