marsupials and monotremes: a case study in regional collection planning

Zoo Biology 17:433–451 (1998)

© 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Marsupials and Monotremes: A Case Studyin Regional Collection PlanningMichael Hutchins, 1* Miles Roberts, 2 Cathleen Cox, 3 and Michael J. Crotty 3

1AZA Executive Office/Conservation Center, Bethesda, Maryland2National Zoological Park, Washington, DC3Los Angeles Zoo, Los Angeles, California

Cooperative collection planning is critical to the future of zoological parksand aquariums, yet few published models currently exist for collection plandevelopment and implementation. In particular, there has been little discus-sion about the relationship between regional and institutional collection plan-ning or about what defines a quality regional collection plan (RCP). Thisarticle documents the regional collection planning process adopted by theAZA Marsupial and Monotreme Taxon Advisory Group (TAG). More spe-cifically, it outlines the philosophical foundation of the North American RCPfor Marsupials and Monotremes, the organizational structure developed by theTAG to facilitate communication, evaluation and institutional participation, andother important details of the planning process. It also documents how the RCPwas used by one institution (Los Angeles Zoo) to formulate its Institutional Col-lection Plan (ICP). Zoo Biol 17:433–451, 1998.© 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Key words: Taxon Advisory Group; Institutional Collection Plan

INTRODUCTION

To facilitate cooperative collection planning at the regional level, the AmericanZoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) created the Taxon Advisory Group (TAG)concept in 1990 [Hutchins and Wiese, 1991; Wiese and Hutchins, 1994]. TAGs arespecialized committees whose primary responsibility is to develop a North Americanregional collection plan (RCP) for related taxa (e.g., great apes, raptors, amphib-ians). The RCP consists of recommended regional objectives for individual species,ranging from elimination of a captive population to development of formal coopera-tive management programs (e.g., Species Survival Plans [SSPs], Population Man-agement Plans or [PMPs]) [Hutchins et al., 1995].

Received for publication December 5, 1997; revision accepted August 15, 1998.

*Correspondence to: Dr. Michael Hutchins, Director, Conservation and Science, American Zoo andAquarium Association, Executive Office/Conservation Center, 7970-D Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda,MD 20814. E-mail: [email protected]

434 Hutchins et al.

The primary goals of the RCP process and its subsequent implementation areto: 1) manage captive populations for long-term sustainability, thus reducing the needto collect from the wild; 2) reduce the production of surplus animals and its associ-ated ethical problems; 3) decrease the cost of animal acquisition; 4) utilize limitedresources, particularly exhibition and holding space, more efficiently and effectively;and 5) increase the impact of living collections on wildlife and habitat conservation[Hutchins et al., 1995, 1996].

The first North American RCP was not published until 1992 [Wildt et al., 1992;Shoemaker, 1997]; thus, the RCP planning and implementation process is still in itsinfancy. Moreover, institutional compliance with RCPs is voluntary rather than man-datory, and it remains to be seen if individual institutions will actually utilize theseplans to reshape their collections.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the process by which the AZA Mar-supial and Monotreme TAG formulated its RCP. This article follows the develop-ment of an RCP from formulation of the TAG’s philosophy and selection criteriathrough RCP development, culminating in an institution’s use of the RCP to formu-late its Institutional Collection Plan (ICP). The AZA’s Wildlife Management and Con-servation Committee (WCMC) recently approved a set of standardized guidelinesfor RCP development, some of which were based on the AZA Marsupial andMonotreme TAG’s experience. It was therefore thought that an explanation of theTAG’s approach might prove to be valuable from both a historical and functionalperspective.

COLLECTION PLANNING PHILOSOPHY

Each TAG must consider a fundamental philosophical question when preparinga RCP: what justifies maintaining living populations of wild animals in captivity? Ithas been argued that one of the primary justifications for maintaining wild animalsin captivity is their potential to contribute to wildlife and habitat conservation [Conway,1969,1995; Western, 1986; Hutchins and Conway, 1995]. Monotremes and marsupi-als are among the most interesting groups of mammals and are popular with thevisiting public. However, popularity with visitors is not necessarily synonymous withan ability to contribute to conservation [Balmford et al., 1996]. Thus, one of the firststeps the TAG took in developing its RCP was to examine the function of marsupialand monotreme collections in North American zoos. Are such collections actuallycontributing to conservation? If so, how are they contributing? If not, how couldthey contribute?

Some zoo biologists have argued that the ultimate goal of all captive breedingis to support reintroduction to the wild [Foose, 1986; Foose et al., 1992; Ebenhard,1995; Balmford et al., 1996, 1997]. However, this is changing. The professional zooand conservation communities now recognize that captive breeding for reintroduc-tion has serious limitations as a recovery strategy and its use will probably be lim-ited to a few, carefully selected taxa [Kleiman et al., 1991; Povilitis, 1991; Ginsberg,1993; Leader-Williams, 1993; Stanley-Price, 1993; Caughley, 1994; Hutchins et al.,1995, 1996; Hutchins and Conway, 1995; Snyder et al., 1996]. However, this in noway diminishes the significance of cooperatively managed captive breeding programs[Hutchins et al., 1996, 1997]. In fact, zoos, aquariums and their living collectionscan support conservation in many other ways, including public education, scientific

Marsupial and Monotreme Collection Planning 435

research, the development of relevant technologies, professional training and tech-nology transfer, eco-travel, political action, and fund-raising to support field conser-vation [Western 1986; Mallinson, 1991; Hutchins and Conway, 1995; Hutchins etal., 1995, 1996, 1997; Snyder et al., 1996].

Critical to the evolution of the Marsupial and Monotreme RCP was the earlyelimination of captive breeding for reintroduction as the primary selection criterion,at least for Australian taxa. As an island continent, Australia has been able to avoidthe introduction of many diseases (e.g., rabies) through strict quarantine require-ments. It is therefore unlikely that animals bred outside Australia will be used forreintroduction purposes, because the risk of exposing the country’s unique wildlifeand agriculture-based economy to exotic diseases may be too great [Ballou, 1993].To our knowledge, no marsupial or monotreme bred in North America has ever beenreturned to its range country for release. It is possible that this will change in thefuture as new and more effective veterinary screening procedures become available[Munson and Cook, 1993]. In the meantime, however, the TAG decided to focus onother selection criteria, particularly a species’ ability to contribute to public educa-tion, scientific research, and fund-raising to support field conservation [Roberts andHutchins, 1995]. The TAG’s rejection of captive breeding for reintroduction as aprimary criterion for taxon selection freed it from the restriction of selecting onlyendangered or threatened species for the RCP. Indeed, many common species werealso considered for their potential contribution to one or more of the broad-basedgoals listed previously.

