Strategic collection planning: Theory and practice

Abstract

Strategic collection planning is a relatively new concept for zoos. Until recently, personal preference, availability, and competition determined which species or subspecies were acquired. In the last few years, however, there have been attempts to employ systematic criteria for taxon selection that better serve conservation objectives. Planning currently occurs at three levels: global, regional, and institutional. The current planning process is reviewed and recommendations are made for ways the process might be improved. An efficient, economical, and effective collection planning process is critical if modern, professionally managed zoological institutions are to make a significant impact on wildlife and ecosystem conservation. Rather than selecting taxa solely on the possibility of a future reintroduction, serious consideration should be given to the ability of a species or subspecies to contribute to more immediate conservation goals, including public education, fund raising to support field conservation, and scientific research. Because resources are limited, perhaps zoos should focus their long-term breeding programs primarily on flagship species-that is, those that have the potential to excite public attention and help to protect habitat and other taxa-rather than on a broad array of species that are currently endangered. o 1995 Wifey-Liss, Inc. A strategic collection plan can be defined as a set of objectives for the composition of animal collections in zoos. This would typically include the number and type of species or subspecies as well as the number of individuals to be maintained. It may also include a proposed time schedule for implementation. Such plans can be formulated at three different levels: global, regional, and institutional [Foose and Hutchins, 19911. An institutional plan outlines the goals for a specific zoo's collection, which may be determined by the institution's mission statement, budget, current and proposed facilities, climate, and so forth. A regional plan focuses on the goals for an entire geographical region with an organized, cooperative breeding program (e.g., the North American AZA Species Survival Plano). A global plan is intended to integrate various regional plans, once they exist, into a coherent whole [IUDZG and IUCNlSSC CBSG, 19931. Strategic collection planning is a relatively new concept for zoos. Until recently, personal preference, availability, and competition determined which species or subspecies were acquired [Thomas, 1987; Diebold and Hutchins, 19911. In the last few years, however, there have been attempts to employ more systematic criteria for taxon selection that better serve conservation objectives [Bruning, 1990;Hutchins and Wiese, 1991; Foose et al., 1992bl. To assist its member institutions in the selection of appropriate taxa, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) formed specialized committees called Taxon Advisory Groups, or TAGs [Hutchins and Wiese, 19911. Similar committees have been established in other regions of the world, includin...

Beyond Noah's Ark: the evolving role of modern zoological parks and aquariums in field conservation

“…Because successful field-conservation programmes often require a detailed knowledge of basic biology, ecology, reproductive biology, genetics, behaviour, nutrition and diseases of a species, the research activities of zoological institutions are continuously expanding (Hutchins, 1988;Conway, 1989;Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995;Hutchins et al, in press). The investment of zoos and aquariums in basic and applied science is substantial and has been extensively covered in the literature.…”

“…Zoos and aquariums have come to be seen as modern Noah's Arks, protecting threatened and endangered wildlife from the approaching 'flood' of species extinctions (Foose, 1986;Seal, 1986;SoulC et al, 1986;Flesness & Foose, 1990;Foose et al, 1992), but this view is changing. Rapidly increasing numbers of endangered species (Wilson, 1988), combined with sobering appraisals of limited zoo capacity, an apparent lack of habitat for reintroduction and the technical difficulties and expense of reintroduction, make such views less tenable (Conway, 1986;Kleiman el al., 1991;Stuart, 1991;Derrickson & Snyder, 1992;Ginsberg, 1993;Stanley Price, 1993;Conway, 1995b;Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995). While captive breeding for reintroduction remains the only viable option for species that are extinct in the wild or whose populations have become so fragmented that they are no longer viable without human intervention (Hutchins & Wemmer, 1991;Conway, 1995b;Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995), zoos and aquariums are now taking a broader view of their conservation responsibilities Wiese & Hutchins, 1994a, b;Wiese et al, 1994;Conway, 1995b;Hutchins, Willis & Wiese, 1995).…”

Interactions of target population size, population parameters, and program management on viability of captive populations

“…Self-sustaining captive populations are important because many captive populations represent insurance policies against extinction or they act as ambassadors for conservation of wild populations. Given the potential importance of captive populations and the limited space available in captivity, AZA's captive management programs should make optimal use of the space available to house and preserve as many species as possible [Conway, 1986;Soulé et al, 1986;Hutchins et al, 1995Hutchins et al, , 1998]. Populations that have a poor viability prognosis under diverse management scenarios should be given strong consideration as phase-outs so that the space they occupy can be used to expand the populations of other species.…”

Sustaining the Ark: the challenges faced by zoos in maintaining viable populations

“…The world's zoos embarked on unprecedented levels of cooperation. Regional Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGs) in the United Kingdom, Europe, North America and Australasia were charged with measuring the quantity and quality of zoo space and with prioritizing species to occupy that space (Hopkins & Stroud, 1995; Hutchins et al , 1995; Mallinson, 1995). This in turn fuelled the rapid expansion of regional cooperative zoo programmes, such as the Australasian Species Management Programs of Australasia (Lees & Wilcken, 2002), the European Endangered Species Programmes of Europe (de Boer, 1993) and the Species Survival Plans of North America (AZA, 2007), and many of these regional cooperative species programmes adopted standard targets of retaining 90% of wild source gene diversity for 200 years.…”