Species Centers of the Future

The concept of a safari park, while relatively young compared to the traditional zoo, has still been around for several decades.  Off-site breeding facilities are also not a brand new idea - the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute has been around for decades.  What is new is their newfound dedication to working together to create sustainable populations for the future.  The focus is working with a relatively small number of species in close support with conservation projects in the wild.

This is all very exciting stuff that offers a lot of promise and excitement for the future of wild animals being managed under human care.  The question is, with all of these new developments, what is the future of the traditional zoo?  Does it become obsolete?  Does it become more like the off-site facilities?

I feel that there is still plenty of value in the smaller, urban zoos.  They are better geared towards education, with focus on public display.  For many smaller species, or those that are delicate and need closer management, they can work very well for breeding.  The C2S2 centers are typically located in rural areas, which are not accessible to nearly as many people as urban zoos.  Zoos can spread their message and gain support for conservation with helping people make connections with actual, living, breathing animals.  

For that, there is no real substitute than your local zoo.

Vote for North America's Best Wildlife Park

USA Today does an annual poll on America's best zoo - this year, they're offering an additional field for best wildlife park.  Several of the Conservation Centers for Species Survival - White Oak, The Wilds, and San Diego Safari Park, among them - are in the running.  If you've ever visited any of these fine facilities, go ahead and cast your vote at the link below!

Vote for your favorite Wildlife Park in North America

Square Ungulates and Round Holes

The Conservation Centers for Species Survival could definitely be said to have a type.  If you look across the board at the species that these facilities work with, they tend to be large, highly social antelope from grassland and semi-desert regions, mostly from Africa. 

These species work well in the kind of settings that C2S2 facilities allow.  They are herd animals and can be maintained in large groups on large pastures.  They are accustomed to open spaces, which works well for managing them, as it makes it easier for caretakers to observe them in large enclosures.  They tend to be hardy in a variety of weather, also an advantage in the large enclosure set up - it doesn't matter how big your pens are if your animals have to spend half the year cooped up in barns.  The results of these facilities are showing in the increased breeding and management success of herds maintained at these facilities.

The problem is that not all ungulates fit this formula.  Many of the most endangered ungulates - both in the wild and in AZA collections - would not thrive under the current C2S2 model.  There may be any number of reasons why. 

• They may be too small to safely house in the semi-supervised wide open spaces of a large pen.  Oryx and kudu and eland are rather large.  A pudu isn't much bigger than a Jack Russell terrier, so you can imagine how small its fawn is.  Coyotes and other predators could pick them off easily.  
• They may be too solitary or asocial to work being managed as a large herd.  A reserve in Asia tried breeding banteng, an endangered forest cow, by placing them in a large herd in a large pen.  Before they knew it, the aggressive, territorial animals had killed each other off.
• They may be too cold-sensitive.  Some animals from tropical climates are surprisingly tough in the face of winter and may only require a simple shelter.  Other animals may require much more expansive (and expensive) winter holdings
• They may have habitat preferences that are not conducive to being worked in a large paddock.  Perhaps the animal is a mountain dweller, like a markhor or an urial - they would require large rocky outcrops, which could be difficult to enclose on a large scale (most zoos that display these species make artificial mountains).  The species could be semi-aquatic, like pygmy hippopotamuses.  Or, the species could be a rainforest dweller, only comfortable in dense foliage which may make it difficult for caretakers to monitor it in a large paddock.  At White Oak Conservation Center, the okapi enclosures were all lush and heavily wooded.   Caretakers had to carve paths out of the foliage to check on their animals

None of these problems is insurmountable.  Indeed, they will probably all need to be surmounted, one way or another.  Maybe smaller, solitary species are best maintained in a traditional zoo where huge spaces and lots of members of the same species would be a liability, not an asset.  Maybe new C2S2 facilities can be planned to take advantage of habitat preferences of other species.  For example, one could be established in the Rockies of Colorado or New Mexico to focus on ibex, takin, and other mountain-loving ungulates.  A second could be established in southern Florida to improve breeding among hippos (pygmy and Nile), tapirs, marsh antelope, and the various wild pig species.

In recent years, zoos have shown an impressive willingness to adapt in order to face the challenges posed by conservation and sustainability issues.  It's important that, as C2S2 centers continue to grow, that no ungulate be left behind.