In the case of taxa selected for educational purposes, an attempt was made toidentify common species with interesting stories. Such species were selected for theirability to illustrate various concepts in wildlife conservation and management. Forexample, although common, the Australian red kangroo (Macropus rufus) has a storywith many parallels to the North American white-tailed deer (Oedicolielusvirginianus). Due to environmental changes precipitated by humans, both herbivoreshave become overabundant in their ranges. This, in turn, has created many similarmanagement problems, such as how to control populations [Lavery and Kirkpatrick,1985]. Although ubiquitous throughout its range, the North American opossum (Di-delphis marsupialis) was also included in the RCP for educational purposes, as it isthe only extant marsupial indigenous to North America.

To reach its educational goals, the TAG also considered it important to includea representative diversity of taxa in the RCP. Many North American zoo visitors arefamiliar with kangaroos and koalas, but are less aware of other marsupial andmonotreme species or their unique adaptations. For example, North Americans aregenerally unfamiliar with monotremes such as the egg-laying echidna (Tachyglossusaculeatus), marsupial carnivores such as the kowari (Dasyuroides byrnei), or un-usual adaptations in more familiar taxa, such as the arboreal tree kangaroos(Dendrolagus spp).

Some species were selected because of their potential contribution to both ap-plied and theoretical research (i.e., to establish an “experimental” population). Forexample, the common spotted cuscus (Spilocuscus maculatus) was chosen, not onlyfor its exhibition/education value, but also because it can serve as the focus for basicbiological and husbandry research. The basic biology and behavior and methods ofcaptive care and propagation are poorly documented for cuscuses, and many speciesare considered threatened or endangered.

436 Hutchins et al.

The goal for many other RCP priority species was to link North American zoosand their living collections directly to conservation efforts in nature. For example,some species, such as the koala (Phascolartos cinereus), are extremely popular withthe visiting public and were selected, not only for their educational value, but alsofor their ability to generate funds to support field research and conservation. ThisTAG is currently in the process of developing a 3-year action plan. The plan willoutline up to seven field conservation and research projects that the TAG and itsparticipating AZA member institutions will support, thereby providing a direct linkbetween zoo-held animals and the survival of their wild counterparts and habitats.For example, in 1997, the TAG endorsed two proposals for AZA Conservation En-dowment Fund (CEF) support, a field census of South American marsupials in Ar-gentina and a study of the behavioral ecology of free-ranging tree kangaroos(Dendrolagus spp) in Papua New Guinea. The TAG is also in communication withits sister TAG in Australia and intends to help support projects in this region as well.For example, a yellow-footed rock wallaby (Petrogale xanthropus) reintroductionprogram is underway in Australia and supported by ARAZPA, and the AZA TAG isconsidering lending financial and other support to this important project. Once aplan is formulated, a marketing and development initiative can be undertaken to gen-erate North American corporate and other support for these projects.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

A RCP provides guidance to participating institutions on which species to se-lect when formulating their ICPs. Many practical considerations should be taken intoaccount when formulating a RCP, including compatibility with range-country priori-ties, suitability, availability, and existing collections and available space.

Compatibility With Range Country Priorities

One advantage the TAG had in developing its RCP is that many marsupialsand monotremes originate in only three countries of the world: Australia, Papua NewGuinea, and Indonesia (Irian Jaya), and a great deal is known about their biologyand conservation status. A number of marsupials also occur in the New World, butcomparatively little is known about their biology or conservation status in the wild.

Australian marsupials and monotremes are comparatively well-studied, and theAustralasian Regional Association of Zoos and Aquariums (ARAZPA) developed itsown collection planning process [Hopkins, 1995a,b]. In addition, the IUCN/SSC Cap-tive Breeding Specical Group (CBSG) had developed a draft CAMP for Australasianmarsupials and monotremes [Foose and Phipps, 1992], and this eventually evolvedinto a global captive action plan (GCAR) [Slater and Hopkins, 1994]. Since theARAZPA plan incorporated CAMP and GCAR recommendations, it was not deemednecessary to incorporate the CBSG plans directly, although these plans were con-sulted when considering the addition of species from Papua New Guinea and Indo-nesia (Irian Jaya). The existence of the ARAZPA plan made it possible to use it as abasis for the AZA RCP, with the idea that AZA institutions might be able to receivecaptive surplus from Australia, and at the same time, make contributions—both di-rect and indirect—to selected Australian field conservation programs. From a practi-cal and ethical viewpoint, it is much easier and more appropriate to export captive-bredanimals than wild-caught ones, especially in the case of endangered or threatened


species [Roberts and Hutchins, 1995; Koontz, 1995]. It should be noted that Austra-lia is highly organized when compared with other countries that have native marsu-pials and monotremes, and a majority of marsupials in North American collectionsare of Australian origin. This explains why similar efforts were not initially made inCentral and South America, Indonesia (Irian Jaya) and Papua New Guinea. A con-nection has now been made with the IUCN/SSC South American Marsupial Special-ist Group [Gilley, pers. commun.], and efforts are also underway to consider TAGsupport of priority projects in Papua New Guinea [Dabek, pers. commun.].

Copies of the preliminary North American RCP were provided to ARAZPAand to the Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA) (now known as theBiodiversity Group of Environment Australia) for review and comment. It is impor-tant to note that RCPs should be considered “living” documents that can be modifiedas the result of changing circumstances [Hutchins et al., 1995]. Indeed, it is fullyexpected that the initial North American RCP will be continually updated to reflectchanging range country and institutional priorities and to take advantage of new op-portunities. To improve communication and help build inter-regional support andcooperation, the philosophy behind the TAG’s RCP process was presented at the1995 ARAZPA Annual Conference in Perth, Western Australia [Roberts and Hutchins,1995], where it was generally well received. In addition, the TAG’s RCP decision-making process was also explained and widely discussed at the 1995 and 1996 AZAAnnual Conferences and at two regional conferences where mid-year planning ses-sions took place.

Suitability

One of the goals of the TAG is to maximize the exposure of zoo visitors tomarsupials and monotremes. Another goal is to involve as many AZA-accreditedinstitutions as possible in its cooperative captive breeding and conservation programs.Since most North American zoos are situated in temperate climates, this meant se-lecting species that could tolerate a wide range of climatic conditions. When select-ing macopods, for example, the TAG gave serious consideration to hardy taxa, suchas the common walleroo (Macropus robustus).

TAGs also should consider whether the taxa selected can be maintained andbred in captivity. For example, the TAG did not select platypus (Ornithorhynchusanatinus) for inclusion in its RCP. This unusual and highly specialized species wasnot recommended because captive breeding in Australia has been virtually nonexist-ent [Williams, 1993]. Consequently, there is little chance that a permit can be ob-tained to import the species. Exceptions can sometimes be made to this rule, however,if the species is available and can serve as an experimental population for develop-ing effective husbandry techniques for more endangered varieties (e.g., spotted cuscus,see above).

