Species Fact Profile: Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

                                                           Burrowing Owl

                                           Athene cunicularia (Molina, 1782)

Range: Western North America (southern Canada, western United States), Central and South America.  Isolated population in Florida, as well as some of the Caribbean islands

Habitat: Open Grassland, Prairie, Desert

Diet: Insects (about 90% of their diet), such as grasshoppers and beetles.  They will also eat small mammals and birds, as well as snakes, lizards, bats, and earthworms

Social Grouping:  Colonial, becoming territorial during the breeding season

Reproduction: Monogamous (though up to one third of owlets may be produced via “affairs,” and sometimes a male will have two females).  Breed annually (can have more than one clutch per season, but not usual).  Courtship consists of singing, preening, and the presentation of food from the male to the female.  Engage in some display flights prior to breeding.  Nesting takes place in spring.  Females lay 2-12 eggs in a burrow lined with ungulate dung, which hatch after 28-30 days (the dung attracts insects, which the owls and their chicks can eat).  An egg is laid every 1-2 days, with incubation starting with the laying of the first egg.  Male hunts and provides food for himself and his mate and the chicks.  The female stays with the chicks until they can thermoregulate; once they can, she assists in hunting.  Fledge at 7-8 weeks, sexually mature at 10 months.

Lifespan: 10 Years

      Conservation Status: IUCN Least Concern, CITES Appendix II

• Males and females both weigh 125-255 grams, stand 19-25 centimeters tall, and have a wingspan of 53-61 centimeters.  The legs are long and lightly-feathered, the tail short (often a little longer in the male).  It’s been suggested that males are 3% larger than females, but with the wide weight ranges seen in adults, this finding is not likely to be significant
• Sexes alike (females may be a little darker on average, with less barring) with brown plumage, barred on the breast, with a white chin stripe and some spotting on the back.  Juveniles lack the chest barring and have less spotting. The eyes are yellow with white “eyebrows” above them.  Beaks are dark grey or yellow, varying by subspecies.  There are no ear tufts.
• Utilize burrows that are usually dug by other species, such as prairie dogs or tortoises, though the Florida owls typically dig their own burrows (which tend to be shorter than those seen elsewhere in the range).  Burrows are up to 3-4 meters long, often with a curve to prevent light from reaching the chamber at the end.  Will sometimes use other structures for shelter, such as rock cavities.  Will use pipes as artificial nests.  Sometimes put debris, such as bottle caps, at the entrance of the burrow, possibly to indicate that it is occupied
• Have a higher tolerance for carbon dioxide than many other birds, adaptation to burrowing
• Active by day (hunting at night has been observed), but most active at sunset and sunset.  Middle part of the day often spent dustbathing or preening
• Primary vocalization is a high-pitched two-note coo, used by males to establish pairs and demarcate territories.  Also have a defensive scream, a cluck, and a chatter.
• Most hunting takes place with 1.5 kilometers of the nest, but may range as far as 10 kilometers.  When hunting insects, owls often pursue their prey on the ground.  Can also hunt from perches or on the wing
• Will stash food during times of plenty, with some caches having over 200 rodents
• Eat some fruits and seeds, especially those of prickly pears and cholla cacti
• Predators include larger birds of prey (peregrine falcons, Swainson’s hawks, etc), as well as foxes, coyotes, bobcats, and badgers; reptiles may take eggs or chicks from nests
• When threatened, known to retreat from sight and make a buzzing noise, reminiscent of a rattlesnake’s rattle, apparently Batesian mimicry
• Species name from the Latin cunicularius, meaning “burrower” or “miner”
• At least 18 subspecies recognized, most of them in the Caribbean or the Andes.  At least two subspecies, the Antiguan burrowing owl A. c. amaura, and the Guadeloupe burrowing owl A. c. guadeloupensis, are now extinct.  A fossil subspecies is known from the Bahamas
• Decline of prairie dogs and other burrowing animals has led to a reduction in available nest sites, though they can be provisioned with artificial burrows.  In some cases, deforestation and conversion of habitat to pasture has provided additional habitat for the species, allowing it to expand its range in some directions
• Causes of mortality include predation from domestic dogs and cats, collision with cars, destruction of burrows, and pesticide poisoning.  Island subspecies were driven to extinction by introduced mongoose
• Captive breeding and reintroduction program underway in California, led by San Diego Zoo; previous programs in Manitoba, Minnesota, and British Colombia, with mixed results