Book Review: Return of the Unicorns: The Natural History and Conservation of the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros

"But a Web site cannot convey what it is like to watch a rhinoceros move through the grasslands of Chitwan, hear a tiger roar in the night, or listen to elephants rumble to one another in a subsonic language barely perceptible to our ears.  The presence of large, potentially dangerous mammals connects us to something deep and primal and teaches us humility in a way that is unique and precious.  Wild places where species leave footprints larger than our own must be part of the legacy we bequeath to future generations"

When biologist Eric Dinerstein came to Chitwan National Park in Nepal to study its endangered Indian rhinoceroses, one question that he was not expecting to be faced with was, "Why?"  As in, why study the rhinos?  Surely all you need to do is map off a big enough section of habitat, post enough guards to deter poachers, and leave the species alone, one park warden told him.  Who cares what plants they eat at which time of the year, or how long they spend in wallows in the day versus the night?

Dr. Dinerstein, respectfully, disagreed.  It was his belief that the best way - maybe the only way - to truly save a species is to understand as much of its natural history as possible and translate that into policy and management that promotes conservation.  His years' worth of research on the subject are compiled in The Return of the Unicorns: The Natural History and Conservation of the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros.  This relatively slim volume contains a very detailed overview of what the Indian rhino is, how it has evolved to fit into its current environment, and how it helps shape that environment, just as any other force of nature would.  It also recounts the struggles and successes of edging this species, once teetering on the brink of extinction, back in strength, even reintroducing it to parts of its range where it had once been extirpated.

For a technical book, Return of the Unicorns is still written clearly, concisely, and in a manner that the layperson can follow and enjoy.  It does an excellent job of exploring the important role of saving mega-herbivore keystone species (and explaining why other species rely upon them), as well as providing an excellent overview of how fieldwork in conducted, sometimes in association with zoological parks.  The author's fieldwork was sponsored by the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, he uses knowledge of zoo-housed rhinos to fill in holes in the knowledge of wild rhinos, and some of his research was carried out using animals at Kathmandu Zoo in Nepal. 

I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Dinerstein - now the Director at WildTech and the Biodiversity and Wildlife Solutions Program at RESOLVE - speak about his book (and sign my copy) years ago.  It certainly made an impression on me.  Today, Chitwan remains the number one wildlife habitat that I would like to explore, in large part due to his presentation.  

Part of what I love about his book is having a volume that takes one species of animal and explores it, thoroughly.  I've seen this done with a few other species, almost all large mammals but a few others as well.  Although it seems less likely in our post-book world, I wish more volumes like this would be compiled on a variety of species that assemble as much of the available knowledge and condense it into one book.  If I could have made one recommendation to the author, it would have perhaps been to include a little more information on the unnatural - the cultural history of the species.  For those who do not have a science background, understanding how Indian rhinos and humans have a shared history going back thousands of years would make a fascinating addition.  In one passage, Dinerstein casually mentions that the armies of ancient India used train rhinos in battle... I'm sorry, you don't want to unpack that statement a little more?

If there is one aspect where the Conservation Centers for Species Survival have truly shown potential, it is in strengthening ties between the zoo community and conservation projects happening out in the field.  The support for the Indian rhino project is a prime example of the kind of work that all zoos should be looking to support.  Many large mammals - including rhinos - are often dismissed as extinction-prone, with the understanding being that they have little hope for survival into the next century.  The conservation work highlighted in The Return of the Unicorns suggests differently.  If you give an endangered species a chance, Dr. Dinerstein argues, sometimes you'll be amazed at how successfully it can recover.

The Return of the Unicorns: The Natural History and Conservation of the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros at Amazon.com

From Prying Eyes

When I visited the White Oak Conservation Center in Yulee, I was one of the only humans, apart from the members of the staff, that the animals would have seen that month.  Visitors to the center are allowed only by appointment at select times.  The Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute is closed to the public on a even stricter basis.  Other members of the Conservation Centers for Species Survival coalition, such as the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, are fully open to the public.

There are tremendous advantages to a C2S2 center being closed to the public.  For one thing, the facility can devote its resources solely to the animals, without having to think about visitors.  Animals can be left in relative peace and quiet to reproduce and raise their young without the disturbance of the public.  This is of obvious benefit to shier species.

By not having the public interests to satisfy, the facility can focus on conservation priorities.  Zoo visitors enjoy seeing some species of ungulates, such as camels and American bison, and many zoos comply by exhibiting those species.  In contrast, many species of high conservation value are less impressive exhibit animals.  They may be smaller, or less attractive, or more cryptic.  Reptile houses in conventional zoos place emphasis on alligators, giant tortoises, large snakes, and other impressive "show" species.  If zoos were to devote themselves solely to conservation breeding, most zoos would feature an entire house devoted to freshwater turtles.  Similarly, the value of the C2S2 centers is in having large numbers of individuals of a species to facilitate breeding efforts.  In a zoo, however, the attraction of the facility is in having a wide variety of species on display.  In that case, a large tract of land which might be used for a single herd at a C2S2 center might be split up among several exhibits at a zoo.

