The Role of Canadian Zoos and Aquaria in Species at Risk Conservation

Home , Assiniboine Park, Assiniboine Park Zoo, Bird Kingdom, Bowmanville Zoo, Ecomuseum Zoo, Granby Zoo

Katrina Jansen

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Geography University of Toronto

The Role of Canadian Zoos and Aquaria in Species at Risk Conservation

Katrina Jansen

Master of Arts

Department of Geography University of Toronto

2016 Abstract

Though many zoos have been participating in conservation activities for decades, academics have yet to conduct a thorough analysis of how zoos and aquaria are assisting in the recovery of species at risk. This thesis investigates the role of Canadian zoos and aquaria in conservation by using a combination of interviews with zoo staff members, observations of people at zoo exhibits, and multi-level species recovery document analysis. I argue that zoos in Canada are uniquely placed to make a substantial contribution to species at risk recovery in several main areas, including captive breeding and reintroductions, research, education, and recovery strategy development. However, financial limitations are holding these institutions back from growing their involvement in species at risk conservation, despite the pressing need for more non- governmental organizations, such as zoos, to take on a more active role in species recovery.

Acknowledgments

I would first off like to express my gratitude to the case study organizations. The Assiniboine Park Zoo, Calgary Zoo, Toronto Zoo, and the Vancouver Aquarium were all extremely supportive of my research investigations, and did their utmost to ensure that I was able to collect the necessary data. I also would like to thank the staff members from each of these organizations for their honesty and willingness to participate in this project; I could not have accomplished this work without you.

During my data collection phase, I was also fortunate to have the assistance of several other organizations, including: the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup, which allowed me access to some of their past data; the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums, for assisting in my understanding of zoological accreditation requirements; and the Manitoba Wildlife Branch for aiding my search for recovery strategies in that province.

I was also very fortunate to have the support and guidance of my supervisor at the University of Toronto, Dr. Andrea Olive. Dr. Olive, you were the best supervisor I could have asked for. Your unfailing encouragement, quick responses to questions, and willingness to push me into digging were all instrumental in helping me to complete this thesis. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee, Dr. Laurel Besco and Dr. Amy Mui, for their consideration and feedback on this work.

During my research, I have been supported by funding from both the St. George and Mississauga campuses of the University of Toronto. In particular, I wish to thank the Mississauga departments of Geography and Political Science for their generous grants, which enabled me to conduct my field research at the four different institutions across the country.

Writing a thesis can be a lonely, tiring road; yet, thanks to the support of my partner, family, and friends, I was able to retain my enthusiasm (and sanity) during the writing process. Thank you one and all – I could not have done this without you!

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments...... iii

Table of Contents ...... iv

List of Tables ...... viii

List of Figures ...... ix

List of Appendices ...... x

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Background ...... 1

1.2 The Issue ...... 3

1.3 Research Objectives ...... 5

1.4 Structure of Thesis ...... 6

Chapter 2 Review of the Literature ...... 9

2.1 A Brief Overview of Modern Zoos ...... 10

2.1.1 Zoos on a Global Scale ...... 10

2.1.2 Zoos in a North American Context ...... 11

2.1.3 Animal Rights and Zoos ...... 13

2.2 Zoo Involvement in Conservation ...... 14

2.2.1 Captive Breeding and Reintroductions ...... 14

2.2.2 Education ...... 16

2.2.3 Research ...... 18

2.3 Current Species at Risk Protection in Canada ...... 20

2.3.1 Species at Risk Legislation ...... 20

2.3.2 Role of NGOs in Canada ...... 22

2.4 Conclusion ...... 24

Chapter 3 Study Locations and Methods ...... 26

3.1 Theoretical Framework: Political Ecology ...... 26 iv

3.2 Positionality ...... 26

3.3 Study Locations ...... 28

3.3.1 Choosing the Study Locations ...... 28

3.3.2 About the Study Locations...... 29

3.4 In-depth Interviews ...... 31

3.4.1 Choosing and Contacting Participants ...... 32

3.4.2 Confidentiality and Ethics...... 34

3.4.3 Conducting Interviews ...... 34

3.5 Exhibit Observations ...... 35

3.5.1 Choosing Exhibits ...... 35

3.5.2 Confidentiality and Ethics...... 36

3.5.3 Conducting Observations ...... 36

3.6 Data Analysis ...... 37

3.6.1 Transcription and Coding of Interviews ...... 37

3.6.2 Analysis of Exhibit Observation Data ...... 38

3.6.3 Recovery Document Analysis ...... 39

Chapter 4 Captive Breeding and Reintroductions ...... 41

4.1 Introduction ...... 41

4.2 Captive Breeding Programs at the Case Study Institutions ...... 42

4.2.1 International and Federal Recovery Planning ...... 42

4.2.2 Provincial Recovery Planning...... 44

4.3 Zoo Involvement in Recent Reintroductions ...... 46

4.3.1 Reintroduction Successes...... 47

4.3.2 In-Progress Reintroduction Efforts ...... 48

4.3.3 Challenges to Reintroduction ...... 48

4.4 Headstarting ...... 49 v

4.5 Staff Opinions Regarding Captive Breeding and Reintroduction Programs ...... 51

4.5.1 Advantages of Zoo-led Captive Breeding/Reintroduction Programs ...... 52

4.5.2 Challenges of Zoo-led Captive Breeding/Reintroduction Programs ...... 52

Chapter 5 Research and Academic Partnerships ...... 54

5.1 Research at the Zoos ...... 54

5.1.1 Organizational Structure of Research Departments ...... 54

5.1.2 In-Situ Research Projects ...... 55

5.1.3 Future Directions for Research ...... 57

5.2 Academic Partnerships...... 58

5.3 Advantages of Zoo Research ...... 60

5.4 Challenges of Zoo Research ...... 63

Chapter 6 Education and Awareness ...... 67

6.1 Zoo Signage ...... 67

6.1.1 Appearance of Signage and Exhibits Sampled ...... 67

6.2 Building Awareness ...... 73

6.3 Educational Partnerships ...... 75

6.4 Community Involvement ...... 78

6.4.1 Citizen Science and Habitat Restoration Programs ...... 81

6.5 Challenges of Increasing Awareness ...... 82

Chapter 7 Zoo Involvement in Recovery Policies ...... 85

7.1 Zoo Participation in Provincial Recovery Strategies and Management Plans ...... 85

7.2 Zoo Participation in Federal Recovery Strategies and Management Plans ...... 90

7.3 High-Level Recovery Planning...... 97

7.4 Limitations of Current Species at Risk Protections ...... 100

7.5 Motivations Behind Zoo Involvement in Species at Risk Recovery ...... 102

Chapter 8 Conclusion ...... 107 vi

8.1 Summary of the Research ...... 107

8.2 Future Directions ...... 109

8.3 Future of zoos ...... 111

References ...... 112

Appendices ...... 135

Appendix I: Interview Questions ...... 135

Appendix II: Exhibit Observations Data Sheet ...... 137

Appendix III: Interview Analysis Codes...... 139

vii

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Accredited Canadian Zoo Involvement in Conservation Programming……………..28

Table 3.2: Dates of Zoo Establishment and AZA Accreditation………………………………...29

Table 3.3: Species Breakdown at the Case Study Institutions…………………………………...30

Table 3.4: Species Numbers by Taxa at the Case Study Institutions…………………………….30

Table 3.5: 2014 Financial Summary of the Case Study Locations..……………………………..31

Table 4.1: Current Reintroduction Programs at the Case Study Institutions…………………….47

Table 5.1: Species at Risk Research Projects within the Case Study Institutions……………….56

Table 6.1: Depth of Signage Detail by Zoo…………………………………………………...... 68

Table 6.2: Breakdown of Sign Readership by Zoo………………………………………………70

Table 6.3: Length of Visit by Zoo……………………………………………………………….71

Table 6.4: Breakdown of Conversational Talking Points by Institution………………………...72

Table 6.5: Current Zoo Awareness Campaigns and Events……………………………………..73

Table 6.6: School Programs at the Case Study Institutions……………………………………...76

Table 6.7: Citizen Science Programs at the Case Study Institutions…………………………….81

Table 7.1: Provincial Recovery Efforts Involving the Calgary Zoo……………………………..86

Table 7.2: Provincial Recovery Efforts Involving the Toronto Zoo……………………………..87

Table 7.3: Provincial Recovery Efforts Involving the Vancouver Aquarium…………………...88

Table 7.4: Calgary Zoo Involvement in Federal Recovery Strategies and Plans………………..91

Table 7.5: Toronto Zoo Involvement in Federal Recovery Strategies and Plans………………..92

Table 7.6: Vancouver Aquarium Involvement in Federal Recovery Strategies and Plans………93 viii

List of Figures

Figure 6.1: The Proportion of People Who Read Signs as Compared to Visit Length………71

List of Appendices

Appendix I: Interview Questions……………………………………………………………….133

Appendix II: Exhibit Observation Data Sheet………………………………………………….135

Appendix III: Interview Data Analysis Codes…………….……………………………………137

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background

Human activities over the past few centuries have had catastrophic ramifications for the world’s biodiversity, with habitat loss, overhunting, pollution, and other factors leading to the current imperilment of over 23,250 species around the world (IUCN 2015, Rockström et al. 2009). To mitigate this global biodiversity crisis, it is necessary that species be protected from further harm, and that people become not only aware of the damage human development causes, but also care enough about the consequences of those actions to change their behaviour and prevent further destruction. However, with the increasing urbanization of the human population, fewer people see themselves as being connected to nature (Louv 2005, Pyle 2003, Scott et al. 2014). People who have fewer connections to nature tend not to be as involved in preserving it (Scott et al. 2014); after all, if they do not feel that they are a part of the natural world, why, then, should they care about maintaining it?