Availability

For practical purposes, it is important that priority taxa listed in RCPs are po-tentially available to participating institutions, either via importation from other zoos,or from future planned breeding. Why should institutions take direction from a RCPfor taxon selection if a large number of priority taxa are unattainable by North Ameri-can zoos? For example, it would have made no sense for the North American Marsu-pial and Monotreme RCP to include the Northern hairy nosed wombat (Lasiorhinus

438 Hutchins et al.

krefftii) or bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata), as these Australian spe-cies are highly endangered and no cooperative captive breeding programs currentlyexist or have been proposed by the range country. Importations would therefore beimpossible and, in fact, undesirable at this time, which is why RCPs need to bedeveloped with input from the range country.

Utilizing Existing Collections and Space

When formulating an RCP, it is particularly important that a TAG considerwhich taxa already exist in the region and in what numbers, and to evaluate to cur-rent and future regional captive “carrying capacity” for their taxa of interest. Prior toformulating its draft plan, the TAG surveyed all participating institutions to obtainthe following information: 1) the number of species and individuals currently main-tained at the facility; 2) the amount of holding and exhibition space available; and 3)any future plans or interests. ISIS Abstracts were also consulted, but ISIS recordsmay not be accurate enough to assess current holding capacities [Earnhardt et al.,1995]. Obtaining current population data through the survey was comparatively easy.However, assessing and obtaining consensus on future plans proved to be particu-larly difficult, not only because of the diversity of opinion, but also because institu-tions generally did not have a clear idea of what they wanted to do. In fact, a majorityof institutions were looking to the TAG for direction, rather than wanting to imposetheir own priorities on the process a priori. This may be because most marsupialsand monotremes, although popular with visitors, are not as high profile or poten-tially controversial as some taxa, such as lowland gorillas. However, it may alsoreflect the willingness of participating institutions to cooperate and make selectionson the basis of carefully considered TAG recommendations.

It is not an easy task for participating institutions to make significant changesin their collections, particularly in the case of larger vertebrates. It is therefore im-perative that TAGs make the best possible use of existing collections, retaining spe-cies that can meet exhibition needs and, at the same time, fulfill institutional andregional conservation goals. For example, the red (Macropus rufus) and Eastern andWestern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus and M. fuliginosus) were among themost common macropods in North American collections. If AZA members were toreplace these taxa (e.g., with more endangered varieties), what would become of theanimals currently in their collections? Disposition of surplus animals is a difficultethical issue [Lindburg and Lindburg, 1995]. Should such animals go to the privatesector where they might receive less than adequate care? Should they be euthanized?The alternative is to replace such animals gradually through natural attrition, con-dense them into fewer institutions, or use them to support conservation through re-search, education, and fund-raising.

ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES

Hutchins et al. [1995] stressed the importance of obtaining institutional involve-ment and “buy in” in all RCPs. This was based on the fact that implementation ofRCPs must occur at the institutional level. To obtain institutional compliance withRCP recommendations, it was therefore considered important for TAGs to considerthe interests, needs, and resources of participating institutions during RCP formula-tion. Of course, complete consensus is seldom possible, but an attempt at consensus


building was deemed critical, as were frequent communication and feedback betweenthe TAG and participating institutions.

The TAG took several steps to accomplish the above goals. First, to facilitateinstitutional involvement and “ownership” of the group’s activities, the TAG wascompletely reorganized employing democratic principles. The co-chairs sent a letterto the directors of all AZA accredited zoos requesting their participation. The letteralso asked interested directors to appoint an institutional representative—an indi-vidual who would serve as a contact person between the TAG and the participatinginstitution for communication and decision-making purposes.

Each director also was asked if their institutional representative would be will-ing to serve on an elected Steering Committee. The responsibilities of committeemembers were described carefully, so that the institution’s commitment to the pro-gram could be assessed prior to making a decision. One of its primary roles was toserve as a decision-making and implementation body for the TAG, so requirementsfor membership included access to the Internet and an ability to attend at least onemeeting annually. To facilitate communication, an electronic mail list serve subse-quently was set up through AZA and a web page is currently under development[Roberts, pers. commun.].

A total of 71 institutions expressed a willingness to become involved in TAGactivities and identified representatives. Of those, 24 expressed a willingness to serve.An election was held and a nine-member steering committee was selected by theinstitutional representatives. All institutional representatives were invited to partici-pate in RCP development meetings held at AZA regional and annual conferencesand many representatives beyond the elected steering committee did attend.

THE REGIONAL COLLECTION PLAN

The RCP itself was designed to be a resource for institutional collection plan-ners. Introductory sections explained to users why the RCP was needed and how andwhy priority species were selected. Another section defined the five categories ofmanagement to be employed by the TAG. These categories were intended to de-scribe the TAG’s current and future goals for a given species: 1) phase out, 2) short-term display population, 3) experimental population, 4) population management plan(PMP), and 5) species survival plan (SSP).

Some management programs, such as SSPs and PMPs, have been carefullydefined by the AZA and are intended to promote long-term sustainability of regionalcaptive populations [Wiese and Hutchins, 1994; Wiese and Willis, 1996]. However,other categories were either unique to this TAG or were borrowed from other TAGs.Phase out meant that the species was not identified as a priority for long-term coop-erative management and was to be managed to extinction. Two other categories de-fined populations held temporarily to meet specific regional goals. A short-term displaypopulation was intended to contribute to the TAG’s goals through education andfund-raising to support field conservation for a relatively brief period. Similarly, anexperimental population would be used temporarily to develop husbandry protocolsfor analogous taxa or to study the basic biology of little-known species.

The North American Marsupial and Monotreme RCP was founded on thepremise that all priority taxa should be managed cooperatively at some level. Thus,the RCP identified immediate, short-term, and long-term population management

440 Hutchins et al.

goals for each species. For example, if no studbook currently existed, it made nosense to establish a PMP or SSP program immediately. Without an accurate stud-book database, appropriate genetic and demographic management of a population isimpossible [Earnhardt et al., 1995]. Thus, an immediate goal for a given speciesmight be to establish a regional studbook database, a short-term goal to establish aPMP, and a long-term goal to establish an SSP.

Although the TAG had a good idea of the available space for housing marsupi-als and monotremes in North American institutions (on the basis of institutional sur-veys), final determination of specific population goals (i.e., the precise number ofindividuals in a managed population) will have to wait until formal studbooks areestablished for all RCP priority taxa and, in some cases, until SSP Master Plans andPMPs are developed. During RCP development, studbooks existed for only four pri-ority taxa (brush-tailed bettong, koala, parma wallaby, and tree kangaroos). How-ever, since establishment of the initial RCP, studbooks have been approved for Easternand Western gray kangaroos and the red-necked or Bennett’s wallaby (M. rufogriseus).The TAG is in the process of recruiting studbook keepers for RCP species currentlylacking studbook databases.