Lastly, critics of zoos often disapprove of zoos displaying animals to the public, thinking that it turns the animals into props used for entertainment.  Additionally, charging admission leads to accusations that zoos profit off of their animals, even though most AZA-accredited facilities are non-profits.  Being closed to the public reduces the impact of those charges.

Despite these many benefits, I wouldn't rush to recommend that every zoo and aquarium close its doors except by appointment.  One of the major benefits of zoos and aquariums is their ability to reach a larger audience to teach about conservation issues and raise support for saving species in the wild.  As wonderful as White Oak and Front Royal are for a conservation breeding perspective, they can't do that alone.  Nor can they do it without one of the most important parts of the zoo - the visitors.

This Bachelor Life

The social structure of a mountain zebra isn't that different from that of most ungulates you'll see in zoos.  A single male leads a herd that consists of several females, all of which he will mate with until such a time comes as he is overthrown by a new male.  Male offspring are tolerated in the herd until reaching sexual maturity, at which point they are run off.

There is no magic difference between the sex-ratio at birth of zebras or gazelles as there is with people.  About half the babies born will be males.  If one male possesses many females in a herd, it stands to reason that there are a lot of males at any given point who don't have any females.  What's their story?

In the wild, these surplus boys have three options.  Firstly, they can... die.  It's hard, but true, that young males, pushed out and forced to find their own way, suffer high mortality.  Secondly, they can go it alone, living a solitary life until they eventually find their own social group.  The third option is that the boys can band together.  These social groupings are called bachelor groups.

A typical antelope herd exhibit in a zoo, Zoo Miami in this case.  A single male greater kudu poses with his herd of females and their calves.

Bachelor herds have become something of a trend lately in zoos.  The problem of surplus males exists there as in the wild, but without the likelihood of predators or natural disasters thinning their numbers (at least we would hope so).  Some zoos have tried to even up the disparity between males and females by putting their animals in a somewhat more monogamous relationship - one boy, one girl - just to make sure everyone has a partner.  This may actually discourage breeding in some species, as it's not a natural grouping.  A bachelor herd is.

Bachelor herds provide a reservoir of young males which can be switched out for breeding programs.  At the same time, they'll be kept in a socially appropriate group where they can demonstrate appropriate behaviors and skills.  The concept of bachelor herds is spreading beyond ungulates, now being used with a variety of other mammals, such as elephants and gorillas, in which the "one male, many females" social grouping applies.

Species Fact Profile: Mountain Zebra (Equus zebra)

Mountain Zebra

Equus zebra (Linnaeus, 1758)

Range: Southern Africa
Habitat: Mountain Plateaus, Slopes, Grasslands, Desert Edge
Diet: Grasses, Leaves, Stems
Social Grouping: Herds of 1 male, 1-5 females, and their young.  Herds are not territorial and overlap in home ranges, sometimes merging into larger herds.  Young males form bachelor herds.
Reproduction: Polygamous.  Breed throughout the year, but with some seasonal peaks.  Breed every 1-3 years, with 1 year gestation period.  Young usually driven off at 14-16 months old
Lifespan: 25 Years
Conservation Status: IUCN Vulnerable, CITES Appendices I and II (by subspecies)

• Smallest of the zebras.  Head and body length 2.1-2.6 meters, shoulder height 1.15-1.5 meters, tail length 40-55 centimeters.  Weight 240-370 kilograms.
• Black and white stripes, extending onto thick, short mane.  Differs from other zebras in having a pattern of narrow stripes across the rump and having a dewlap, or flap or skin, dangling from the throat
• Good climbers, have especially hard, pointed hooves to assist in climbing mountains
• Predators include lions, hyenas, wild dogs, leopards, and cheetahs.  Fleeing is most common form of defense, but will turn and fight if cornered.
• Often graze in association with different antelope species, taking advantage of mutual warnings of predators
• Two subspecies: Cape mountain zebra (E. zebra zebra) and Hartmann's mountain zebra (E. z. hartmannae).  Cape mountain zebra is smaller with thicker striping; Hartmann's mountain zebra found in more arid habitats.  Some taxonomists suggest that the two should be listed as full separate species
• Historically were harvested for their hides.  Major threats today are habitat loss due to animal agriculture, persecution by farmers viewing them as competitors for resources