This human-environmental disconnect is thought to stem from the fact that smaller numbers of people, especially in more urbanized countries, have direct experience with wild animals and wild places. Lacking this direct experience, these individuals are less likely to take action on environmental issues (Hinds and Sparks 2008, Scott et al. 2014). In some countries, this disconnect can also lead to less government action on conservation and species at risk recovery; in Canada, for example, issues such as the economy have historically been prioritized over environmental policy development (MacNeil 2014, Wood et al. 2010). The environment tends to be viewed as a low-priority issue by most voters, in spite of the increasing awareness of the consequences of human-induced climate change (Wood et al. 2010). Most recently, the Harper government’s tenure in office (2006 – 2015) saw drastic reductions in environmental policy support; many environmentally-focused government agencies, such as Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, had their budgets slashed, severely curtailing their ability to effectively protect the environment from over-development (MacNeil 2014, McDevitt- Irwin et al. 2015). Species at risk recovery was put on the back burner; in fact, many species whose listing as a species at risk may have impacted economic activity had their evaluations delayed for years, in spite of the fact that their populations were noticeably struggling

1 2

(McDevitt-Irwin et al. 2015, Semenuik 2014, Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada 2014).

The lack of a connection to nature and unreliable government action on environmental issues can thus have disastrous consequences for environmental policy making and species recovery; yet how can people be encouraged to care about the environment around them when they do not have direct experience with the animals and habitats being impacted by human actions? How, too, can species recovery be reliably continued, despite the changeable nature of government policy? There is clearly a need for non-governmental organizations to take on the task of not only connecting the public to nature, but also actively assisting with the study and preservation of species at risk. In fact, these activities are already being undertaken by non-governmental organizations all around the world – in the form of zoos and aquaria.

The purpose of zoos and aquaria (hereafter combined into the term “zoos”) has evolved since their original inception. Humans have kept animals in captivity for thousands of years, with the earliest known zoo being a menagerie from 3,500 BC in the ancient city of Hierakonpolis, Egypt (Rose 2010, Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2013). Evidence for ancient zoos appear in other locations as well; the zoological park of Chinese Emperor Wen Wang dates to 1100 BC, and is thought to have contained animals from all over the Chinese empire (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2013, Rees 2011). Captive animals during this time were seen as evidence of an individual’s wealth and power, as none but the very wealthy could afford the expense of keeping animals for entertainment purposes (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2013). Gifts of captive animals were also used as a political tool, signalling friendship or agreement between nations (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2013, Rees 2011). This exchange of animals has continued into modern politics; for example, China often uses the loan of pandas as a way to cement international agreements and create goodwill in other nations (Taylor 2014).

Monarchs during the Renaissance and early Industrial Revolution continued the tradition of exhibiting animals from across their empires in private zoos (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2013). However, many of these royal zoos would end up becoming public institutions. The first “modern zoo” open to the public was the Schönbrunn Zoo in Vienna, Austria, which was originally established as a private park by the Holy Roman Emperor Maximillian in 1569 (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2013). Emperor Joseph II decided to make the zoo available to the

3 public in 1765, beginning a chain of events that saw many formerly private zoos turn public, and new public zoological institutions come into being (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2013. Entertainment was the highest priority of these new public facilities, though natural history education also quickly became a focus of the collections (Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2013).

Throughout the 20th century, many zoos began another evolution, shifting from an entertainment focus to one of scientific research and conservation (Hallmann and Benbow 2006, Patrick and Tunnicliffe 2013, Reese 2011). This shift to a conservation focus was exemplified by the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens (IUDZG) 1993 World Zoo Conservation Strategy, which sets out goals for zoo and aquaria around the world, and asks that zoological institutions dedicate their efforts towards conserving nature (IUDZG 1993). Seven years after this strategy was published, the IUDZG morphed into a new organization, now known as the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) that directs current global zoo policy.

Zoos can be found in every province in Canada, and are all subject to provincial, federal, and international regulations, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Animal Law in Canada 2016, CITES 2016). Over the past 30 years, many Canadian institutions have changed their missions to include the conservation of wild species; yet, there is little recorded on the variety of these conservation projects, or what their true impact is on species at risk populations.

1.2 The Issue

Modern zoos have recently become the targets of heavy criticism, mainly coming from members of influential animal rights organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other similar groups (Lin 2014, PETA 2016). Some members of the public also hold strong beliefs regarding the ethics of keeping animals in captivity, with many feeling that animals belong in the wild and zoos are acting as de-facto “prisons” for the animals on display (PETA 2016). The treatment of zoo animals is also becoming a matter of widespread public concern; questions regarding improper exhibit maintenance, unsafe conditions for humans and animals, and enclosures too small for the animals they hold have all been raised in recent years (Kirby 2013, Mehaffrey 2016, The Canadian Press 2016, Walters 2016). In addition to the hotly debated ethics of zoo existence, other criticisms are levelled at the effectiveness and efficiency of zoo conservation programs (Lin 2014). Some anti-zoo advocates, including PETA, believe that

4 conservation dollars are more wisely spent protecting animals already in the wild, rather than relying on expensive captive breeding and reintroduction programs (Lin 2014, PETA 2016).

Though modern zoos have many detractors, there are also those that see zoos as valuable tools to promote conservation education and restore wild populations to their full potential. In fact, some argue that captive populations are the only remaining way to assist species that are on the brink of extinction (Owen and Wilkinson 2014, Robeck 2009); while protecting in-situ populations (populations in their natural wild habitat) may be preferable, there may not be enough breeding individuals for the population to reproduce viably on its own. Yet, despite all of the debate surrounding the value of zoo conservation programming, there remains very little academic research into the ways in which zoos actually contribute to species at risk conservation, especially in Canada.

Seven zoos in Canada, including the Assiniboine Park Zoo, Biodôme de Montréal, the Calgary Zoo, Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada, the Toronto Zoo, the Vancouver Aquarium, and the Zoo de Granby, are accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquaria (AZA) (AZA 2016a). The AZA is an organization that is dedicated to ensuring strict regulations and guiding principles behind zoological institutions (AZA 2016b). They also require that any certified institution participate in conservation programs, both within the zoo and in the wild (AZA 2016b). The regulations governing AZA-certified institutions are far and above those required either provincially or federally, and an institution with certification is inspected every five years in order to ensure total compliance to AZA guidelines (AZA 2016b).

Nevertheless, though AZA-certified institutions are held to much higher standards than most other zoos, they are still heavily impacted when negative news stories about other zoos appear. Many smaller, non-AZA institutions have questionable records on the treatment of their animals, such as the Bowmanville Zoo in Ontario, Canada, which was closed in 2016 due to charges of animal cruelty perpetrated by the zoo’s owner (The Canadian Press 2016, Yawar 2016). While the facility had previously been certified by CAZA, the zoo owner was stripped of membership in April; following the announcement of the zoo’s closure, CAZA offered to rehome all of the animals at the facility (DurhamRegion.com 2016, Javed 2016). Non-accredited zoos like this are often held up as examples by the anti-zoo cause, regardless of the fact that they are private institutions and are governed by vastly fewer regulations than accredited facilities. In examining

5 the role of zoos in conservation, it is therefore important to distinguish between the two types of zoological organizations; those that are only interested in profit, and those that are accredited by highly-regarded organizations, the latter of which are mandated to take an active role in conserving biological diversity.

1.3 Research Objectives

While there have been many news articles written regarding the darker sides of North American zoos, almost no scholarly research exists that examines how zoos, specifically Canadian zoos, truly impact conservation. This thesis investigates the question “what role do accredited Canadian zoos play in the conservation of species at risk?” The overall objectives of this research are to:

1) Document the multitude of ways in which Canadian zoos attempt to conserve at risk species

2) Examine zoo participation in captive breeding and reintroduction programs, along with the benefits and challenges of involving zoos in such efforts

3) Investigate the variety of research projects conducted and supported by zoo staff, while determining the advantages and disadvantages of zoo-based research

4) Explore the diversity of education and awareness programs at zoos, as well as outline their perceived importance and the barriers impeding the success of these programs

5) Analyze the various roles of zoos in species at risk recovery planning and implementation on both provincial, federal, and international scales

Instead of focusing on the benefits of zoos, news coverage and public opinion tends to centre around the more negative aspects of keeping captive animals, and especially focuses on those facilities that are geared exclusively towards profit and entertainment. However, things are rarely so decidedly black and white as they may appear. Though zoos do keep animals in captivity, which is seen as a negative by many people, displaying animals can also lead to positive changes and actions for both people and wildlife. Through this research, I aim to shed light on the

6 understudied benefits of Canadian zoos; namely, how accredited zoos and their staff exist to not only entertain the public, but also to educate, promote conservation action, and directly influence the recovery of species at risk through captive breeding and reintroduction programs, research, education, and recovery planning.

1.4 Structure of Thesis

Chapter 2 contains a review of the current literature surrounding zoos and their involvement in a variety of conservation projects. The most reputable zoos, such those that accredited by WAZA, are directly involved with conserving wild populations and habitats over the past 30 years; today, these institutions participate in a wide variety of conservation initiatives, including captive breeding and reintroductions, education, research and in-situ efforts. The involvement of zoos is becoming ever more important to federal and provincial recovery plans, as governments have limited their involvement in such projects for budgetary and political reasons.

Chapter 3 introduces the four study locations – the Assiniboine Park Zoo, the Calgary Zoo, the Toronto Zoo, and the Vancouver Aquarium – that were investigated during this research. A brief justification for focusing on these institutions is provided, as is an overview of their current organizational structure and other relevant information. This chapter also contains a discussion of the research methodologies used to collect and analyze the data needed to answer the research question, including interviews with key informants, exhibit observations, and recovery document analysis.

Chapter 4 focuses on the various captive breeding and reintroduction projects supported by the four case study institutions. All of the study organizations are involved in internationally- managed breeding programs, and also participate in provincially and/or federally-run reintroduction projects. Breeding for reintroduction is limited by several factors, including the availability of suitable wild habitat, the space to keep captive breeding populations, and the financial pressures that come with raising a large number of animals in captivity. Zoos are often the only organizations with the space and expertise to successfully rear animals for reintroduction in the wild; however, without more secure funding for these projects, zoo involvement in captive breeding is restricted to only a few species.