Moo Deng, or "Fiona the Second"

 

Into the Embassy

When I first entered the zoo field, I soon learned that my local zoo was really two zoos, for all practical purposes, with two different animal collections.  There were the animals in the main collection, the ones that the visitors saw, along with those that were in the hospital, in quarantine, and off-exhibit for any number of purposes.  And then there were the animal ambassadors, used by the education department to go to schools and other sites.  Never were the two to meet.   

Standards of care and protocols were very different between the two collections, even when comparing individuals of the same species.  They had separate keepers, separate record keeping, separate facilities - they did share our vet, but there was strict quarantine between the two, and the vet would only see the education animals after she was done with all of the "normal" patients for the day.   When an animal moved from the main collection to the education collection, it was as if it was sent to another zoo.  

That was the norm for many years, but times have changed.  I don't think I've seen a single group of animals in which husbandry has changed so much in recent years as the ambassador animals.  And nothing has been a better indication of this than housing.

Ambassador animals were typically housed in off-exhibit facilities, the understanding being that they needed time and privacy to rest when they weren't out on program.  Those facilities, as was often the case for off-exhibit spaces, tended to be... meh.  Probably more so than usual, really.  They tended to be smaller and more sparsely furnished, lots of modular caging or wood-and-wire pens, or simple tanks for herps.  The understanding here was that the animals would be going out on program and having space and enrichment opportunities that exhibit animals didn't have, so it was okay if the primary enclosure was a little... well... lacking.

There's been an increasing push to have all animals in a zoo collection maintained to the same standards of care.  That means that if an enclosure isn't good enough for a sloth that's on exhibit, why would it be good enough for a sloth that's a program animal?  This was really driven home during COVID, when program animals weren't being used, and spent two years or so in enclosures that, upon closer inspection, were kinda crummy.

If you're going to build better habitats for animals, you might as well let people see them.  Many zoos have done as John Ball Zoo has done and transitioned to having publicly-viewable ambassador holding.  Not only is this good for the visitors - a wider variety of animals to be seen, usually rotating in and out - but it also helps to promote a zoo culture in which as much of the facility as possible is on display, showing openly the inner workings of the zoo and the animal care.   An animal fresh back from program should still have places to retreat to for privacy, but there's no reason that a larger, better furnished on-display habitat can't be more comfortable or relaxing than a smaller off-exhibit one.   In fact, having a dedicated "home base" on zoo grounds can allow animals to do some of their programs from their exhibits rather than having to travel.  

Work from home - another great idea we got from COVID.

Zoo Review: John Ball Zoo, Part II

Continuing through the John Ball Zoo, we enter the sprawling central portion of the campus, dubbed "Americas."  

This area is a more generic, dated portion of the zoo, a combination of perfectly serviceable - if somewhat uninspired - yards and small aviaries, as well as a few large carnivore exhibits that are dominated with mock-rock and could probably stand to be updated.  Carnivores are the most prominent taxa in this section, ranging in size from the North American river otters, which have one of the more attractive habitats in the section, complete with underwater viewing, to the massive brown bears.  The bear habitat was recently renovated, but still strikes me as a bit old fashioned - the major update seems to have been the new training wall.  

The felids also have representation here in three enclosures for three species - Canada lynx, puma, and, in a diversion from the American theme, snow leopard.  Other habitats include a grassy yard for capybara, giant anteater, and recently-added Chacoan peccary, aviaries for bald and golden eagles (the former bred for reintroduction into the wild, I've been told), and smaller habitats for North American porcupine, toco toucan, and pale-faced sakis.  The trail peters out alongside a lagoon for Chilean flamingos.