Zoo Review: White Oak Conservation

You don't simply drop into the White Oak Conservation center on a whim, taking a Saturday visit with the family.  Unlike other members of the Conservation Centers for Species Survival, the facility is largely closed to the public.  Special guided tours can be arranged, though they are only set up by appointment on certain days.  The casual visitor would probably be more inclined to visit the Jacksonville Zoo, about an hour away, where a greater diversity of animals can be encountered in enclosures more conducive to viewing with much more ease and flexibility.  For a person interested in wildlife management and conservation, however, a trip to White Oak is an interesting and enjoyable experience.  In some ways, the entire tour is a behind-the-scenes peek at how modern zoos work to save species.

The history of the property, located on the St. Mary's River that divides Florida and Georgia, dates back to the 1760's.  The land was used as a rice plantation around the time of the American Civil War, and some of the architecture from the era remains; while there, I saw a cheetah dozing alongside a shed that our guide said was built in the 1830's.  Temporarily abandoned, it was purchased in the 1930's by the Gilman family.  It was under the management of this family that the center began to work with endangered hoofed animals, first almost as a hobby, later with more scientific management.  Purchased by Mark and Kimbra Walter in 2013, the center has continued its conservation work, dedicating itself to the breeding of endangered wildlife.

The center primarily works with endangered antelope, which are maintained in a series of large paddocks.  The mild northern Florida climate works well for African species, and White Oak is home to flourishing herds of addra gazelle, bongo, gerenuk, giant eland, and roan antelope, among other species.  Some of the antelope bred here have been sent back to Africa to participate in reintroduction efforts in the range countries.  While most of the breeding is done naturally, taking advantage of the large pastures that allow herd behavior, the center has also experimented with reproductive technology; for example, it was the first facility to produce gerenuk calves through artificial insemination, later resulting in second-generation AI offspring.

In addition to the antelope, White Oak boasts impressive herds of African buffalo, Grevy's zebra, Somali wild ass, giraffe, and okapi.  The later especially impressed me - I probably saw more okapi during my one day in White Oak than I have in my entire life.  The shy rainforest animals were all maintained - individually or in pairs for breeding - in large, densely forest paddocks, where they were easily lost among the the undergrowth.  The beautifully lightly-wooded giraffe yard also was spectacular - not just for the number of giraffes (including calves) present, but for the massive trees that dwarfed even the tallest giraffes.

White Oak is also home to three of the five species of rhino - white, black, and Indian.  The white rhinos have been especially prolific, again likely due to their herd management.  Many facilities have two or three white rhinos.  White Oak has dozens.  It's quite a sight to see mothers strolling around with their young calves trotting behind them, or to see three or four female resting in a row beside a mud wallow.

Rounding out the White Oak collection are a few birds in the form of cassowary, cranes, and curassows, as well as a few carnivores - maned wolves, tigers, and, especially, cheetahs (over 100 have been born here).  While not housed here on a regular basis, White Oak also has rehab facilities for Florida panthers. 

Again, White Oak is not a conventional zoo, and I think that a lot of my non-animal friends might not have enjoyed it nearly as much as I did.  There is a lot less diversity of wildlife than you would see at many zoos, instead focusing on the number of individuals. Even I, I'll admit, was starting to get a little restless after my thirtieth white rhino.  Also, because it's generally not open to the public and the emphasis is on breeding, there isn't spectacular viewing.  I was a little frustrated at points when there were animals that I really wanted to see better or photograph but I couldn't because of the rows of wire fencing in the way or the distance.

With that in mind, when you stop thinking of White Oak as a zoo and start thinking of it as a conservation center, your appreciation of it changes entirely.  It's so much more enjoyable to view it as something completely unique - a behind-the-scenes view at how endangered animals are being bred-back from the edge of extinction, and a chance to learn about how efforts undertaken here - or in Front Royal, Virginia, or Escondido, California, or Cumberland, Ohio - are helping to save critically endangered species around the globe.  My tour at White Oak might not have given me a lot of great photo opportunities, and it only added one new species to my life list.  It did, however, greatly expand my understanding and appreciation of the Conservation Centers for Species Survival.

White Oak Conservation

Deep in the Heart of Texas

Calauit, in the Philippines, isn't the only place on earth where a assortment of exotic ungulates has been deliberately released into a new habitat.  I could think of examples far closer to home...