During its deliberations, the TAG recommended 24 species of marsupials andmonotremes for cooperative management (Table 1). Two species were recommendedto be phased out. Another 15 species were recommended to be maintained at lowlevels of management and slated for probable phase out. The latter species werepresent only in small numbers and the probability of establishing viable populationswithout further importation was thought to be low.

The TAG deemed it important to explain to institutional collection plannerswhy they should choose RCP priority species for their collections. Thus, the listingof each RCP species contained a brief reason for inclusion and a species profile,explaining in more detail why the species was chosen, what was unique about thespecies, the current status (if any) of regional management programs, and specificrecommended management actions. One example is provided here for illustration:

Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisi)

Short-term goal: PMPLong-term goal: SSPImmediate action: Initiate studbook

Reason for inclusion in RCP: Highly popular, charismatic, possible fund-rais-ing potential due to tie in with popular cartoon character, carnivorous marsupial.

Species profile: The Tasmanian devil is the largest of the extant carnivorousmarsupials and is one of Australia’s most charismatic animals. The species’ popular-ity is based on the misconception (promoted by a popular cartoon) that it is an ag-gressive, ferocious hunter, when in fact, it is principally a carrion eater that hasdifficulty killing even smaller animals and can easily be killed by feral dogs. Theintrinsic interest of this species (much of it having to do with its name) makes it anatural attraction for zoo visitors and gives it the potential for extensive public-rela-tions and fund-raising campaigns that could aid in conservation efforts for other, lesswell-known dasyurids and the native fauna of Tasmania. This species would also bean excellent focus for educational campaigns intended to dispel inaccurate or inap-propriate human perceptions of animals. The husbandry requirements of Tasmanian


devils are well-known. They are not especially labor intensive with regard to captivemanagement although, like most nocturnal animals, they can be difficult to exhibiteffectively.

The RCP also included a detailed reference table listing the biological charac-teristics of each species (e.g., reproductive biology, ecology, social structure, bodysize), status in captivity (in both Australian and North American zoos), and status inthe wild [e.g., as based on the IUCN/SSC Australasian Marsupial and MonotremeAction Plan; Kennedy, 1992; IUCN/SSC CBSG CAMP; Foose and Phipps, 1992and other relevant publications]. All the information was designed to make the taskof institutional collection planners easy, while at the same time, advocating the ben-efits of cooperative population management.

THE INSTITUTIONAL COLLECTION PLAN

The most important step in the collection planning process is the developmentand implementation of the ICP. Here we cover various topics relevant to ICP devel-opment, as well as discuss the relationship between RCPs and ICPs.

General Considerations

For RCPs to be effective, individual institutions must use them to formulatetheir ICPs, and these plans must then be implemented [Hutchins et al., 1995]. It isimportant to note that institutional participation in RCPs is completely voluntary.Thus, for implementation to occur, TAGs must not only explain their decision-mak-ing process, justify their selections, and promote institutional ownership, they mustalso extol the benefits of choosing RCP species. In short, they must sell the RCP toparticipating institutions.

There are many benefits for institutions selecting cooperatively managed RCPpriority species for their collections. These include an ability to 1) obtain animals forexhibition and other purposes as needed; 2) reduce the production of surplus ani-mals, thus avoiding the many ethical and public relations problems associated withoverpopulation; 3) move surplus animals to other participating institutions as needed;4) acquire animals at low cost or on loan; 5) share information on husbandry proto-cols; and 6) increase the conservation impact by participating in and supporting co-operative TAG projects.

The RCP-ICP Relationship: The Los Angeles Zoo as a Case Study

In 1996, the Los Angeles Zoo completed an ICP detailing all the species thatare/will be in their collection. In formulating the ICP, the Zoo’s Collection Plan Com-mittee chose to focus on taxa that 1) had been identified by AZA TAGs as prioritiesfor regional cooperative management; 2) were determined to be in need of zoo-basedconservation efforts; 3) had the potential of conveying strong educational messages;and 4) could create memorable visitor experiences. Two of us (Cox and Crotty) servedon the Committee and their experiences are described below.

The Collection Plan Committee worked to incorporate the insights and exper-tise of the entire Los Angeles Zoo community and to create a collection plan thatwould be embraced by zoo staff and volunteers. The curatorial and research staffassembled the initial draft of the ICP, and in successive stages, all animal care per-sonnel and other senior staff members were included in revising and/or evaluating

TABLE 1. Taxa initially selected for the North American Monotreme and Marsupial Regional Collection Plan

Common name,order, family Scientific name Short-term goal Long-term goal

MONOTREMATATachyglossidae (echidnas)

Echidna Tachgolossus aculeatus PMP SSPMARSUPIALA

Didelphidae (opossums)North American opossum Didelphis marsupialis No management No management

PhascolartidaeKoala Phascolarctos cinereus PMP* SSP

Dasyuridae (Austrailian carnivorous marsupials)Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisi Studbook/PMP SSPKowari Dasyuroides byrnei Studbook/PMP SSPTiger quoll Dasyusus maculatus Studbook/PMP SSPFat-tailed dunnart Smithopsis crassicaudatus Explore interesta PMP

Potoridae (rat kangaroos)Brush-tailed bettong Bettongia penicilliata SSP* SSPLong-nosed potoroo Potorous tridactylus Studbook/PMP SSP

Macropodidae (kangaroos, wallabies,rock wallabies, and tree kangaroos)Tamar wallaby Macropus eugenii Studbook/PMP SSPRed kangaroo Macropus rufus Studbook/PMP SSPEastern/western gray kangaroo Macropus giganteus/fuliginous Studbook/PMP PMPCommon wallaroo Macropus robustus Studbook/PMP PMPRed-necked wallaby Macropus rufrogriseus Studbook/PMP PMPParma wallaby Macropus parma PMP* SSPYellow-footed rock wallaby Petrogale xanthopus Studbook/PMPb SSPMatschie’s or Huon tree kangaroo Dendrolagus matschiei SSP* SSPGoodfellow’s tree kangaroo Dendrolagus goodfellowi SSP* SSP

Petauridae (gliders)Leadbeater’s possum Gymnobelideus leadbeateri Join ASMPc Follow ASMP recommendationsSugar glider Petaurus breviceps PMP PMP

Acrobatidae (feathertail gliders)Feathertail glider Acrobates pygmaeus EPd PMP

Peramelidae (bandicoots)Eastern barred bandicoot Perameles gunni Explore interest Join ASMP

Vombatidae (wombats)Southern hairy-nosed wombat Lasiorhinus latifrons PMP SSP

Phalangeridae (possums, cucuses, phalangers)Spotted cuscus Spilocuscus maculatus EP PMP

*Indicates program already exists.aExplosre interest = determine interest by AZA members in participating.bChange from original plan due to request by ARAZPA to develop managed program.cJoin ASMP = recommendation that AZA particpate in existing ASMP program.dEP = experimental population intended to develop husbandry protocols.