The children's zoo is centered around a section of the grounds called, Wild Way Trail, which, in addition to the classic farmyard area, also contains a few exotics.  A wallaby walkthrough and habitats for howler monkeys and ring-tailed lemurs can be found here, along with a few small bird habitats.  This is also the home of the zoo's animal ambassador collection.  As with many zoos, John Ball has transitioned to a set-up in which the ambassador animals (or at least some of them) are on public display when not out of program.  There is also a ropes course, a non-animal attraction which likewise seems to be having something of a moment among many zoos as an added incentive for visitors.

The remaining section of the zoo is the Idema Forest Realm, a fairly massive chunk of the zoo that surprisingly holds only three species.  Two of the habitats - snowy owl and red panda - are fairly small, as one would expect for smaller species.  The stars of this area are the occupants of Crawford Tigers of the Realm.  There are two tiger habitats, one fairly small, the other fairly large, both rather natural, enhanced by the woodland setting that surrounds them.  The habitats are linked by a tunnel that runs alongside the visitor path, meaning visitors might see the tigers in one habitat, the other, or in between (or, possibly, one in either habitat).  Still, the area seems somewhat underutilized compared to other parts of the zoo, and I can't help but think there must be a way to do more with it without sacrificing the wooded character of this area.

John Ball Zoo was not an institution I'd paid much attention to years ago, but it definitely seems to be a zoo on the rise.  Besides the recent innovations and additions, I've been hearing lots of talk about plans for further growth, including a rainforest building and an African savannah, in addition to the aquarium (which would be run by the zoo, but not on zoo grounds).  I'm not sure how spatially-locked the zoo is - I know I said that the forest area felt a little underused, but not to the extent that several major exhibits could be added - so I don't know how much of this change would be driven by expansion versus the demolition and replacement of current habitats.  It's certainly a facility to keep an eye on. 

Zoo Review: John Ball Zoo, Part I

Upon his death in 1884, Michigan pioneer and politician John Ball bequeathed 40 acres of land to the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan.  That land became the city's main park, and quickly became home to a small collection of animals, which later formalized itself as the John Ball Zoo.  Today, the zoo is one of the largest in Michigan, which is fairly impressive considering how many of the largest species are absent from it - there are no giraffes, no rhinos, no elephants.  The zoo does maintain a very impressive and diverse collection spread across several attractive exhibits (with some older hold outs of past styles of architecture still in evidence), and continues to grow and develop rapidly.

Immediately inside the main gate is the zoo's newest exhibit, a flagship exhibit for pygmy hippos.  It's not often that the relatively-diminutive cousins of the common hippos are stars of their own exhibits, and this habitat is easily one of the best I've ever seen for the species.  It features two components - and indoor habitat (for the hippos, anyway - visitors view from the outside), with underwater viewing - and a grassy outdoor yard, which also has a pool.  White storks are also found here.  Early plans called for the hippos to share their habitat with sitatunga, a marsh-dwelling antelope from Central Africa, but early attempts to introduce the two species ended poorly, and plans for future attempts were halted.

Past the hippos are two other African exhibits, these holding species that are certainly better known among the public.  The Lions of Lake Manyara and The Chimpanzees of Mokomboso Valley are each some of the better exhibits that I've seen for their species.  The lions can be viewed from an observation tower, which is helpful for spotting the cats when their sprawled out in the vegetation of their yard.  The chimpanzees have indoor and outdoor enclosures, and while their dayroom is perfectly acceptable, the sight of them climbing and foraging in their outdoor yard is much preferable.  An Africa area is rounded out with a wooded yard for bongo, red river hog, and southern ground hornbill, with a smaller (but very attractive) habitats for meerkats and von der Decken's hornbills nearby, as well as a paddock of camels.