I was in high school when I visited Texas for the first time.  I went as part of a school group, guided by a biology teacher who was from the area.  It was my first time really going on "safari" - traveling a great distance from home for the expressed purpose of seeing animals in the wild.  In many ways, the trip was a success.  Over the course of a week of hiking, we encountered a cross-section of the south-central US bestiary, including roadrunners, collared peccaries, coyotes, and a half-dozen species of rattlesnake.  There was one wildlife encounter, however, which truly surprised me.

I was half-dozing in the car as we bounced along the dirt roads from one site to the next when I was woken by one of my classmates exclaiming, "What a funny looking deer!"  Instantly, I was up, nose against the window, hoping for my first glimpse of a pronghorn.  I didn't get it.  Instead, I saw two small hoofed mammals walking daintily across the prairie.  One, the female, could have passed for a pronghorn at a distance, with her tan coat and graceful frame.  Not the male, however.  His fur was jet black on the top, creamy white on the underside, with a pair of corkscrew horns crowning his head.

They were blackbuck antelope, naturally found in South Asia.  And yet here they were in Texas.

If I'd stayed longer in Texas, I might have encountered any of the other several dozen species of Africa, European, or Asian ungulates - deer, cattle, antelope, goats - that roamed the Texas plains.  Beginning with nilgai, another South Asian antelope, imported to the King Ranch in the 1930s, there are now several species loose on the plains.  Some of the interest has been in farming them - many of the animals chosen for release are species that are well adapted to arid grasslands.  A big part of the appeal, however, has been hunting.

Hunting is a big business in Texas, and when there is a big business, you can be sure that there will be a lot of competition for it.  It's not so surprising that some ranchers decided to take creative steps to boost their success.  Sure, they say, you can hunt white-tails on any ranch in the state... but where else can you get a set of kudu horns for your den wall?

Such exotic hunting has (not surprisingly) earned the wrath of animal rights groups who see people killing wild (and often endangered) animals for sport and profit.  It's not that cut and dry, however.  This is especially evident with three Sahelo-Saharan antelopes - the addax, the dama gazelle (also called the addra gazelle), and the scimitar-horned oryx.  With far more space at their disposal than even the largest zoos could offer, and with incentive to protect them because they were profitable, the game ranchers bred up massive herds of the critically endangered antelope.  Some of these animals are being contributed to reintroduction efforts in their native range.  For many years these ranchers were granted exemption from the Endangered Species Act regulations that limited the ability to buy, sell, and move these animals, but that has been challenged by animal rights groups.

There is no doubt that the conservation of these desert antelope has been positively impacted by their presence in the southwestern United States.  But again, lest things seem too cut and dry, black and white, there always remain the risks that these introduction schemes could pose dire consequences for the native wildlife and their habitats.  Consider the southeastern United States, where wild boar were introduced, also for hunting - and have since torn up the forests and swamps of the south.

Zoo History: Africa Comes to the Philippines

In 1976, Kenyan President Jomo Kenyatta gave a speech at a conference of developing nations, imploring the outside world to step up the challenge of saving Africa's imperiled wildlife, threatened by war and drought.  Among those who answered the call, perhaps in an unexpected manner, was Filipino dictator Ferdinand Marcos.  Marcos issued a presidential proclamation which depopulated Calauit Island (relocating hundreds of Tagbanwa tribesmen to a former leper colony) and replaced them with African wildlife, imported directly from Kenya.  There, the beasts were turned loose.

One hundred African ungulates - includes 15 Grevy's zebras and 15 giraffes - were turned loose on March 4, 1977.  Within five years, their numbers had doubled, with about three-quarters of the animals present having been born on the island itself.  Some of the species proved unsuitable to the islands and went locally extinct, such as impala and topi.  Others, such as giraffe and waterbuck, thrived.  To be clear, this is not a zoo.  These animals are wild, and no one knows exactly how many of them are running around the island.

When the African animals were turned loose, they found themselves mingling with native Filipino wildlife, some of which, ironically, is far more endangered than they species that were transported her for sanctuary.  Rubbing shoulders with antelope and zebras are endangered Palawan bearded pigs and Calamian deer; Philippine crocodiles inhabit the swamps, while binturongs lounge on the tree limbs over the heads of giraffes.  Far from being crowded out, these native species actually appear to be benefiting in some ways from the presence of the illustrious newcomers, especially from the habitat protection and anti-poaching units.