Chapter 5 examines the case study zoos’ involvement in species at risk research and their partnerships with a variety of academic institutions. The general public has almost no awareness that Canadian zoos are involved in conservation research, an issue which is also understudied in academic literature. Yet zoos are able to undertake and support many unique research projects, which would be impossible to perform in the wild, such as detailed metabolism and physiology studies. Zoos also provide a controlled environment, ideal for testing new techniques and equipment. As zoos are non-governmental organizations, they are also able to focus their studies on species that may be overlooked by other institutions. Zoo research is funded mainly through grants and donations; unfortunately, the uncertainty of these funding sources limits the potential for zoos to conduct long term studies or hire permanent research staff, which in term restricts their effectiveness as research organizations.

Chapter 6 delves into the variety of educational opportunities offered by the case study zoos. Key informants see zoos as being unique places where people could connect to nature, which is an increasingly important activity in a national that is steadily succumbing to urbanization. This chapter also proposes and tests a method of evaluating the effectiveness of zoo signage, evaluating the proportion of visitors who in fact read the signs and quantifying their reactions afterwards. While many awareness-building activities happen directly at the zoos themselves, three of the four case study locations are also involved in community outreach projects, which aim to bring zoo messaging to a wider audience and encourage stewardship of species at risk populations in local communities.

Chapter 7 investigates the role of Canadian zoos in federal and provincial species at risk recovery planning and implementation. Analysis of the existing publicly-available recovery strategies and management plans found that three of the four case study institutions were mentioned by name as being directly involved with recovery of that species. Staff members from each of the institutions were also discovered to be providing vital information on species at risk to provincial, federal, and international conservation authorities. It appears from both the recovery document analysis and interviews with key informants that zoos are important partners in species recovery planning and implementation; yet, zoos are again limited in participating due to the limited availability of staffing and funding, though several zoo employees reported consciously overcommitting themselves in order to be involved in recovery efforts.

In the concluding section, this thesis summarizes the research findings and argues for the importance of Canadian zoos in species at risk conservation. This section includes recommendations for zoos in developing and expanding their involvement in conservation, and calls for greater zoo support from both government and non-governmental organizations alike. In particular, the short-term nature of zoo conservation funding must be addressed, as this is the single-most limiting factor restricting greater zoo participation in species at risk recovery. Recommendations for future research into the effectiveness of zoo conservation programs are also provided.

Chapter 2 Review of the Literature

Zoos have a long history, from their origins as tools for despotic rulers to demonstrate wealth and power, to their more modern form as wholesome family entertainment. Recently, many zoos have changed their mission statements, signaling a shift from an entertainment focus to one of conservation (Rees 2011). Some research suggests this shift is due to biodiversity loss becoming increasingly obvious, with zoos taking it upon themselves to spread awareness of the problem (Cohn 2000, Miller et al. 2004, Barongi et al. 2015). Other research posits that zoo conservation methods are ineffective and, in many instances, unnecessary (Mazur and Clark 2001, McCleery et al. 2014, Snyder et al. 1996). However, there has been little research into the real-world role that zoos are playing in conserving species, especially species at risk, and almost no one has examined this issue in a Canadian context (save Galbraith and Rapley 2005, and Schultz and Joordens 2014).

This literature review begins with a brief overview of modern zoological institutions on an international, North American and Canadian scales. The second section then moves into an examination of how zoos are contributing to conservation on a global scale through four main areas of focus: captive breeding and reintroduction, education, research and in-situ conservation. Each of these main areas is the subject of much debate, with very little information on how effective each initiative is at conserving species at risk. From this overview of global zoo conservation initiatives, the review transitions into an exploration of the current state of species at risk protections in Canada. Though governments across the country all purportedly aim to conserve species at risk, the patchwork of legislation results in many gaps in protection. Non- governmental organizations (NGOs) are attempting to fill in some of these gaps, yet are often unable to muster the manpower or resources to fully manage conservation initiatives on their own. I therefore conclude that zoos in Canada are necessary partners for both government and NGOs engaged in species at risk recovery efforts; their unique abilities to breed and reintroduce species, engage the public in education and in-situ projects, and conduct biological research are all valuable components of successful species at risk conservation initiatives, and should be utilized whenever possible.

9 10

2.1 A Brief Overview of Modern Zoos

2.1.1 Zoos on a Global Scale

The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), formerly known as the International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens (IUDZG), was established in 2000 (WAZA 2016a). The goals of WAZA include promoting inter-zoo cooperation in areas such as captive breeding, facility management, and conservation, as well as encouraging “the highest standards of animal welfare and husbandry” within their member zoos (WAZA 2016b). More than 330 zoo and aquaria organizations from over 50 countries are WAZA members; though, as many of these organizations include multiple zoos, it is difficult to determine how many zoos in total abide by WAZA’s guidelines (WAZA 2016c). WAZA is also responsible for helping to found international conservation initiatives, such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (WAZA 2016a), and has been a participant in many international wildlife agreements, including the Convention on Migratory Species, the Convention of Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (WAZA 2016d).

Conservation is a major focus for WAZA; the organization not only establishes standards that zoos and aquaria follow, but is also directly involved in species recovery (WAZA 2016d). Part of WAZA’s involvement centres around the management of 130 international studbooks (a breeding registry), which coordinate the captive breeding of over 159 species and sub-species (WAZA 2016d). WAZA also states that the “conservation of intact ecosystems is the only chance for the survival of our planet’s wildlife” – in essence, that captive breeding is not enough (WAZA 2016d). Therefore, WAZA also places emphasis on in-situ conservation efforts and, while not directly participating in many of these projects, offers certification, publicity, and funding for the programs themselves (WAZA 2016e).

On a global scale, zoos have great potential to affect change, with over 700 million people visiting the 10,000+ zoos around the world on an annual basis (Chung 2013, Fravel 2003). WAZA recognizes that potential, and encourages zoos and aquaria around the world to influence that audience through education, conservation programs, and research efforts (WAZA 2016b.)

2.1.2 Zoos in a North American Context

While WAZA is the coordinating force for zoos on a global scale, North American zoos have a more specialized governing organization, the Association for Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). Similar to WAZA, AZA dedicates most of its energy to ensuring high standards in animal care/management, conservation, and educational opportunities offered through its member zoos (AZA 2015). Though all Canadian zoological institutions are mandated to follow federal and provincial standards for keeping captive animals, the requirements for AZA certification are more stringent than local or federal regulations, and are monitored through a strict accreditation process which all members must undergo every five years (AZA 2014a, AZA 2016a). In order to become an AZA accredited facility, or to renew accreditation status, each institution must fill out a detailed questionnaire which can take up to a year to be completed and evaluated (AZA 2014a). The questionnaire evaluation is then followed up by several days of on-site inspections, after which the inspectors disseminate their findings to an Accreditation Commission of 12 experts in zoo-related fields (AZA 2014a). The Accreditation Commission makes the final decision on the institution’s status, and also has the power to rescind the accreditation of any institution that is not meeting AZA requirements (AZA 2014a). As of March 2016, AZA was comprised of 233 accredited zoos and aquaria (AZA 2016b). Of these, only seven are found in Canada.

In addition to accrediting zoological institutions, AZA is also involved in directly managing and conserving species. All AZA-accredited facilities are eligible to participate in Species Survival Plans (SSPs) (AZA 2014b), which coordinate the breeding and recovery of select species at risk (AZA 2014c). In total, AZA supports 450 SSP programs, which are broken down into groups based on the taxa of the animal and managed by Taxon Advisory Groups (TAGs) (AZA 2014c). The TAG groups are made up of experts on that taxa, and are responsible for managing the studbook, which contains all of the relevant breeding information, as well as creating “breeding and transfer plans”, which include information on which individuals from which zoos will be bred together (AZA 2014c). SSP programs also include a field component, supporting in-situ conservation efforts, such as reintroductions, when possible (AZA 2014c).

Of the 233 facilities accredited by AZA, only seven are located in Canada: the Assiniboine Park Zoo, Biodôme de Montréal, the Calgary Zoo, Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada, the Toronto Zoo,

12 the Vancouver Aquarium, and the Zoo de Granby (AZA 2016a). However, a total of 35 Canadian institutions are accredited by a related organization, the Canadian Association for Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA)1 (CAZA 2016a). These institutions alone are estimated to reach 11 million visitors annually (CAZA 2016b).

Like AZA, CAZA also requires its members to “promote the interests of wildlife conservation, biodiversity, and animal welfare” (CAZA 2011), and markets its member institutions as a necessary partner to protect species at risk (CAZA 2016c). CAZA recognizes AZA accreditation as being equivalent, yet also conducts its own accreditation process every 5 years, which includes many of the same criteria as AZAs (CAZA 2016d).

Both organizations rely on a team of experts to make accreditation recommendations, all of whom have multiple years of experience with zoos and aquaria (AZA 2014a, CAZA 2016d). AZA and CAZA both require their accredited facilities to adhere to specific animal care standards, including providing appropriate environments, socialization, and enrichments (AZA2014a, CAZA 2016e). The two accreditation agencies also examine the education programs, conservation and research departments, safety policies, staff quality, and financial stability of each institution (AZA 2014a, CAZA 2016d). Yet, the CAZA Accreditation Commission has only five to six members compared to AZA’s 12, mainly due to the smaller pool of CAZA members from which accreditors can be drawn from (CAZA 2016d; CAZA Associate Director, Pers. comm.). Thus, CAZA accreditation inspections are completed by a much smaller team of individuals, usually between two and four people (CAZA 2016e). It is unlikely that CAZA inspections are able to examine as many components of institutional standards, leading to more institutions being certified by CAZA than by AZA.