Tucked away near the entrance of the zoo, just down the trail from the hippos, is the zoo's small Aquarium.  Realistically, it's mostly an indoor habitat for Magellanic penguins (accompanied by a few other aquatic birds), as well as two other tanks, one displaying a native stream habitat, the other a northwest Pacific coast kelp forest.  There's been talk of Grand Rapids developing a separate aquarium, and it will be interesting to see if that happens and what it means for the zoo's building.   Immediately next door to the aquarium is Frogs and Friends, a room-sized amphibian house which displays a variety of species in attractive exhibits that highlight the zoo's involvement in Amphibian Ark and conservation breeding programs, particularly for the Panamanian golden frog.

More herps - as well as some small mammals - can be seen in Natural Treasures, a winding hallway that is lined with glass-fronted habitats, mostly of reptiles, but with a few small mammals, amphibians, and invertebrates as well.  It's perhaps one of the zoo's weak points, as the exhibits tend to be fairly generic, though most of them are at least of decent size.  Adjacent to the building are outdoor habitats for Grand Cayman iguanas, tortoises, and spider monkeys, all of which also have indoor exhibits (the indoor spider monkey exhibit is perhaps the low point of the building, though the adjacent outdoor habitat is fairly spacious and pleasant.  Still, considering the climate of Michigan, I'd perhaps have opted to invest more on the indoor space, knowing how much time the monkeys must spend inside).

Tomorrow, we'll continue the exploration of the zoo's remaining exhibits.

John Ball Zoo

Gen Z Talk at the Zoo

It's true - I have no idea what half the visitors (and a growing number of the staff) are even talking about anymore.  I just smile and nod and hope that I didn't accidentally give someone permission to do something dangerous, illegal, or stupid.

Welcome Back, Pittsburgh

Over the past few years, there had been a spate of zoos and aquariums losing their AZA accreditation as standards have tightened.  Most often, these have been the smaller facilities that don't have the budget or support of the big institutions, making staffing and maintenance more of a challenge.  An outlier here, however, has always been the Pittsburgh Zoo and Aquarium which, about a decade ago, made the deliberate, voluntary decision to leave AZA over philosophical disagreements about elephant management.  At the time, some of us wondered if it would mark the start of a trend of zoos breaking away from AZA to go their own way.

Years later, we have our answer - no, it did not.  After re-applying last year, being tabled, and being re-examined this year, Pittsburgh Zoo and Aquarium is once again an accredited member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.  Likewise, virtually all of the institutions that I know of which have lost their accreditation are working to get themselves back in - some have all ready made it.

For better or worse, AZA seems to have created a political environment in which it is much easier for a zoo or aquarium to survive and thrive as a member of the community than it has on the outside.

Pittsburgh Zoo & Aquarium Regains 'Gold Standard' accreditation from AZA after exacting process

A Point of Reference

Years ago, in my earliest experiences in hiring new keepers, I came across an application that, to my surprise, listed an old colleague from another facility as a reference.  I hadn't been that interested in the applicant overall, to be honest, but I decided to call the reference - in part, I guess, just to show my old zoo that I'd made it after all.  There had certainly been some doubt among them in those days.  To my surprise, my former co-worker was not happy about the call.  Not because it was me.  Because it was about a reference.

"I never said that he could use me," he said, and I could almost visualize him shaking on the other end of the phone with indignation.  "I never agree to be a reference for anyone.  I'd never put my reputation on the line like that."  That gave me a little pause.  I'd never honestly thought of this guy as having a particularly good reputation to begin with...  Anyway, the applicant didn't get the job.

I'd thought about that experience a lot in recent years, but for different reasons.  A new requirement through AZA requires a vetting process for when we send animals to non-AZA facilities.  There's an application we ask those facilities to fill out, of course, and ask for documentation, such as USDA inspection reports.  Still, there's no substitute for onsite inspections and firsthand accounts.  Ideally, we'd go ourselves to check out a facility, and sometimes that's what we do.  But sometimes it's too far for us to easily get to, in which case we rely upon other folks who have been to or interacted with that facility to provide a reference.