444 Hutchins et al.

the ICP. When completed, the document was reviewed by zoo volunteers and sup-port groups and the input of all interested constituencies was solicited for a revision.

The Committee wanted those who were directly and indirectly involved in evalu-ating the ICP to understand the basis on which it was created and the rationale forchoosing particular animals. For this reason a summary of the ICP was made readilyavailable to all interested parties. The core of the printed document consisted of a listof taxa to be maintained in each biogeographical section (“biome”) of the zoo. Taxawere assigned to one of three categories: 1) existing taxa to remain in the collection;2) new taxa to be added; and 3) existing taxa to be phased out. Substantially greaterdetail was provided in two appendices. The first appendix presented information thatthe curatorial staff assembled and which was referred to when generating the firstdraft of the ICP. For each animal present in the collection when planning was initi-ated, the appendix contained information on the current status of the species in thewild and in captivity. These data were assembled from CITES and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service documents, IUCN/SSC Action Plans, regional and international stud-books and/or management plans that cover the species (e.g., RCPs and breedingmaster plans), ISIS Abstracts, and other sources. Also listed were the current numberof individuals held at the Los Angeles Zoo listed by age and sex, the composition ofgroups held, a history of reproductive success/failure at the Zoo, and recommenda-tions regarding the future management of the species by the relevant curator.

The second appendix contained a list of all mammals, birds, reptiles, and am-phibians that were to be retained in or added to the collection for conservation oreducation purposes. Species were listed according to the biome in which they wereto be displayed, together with information on their status in the wild and captivity,and future management plans at the Zoo.

In the course of preparing the ICP, the Zoo’s curatorial staff sought out allRCPs that were available for the various taxa being considered. The RCP that wasfound to be most useful was the Marsupial and Monotreme RCP. The usefulness ofthis RCP derived from the fact that much of the information needed for decision-making and to be included in the ICP appendices had already been assembled. Hav-ing such extensive and complete information available in one document greatlyreduced the time needed for data collection by Zoo staff and expedited decision-making concerning these taxa. Furthermore, when the Committee had specific ques-tions regarding the status and availability of species, the TAG chairs were readilycontacted.

At the time the ICP was formulated, Los Angeles Zoo housed a fairly extensivecollection of monotremes and marsupials, including the echidna, Virginia opossum,koala, and four species of macropods. All were recommended in the RCP, and theZoo’s ICP also endorsed retaining those species, with the exception of the euro(Macropus robustus erubescens, a race of the common wallaroo). The deletion of theeuro was based both on the need to downsize the collection improve the quality ofdisplays and on the fact that only a single aged animal remained at the institution.

Master Plan 2002, an internal planning document commissioned by the LosAngeles Zoo in 1992, recommended subdividing the existing large indoor koala ex-hibit into a number of separate displays for small nocturnal marsupials, and the Col-lection Planning Committee fully concurred. In the ICP, the nocturnal marsupialswere selected from those recommended in the Marsupial and Monotreme RCP. Therationale for their inclusion was that the Zoo would be able to participate in regional


cooperative management programs. This, in turn, would increase its opportunity bothto obtain specimens and find homes for the offspring of successful breeders.

As recommended by the Regional Koala Studbook Keeper, the Los AngelesZoo had already modified an existing outdoor exhibit enabling the zoo to displaykoalas both indoors and out. The Collection Planning Committee felt that a smallmacropod could be appropriately displayed on the substrate of the outdoor koaladisplay; of the two suitable taxa identified for regional management in the RCP, theZoo opted to add the tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii) to the collection. MasterPlan 2002 also recommended the addition of a tree kangaroo display, and the CPCselected Goodfellow’s tree kangaroo (Dendrolagus goodfellowi)—one of two spe-cies of tree kangaroo recommended in the RCP—as the species to display.

The Collection Planning Committee used a variety of well-defined criteria forselecting species for its ICP, including the Zoo’s ability to house and care for theanimals properly and the potential of each species to contribute to institutional andregional educational, conservation, and research goals. When working with the Mar-supial and Monotreme RCP, the Committee found that one of the most valuableaspects of the plan was the inclusion of a rationale for managing particular species inNorth American zoos. Furthermore, the rationale was presented in enough detail forinstitutions to make their own judgments. From an institutional perspective, havingRCPs that are equally explicit as to why particular species were not recommendedwould be valuable.

The Zoo chose to include two Australian mammals in its ICP that were notrecommended by the TAG. One is the western quoll (Dasyurus geoffroyii), a charis-matic marsupial carnivore that is endangered and therefore unlikely to be exportedto North America in the near future. The RCP recommended instead the tiger quoll(Dasyurus maculatus), a more realistic alternative for which an SSP is slated to bedeveloped eventually by the TAG. The platypus was also included in the Zoo’s ICPbecause of its uniqueness and the interest it would bring to zoo visitors. In this case,husbandry techniques for successfully maintaining and breeding the species in cap-tivity remain to be developed. However, zoo staff felt that it is precisely such speciesthat need work and hoped to support such efforts.

DISCUSSION

Hutchins et al. [1995] reviewed the current global, regional, and institutional col-lection-planning processes and suggested several improvements. More specifically, theyrecommended that 1) regional TAGs consider a wide range of criteria for selecting taxa,rather than focusing primarily on future reintroduction potential; 2) TAGs be encouragedto consider institutional interests, needs, and resources, as well as global priorities, whenformulating RCPs (based on the recognition that RCP implementation must occur at theinstitutional level); and 3) participating institutions be encouraged to evaluate their cur-rent collections and to consider TAG recommendations when formulating their ICPs.The last two recommendations were therefore considered essential for the process to beeffective in reshaping institutional collections.

The TAG attempted to the best of its ability to follow these three basic recom-mendations when preparing its RCP. Because captive breeding for reintroduction(from North America) was not currently an option, at least for for Australian taxa, awider range of selection criteria were employed, including a species’ ability to con-

446 Hutchins et al.

tribute to public education, scientific research, and fund-raising to support field con-servation. However, since reintroduction programs are likely to be rare across alltaxa, the authors recommend that other TAGs also consider using this broad-basedapproach to species selection and to be very specific in explaining why each taxonwas selected [Hutchins et al., 1995].

Providing a justification for RCP priority taxa and linking the RCP to conser-vation and research projects outlined in the TAG’s 3-year action plan is, in somecases, expected to facilitate the permitting process. Importation of species listed asendangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and/or on CITES Appendix Irequires permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the exporting country.Permit applications must carefully justify the reasons for the importation, includingits role in enhancing species survival. Exportation of any Australian native speciesrequires approval of the Australian government’s Wildlife Protection Authority andis governed by the Wildlife Protection Act of 1982 (ANCA, 1996). In response toconcerns about the care and use of exported native species in zoos overseas, changeswere made to the Act in 1995. Exportation permits now require an agreement be-tween the importing zoological institution and Environment Australia (the operatingname for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service), which stipulates theconditions under which the animals will be managed and displayed.