While no one can quite say how the native animals feel about suddenly sharing their homes with African imports, the native people have gotten a chance to make their feelings known... albeit after the fact.  Over 250 families had to be relocated for Marcos' vision, and it's hard to imagine that many people being evicted without being considered a human rights violation.  People have responded by poaching the African mammals which is ironic, because that is one of the exact issues that moving the animals to the Philippines was intended to address in the first place.

At any rate, some hope of a happy ending is underway.  The post-Marcos government has allowed the repatriation of the native peoples to their lands, and while some poaching has continued, there seem to be positive signs of potential peace between Filipino humans and African animals.

Stripes Upon Stripes

Some breeders and keepers use ear tags, tattoos, brands, or microchips to identify their animals as individuals.  Some animals make it easier than others.  Zebras, for instance, have stripes.  No two individuals have the same striping pattern, just like no two humans have the same fingerprints.  In zoos with small herds of zebras, it's usually easiest for the keepers to recognize some small aspect of their animals' stripes - some distinctive whirl or configuration - that sets it apart from the others.

Consider the zebras in the picture below.  Seen together, they just form a wall of black and white, stripes upon stripes.  Look at each individual, though, and you should be able to start to recognize unique attributes.  Can you start seeing them as individual zebras, and not just part of a herd?

Who's Who In The Herd?

The main idea between the Conservation Centers for Species Survival concept is to have large numbers of a species present in one location, often in one or several herds, for ease of introductions, breeding, and social management.  The challenge that can result is telling the members of those herds apart.  Genetic and demographic management of a population requires a keeper to know who is who in their herd, and that can be a mite tricky when you're dealing with, say, thirty antelope in a pasture.

Ideally, there would be enough variation between individuals - a twisted horn, a peculiar marking, a difference in size - that a keeper would be able to know their animals easily by sight.  And that does happen... when you're a conventional zoo and your "herd" consists of three or four individuals.  When dealing with larger numbers (especially in large enclosures), different steps might be taken.

One solution is to ear tag your animals, each tag having a number and possibly using different color combinations.  Males can be tagged in the right ear, females in the left.  It sounds simply... and it generally is.  Still, ear tags can fall off, and they can be difficult to read from a distance (a reason that it may be ideal to rely on color rather than just number).  Many zoo professionals find themselves shying away from these, mostly because of aesthetic.  It can be hard to convince your visitors of the majesty and rarity of your exotic ungulates when they look like a bunch of Bessie's, grazing ear-tagged in a field.

Other options include tattooing, freeze-branding, and ear-notching.  In the later, a series of small notches are made in the ears of the antelope or deer (ears are large, erect, and often visible), with the sequence of notches representing different numbers.  The process should inflict no pain or damage to the animal's ear, being comparable to a human having his or her ears pierced.

The fanciest, most high tech methods is microchipping animals.  Like most fancy, high tech methods, I find it to be the one that works the least.  For one thing, you can't read the chip from a distance.  Secondly, the damn things always seem to move under the skin, meaning that they are never where they are supposed to be, and you spend forever searching for increasingly irate animal with a scanner, hoping to hear that tell-tale "beep.

All of these methods are also used in various combinations to study animals in the field, if any reminder was needed that the management of animals in zoos and in the wild is becoming increasingly blurred.  Many hoofstock keepers I know, even those at the C2S2 facilities, are still able to identify their animals as individuals at a quick glance.  For records and for confirmation, however, especially during moves between facilities, sometimes a more intrusive approach is needed.

From the News: First Renderings of St. Louis Zoo Expansion

First renderings of new St. Louis Zoo expansion

Last month, the St. Louis Zoo announced its acquisition of a 425-acre tract of land in north St. Louis County.  This week, zoo officials unveiled their first glimpses of the plans for the new property. 

Essentially, the St. Louis Zoo hopes to create in the surrounding county what the San Diego Zoo has in its San Diego Zoo Safari Park - a large satellite facility which supports its mission with that most precious of commodities - space.  Included in the master plan is a 100 acres of safari-style exhibits, where large ungulates will roam on public display and, perhaps more importantly, 250 acres of off-view breeding and holding space, what the zoo is dubbing its "Conservation and Animal Science Center."  The facility will also support visitor activities, such as luxury camping ("glamping"), nature play, and outdoor adventure activities like zip-lining.