1 Aquarium at the Club Regent Casino, Aquarium du Quebec, African Lion Safari, Assiniboine Park Zoo, BC Wildlife Park, Biodôme de Montreal, Bird Kingdom, Bowmanville Zoo, Calgary Zoo, Cherry Brook Zoo, Cochrane Polar Bear Habitat, Creature Quest, Ecomuseum Zoo, Edmonton Valley Zoo, Greater Vancouver Zoo, Jungle Cat World Wildlife Park, Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo, Magnetic Hill Zoo, Marineland Canada, Marine Life at West Edmonton Mall, Parc Safari, Reptilia, Ripley’s Aquarium, Riverview Park and Zoo, Safari Niagra, Saskatoon Forestry Farm Park and Zoo, Science North, Toronto Zoo, Wye Marsh, Vancouver Aquarium, Yukon Wildlife Preserve, Zoo de Granby, and Zoo sauvage de Saint-Felicien.

2.1.3 Animal Rights and Zoos

Zoo accreditation is important for maintaining living standards for animals, which is critical given that one of the greatest topics of debate surrounding zoos is the issue of animal rights and animal welfare. Many animal rights groups disagree that it is ethical to keep animals in captivity (Lin 2014), and feel that “cages and cramped enclosures” prevent zoo animals from living comfortably (PETA 2016). The exhibit design itself can be especially frustrating for some, as zoos are often content to create a mock environment, featuring fake plants and removing any obstacles that would give the animal more privacy (Hancocks 2007). Some animal rights activists also argue that zoological institutions put profit margins before the well-being of the animal (Hancocks 2007, PETA 2016) and that animals in zoos are bred solely because baby animals are a strong draw for visitors (Lin 2014, PETA 2016). Another argument against zoos focuses on their perceived inability to create meaningful change in the wild, as many captive- bred animals are never reintroduced to their native habitat (Lin 2014, PETA 2016). Instead, animal rights groups advocate that people should donate money to other conservation organizations who focus on protecting wild populations, as that is the only way species will truly be saved from extinction (PETA 2016).

Organizations such as the AZA are quick to point out that their accredited institutions are not comparable to the side-of-the-road “zoos” that are often guilty of poor animal welfare (Hutchins 2004); nevertheless, the vast majority of zoos in the world are not accredited (PETA 2016). In the United States for instance, AZA-accredited institutions make up 212 (8.8%) of the 2,400 animal facilities licensed by the US Department of Agriculture (Fravel 2003). In addition, no matter what the accreditation status of a zoo, it is an unfortunate truth that most zoo exhibits focus more on charismatic species like tigers or penguins, and less on smaller species that may have a greater need for conservation assistance (Alroy 2015, Fravel 2003, Hancocks 2007, PETA 2016). These charismatic species are featured heavily in order to attract visitors; yet exhibiting these species is also thought to be the most effective way to connect people to nature and promote conservation (Skibins et al. 2013). The next section of this literature review deals with the extent of and debate surrounding accredited zoo involvement in conservation efforts, and endeavours to determine whether or not zoos are effective at conserving species at risk. As this thesis is focused on evaluating zoo participation in conservation, the remainder of this document

14 is focused on the involvement of accredited zoological facilities, which are mandated to participate in conservation projects.

2.2 Zoo Involvement in Conservation

2.2.1 Captive Breeding and Reintroductions

One of the first conservation initiatives promoted by zoos was captive breeding, in which rare or threatened animals are bred for the purpose of reintroducing their descendants back into the wild (Barrows 1997). Captive breeding can also be used to create assurance populations, which maintain genetic diversity through ex-situ populations in case of a catastrophic event severely depleting the wild populations (Grant and Hudson 2015). Other motivations for captive breeding include a desire to reduce the number of wild-caught animals in zoos and to provide research opportunities that would be impossible to conduct on wild animals (Fa et al. 2011, Pfaff 2010). Early captive breeding efforts paid little attention to the genetic management of zoo animal populations; prior to 1967, when the predecessors of the IUCN and WAZA assumed joint responsibility for international breeding programs, there were only two studbooks in existence (Rees 2011). Studbooks provide information on the lineages of each individual animal within zoo collections (Rees 2011), allowing zoo managers to breed animals in order to produce the greatest genetic variability (Witzenberger 2013). In cases where the population of a species is severely limited, captive breeding is the only option to preserve the species (Owen and Wilkinson 2014, Robeck 2009).

Despite the successes of captive breeding programs, they continue to have their detractors. Some argue that the removal of wild animals for captive breeding only harms the wild population more, reducing its ability to recover on its own (McCleery et al. 2014). Others argue that conservation dollars are better spent on in-situ species preservation, including restoring and protecting the species’ native habitat (Balmford et al. 1995, McCleery et al. 2014). Zoo captivity is also thought to be detrimental to the health of animals, leading to abnormal behavioural development (Morin 2015), and resulting in animals being unfit for reintroduction (McPhee 2003, Robert 2009). While new styles of exhibit design endeavour to address this problem through making zoo enclosures feel more natural (Fa et al. 2011), it remains difficult to train a captive-bred animal for life in the wild (Griffin et al. 2000). High mortality rates of reintroduced animals are common; for example, reintroduced carnivores were found to be at a high risk of

15 predation, disease, and starvation after reintroduction (Jule et al. 2008). In another study, which focused on the reintroduction of Canadian lynx to a site in Colorado, 48% of the animals (102 of 228) died during the 8-year program (Devineau et al. 2010). However, it is important to remember that lynx populations are intrinsically linked with snowshoe hares, and the high mortality levels could have been more influenced by the density of hares in the release areas than the reintroduction status of the animals themselves (Dennis et al. 2008). While predation is often the leading cause of reintroduced animal mortality (Banks et al. 2002, Carbyn et al. 1994, Moseby et al. 2011) imprinting on human caregivers (Rees 2011), road mortality (Kramer- Schadt et al. 2004), and stress incurred during the reintroduction process itself (Calenge et al. 2005, Teixeira et al. 2007) also play determining roles in reintroduction survival rates.

Many recent reintroduction efforts are taking steps to improve captive-bred animal behaviour through special conditioning programs prior to reintroduction (Jachowski and Lockhart 2009, Reading et al. 2013, Vilhunen 2006). By feeding California condor2 chicks via a puppet, scientists were able to limit the chicks’ exposure to humans and thus reduce imprinting rates (Rees 2011). Other conditioning programs focus on predator avoidance, as exemplified through the rufous hare-wallaby program, which was successful in teaching captive wallabies to avoid foxes and cats by associating the image of the predator with loud noises or squirts of water (McLean et al. 1995). In addition to teaching animals to avoid predators, other programs aim to impart hunting strategies before the animals are released into the wild. In the case of black- footed ferrets, the animals selected for reintroduction were sent through a pre-conditioning program which allowed them to practice hunting prey in a controlled environment, as well as being taught to avoid predators, which tripled ferret survival rates upon reintroduction (Biggins et al. 1998). These pre-conditioning programs can lead to reduced mortality and more natural behaviours in the wild, though more research is needed to design appropriate training protocols for different species (Griffin et al. 2000).

Captive breeding programs have been successful in some cases, although their expensive nature and low survival rates does not make them an ideal first action to preserving species at risk. Yet, in cases where the species population is incredibly low, captive breeding is often the only

2 Gymnogyps californianus

16 remaining option (Alroy 2015, Mallinson 2003, Stuart et al. 2004). While some argue that captive breeding is a waste of conservation resources, the fact remains that there are species such as the California condor, the black-footed ferret3, and the Mauritius kestrel4, that would no longer exist if not for zoo captive breeding programs (Zimmermann and Wilkinson 2007). Captive breeding programs must remain in place as a last-resort to save severely at-risk species, and zoos, which play an integral role in captive breeding, must be involved.

2.2.2 Education

Although many zoos have begun a shift towards emphasizing conservation, entertainment still remains a main reason for public attendance (Carr and Cohen 2011, Fa et al. 2011). The challenge zoos face now is to educate as well as entertain, in order to spread conservation messages while still attracting enough people (and money) to continue operating (Carr and Cohen 2011, Sterling et al. 2007). To meet this challenge, zoos now offer a wide variety of educational experiences, ranging from highly structured, classroom learning style “zoo schools,” to informal interpretive programing, and more entertainment-based offerings such as birthday parties and full-on animal shows (AZA 2013). Somewhat slyly though, even the most entertainment-based zoo programming often still contains conservation messages – and there is reason to believe people are actually learning from them. For instance, dolphin shows at a variety of US zoos (all containing information about dolphin biology and threats facing wild populations) were shown to increase the audience’s knowledge of dolphins, as well as the likelihood that audience members would engage in more conservation-friendly behaviour (Miller et al. 2013). In some cases, visitors have expressed a desire to not only learn about the problems animals are facing, but also what they can do to solve them (Roe and McConney 2014). Preliminary studies into other zoo education programs have found that visitors learn and retain more information when able to physically interact with animals, whether through directly touching the animals themselves (Kirchgessner 2014), or indirectly in the form of touch tables, which contain things like claws, teeth, and hair (Lindemann-Matthies and Kramer 2006).

3 Mustela nigripes

4 Falco punctatus

However, some feel that the small amount of existing research into zoo education programs is not sufficient to determine whether zoo education results in meaningful changes in knowledge and behaviour (Dove and Byrne 2014, Kirchgessner 2014). There is also reason to doubt that all education programs are equally effective for everyone. Visitor motivation is theorized to play a key part in determining how much knowledge a zoo attendee retains; for instance, those who visit a zoo in a “facilitator”, or care-giver, role were less likely to learn about environmental issues than visitors attending with other motivations (Schultz and Joordens 2014). Disseminating knowledge in and of itself may also not be useful enough to justify the investment zoos put into their education programs, as meaningful changes in behaviour are what is truly required to save species at risk (Fa et al. 2011).