One possible criticism of the TAG’s approach is that the taxon selection pro-cess was subjective. It should be noted that other, more “quantitative” methods forpriority setting exist. In these cases, collection planners place numerical values onvariables they identify as high priorities, weight them, add them, and then use theresultant scores to rank taxa for selection purposes. For example, the Regional Ani-mal Species Collection Plan software program (REGASP), developed by ARAZPAand distributed in cooperation with ISIS, employs such a process [ARAZPA andISIS, 1996], as have some AZA TAGs. These methods can prove to be beneficialwhen the users fully understand the tool’s assumptions and limitations. However, theMarsupial and Monotreme TAG selected species by comparing systematically: 1)various taxa’s current status in North American and Australian zoos, with the goal ofassessing whether a viable population was attainable; 2) determining whether thespecies was designated for collective management in the Australasian region, so thatnew stock might be available; 3) assessing various species’ track record in captivity(can it be successfully managed and bred?); and 4) evaluating the species’ potentialto contribute to education, research, and/or fund-raising efforts. Given the amount ofholding space available and the goals of the plan, some taxa were gradually elimi-nated from consideration. This process worked well, although it may have been fa-cilitated by using existing computerized ranking methods.

Although the implementation process has just begun, it is gratifying that atleast one major institution (The Los Angeles Zoo) has utilized the TAG’s RCP toformulate its ICP. It is interesting to note, however, that two species were included inthe Los Angeles Zoo’s ICP that were not identified as priorities in the RCP. This isperfectly acceptable, as long as the institution understands that 1) no formal coop-erative management program will be developed for those species in the near futureand 2) it will be responsible for the disposition of any animals bred and for theimportation of any new individuals without formal TAG support. For example, theZoo’s ICP included platypus, which is not recommended by the TAG at this time(see Suitability and Availability, above). North American institutions desiring to ex-


hibit platypus may want to consider supporting research in Australia that would leadto the development of reliable husbandry and propagation techniques. Once consis-tent captive breeding has been achieved, importation might be possible, particularlyif it clearly contributed to field research and conservation objectives [Roberts andHutchins, 1995]. In future RCPs it might be useful to include a detailed explanationfor why some high-profile taxa were not selected.

The TAG made a concerted effort to communicate with one range country andto incorporate its goals into the planning process. Participating institutions were alsoencouraged to involve themselves in the RCP planning process and to comment onthe draft plan. Hutchins et al. [1995] recommended that TAGs employ a “middle-out” rather than a “top-down” or “bottom-up” planning process. In top-down plan-ning, global recommendations are translated directly into regional and then intoinstitutional plans. In bottom-up planning, each institution sets its own priorities, andthese are eventually fashioned into a regional plan [e.g., Hopkins 1995a,b]. In middle-out planning, global recommendations and institutional needs are considered simul-taneously and appropriately integrated. The latter approach was expected to be moreeffective in achieving implementation in that it promoted institutional participationand “buy in,” while at the same time addressing global and regional concerns[Hutchins et al., 1995]. This contrasts both with the top-down approach, which doesnot consider regional or institutional interests, needs or resources and thus is seen ashaving little chance of implementation, and with the bottom-up approach, which isinstitution-focused and therefore considered less likely to build regional consensusand cooperation. Although direct consultation with relevant Australian agencies oc-curred somewhat late in the RCP planning process, the availability of existing plan-ning documents from that region greatly facilitated the TAG’s work. In the event thatsuch documents are not available, however, it is recommended that consultation oc-cur much earlier.

As more studbook databases, PMPs, and SSPs are developed for priority taxa,the RCP process will need to be continually refined to include more specific popula-tion management goals. Such refinement will become possible as studbook data-bases and other tools (e.g., REGASP) are used to track current and projectedpopulations of managed species at each participating institution, as well as currentexhibition/holding space available. Eventually, it will also be necessary to calculatethe minimum number of animals necessary to maintain a viable population for eachRCP priority species. These numbers will differ, depending on life history param-eters, such as litter size, age at sexual maturity and generation time. Further modifi-cations may be required as range countries change their priorities and requestassistance for specific taxa and as new opportunities arise for contributing to conser-vation, education or science.

Long-term cooperative captive breeding programs involve a substantial humanand financial commitment on the part of participating institutions. Thus, the taxonselection process, including the decision to participate in new PMP and SSP pro-grams, should not be taken lightly. The quality of RCPs varies widely at this time,and institutions should take great care in evaluating RCP recommendations beforeincorporating them into their ICPs. Institutions are not obligated to implement poorlyconstructed RCPs. However, zoos and aquariums are dependent on having live ani-mals to exhibit, and obtaining many taxa from the wild, particularly endangered orthreatened species, is becoming difficult, impossible, or unethical [Koontz, 1995]. It

448 Hutchins et al.

therefore follows that good RCPs should be taken very seriously and that many newcooperative management programs should be developed. Without such a commit-ment over the next several decades, many populations currently in captivity may belost with little or no possibility of replacement [Hutchins et al., 1995].

Unfortunately, few institutions currently have well-developed ICPs [Thomp-son and Bell, 1997], and it will therefore be some time before we can systemati-cally assess what RCP characteristics will cause institutions to use such documentsto reshape their collections. In the meantime, we offer the following suggestionsfor how institutions can recognize high quality RCPs. A quality RCP shouldinclude:

• an assessment of 1) population sizes for all relevant taxa currently held inthe region; 2) potential regional captive carrying capacity, and 3) the qualityof that space (not based solely on ISIS Abstracts, which frequently underes-timate current populations [Earnhardt et al., 1996], but also on institutionalsurveys.)

• an assessment of each taxon’s status in the wild (as based on the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service’s endangered species listing, IUSC/SSC Action Plans,IUCN Red Data Books, IUCN/SSC CBSG CAMPs, and other publishedreports).

• an explanation of the philosophical foundation and goals of the RCP and thewell-defined criteria that were subsequently used to select taxa.

• an explanation of why specific taxa were selected and a justification forthose selections. To facilitate the permitting process, such justifications shouldinclude a description of each taxon’s potential impact on conservation, edu-cation, and science.

• a description of the TAG’s immediate, short-, and long-term managementgoals for each taxon (e.g., studbook, PMP, SSP, phase out).

• information about the taxa selected, including basic biological characteris-tics and specialized husbandry requirements if available.

In addition, quality RCPs• are the result of consensus-building among participating institutions, rather

than the decision of a few individuals. Thus, TAGs should be organized ondemocratic principles. In addition, participating institutions should have theability to comment on draft RCPs so that they feel that they have been a partof the decision-making process.

• should work within the limits of available space resources. It makes no sense,for example, for a TAG to recommend SSPs for 30 species when there isonly room for 20, especially if the TAG has no reason for believing that newspace will be added in the near future.