Species Fact Profile: Southern Pudu (Pudu puda)

Southern Pudu

Pudu puda (Molina, 1782)

Range: Southern Chile, Southeastern Argentina
Habitat: Temperate Rainforest, Bamboo Forest
Diet: Leaves, Twigs, Fruits, Bark
Social Grouping: Solitary
Reproduction: Mating takes place in the fall, with a single fawn being born after a gestation period of about 210 days.  The fawn is weaned at 2 months and is fully grown at 3 months.  Females are sexually mature at 6 months old, males at 8-12 months
Lifespan: 8-10 Years
Conservation Status: IUCN Vulnerable, CITES Appendix I

• Along with its cousin, the northern pudu (Pudu mephistopheles), it is the smallest deer species in the world.  Adult are 85 centimeters long, 35-40 centimeters at the shoulder, and weighing 6.5-13.5 kilograms.
• Coat is short and glossy with a red-brown color, slightly lighter on the underside and legs.  Fawns are covered with white spots.
• Males possess short, spike-like antlers, growing 7-10 centimeters long.  They are shed in July.
• Due to their small size, it can be challenging for these deer to reach vegetation.  They compensate by standing on their hind legs or climbing on top of fallen tree trunks
• Capable of obtaining most of their moisture from the plant they eat
• Occupy home ranges of 16-26 hectares, linked by a series of trails and tunnels through dense vegetation.  Leave dung piles on the sides of these trails
• Predators include pumas, foxes, small cats, and large birds of prey.  Also preyed upon by feral dogs
• Threats include habitat loss due to logging and ranching, road collisions, and competition with introduced species, which may also spread diseases.  Sometimes taken from the wild as a pet.

Sporcle Quiz: Deer or Antelope?

The differences between deer and antelope are seldom appreciated by the layperson, and the two are often lumped in together... just like monkeys, ape, and lemurs, or alligators and crocodiles.  The following quiz contains 20 pictures, 10 deer and 10 antelope.  Can you tell which is which?

Deer or Antelope?

What's the Difference?, Part II

What's the Difference? was a post I wrote years ago, detailing the differences between crocodiles and alligators.  And now, for the sequel that no one asked for!

While the term also encompasses pigs, horses, and camels, among other animals, the majority of the hoofed mammals are deer and antelope.  These two terms are used interchangeably by many zoo-visitors, usually with a dismissive, "Oh, it's just another deer..."  Despite this, the two aren't especially closely related - about to the same extent as dogs and cats are to each other.  It would be worth taking a moment to explore the differences between these two groups of hoofed mammals.

The antelope are members of the Bovidae, the family that encompasses the cattle, sheep, and goats, though they physically resemble deer more closely than they do their closer relatives.  They are found throughout Africa and Eurasia.  The deer are more cosmopolitan in their distribution, sprawling across North and South America, Europe and Asia, and possessing a toehold in northern Africa.  Both come in a variety of sizes and shapes, social groupings, and habitat preferences.

The primary difference between the deer and antelope is a question of headgear.  Deer possess antlers, whereas antelope have horns.  These are another two terms which many zoo visitors often confuse.  Antlers are possessed by male deer; the only species in which the female also has antlers is the caribou, or reindeer.  These antlers are branched into prongs or points; every year, the antlers fall off, and are regrown in the next.  Horns, in contrast, are permanent.  While they may vary enormously in size and shape, from the short, sharp spikes of a duiker to the spiraling coils of a kudu, they are never branched.

Left: Mounted set of wapiti antlers, Elmwood Park Zoo.  Right: Blackbuck antelope horns

As soon as we stop dismissively thinking of all deer and antelope as being part of some bland, monolithic herd of boring Bambis, we can see them for what they are - approximately 150 species (about 90 antelope, about 60 deer) of extraordinary beautiful and diverse animals, each worthy of admiration and conservation.

Hoofstock - An Acquired Taste

If we're going to spend a month talking about ungulates (commonly referred to by zookeepers as "hoofstock"), then we might as well clear the air over one point.

A lot of people find them boring.  And not just zoo visitors - other keepers, too.  Many a carnivore keeper views a kudu or an eland solely in terms of the enrichment value that it could provide their big cats... and they usually aren't shy about letting the hoofstock keepers know that.

There are about 240 or so mammals which we would call "Ungulates", divided into two families.  The vast majority of them are the Even-Toed Ungulates of the family Artiodactyla.  Their numbers include the hippos, pigs, peccaries, giraffe and okapi, camels and llamas, pronghorn, as well as the bovids - the cattle, sheep, goats, and antelope.  The remainder are the Odd-Toed Ungulates (Perissodactyla), consisting of the rhinos, tapirs, and horses, zebras, and asses.