Very little research exists on how zoo programs influence human behaviour, yet there are some studies that hold promising implications. Melbourne Zoo recently held a conservation awareness campaign regarding the threats facing wild orang-utans, entitled “Don’t palm us off” (Pearson et al. 2014). Not only did this campaign increase public awareness of orang-utan conservation, but follow-up surveys conducted 12 months later found that a statistically significant number of visitors self-reported changing their behaviour to benefit wild orang-utans, such as avoiding palm-oil products (Pearson et al. 2014). Another study, conducted at 12 different AZA- accredited institutions over a 3-year period, found that visiting the zoos caused 54% of visitors to “reconsider their role in environmental problems and conservation action” (Falk et al. 2007). The same study also showed that 57% of visitors reported feeling a stronger connection to nature following their visit to the zoo (Falk et al. 2007). More studies examining how zoo education programs affect long-term behavioural change need to be conducted before any hard conclusions can be reached (Fa et al. 2011, Roe et al. 2014, Sterling et al. 2007).

Though there is a need for more research into the impacts of zoo education programs, one area that many researchers seem to agree on is that zoos provide people with an invaluable introduction to wildlife. For many urban people, zoos are the only place where they are able to see wild animals in person (Hamilton and Phelps 1992, Sterling et al. 2007), either due to a lack of opportunity or a desire to experience natural ecosystems. In fact, some zoo visitors have been recorded as actually preferring to view animals in a zoo setting rather than in the wild (Prideaux and Coghlan, 2006). Most importantly, zoos provide an opportunity for the public to connect with animals, instilling empathy for both the species displayed and for the natural world in

18 general (Gwynne 2007, Ream 2012). Through this empathetic connection, people are inspired to care about the future of species at risk, hopefully culminating with people taking action to benefit conservation (Gwynne 2007).

2.2.3 Research

Recently, zoo research has become more prevalent across the world, with five scientific journals that focus exclusively on research conducted at zoos and aquaria: Zoo Biology, Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, Der Zoologische Garten, Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, and International Zoo Yearbook (WAZA 2015). Outside researchers are not the only people investigating zoo conservation either, as many zoos themselves are shifting priorities to focus on supporting research (Cohn 2000). WAZA reflected on this new priority in its 2015 “Conservation Strategy,” stating that “it is time for zoos and aquariums to maximize their impact and become true conservation leaders in the efforts to save wildlife and habitats” (Barongi et al. 2015).

One of the simplest ways for zoos to become involved in conservation research is through financially supporting other organizations’ projects (Rees 2011). This financial support is not insignificant; for instance, a study by Gusset and Dick (2011) examined 113 zoo-supported projects, finding that, of the projects that were significantly financed by zoos, over half (59%) would have been non-viable without zoo support. Zoos are dedicating more and more of their resources to conservation efforts; a 2007 study of 190 zoos from around the world found that over 82% of them participated in some form of in-situ conservation (Zimmermann and Wilkinson 2007). This same study also found that more than 55% of the zoos were funding the majority (75%) of their conservation projects using their own income, rather than from grants or fundraisers (Zimmermann and Wilkinson 2007). Today, some of the most resource-intensive zoo conservation efforts focus on zoo-run research projects. Many AZA-certified institutions have some kind of research program (AZA 2013), with multiple projects resulting in published scientific papers and conference presentations (AZA 2014d). Research projects supported by zoos have historically focused on veterinary medicine and animal care (Wharton 2007, Zimmermann and Wilkinson 2007); but, while this is still a major focus of zoo research, many institutions are expanding into scientific investigations of in-situ conservation issues (Cohn 2000, Dickie et al. 2007, Galbraith and Rapley 2005). Some zoos, such as the Calgary Zoo, the San

Diego Zoo, and the Vancouver Aquarium (among many others) have even established their own research departments, hiring scientists directly and encouraging them to publish papers on conservation (Galbraith and Rapley 2005, Innes 2006). Zoo-run in-situ research projects focus on a wide variety of studies, ranging from area surveys (Barco and Swingle 2014), to population monitoring (Griffing et al. 2014, Randall et al. 2014) and comprehensive analysis of reintroduction programs (Ausband and Moehrenschlager 2009).

Though more and more zoos are beginning to participate in in-situ research, several authors have expressed concern that zoos are spreading themselves, and their resources, too thin (Fa et al. 2011, Zimmerman and Wilkinson 2007). There is also a concern that the highly bureaucratic structure of many zoo institutions makes for a difficult environment to conduct research (Fa et al. 2011). Partnering with universities and other established research institutions may appear to be a solution to the over-extending problem; however, such collaborations are often challenging to manage due to a lack of clarity on who is in charge of the project (Innes 2006, Smith et al. 2007). More research on how zoos and other organizations can best work together is therefore needed in order to establish a “best practices” framework (Smith et al. 2007) and encourage collaboration.

While involvement in conservation research can be expensive and difficult to organize, some writers are of the opinion that having zoos conduct research is worth the investment. Zoos are in a unique position to have a huge impact on conservation, as their base of attendees is willing and excited to support in-the-field research (Zimmermann and Wilkinson 2007). Indeed, more and more zoos are finding that their attendees not only welcome zoo participation in in-situ conservation, but expect zoos to be directly involved (Fa et al. 2011). Bringing in-situ and ex-situ conservation together further solidifies the link between the animal a visitor sees in front of them and the wild population in need of help (Ryder and Feistner 1995). Having research tied to zoos can be a very powerful way to spread conservation messages among diverse audiences (Field and Dickie 2007); if a zoo is able to efficiently and effectively conduct research, without straining their resources, it can be a worthwhile investment financially, and for conservation in general.

As demonstrated, zoos have the capacity to potentially assist in the recovery of wild species through captive breeding, education, research and in-situ programs. These efforts are vital, especially in the face of the current biodiversity crisis. Zoo-led captive breeding programs are vital to maintaining the populations and genetic diversity of critically at-risk species (Alroy

2015, Mallinson 2003, Stuart et al. 2004), while also providing invaluable opportunities for research both in and out of the zoo itself (Cohn 2000, Galbraith and Rapley 2005, Zimmermann and Wilkinson 2007). Zoos also act as the bridge between the public and nature, exposing increasing disconnected urbanites to wildlife conservation issues (Hamilton and Phelps 1992, Sterling et al. 2007).

2.3 Current Species at Risk Protection in Canada

2.3.1 Species at Risk Legislation

Following Canada’s signing of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992, Parliament’s Environmental Committee recommended that both the federal and provincial governments needed to “take immediate steps” towards developing legislated species at risk protections (Elgie 2009). Nearly 10 years later, Canada’s federal government finalized the 2002 Species at Risk Act (SARA), which officially incorporated the listing recommendations of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (Canada Gazette 2002). COSEWIC is made up of independent experts, who assess species and recommend that the government list or not list them, with the final decision left up to the Minister of Environment (Canada Gazette 2002). Once listed, a recovery strategy must be created for the species, defining its critical habitat and legally protecting the species on federal lands (Canada Gazette 2002). Yet the federal SARA does not apply to provincially or territorially-controlled lands, owing to Sections 91 and 92 in the Constitution Act 1867, which state that the provincial governments have control over the management of their natural resources (excepting coastal fisheries and waterways) (Canada 2015a). Thus, SARA in effect only applies to 5% of the land in Canada outside the North (Smallwood 2003); however, SARA does include a “safety net”, which permits the federal government to issue emergency protection for a species not adequately protected on non-federal land (Wojciechowski et al. 2011).

The SARA was generally regarded as ineffective almost immediately following its passing (Elgie 2009, Bankes 2014). Owing to the large amount of opposition from the agricultural and business industries, as well as the provinces, the SARA finally passed by the government was a very watered-down version of the bill that pro-environmental groups wanted (Elgie 2009, Illical and Harrison 2007). Much of the initial criticism centered around the fact that the Act only applied to federal lands (Smallwood 2003), with the emergency “safety-net” provision providing

21 an inadequate threat to provinces that failed to protect their species at risk (Wojciechowski et al. 2011). Indeed, the “safety-net” provision has only been used twice to date; first in the case of the Greater Sage Grouse in Alberta, and most recently for the Western Chorus Frog in Quebec (Canada 2013, 2016a).

In addition to the limitations of the safety-net clause, more recent critiques of the SARA focus on the listing and recovery strategy development process. Several authors have raised concerns about the listing process for species of risk, arguing that the process is not transparent (Waples et al. 2013) and that there is a bias towards more charismatic taxa when determining which species will be listed (Mooers et al. 2007). Length delays in listing species are common (Findlay et al. 2009) and, because the Minister of the Environment has final say over what species are listed, the ministry has been accused of not listing species due to economic concerns (Findlay et al. 2009, Mooers et al. 2010). For instance, an analysis of COSEWIC recommendations found that the ministry declined to list 23% of the species put forward (Mooers et al. 2010). To date, 75 species recommended for listing by COSEWIC have yet to be approved by the ministry (Canada 2015b). The development of recovery strategies has also been criticised, with more effort apparently been put into plans for charismatic species than others such as plants or invertebrates (Theberge and Nocera 2014).

While the SARA itself certainly did not provide comprehensive protection for species at risk in Canada, it was intended to spur the provinces into creating their own protections which would cover gaps in the federal legislation (Elgie 2009). Species-at-risk legislation among the provinces varies in terms of effectiveness. Ontario’s 2008 Endangered Species Act is generally considered the strongest, with provisions for the strict enforcement of the legislation on private land (Olive 2014). Manitoba’s 1990 Endangered Species Act also applies private property; however, it is rarely enforced on private land, and recovery plans are slow to come (Olive 2014). Quebec passed its species at risk act, “Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species” in 1989, becoming one of the first provinces to do so (Olive 2014). While Quebec’s legislation does not define habitat, the government has been dedicated to enforcing the act, in some instances even prioritizing protection of species over economic development (Olive 2014). New Brunswick’s recently updated Endangered Species Act (2012) is tied closely to SARA through its reliance on COSEWIC recommendations for listing species (Olive 2014). New Brunswick’s act also requires landowner permission to define “survival habitat” (similar to critical habitat),

22 making protection on private land a voluntary process (Olive 2014). Nova Scotia also has an Endangered Species Act, passed in 1998, which allows the minister to designate private land as “critical habitat” but requires that the government provide the landowner with compensation if species protection interferes with previous land use (Olive 2014). Newfoundland and Labrador’s 2001 Endangered Species Act also follows COSEWIC recommendations to list species; while the legislation may apply to private lands, emphasis is placed on encouraging landowners to practice voluntary stewardship rather than on direct enforcement (Olive 2014).