• should have realistic goals. For example, an RCP that recommends phasingout dozens of taxa, representing hundreds or even thousands of individualanimals, in a short period of time is not being realistic; neither is one thatrecommends obtaining numerous rare species that are either unavailable orcannot be obtained in sufficient numbers to initiate a viable program.

• do not select taxa solely on their potential for future reintroduction, but ratherare founded on a broader concept of zoo- and aquarium-based conservation[Hutchins et al., 1995, 1996, 1997].


The World Zoo Conservation Strategy [IUDZG and IUCN/SSC CBSG, 1993]encourages “all zoo associations to intensify coordination of the composition of col-lections and on all individual zoos to incorporate collective recommendations intotheir own collection plans whenever possible.” To this end, a policy on collectionplanning was recently adopted by IUDZG-The World Zoo Organization’s (WZO’s)Committee on Interregional Conservation Cooperation (CIRCC) at its 1996 AnnualConference in Denver, CO [IUDZG-WZO, 1996]. The policy was later ratified byIUDZG Executive Council. That policy encourages all IUDZG members to “plantheir collections systematically and collectively.” It further recognizes that unmanagedpopulations cannot be sustained over the long term, thereby decreasing their poten-tial contribution to conservation. It also recommends that a “taxon’s ability to con-tribute to wildlife and habitat conservation be considered in the selection process,”including its ability to contribute to “public education, scientific research, the devel-opment of relevant technologies, professional training and technology transfer,ecotourism and fund-raising to support field conservation.” In addition, based on thevaried planning experiences of the Marsupial and Monotreme TAG and other TAGs,AZA’s Wildlife Conservation and Management Committee recently adopted a set ofstandardized guidelines for the development of RCPs and the reorganization of TAGs[Lewis, pers. commun.]. These improvements should greatly facilitate the produc-tion of quality plans, increase institutional “buy in,” and increase the probability thatsuch plans will be actively used by participating institutions to reshape their collec-tions. These planning protocols are also being incorporated into a North Americanversion of the REGASP collection planning software by ARAZPA under a coopera-tive agreement with AZA. While the zoological community still has a long way togo in cooperative collection planning, tremendous progress has been made in a rela-tively short period of time.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article is dedicated to our colleague and friend Michael Crotty who was lost tous in 1997. We will miss him. The authors would like to thank members of the AZAMarsupial and Monotreme TAG, especially Steering Committee members B. Brewer, J.Carnio, K. Davidson, A. Gilley, K. Krantz, D. Lombardi, A. Miller, W. Pryor, and V.Thompson for their support and participation in the RCP development process. Thanksare also due to participants in the first planning meeting, which took place at the AZARegional Conference in Oklahoma City, OK, particularly B. Lacy, A. Shoemaker, J.Wortman, and M. Fouraker. C. Hopkins and K. Johnson also deserve thanks for com-menting on the RCP from an ARAZPA perspective, providing the TAG with relevantplanning documents, and working with AZA to develop a North American version of theREGASP collection planning software. K. Willis and R. Abell made some excellent sug-gestions that were incorporated into the manuscript.

REFERENCES

ANCA. Wildlife Protection Act. Regulation ofexports and imports. Canberra. Act; Australia,Australian Nature Conservation Agency, 1996.

ARAZPA; ISIS. REGIONAL ANIMAL SPE-CIES COLLECTION PLAN, VERSION 3.0.Apple Valley, MN, Australasian Regional As-sociation of Zoological Parks and Aquaria and

International Species Information System,1996.

Ballou, J.D. Assessing the risks of infectious dis-eases in captive breeding and reintroduction pro-grams. JOURNAL OF ZOO AND WILDLIFEMEDICINE 24:327–335, 1993.

Balmford, A.; Mace, G.M.; Leader-Williams, N.

450 Hutchins et al.

Designing the Ark: Setting priorities for captivebreeding. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 10:719–727, 1996.

Balmford, A.; Mace, G.M.; Leader-Williams, N.Priority setting for ex situ conservation (Re-sponse to Hutchins et al.). CONSERVATION BI-OLOGY 11:593–594, 1997.

Caughley, G. Directions in conservation biology.JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY 63:215–244, 1994.

Conway, W.G. Zoos: Their changing roles. SCI-ENCE 163:48–52, 1969.

Conway, W.G. Zoo conservation and ethical para-doxes. Pp.1–9 in ETHICS ON THE ARK: ZOOS,ANIMAL WELFARE AND WILDLIFE CON-SERVATION. B. Norton, M. Hutchins, E.F.Stevens; T.L. Maple, eds. Washington, DC,Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995.

Earnhardt, J.M.; Thompson, S.D.; Willis, K. ISISdatabase: An evaluation of records essential forcaptive management. ZOO BIOLOGY 14:493–508, 1995.

Ebenhard, T. Conservation breeding as a tool forsaving animals from extinction. TRENDS INECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION 10:438–443,1995.

Foose, T.J. Riders of the last Ark, the role of cap-tive breeding in conservation strategies. Pp. 141–165 in THE LAST EXTINCTION. L. Kaufman,K. Mallory, eds. Cambridge, MA, The MITPress, 1986.

Foose, T.J.; Flesness, N.; Seal, U.S.; DeBoer, B.;Rabb, G. ARK INTO THE 21ST CENTURY.Apple Valley, MN, IUCN/SSC Captive Breed-ing Specialist Group, 1992.

Foose, T.J.; Phipps, G. AUSTRALASIAN MARSU-PIAL/MONOTREME CONSERVATION AS-SESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN(CAMP) WORKSHOP. Apple Valley, MN, IUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group, 1992.

Ginsberg, J. Can we build an Ark? TRENDS INECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION 8:4–6, 1993.

Hopkins, C. Recent developments in the Aus-tralasian Species Management Program’s TaxonAdvisory Group process: Outcomes from the1995 TAG convenors workshop. Pp. 38–45 inPROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT MEETING OFTHE AUSTRALASIAN REGIONAL ASSOCIA-TION OF ZOOS AND AQUARIA AND THEAUSTRALIAN SOCIETY OF ZOO KEEPING.Perth, Australia, Australasian Regional Associa-tion of Zoological Parks and Aquaria/ Austra-lian Society of Zoo Keepers, 1995a.

Hopkins, C., ed. AUSTRALASIAN SPECIESMANAGEMENT PROGRAM REGIONALCENSUS AND PLAN. 5th Edition. Sydney, Aus-tralia, Australasian Species Management Pro-gram, Australasian Regional Association ofZoological Parks and Aquaria, 1995b.

Hutchins, M.; Conway, W. Beyond Noah’s Ark:The evolving role of modern zoos and aquari-ums in field conservation. INTERNATIONALZOO YEARBOOK 34:117–130, 1995.