Note: Though they are related to other ungulates, hippos and rhinos, and to a lesser degree giraffe, okapi, and tapir, are generally recognized to be *different* from most hoofstock, and don't get lumped in with the rest.

I'm throwing those numbers out there to help show a point - ungulates are anything but boring.  There is a tremendous amount of diversity among them.  They inhabit every ecosystem imaginable, from the arctic (musk-ox) to the Amazon (Brazilian tapir), from the Sahara (scimitar-horned oryx) to the Himalayas (markhor).  They range in size from a four-pound mouse deer to a 2.5 ton white rhinoceros (in which the individual poops are bigger than the mouse deer).  Some are solitary, some form herds in the hundreds of thousands.  They come in an array of forms that includes spots and stripes and horns and antlers and... fangs.  Hell, some of them are even predatory!

The majority of our domestic mammals are ungulates.  Many of our most recognizable zoo species - zebras, giraffes, bison, and camels - are ungulates.  At the same time, new species are still being discovered, including, most spectacularly, the saola of Southeast Asia, still almost unknown to science.

Tragically, the diversity of ungulates is increasingly at risk of becoming lost.  Many species are in decline, with a handful even having become extinct in the wild.  Much has been done to save those species, but much still remains to be done.  This will be a challenge to accomplish.  It'll be harder still if we do so laboring under the impression that these incredible animals are boring.  They are anything but.

Conservation Centers for Species Survival - Room to Roam

"Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam,

And the deer and the antelope play."

I can relate entirely to the desire of the Jackson Zoo to shake off its dust and relocate to a new facility.  I've often wished that my own little zoo - straight-jacketed within the confines of our neighborhood and unable to expand - could do the same.  It's not just a wish to rebuild, free from the confines of the existing facility.  It's a recognition of the fact that one of the most precious commodities in any zoo or aquarium is also one of the most limited - space.

I read once that all of the zoos in the world could, if they were lumped together in one mass, fit within the borough of Brooklyn, New York.  That's not a lot of room if you think about it.  When you consider that zoos are trying to establish themselves as havens for hundreds of different species, with each population requiring hundreds of individuals to maintain genetic and demographic diversity, you can see how crowded things can get.  Put simply, there's not much room on the Ark.

In recent years, the AZA has undertaken a new strategy to help improve its conservation programs by providing more space for its occupants.  These facilities are known as the Conservation Centers for Species Survival, or C2S2.  There are currently a handful of such facilities, some open to the public, some not.  Their ranks include the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute in Virginia, The Wilds in Ohio, White Oak Conservation center in Florida, the San Diego Zoo Safari Park in California, and Fossil Rim Wildlife Center in Texas.

The C2S2 facilities are largely built around the concept of working with large ungulates, especially those that naturally live in large herds.  Maintaining these animals in larger numbers allows for improved breeding and more natural behaviors.  It can also has the advantage of not requiring nearly as much animal transportation, which is cost-effective and safe.  Under the traditional zoo conservation breeding program, each facility maintained maybe a male and two or three females of an antelope, deer, or equid species.  When breeding recommendations were made, animals had to be shipped out, sometimes across the entire country.  By maintaining several individuals in one area, it's easier and safer to swap out breeding partners.

While some of these facilities are open to the public, others are not, and even at those that are, the tremendous importance of their conservation work tends to be done quietly.  This month, we'll be highlighting the extraordinary efforts being made to save endangered hoofed mammals behind-the-scenes at the Conservation Centers for Species Survival.

From the News: Mississippi's Jackson Zoo is on the move

Mississippi's Jackson Zoo is on the move

Moving from one house to another can be a herculean effort.  Now, imagine moving a zoo.  The enormous expense, the unbelievable labor, the logistical hurdles - they would all be breathtaking.  Which isn't to say that it couldn't have tremendous rewards.  A major challenge that almost every zoo faces is having to constantly upgrade and repair facilities that were built decades - in some cases over a century - ago.  Wouldn't it be great to start with a clean slate and build it the way you want it the first time?

Moving a zoo can also have tremendous financial benefits.  In the case of Jackson Zoo, part of the appeal is moving to a location where it will be more accessible to visitors.  Such was the motivation of Baton Rouge's BREC Zoo, which tried - and failed - to secure permission to relocate to a new site recently.  This defeat, an effort to escape its crumbling facilities and begin anew, was part of the lead-up the zoo's (hopefully temporary) loss of AZA accreditation.

April Fools!

Hats off to the San Antonio Zoo for some wonderful April Fool's Day trolling...