Though the federal SARA was meant to encourage provinces to enact their own species at risk legislation, or face potential federal interference through the safety-net clause, the threat has proven not to be especially motivating for the provinces and territories (Hoffmann 2008). To date, there are still six provinces and territories (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, PEI, Yukon and Nunavut) without any stand-alone species at risk legislation (Olive 2014). While these six provinces and territories do address species-at-risk in their general wildlife management legislation, even those protections are extremely limited; there are no mechanisms to enforce the legislation on private lands in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, or PEI (the Yukon and Nunavut have some discretionary protections for species on private land) (Olive 2014). Unfortunately, without any provincial legislation, recovery strategies for COSEWIC-listed species are unlikely to be developed or implemented (Wojciechowski et al. 2011).

The patchwork of provincial legislation is inadequate to make up for the weak federal SARA, leaving many holes in the protection of Canadian species at risk. There is clearly a need for other organizations to assist in recovery planning and lobbying for more provincial legislation, especially in the provinces without any stand-alone species at risk laws. NGOs are attempting to step into this role, although their involvement is restricted by both financial and legal considerations.

2.3.2 Role of NGOs in Canada

Over the course of the 20th century, the number of NGOs has increased dramatically, with many of them becoming involved in political causes and processes (Balboa 2009, Bersill and Correll 2008). Some of these NGOs have since specialized, focusing exclusively on environmental issues, and are now known as “ENGOs” or environmental non-governmental organizations. ENGOs have been vital to the development of many of Canada’s environmental protection laws,

23 including the SARA, which was born out of a petition from a conglomerate of ENGOS, headed by the Sierra Legal Defense Fund (Elgie 2009). It was the ENGOs as well who continued to lobby the government during the SARA consultation process for stricter protections (Elgie 2009); though the end result was much weaker than the ENGOs wanted, the SARA would not exist today were it not for their actions (Chewka 2011). ENGOs have also been responsible for forcing the federal government to uphold its own legislation, mostly through courtroom action (Chewka 2011). In 2013, the reigning Conservative government was forced to issue the “Emergency Order for the Protection of the Greater Sage-Grouse” (Canada 2013) due to a suit launched by a coalition of ENGOs represented by EcoJustice (Ecojustice 2014).

While some ENGOs have become adept at obligating the government to protect species through litigation, others have focused more on filling the voids in protection that government legislation does not cover (Kerr and Kwasniak 2015). For example, groups such as the Nature Conservancy focus on purchasing land in order for them to protect it themselves (Nature Conservancy Canada 2015), while others like Ducks Unlimited prefer to work with landowners, offering them incentives to protect wetlands on their properties (Ducks Unlimited Canada 2015). Many ENGOs also work directly with government organizations, a more and more common occurrence as government policies increase their focus on consultation (Gubrandsen and Andresen 2004). These collaborations between government and NGOs are thought to better inform policies through the input of local groups, and more likely to achieve the original goals as a result of having more grassroots-level support (Field and Dickie 2007).

Though ENGOs are important contributors to conservation, there are also limitations to their involvement. Outside of the largest, corporate NGOs, it is often difficult for smaller organizations to gather the analytical data needed to inform policy (Evans and Wellstead 2013). Yet, in order to lobby government and affect political change, NGOs require hard data and analysis of that data, which many simply do not have the resources to collect (Evans and Wellstead 2013). Bringing more local organizations in can also lead to instances of value-based decision making instead of scientific reasoning, especially in cases for large wildlife like grizzly bears, which are seen as a threat by many humans (Field and Dickie 2007). Also, while coalitions of many NGO groups can affect large-scale change, such as in the case of the sage grouse emergency protection order, such partnerships are often fraught with argument, as every

24 group attempts to push their own agenda and the lack of a clear leader becomes detrimental to the coalition’s effectiveness (Smith et al. 2007).

ENGOs are meaningfully contributing to the conservation of species at risk in Canada, especially through their ability to hold the government to account and lobby successfully for change. However, NGO participation in direct, in-situ conservation is lacking, with very few organizations able to muster the resources to conduct thorough scientific investigations.

2.4 Conclusion

After reviewing the literature surrounding the involvement of zoos in conservation, it is clear that zoos do have a meaningful role to play in the conservation of species at risk. Though captive breeding programs are financially and resource intensive, they are often the last hope for highly at-risk species. Zoo captive breeding programs in particular are necessary, as the strong links between zoos allow for large-scale management of animals living in institutions all around the world. Zoo education programs, meanwhile, are highly effective at increasing public awareness of animals and exposing visitors to the idea that there are animals in the world in danger of disappearing. More investigations of how zoo education programs influence later visitor behaviour are needed; yet there are promising cases of zoos leading people to behave in more conservation-minded ways. The burgeoning field of zoo-based research also has great potential for illustrating the connections between zoo animals and their wild counterparts, as well as for successfully bridging the gap between ex-situ and in-situ conservation methods.

What is needed now is to investigate how Canadian zoos in particular are participating in species at risk conservation, as it is apparent that there is need for their involvement. With unequal species at risk legislation across the country, there are large gaps in the protection of species at risk in Canada. While ENGOs are often able to ensure legislation is enforced to its greatest potential through litigation and lobbying, many groups do not possess the ability to conduct the research needed to influence government policy making. By partnering with zoos, many of which have the ability to collect and analyze the data needed, ENGO and zoo coalitions may be able to influence government policy to a greater extent. In order for these alliances to be successful, more research is needed in order to establish a best practices framework for zoos and ENGOs that want to work together. This thesis will argue that it is vital for Canadian zoos to be involved in the conservation of species at risk, both through partnerships with government

25 agencies and NGOs, as well as in continuing their captive breeding, research and education programs.

Chapter 3 Study Locations and Methods 3.1 Theoretical Framework: Political Ecology

This research is a qualitative-based investigation that is situated within a political ecology framework. Since my work is one of the first investigations into the role of Canadian zoos, it was necessary for me to use a fairly broad approach in order to ensure that I gathered as much potentially relevant information as possible. Qualitative research methods are especially helpful in cases like this, where the issue is poorly understood, complex, and highly specialized (Ritchie 2003). Through qualitative research, the investigator is able to “unpack” issues (Ritchie 2003: 27), examining them to see not only what influences those issues themselves, but also how they relate to each other (Ritchie 2003).

Political ecology calls for the examination of human-environment relationships, with a focus on the political and economic factors that drive these interactions (Castree et al., 2013). This framework has been mostly used to explore issues relating to land use in the Global South (Blaikie 1985, Escobar 2006, Mollett and Faria 2013, etc.); however, I believe that it is also useful when examining interdisciplinary investigations, such as my research into the role of Canadian zoos. Expanding conservation initiatives are fuelled by an increasing awareness of the importance of preserving global biodiversity, creating a social demand for action (Zimmerer 2003). Political systems are also a strong driver of conservation initiatives, as they tend to dictate priorities and the methods by which conservation will be achieved (Zimmerer 2003). In addition, political entities in Canada also control the funding for many conservation initiatives, either directly through granting agencies, or through tax-breaks for non-profit organizations. Investigation into the role of Canadian zoos in species at risk conservation calls for inclusion of social, political, and economic factors, thereby making political ecology the appropriate analytical framework.

3.2 Positionality

My research into the relationship between zoos and conservation has certainly been influenced by my past experiences. While working towards my BSc. in Conservation Biology, I was employed part-time at the Edmonton Valley Zoo, where I worked as a zoo educator. This was

27 my first professional introduction to zoos, and it exposed me to some of the ways that zoos were involved in the conservation of both captive and wild populations. Following my graduation, I was offered a one-year fellowship with the Calgary Zoo’s Conservation & Research department. During this time, I was involved in multiple conservation programs, from in-situ research projects on habitat and population, to developing educational materials, assisting with grant report writing, and investigating the feasibility of new projects. These experiences surprised me – though I thought of myself as a fairly well-informed person, I was unaware that the Calgary Zoo participated in such a diverse range of activities, as were many of my friends with similar backgrounds in conservation. This stimulated my desire to investigate the variety of ways Canadian zoos were involved with conservation initiatives, as I felt that there was likely more going on than the public was aware of.

My past experiences with zoos played a significant role in my ability to conduct this research investigation. Since I had previously worked with the Calgary Zoo, the individuals I contacted at that institution already knew me; therefore, it was much simpler and quicker for me to approach and secure interviews with key people from the Calgary Zoo than it was from any other institution that I approached. However, I believe that the other institutions were also inclined to treat me more as an ally, and trusted me more than they may have done with another researcher, specifically because I had worked for zoos before. In fact, upon initially contacting one of the institutions, the gate keeper who talked to me mentioned that they had had to turn down similar requests for interviews in the past; however, because of my background, the gate keeper felt that I was a “safe” person for their institution to work with, as I have a greater understanding and appreciation of how zoos function and the challenges they face because of public perception. Several of the zoos I met with had directly experienced protests from animal rights groups, and as such were very conscious of their image and how they would be portrayed in the research.

Though my previous experience working in zoos was certainly an advantage when contacting participants and conducting interviews, it was sometimes difficult for me to leave my preconceived ideas of zoo conservation programs out of my initial reactions to my interviewees’ responses. Though I feel that animal rights organizations have a point in saying that captivity is not an optimal situation for animals, I struggle with the suggestion that all zoos should be shut down, and tend to be of the opinion that zoos preform an important function. Aware of this bias and that it could prejudice my results, I tried to keep as open a mind as possible when conducting

28 interviews and observations. I also attempted to deal with my biases by relying solely on the transcriptions and exhibit observations that I had written down for my analysis.

