Harpij 1 2009
Over republican giraffes and socialist polar bears; the politics of EEPs
Marc
Damen Rotterdam Zoo
Animals
have long served political ends, as illustrated by
governmental and royal gifts of animals such as giant
pandas. A recent, striking example of mixing animals with
politics is the case of Dragan Marković, nicknamed
“Palma” in Serbia. It was decided during negotiations
regarding his support of the coalition of Boris Tadić
that he would receive 250,000 euros from a national
investment fund for the acquisition of a giraffe for a zoo
he set up in his birthplace Jagodina. The opposition claimed
that his support of the coalition was bought with this
substantial sum of money, an accusation Marković has
denied. To date, no contact has been taken up with the
Giraffe European Endangered species Breeding Program (EEP)
to discuss participation in the EEP.
Approximately
175 EEPs now exist. The EEPs, which are run by a coordinator
and a species committee with support from advisors, are not
just about using the appropriate ISIS software (ARKS, SPARKS
and PM 2000) to make decisions regarding populations and
animal transfers; there are many issues that come into play,
and most of all the human factor makes decisions complicated.
The Giraffe EEP serves as an example for many
different issues that managers of an EEP may be confronted
with. There are now ca. 4000 giraffes entered in the
studbook, of which 770 are still alive. While specific data
(e.g. origin) on animals held in the past is sometimes
scarce, there is still much to be gained from analyzing data
on these animals, and it gives an indication of how the
population is progressing. Seven populations are currently
managed: six pure subspecies populations and a hybrid
population. The hybrids are held in single sex groups to
prevent reproduction, and the proportion of hybrids in the
total population is gradually declining.
While
the working procedures established for EEP coordinators and
husbandry guidelines developed by the EEPs and Tagon
Advisory Groups (TAGs) are instrumental in policies, some
discussions are not easily solved. For example, while it is
the policy to arrange bachelor groups for zoos starting with
giraffes, aren’t these groups actually the most difficult
to manage? Why do zoos that are just starting with giraffes
but have the best, state of the art, facilities receive the
least important animals? While planning for long-term
population development is the goal, often unexpected events
influence recommendations. For example the appearance of
Blue tongue or other diseases can have great consequences
for planned transfers, particularly as veterinary and
transport regulations and restrictions are interpreted
differently among countries even within the EU. Because
giraffes are big and expensive to transport long distances
as well as being susceptible to stress and injury sometimes
choice of destination is determined more by logistics than
genetic considerations. For example the practicalities of
obtaining a giraffe for Woburn Safari Park in England from
Colchester Zoo, also in England, outweighed the genetic
advantages of receiving an animal housed in Greece.
Sometimes three or four transfer recommendations are thrown
out because of such considerations before a transfer
actually proceeds.
Zoos
are sometimes reluctant to send away an animal; this can be
for many reasons, and their concerns have to be addressed.
For example the female hybrid giraffe Raisa played an
important role in maintaining calm in the giraffe group when
stressful events occurred at Emmen Zoo, and zoo staff
members were loath to lose her. Zoos are often averse to
sending away an animal that features in its animal
presentations for the public. One zoo was reluctant to send
a giraffe elsewhere because it had been adopted by a baker
for three years. Another zoo did not want to send the
giraffe named after the director’s wife away. In these
financially uncertain times zoos are citing the fear of not
having animals to show the public as a reason for not
sending an animal away. Relationships between individual
zoos can sometimes influence a zoo’s willingness to
transfer an animal- often a zoo is far more willing to send
an animal to a colleague zoo that it already has a good
working relationship with, and may be unwilling to send an
animal with a zoo that is has philosophical or other
differences with. Physical
characteristics and management aspects of individual animals
may influence how willing a zoo is to accept an animal; a
zoo would rather receive an antelope with perfect horns and
feet. Whether a bird is pinioned or not can be a decisive
factor in its destination, as is whether an elephant has
been managed with hands on or hands off techniques.