Hutchins, M.; Paul, E.; Bowdoin, J. Contributions

of zoo and aquarium research to wildlife conser-vation and science. Pp. 23–39 in WELL-BEINGOF ANIMALS IN ZOO AND AQUARIUM RE-SEARCH. J. Bielitzki, J. Boyce, G. Burghardt, D.Schaeffer, eds. Greenbelt, MD, Scientist’s Centerfor Animal Welfare, 1996.

Hutchins, M.; Wiese, R.J. Beyond genetic and de-mographic management: The future of the SSPand related AAZPA conservation efforts. ZOOBIOLOGY 10:285–292, 1991.

Hutchins, M.; Wiese, R.J.; Willis, K. Why we needcaptive breeding. Pp. 77–86 in AZA REGIONALCONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, Wheeling,WV, American Zoo and Aquarium Association,1996.

Hutchins, M.; Wiese, R.; Willis, K. Priority set-ting for ex situ conservation. CONSERVATIONBIOLOGY 11:593, 1997.

Hutchins, M.; Willis, K.; Wiese, R.J. Strategic col-lection planning: theory and practice. ZOO BI-OLOGY 14:2–22, 1995.

IUDZG-WZO. Policy on collection planning. P.21 in PROCEEDINGS IUDZG-THE WORLDZOO ORGANIZATION ADMINISTRATIVE/PLENARY SESSION CELEBRATING THE50TH ANNIVERSARY YEAR. Denver, CO,IUDZG-The World Zoo Organization, 1996.

IUDZG-WZO; IUCN/SSC CBSG THE WORLDZOO CONSERVATION STRATEGY. Interna-tional Union of Directors of Zoological Parksand Aquariums-The World Zoo Organization andIUCN/SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group,1993.

Kennedy, M. AUSTRALASIAN MARSUPIALSAND MONOTREMES: AN ACTION PLANFOR THEIR CONSERVATION. Gland, Switzer-land, IUCN-The World Conservation Union,1992.

Kleiman, D.G.; Beck, B.B.; Dietz, J.M.; Dietz,L.A. Costs of reintroduction and criteria for suc-cess: Accounting and accountability in the goldenlion tamarin conservation program. Pp. 125-142in BEYOND CAPTIVE BREEDING: REIN-TRODUCING ENDANGERED MAMMALSINTO THE WILD. J.H.W. Gipps, ed. Oxford,England, Oxford University Press, 1991.

Koontz, F. Wild animal acquisition ethics for zoobiologists. Pp. 127-145 in ETHICS ON THEARK: ZOOS, ANIMAL WELF ARE ANDWILDLIFE CONSERVATION. B. Norton, M.Hutchins, E.F. Stevens; T.L. Maple, eds. Wash-ington, DC, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995.

Lavery, H.J.; Kirkpatrick, T.H. Kangaroos as pests.Pp. 103-132 in THE KANGAROO KEEPERS.H. J. Lavery, ed. St. Lucia, Australia, Universityof Queensland Press, 1985.

Leader-Williams, N. Theory and pragmatism in theconservation of rhinos. Pp. 69-81 in RHINOC-EROS BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION, O.Ryder, ed. San Diego, CA: Zoological Societyof San Diego, 1993.

Lindburg, D.; Lindburg, L. Success breeds aquandry: To cull or not to cull? Pp. 195-208 inETHICS ON THE ARK: ZOOS, ANIMAL


WELFARE AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION.B. Norton, M. Hutchins, E.F. Stevens; T.L.Maple, eds. Washington, DC, Smithsonian Insti-tution Press, 1995.

Mallinson, J.J.C. Partnerships for conservation be-tween zoos, local governments, and non-govern-mental organizations. Pp. 57-74 in BEYONDCAPTIVE BREEDING: REINTRODUCINGENDANGERED MAMMALS INTO THEWILD. J.H.W. Gipps, ed. Oxford, England, Ox-ford University Press, 1991.

Munson, L.; Cook, R.A. Monitoring, investigationand surveillance of diseases in captive wildlife.JOURNAL OF ZOO AND WILDLIFE MEDI-CINE 24:281-290, 1993.

Povilitis, T. Is captive breeding an appropriate strat-egy for endangered species conservation? ENDAN-GERED SPECIES UPDATE 8:20-23, 1991.

Roberts, M.;Hutchins, M. Australian-Americanzoo links for marsupial conservation. Pp. 27-29in PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT MEETINGOF THE AUSTRALASIAN REGIONAL ASSO-CIATION OF ZOOS AND AQUARIA ANDTHE AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY OF ZOO KEEP-ING. Perth, Australia: Australasian Regional As-sociation of Zoological Parks and Aquaria,Australian Society of Zoo Keepers, 1995.

Shoemaker, A.H. Developing a regional collectionplan for felids in North America. InternationalZoo Yearbook 35:147–152, 1997

Slater, G.; Hopkins, C. AUSTRALASIAN MONO-TREME/MARSUPIAL GLOBAL CAPTIVEACTION RECOMMENDATIONS (GCAR)WORKSHOP. Apple Valley, MN: Captve breed-ing Specialist Group, 1994.

Snyder, N.F.R.; Derrickson, S.R.; Bessinger, S.R.;Wiley, J.W.; Smith, T.B.; Toone, W.D.; Miller,B. Limitations of captive breeding in endangeredspecies recovery. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY10:338-348, 1996.

Stanley-Price, M.R. What will it take to save therhino? Pp. 48-68 in RHINOCEROS BIOLOGYAND CONSERVATION, O. Ryder, ed. San Di-ego, CA: Zoological Society of San Diego, 1993.

Thompson, S.D.; Bell, K.J. Institutional collectionplanning. ZOO BIOLOGY 17:55-57, 1998.

Western, D. The role of captive populations in glo-bal conservation. Pp. 13-20 in PRIMATES, THEROAD TO SELF SUSTAINING POPULATIONS.K. Benirschke, ed. New York, Springer-Verlag,1986.

Wiese, R.; Hutchins, M. SPECIES SURVIVALPLANS: STRATEGIES FOR WILDLIFE CON-SERVATION. Bethesda, MD: American Zoo andAquarium Association, 1994.

Wiese, R.; Willis, K. POPULATION MANAGE-MENT PLAN HANDBOOK. Bethesda, MD:American Zoo and Aquarium Association, 1996.

Wildt, D.; Mellen, J.; SEAL, U.S. FELID ACTIONPLAN, 1991 AND 1992: AAZPA FELIDTAXON ADVISORY GROUP REGIONALCOLLECTION PLAN AND IUCN CAPTIVEBREEDING SPECIALIST GROUP GLOBALFELID ACTION PLAN. Front Royal, VA, Na-tional Zoological Center for AAZPA Felid TaxonAdvisory Group and IUCN Captive BreedingSpecialist Group, 1992.

Williams, G. Platypus management in Australianzoos. INTERNATIONAL ZOO NEWS 40:30-36,1993.

marsupials and monotremes: a case study in regional collection planning

Documents