3.3 Study Locations

3.3.1 Choosing the Study Locations

To determine which institutions I would approach to participate in my research, I created a decision matrix with four main criteria: contributions to species at risk research, participation in captive breeding/re-introduction programs, species at risk education programming, and support of in-situ conservation efforts. These criteria were selected because they directly applied to the research questions I wished to investigate. I then applied the criteria to the seven AZA-certified zoos and aquaria in Canada (Association of Zoos and Aquariums 2014). Each institution was evaluated on a yes/no basis for meeting the specific criteria, as determined by the information available on their websites.

Table 3.1: Accredited Canadian Zoo Involvement in Conservation Programming Captive Breeding/ In-situ Zoo Research Education Re-introduction Conservation Assiniboine Park Y Y Y Y Zoo, MB Calgary Zoo, AB Y Y Y Y

Granby Zoo, QB Y Y Y Y

Montreal Biodome, Y Y Y Y QB Toronto Zoo, ON Y Y Y Y

Ripley’s Aquarium N N Y Y of Canada, ON Vancouver Y Y Y Y Aquarium, BC

From this matrix, I determined that the Calgary Zoo, the Assiniboine Park Zoo, the Toronto Zoo, the Granby Zoo, the Montreal Biodome, and the Vancouver Aquarium all met my main criteria. However, as some of my research questions focused on the political involvement of zoos, I decided to select two institutions from provinces with species at risk legislation (Manitoba and Ontario) and two institutions from provinces without species at risk legislation (Alberta and British Columbia) in order to see whether that made a difference in the zoos’ political participation. While the province of Quebec does have species at risk legislation, it dates to 1989 and is prior to the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk and the federal Species at Risk Act. Manitoba and Ontario have more recent legislation that is in line with Canada’s conservation priorities. Thus, I was then left with four case study locations: The Assiniboine Park Zoo, the Calgary Zoo, the Toronto Zoo, and the Vancouver Aquarium.

3.3.2 About the Study Locations

Each of the four case study institutions is an AZA facility, though the dates of their accreditations vary. As can be seen in Table 3.2, the Vancouver Aquarium was the first AZA accredited facility in Canada (Vancouver Aquarium 2016a), followed soon after by the Calgary Zoo and the Toronto Zoo (Calgary Zoo 2016a, Toronto Zoo 2015a). However, the Toronto Zoo’s AZA accreditation was suspended in 2012, when the zoo’s Board of Management voted to send the Toronto Zoo’s elephants to a non-AZA accredited facility (Pagliaro 2016). The Toronto Zoo has recently regained its AZA status following a lengthy re-application process (Pagliaro 2016).

Table 3.2: Dates of Zoo Establishment and AZA Accreditation Date of AZA Zoo Date Established Accreditation 1904 (As Winnipeg Zoo); Became the Assiniboine Park Zoo 2014 Assiniboine Park Zoo in 2008 Calgary Zoo 1929 1978

1888 (As Riverdale Zoo); Became the Metro 1980-2012; 2016 Toronto Zoo Toronto Zoo in 1974 (re-accreditation) Vancouver Aquarium 1956 1975

While many people tend to think of zoos as solely exhibiting exotic species, I found that all four of the case study locations had a strong representation of Canadian species (Assiniboine Park Zoo 2016a, Calgary Zoo 2016b, Pers. Comm. Vancouver Aquarium Animal Registrar June 20 2016, Toronto Zoo 2016a). Surprisingly, the majority of species exhibited at three of the four zoos were not in fact classified as at risk; unfortunately, the Vancouver Aquarium does not have a record of the species that are categorized as at risk (Pers. Comm. Vancouver Aquarium Animal Registrar June 20 2016). The number of Canadian and at-risk species at each institution can be found in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Species Breakdown at the Case Study Institutions Total Number of Number of At- Number of At-risk Zoo Species Canadian Species Risk Species Canadian Species Assiniboine Park 200 34 23 6 Zoo Calgary Zoo 130+ 29 29 10 Toronto Zoo 460+ 44 82 15 Vancouver Data 935 712 Data unavailable Aquarium unavailable

Within the case study institution collections, the number of species can also be broken down by taxa. Three of the four zoos appear to focus their collections mainly on mammals and birds (Assiniboine Park Zoo 2016a, Calgary Zoo 2016b, Toronto Zoo 2016a), while the Vancouver Aquarium is, perhaps unsurprisingly, dominated by fishes and marine invertebrates (Pers. Comm. Vancouver Aquarium Animal Registrar June 20 2016). A full breakdown of institutional animal collections by major taxa groupings can be found in the table below.

Table 3.4: Species Numbers by Taxa at the Case Study Institutions Total Amphibians/ Fish/ Zoo Birds Mammals Species Reptiles Invertebrates Assiniboine 200 20 56 27 48 Park Zoo Calgary Zoo 130+ 19 28 10 45 460+ (280 Toronto Zoo 65 83 55 76 on display) Vancouver 935 55 7 860 13 Aquarium

In terms of financials, all four institutions receive a large proportion of their revenue from direct admissions to their facilities (Assiniboine Park Conservancy 2014, Deloitte LLP 2015, Toronto Zoo 2014, Vancouver Aquarium 2014). Major expenses at the zoos were dominated by staff wages and, in the case of the Vancouver Aquarium, by facility operations (Assiniboine Park Conservancy 2014, Deloitte LLP 2015, Toronto Zoo 2014, Vancouver Aquarium 2014). A summary of the revenue and expenses of the case institutions from 2014 (the latest year for which all four institutions have published financial records) is located in the Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: 2014 Financial Summary of the Case Study Locations Total Main sources of Total Zoo Main Expenses Revenue revenue Expenses City of Winnipeg Staff wages/contract (43%) (41%) Assiniboine Direct park revenue Park revenue collection $28,269,505 $22,901,798 Park Zoo (36%) (21%) Amortization of loans (18%) Admissions (20.6%) Staff wages (38.2%) Insurance payments Flood rebuilding (19.5%) Calgary Zoo $56,257,000 (21.2%)* $48,416,000 City of Calgary Administration (13.5%) Grants (17.9%) Admissions (27.7%) Operations/Administration City of Toronto (38.2%) Toronto Zoo $47,970,609 $47,318,571 (23.4%) Conservation, education and research (31.1%) Admissions (41.7%) Retail Operations (20.6%) Vancouver $33,450,000 $33,703,000 Aquarium Concession/gift store Facility operations (30.2%) (17.2%)

* Insurance payments made to address the damage caused by the 2013 flood in Calgary

3.4 In-depth Interviews

In-depth interviews provide a way for researchers to investigate people’s perceptions of an issue, allowing for a thorough understanding of the subject and of the different perspectives that are present (Ritchie 2003). In particular, interviews are most useful when examining people’s experiences or attitudes towards an issue (Rowley 2012), and have the added advantage of enabling the researcher to discover the areas of debate and consensus among the interview group (Dunn 2010).

I chose to use a semi-structured interview style for my research. Semi-structured interviews make use of an interview guide, which enables the researcher to steer the interview towards addressing specific lines of investigation, while at the same time being flexible enough to allow questions to the flow of conversation (Blee and Taylor 2002). Semi-structured interviews also give the researcher the freedom to go off topic when appropriate, and delve into unanticipated issues that the interviewee may bring up (Blee and Taylor 2002). I made use of the pyramid structure when formatting my interview guide, which allows the researcher to begin with easy questions, so that the interviewee becomes more comfortable with the situation, before being asked more challenging or controversial questions (Dunn 2010).

Semi-structured, pyramid style interviews were ideal for achieving some of my research objectives. I wanted to discover what kinds of limitations were in place that were hindering zoo involvement in conservation, which necessitated an open-ended style of questioning that enabled interviewees to tell me what the biggest issues were from their perspective. I also wanted to discover to what extent government and zoos were collaborating on species at risk projects, anticipating that the situation would be different at each institution. In addition, I wanted to investigate why zoos are becoming more involved in species at risk conservation, and whether or not zoo staff felt that these programs were effective. All of these objectives called for conversations with people who were directly involved with zoo-based conservation programs.

Although the use of questionnaires would have likely given me access to a larger sample size, having more thorough interviews with a smaller number of people enabled me to better illustrate the range of feelings and opinions surrounding the issues (Rowley 2012), and generated more nuanced and complex responses than a questionnaire would likely have been capable of.

3.4.1 Choosing and Contacting Participants

I decided to focus my interviews on key informants, who were already knowledgeable in the issues I wanted to investigate, and would therefore be able to offer a greater depth of understanding than a non-specialist could (Payne and Payne 2004). In this case, key informants would be people who were employed by one of my study institutions for a least one year, and worked directly on at least one aspect of conservation programming (captive breeding, education, research or in-situ conservation) at that institution.

Interviewees were contacted in a variety of ways, depending on their institution. Because of my previous connection with the Calgary Zoo, potential interviewees were contacted directly via e- mail. I also e-mailed the head of the Conservation Research department my research proposal, which was then disseminated to the rest of the potential interviewees. The seven interviewees who participated were mainly involved in research projects, through several individuals also had experience with the zoo’s education or captive breeding programs.

For the Vancouver Aquarium and the Toronto Zoo, I was introduced via e-mail to a gate-keeper through colleagues at the University of Toronto. A gate-keeper is an individual who can “grant or deny initial access” to an institution or to interviewees (Warren and Karner 2010: 74). After contact with the gate-keeper at each institution was established, I sent them a copy of my research proposal and offered to answer any questions that they may have. In the case of the Vancouver Aquarium, I then had a phone conversation with the gate-keeper, after which they agreed to pass on my interview invitation to other individuals. The six interviewees from the Vancouver Aquarium came from a variety of departments, including education, research, and zoo keeper staff.