The headache is that, sometimes, like my old colleague, other facilities won't help out.  They're afraid.  They're afraid that if they provide a reference and it's a bad one, the facility in question will hear about it, get angry, and cause trouble.  Or, they're worried that if they provide a positive reference, we move ahead with a transaction, and something bad happens, it'll reflect poorly on them and their judgement.  So they say nothing.

This can be a bit frustrating, because really, there are a lot of great non-AZA facilities out there that it would be good to work with.  Besides some facilities which have, for one reason or another, opted not to join, there's also a lot of facilities (about 4 a year the past few years) which have lost accreditation, though they still may be fine zoos.  Columbus Zoo lost accreditation for one year before being readmitted - it's not like standards of care changed dramatically in that one year that they were out of the organization, but for that year, our zoo would have had to treat them like any other non-AZA zoo.  In that case, at least, references were easy to come by.

Many zoo-managed breeding programs find themselves limited by space and participating members.  Working with additional zoos can be a tremendous boon to the sustainability and viability of a population.  We shouldn't compromise by partnering with facilities with suboptimal animal welfare - but at the same time, it's frustrating to miss out on working with zoos that could be great partners, just because folks don't feel comfortable answering some questions about a place.

Species Fact Profile: Spotted Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna guttata)

                                                         Spotted Whistling Duck

                                           Dendrocygna guttata (Schlegel, 1866)

Range: Indonesia (Sulawesi, Moluccas), Philippines, New Guinea

Habitat: Freshwater Wetlands, Floodplains, Rivers, Streams

Diet: Grasses, Aquatic Plants, Seeds, and Aquatic Invertebrates.  Some small fish

Social Grouping:  Large flocks, breaking into smaller ones when foraging

Reproduction: Monogamous (possibly for life) with strong pair bonds, strengthened with allopreening, vocalizing together with repeated low whistles.  Nest in tree cavities, often near the water, though nesting on the ground has also been documented.  Up to 16 (but usually less than 10) round white eggs (52 x 38 millimeters, weighing 50 grams) incubated by both parents for 28-31 days.  At hatching, ducklings have sharp nails and stiff tails, which allow them to quickly exit the nest cavity.  Fully feathered at 7 weeks, with adult plumage by the end of their first year.  Fledge at 8 weeks. Sexually mature at 2 years

Lifespan: 10 Years

      Conservation Status: IUCN Least Concern

• Body length 43-50 centimeters.  Wingspan 85-95 centimeters.  Average weight 800 grams
• Sexes look alike.  Predominately brown with a pale gray face and throat and a whitish belly, dark stripe on the top of the head.  Upperparts and darker than the underparts, with light red-brown edging to the feathers.  Juveniles tend to be darker than adults and have less-developed spotting.  Several small white spots on the neck, breast, and flanks.  Feet, legs, and beak are dark grey with a pinkish tint.  Eyes dark brown, relatively large
• There is a small dark crest which can be partially raised when the bird is excited
• Often make a whistling or whirring sound when in flight, the result of air passing through the deep notches in the primary flight feathers
• Primarily nocturnal, spend the day roosting in the treetops, often gathering in large numbers.  At dusk, they break off into smaller flocks to feed and forage
• If nestlings are threatened, parents may act aggressively to defend them.  If the threat is too large, they may feign injury to try and lure the predator away from the nest
• Among the most arboreal of whistling ducks, fitting for the genus name Dendrocygna (“Tree Swan”).  Guttata means “spotted”
• Primarily dabble from the surface, but have been observed diving for food
• IUCN Least Concern.  Population is poorly studied in the wild, but estimated at anywhere from 6,500-17,000 mature individuals (overall population 10,000-25,000 birds), population believed to be stable.  In some parts of its range it may be the most common waterfowl species.  In others, it may be in decline
• In recent years has expanded its range; first observed in Australia in 1995, and now regularly seen in northern Queensland on the Cape York Peninsula and later (2011) in the Northern Territory, interspersed with wandering and plumed whistling ducks

... And We're Back

 Excuse the delay, but we're back!  Sabbatical complete, and blog posts resuming tomorrow.  Thank you!