Environmental enrichment of captive mammals has been steadily evolving over the past thirty years. For this process to continue, it is first necessary to define current enrichment practices and then identify the factors that limit enhancing the quality and quantity of enrichment, as well as the evaluation of its effectiveness. With the objective of obtaining this information, an international multi-institutional questionnaire survey was conducted with individuals working with zoo-housed mammals. Results of the survey showed that regardless of how important different types of enrichment were perceived to be, if providing them was particularly time-consuming, they were not made available to captive mammals as frequently as those requiring less staff time and effort. The groups of mammals provided with enrichment most frequently received it on average fewer than four times per day, resulting in less than two hours per day spent by each animal care staff member on tasks related to enrichment. The time required for staff to complete other husbandry tasks was the factor most limiting the implementation and evaluation of enrichment. The majority of survey respondents agreed that they would provide more enrichment and carry out more evaluation of enrichment if it was manageable to do so. The results of this study support the need for greater quantity, variety, frequency, and evaluation of enrichment provided to captive mammals housed in zoos without impinging on available staff time.

No abstract

Simple SummaryWe designed a programme to control free-ranging kangaroos on a Queensland golf course, using contraceptive implants in females and vasectomisation or testicle removal in males. This reduced the numbers of pouch young to about one half of pre-intervention levels and controlled the population over a 2–4 year period. However, the necessary darting caused a mortality rate of 5–10% of captured animals, mainly due to complications before and after anaesthesia. It is concluded that population control is possible but careful management of kangaroos around the time of anaesthesia induction and recovery is important in such programmes to minimise losses.AbstractTraditionally, culling has been the expedient, most common, and in many cases, the only tool used to control free-ranging kangaroo populations. We applied a reproductive control program to a population of eastern grey kangaroos confined to a golf course in South East Queensland. The program aimed to reduce fecundity sufficiently for the population to decrease over time so that overgrazing of the fairways and the frequency of human–animal conflict situations were minimised. In 2003, 92% of the female kangaroos above 5 kg bodyweight were implanted with the GnRH agonist deslorelin after darting with a dissociative anaesthetic. In 2007, 86% of the females above 5 kg were implanted with deslorelin and also 87% of the males above 5 kg were sterilised by either orchidectomy or vasectomy. In 2005, 2008 and 2009, the population was censused to assess the effect of each treatment. The 2003 deslorelin program resulted in effective zero population growth for approximately 2.5 years. The combined deslorelin–surgery program in 2007 reduced the birth rate from 0.3 to 0.06%/year for 16 months, resulting in a 27% population reduction by November 2009. The results were consistent with implants conferring contraception to 100% of implanted females for at least 12 months. The iatrogenic mortality rates for each program were 10.5% and 4.9%, respectively, with 50% of all mortalities due to darting-related injuries, exertional myopathy/hyperthermia or recovery misadventure. The short term sexual and agonistic behaviour of the males was assessed for the 2007 program: no significant changes were seen in adult males given the vasectomy procedure, while sexual behaviours’ were decreased in adult males given the orchidectomy procedure. It is concluded that female reproduction was effectively controlled by implantation with deslorrelin and male reproductive behaviour was reduced by orchidectomy, which together achieved population control.

Wildlife tourism has the potential to contribute to conservation through a variety of mechanisms. This chapter presents a preliminary assessment of the extent to which this potential is currently being realized, comparing tourism based on viewing of animals in captive settings (with a focus on federated zoos) with that in free-ranging situations (wildlife watching). The key mechanisms involved are: direct wildlife management and research; use of income derived from wildlife tourism to fund conservation; education of visitors to behave in a more conservation-friendly manner; political lobbying in support of conservation; and provision of a socioeconomic incentive for conservation. All of these occur in at least some zoos and wildlife-watching situations, and collectively the contribution of non-consumptive wildlife tourism to conservation is significant, though impossible to quantify. The key strengths of the zoo sector in this regard are its inputs into captive breeding and its potential to educate large numbers of people. In contrast, wildlife watching provides significant socioeconomic incentives for conservation of natural habitats. There seem to be significant opportunities for expanding the role of non-consumptive wildlife tourism in conservation.