It has to be remembered that zoos do not exist just for breeding programs, they have other concerns that are also very important, for example the continued existence of the zoo as a company. Sometimes an EEP has to accept that these other concerns, at least for a time, take precedence over the EEP. While there is an EEP for polar bears, clearly the destination of Knut, the famous polar bear hand-reared at Berlin Zoo that is now the focus of a legal battle between Zoo Neumünster and Berlin Zoo, will be determined by a variety of factors, due to the financial and media value of this animal. Running an EEP remains a challenge, and it is a miracle that 90 giraffe transfers were achieved in 2008!
Rothschild’s
giraffes in Safaripark Beekse Bergen
Rolf
Veenhuizen, Safaripark Beekse Bergen
Safaripark
Beekse Bergen began holding Rothschild’s giraffes (Baringo
giraffes) in 1974 when 1.10 animals arrived from Uganda via
a dealer. The first calf was born on 8 June 1978, and now
17.22.0 young have been born at the park. While the majority
of animals currently constituting the herd were born in the
park, offspring have also been distributed to zoos
throughout Europe and even in Algeria. Giraffes from other
zoos have been transferred to Safaripark Beekse Bergen to
keep the herd genetically healthy over the years. Between
1983 and 1985 mixing the herd with 1.4 reticulated giraffes
resulted in 3.4 hybrids that have since died or have been
moved to another facility. The population tends at
Safaripark Beekse Bergen can be seen in Figure 1; this herd
is now among the ten largest in Europe.
While
the giraffe house is one of the oldest buildings in the
safari park it is relatively simple and safe. Because it is
beginning to show signs of aging and the herd continues to
increase in numbers, there are plans to build a new giraffe
facility. However these plans cannot yet be carried out
because of construction permit problems. The floor plan for
the current facility is shown in Figure 2. There are narrow
openings between the stalls and keeper area on both sides of
the building so that the keepers can slip to safety if
necessary. The connecting corridor can be used as a stall,
and nervous giraffes are trained for transport in this area.
Almost all the giraffes receive an injection of Trilafon
before transport, and to date all transports have gone
smoothly.
The
giraffes can eat as much lucerne hay per day as they want;
additionally they sometimes receive grass hay. They receive
two types of pelleted food, each 9 mm in diameter; a browser
pellet and a pellet with a high percentage of acacia that is
imported from South Africa. They also get branches, a salt
block, and vitamins.
The
females are together but separated from the male during the
night so that accidents do not occur if the male wants to
copulate, and most births occur in the group stall. Females
that are expected to give birth soon are placed separately
as the Grevy’s zebras may injure a newborn giraffe.
Experienced females generally produce a young every 22-24
months, a female that has lost a calf is usually fertile
right away and will have a calf in 14-16 months. While
20.26.0 reticulated and Rothschild’s giraffe calves have
been born at the safari park 10.5.0 died in the first month.
The
most frequent cause of death is not drinking. The calf has
the best chance of survival if it drinks during the first
day; if it has not nursed by then it is given enough formula
the first evening to keep it strong but not enough to make
it less enthusiastic about suckling the mother. First-time
mothers often seem to have difficulty allowing the calf to
nurse, and at the safari park they receive a combination of
a milk stimulator, tranquilizer and pain reliever to reduce
their sensitivity. It is difficult to assess whether this
practice actually helps. The mother and calf are also
brought into a small stall and the mother given a
distraction to give the calf a better chance at reaching the
udder. Sometimes keepers can provide a calf with formula
while it remains with the herd, or in some cases a calf may
drink from another lactating female. The calf is still
encouraged to drink from its mother even if given formula.
Figure 3 shows the weight gain of calf Twiga, nursed by her
aunt (and supplemented with pellets from two weeks of age),
and Figure 4 shows the amount of formula drank per feeding
by calf Kundi, who unfortunately broke her neck when 2.5
months of age. The total formula intake of calf Bo,
including the weaning period is shown in Figure 5.