The gate-keeper at the Toronto Zoo did not request a follow-up phone conversation to my initial invitation, preferring to continue our correspondence over e-mail instead. They, like the Vancouver Aquarium gate-keeper, also passed on my interview invitation to possible interviewees, and scheduled the interview locations and times for me. The five interviewees from the Toronto Zoo all had different specialties, and were all high-up in the institutional hierarchy.

The Assiniboine Park Zoo process was different from the other institutions, as there was no single gate-keeper. Instead, the Assiniboine Park Zoo requires anyone wanting to conduct research at the institution to go through the zoo’s research review board, who evaluated my project and then decided whether their institution would participate or not. Upon implementing some minor changes to my project proposal, the Assiniboine Park Review Board decided to ask zoo staff to participate in my project. The six individuals from Assiniboine Park Zoo who participated in the interviews were staff from the research, education, and veterinary branches of the zoo.

3.4.2 Confidentiality and Ethics

In the initial letter of invitation (which was distributed to all interviewees either directly, through the gate-keeper, or through the review board) all interviewees were informed that the small sizes of most zoo departments meant that there was a possibility their identities would not remain anonymous. In cases where the interviews were coordinated by gate-keepers, an individual’s participation in the interviews would certainly be known among their colleagues; however, I informed the interviewees that I would not use any of their names when referring to the results of my research in order to prevent anyone from attributing direct quotations to them.

Because of the potentially sensitive nature of some questions, such as asking interviewees their opinions on current species at risk legislation, interviewees were told that they were able to skip over any question they did not feel comfortable answering. They were also given the option in the consent form to withdraw their interview at any time prior to publication of the research. All of these conditions were approved by the University of Toronto’s Ethics Review Board in advance of invitations being sent out. However, no interviewees asked to skip questions and, to date, none of the interviewees have expressed concern about their responses or requested that their answers be withdrawn from the study.

3.4.3 Conducting Interviews

During my visits to the four different zoos, I was able to interview 24 individuals from multiple different departments at each institution. The number of people interviewed at each location was fairly consistent, with the highest recruitment coming from the Calgary Zoo (n=7) and the lowest from the Toronto Zoo (n=5). The interviews lasted between 20 minutes to 65 minutes, depending on how much time the interviewee had available and how much they wanted to talk.

I began the interviews with several general questions, as recommended by the pyramid method (Dunn 2010). These questions were related to how long the individual had worked for the zoo, what their role was there, and how conservation came into their job. I then moved into questions that focused more on the role of the institution in general, followed by inquiries into the current protections for species at risk in Canada. I made sure to end each interview by asking if the interviewee had anything they wanted to add on the record, or if they had any recommendations for future questions that I could ask. As I progressed through the interviews, I began to shift

35 around the order and phrasing of questions based on the responses I received from my early interviews. A complete list of the questions used, in their finalized form, can be found in Appendix I.

3.5 Exhibit Observations

In order to determine how effective zoo messaging was at reaching members of the public, I decided to also conduct on site observations at each institution. Observation of the public would allow me to observe the behaviour of people as they interacted with zoo message (signage in particular) and gain insight into how that behaviour affected their understanding or interest in the subject (Ritchie 2003). Since my opportunities for observations were limited to a span of 4-5 days, my data collection was limited to “counting” style observations, which would result in data that would likely be helpful to illustrate trends, but not detailed enough to offer a more in-depth understanding (Kearns 2010: 242).

3.5.1 Choosing Exhibits

Five exhibits at each institution were selected for observations. Each exhibit selected was representative of an animal that the institution was actively involved with, either through research, captive breeding, or in-situ conservation projects. In order to narrow down the number of exhibits to five (considered the manageable number for the short amount of time in each location), exhibits detailing species at risk were given preference, but it was not always possible to find exhibits on species at risk that the zoo was also directly involved in conserving. Preference was then given to animals that represented a variety of different taxa. If this did not assist in narrowing the options down sufficiently, as was common with mammal exhibits, then animals representing conservation projects that were highlighted by the institution were preferred. For instance, at the Vancouver Aquarium, preference was given to observing the Stellar Sea Lion5 exhibit instead of the Sea Otter6 exhibit, due to the Aquarium’s website highlighting of Stellar Sea Lions on its research page (Vancouver Aquarium 2016b).

5 Eumetopias jubatus

6 Enhydra lutris

3.5.2 Confidentiality and Ethics

As zoos and aquaria are considered public places, it was not necessary for me to gain permission to observe visitors at the exhibits. I was, however, given a “Visitor” or “Visiting Researcher” tag at two of the four institutions (Vancouver Aquarium and Assiniboine Park Zoo) so that the institutions’ volunteers knew I had permission to be there. During each observation, my use of clipboard and data sheet made it fairly evident to the public that I was conducting research, and I occasionally interrupted my observations to answer a question from a volunteer. No one from the general public asked me any questions about my work, likely because I was one of many students they had seen conducting observations while at the various study sites. When citing visitor responses to the exhibits, confidentiality was assured due to the fact that I did not know any of the visitor’s identities myself. Any quotations from visitors are referred to with only general remarks on their identity – for instance, “a child asked” or “a parent replied”.

3.5.3 Conducting Observations

Each exhibit was observed on three different dates, at least once in the morning and once in the afternoon, with the third observation occurring whenever it fit into my schedule. Observation tallies and notes were recorded on a physical data sheet, and later inputted into a Microsoft Access database to ensure data retention in case of any accident. When conducting my exhibit observations, I remained within the exhibit for 20 minutes each round. During this time, I took photos of any exhibit signage, noting whether or not the signage contained any information on 4 main criteria:

1) Whether or not the exhibit referred to the species-at-risk status (IUCN, COSEWIC, SARA or other provincial listing

2) Whether or not the exhibit mentioned if the zoo was part of a conservation/research project involving the animal on display

3) Whether or not the exhibit provided details on the conservation/research project mentioned

4) Whether or not the exhibit told the visitor where the animal could be found in the wild?

After my first set of observations, I added a fifth criteria:

5) Whether or not the exhibit gave the visitor instructions on how they could help conserve or protect the animal in the wild

After recording details of the signage, I used the 20 minutes at each exhibit to record the number of people. As my visitor observations focused on verbal clues, I did not count children who appeared to be under the age of five. In the smaller, less busy exhibits, I was able to keep a running tally of people and estimate how long they spent at the location. However, at some of the larger or more popular exhibits, I was forced to take relative tallies every 5 minutes, after noting with my first observations that very few people stayed at an exhibit for longer than that amount of time. These tallies were then added together to form an estimate of how many people visited the exhibit during my time there.

While observing the exhibit visitors, I tallied individual engagement in the zoo’s conservation message using seven criteria, which were chosen to illustrate a progressing amount of visitor engagement. These tallies were conducted on a data sheet of my own design, which can be found in Appendix II. During these observations, I also wrote down examples of dialogue that fit into any of the seven main observational categories. Notes on the relative business or engagement levels were also recorded.

3.6 Data Analysis

3.6.1 Transcription and Coding of Interviews

Following the completion of the recordings, each interview was then transcribed (verbatim) into a separate word document. The transcripts were then analyzed using the “simultaneous coding” method described by Saldana (2013:6), which allows multiple codes to be applied to the same section. Coding is a method of both data organization and analysis; not only does coding allow for similar ideas to be extracted and directly compared to each other (Dunn 2010), but, through the process of coding, the researcher can begin to link concepts together and establish a view of the whole issue (Hoepfl 1997).

Codes were applied throughout the transcript to examine issues in five major topic areas, which I identified as the main categories before beginning the coding process: captive

38 breeding/reintroductions, research, in-situ conservation, education/awareness, and politics/partnerships. As I began coding the interviews, I added in sub-categories to these main topic areas as they appeared within the data. However, as Saldana (2013) says, “coding is a cyclical act” and, as I progressed through the transcripts, I had to go back several times to recode transcripts and incorporate newly emerging ideas. In particular, the more often an idea occurred, or when differing opinions on a single issue cropped up, I added in new sub-categories in order to refine my eventual analysis of that discussion. At the end of the coding process, I was left with 45 subcategories from the five topic areas7. A complete overview of these codes can be found in Appendix III. Having specific subcategories enabled me to distinguish between several different kinds of opinions regarding a particular issue, as well as how often that opinion appeared across all of the interviews. A more thorough dissemination of these points of discussion will appear in the next several chapters of my thesis.

3.6.2 Analysis of Exhibit Observation Data

In order to determine the exhibit aspects that were most significant in engaging visitors, all of the information from the data sheets was organized into an Excel file. The number of people who responded to the exhibit (either through reading the signs, or talking about the animal with others) was converted into a percentage of the total number of visitors to the exhibit during that observational period.

7 In Situ Conservation Subcategories: Habitat Restoration, Population Support, Headstarting, Habitat Loss, Habitat Protection, Community Support Research Subcategories: Field Methods Testing, Better Captive Rearing, How are People Learning, General Biology, Overarching Theory Captive Breeding/Reintroductions Subcategories: Assurance Populations, Breeding for Release, Translocation, Reintroduction, Re-enforcement Education and Awareness Subcategories: Potential to Raise Awareness, Lack of Awareness, Connection to Nature, Inspiring Social Change, Ethics of Zoos, Signage, Education, Stories Politics and Partnership Subcategories: Extending Assistance, Involvement Invitation, Finding new partners, Partnership with academia, Partnership with NGOs, Partnership with government, High-level focus on conservation, High-level focus on native species, High-level desire to be a conservation leader, High-level need for zoos to be involved, High-level license to operate, High-level Planning to grow zoo involvement, Easier for zoos to fundraise, Not enough funding, Funding from internal zoo sources, Funding from grants, Funding from industry/private donations, Funding from government, Not enough protection for listed species, Focusing on listed species, Involvement in recovery plans for listed species

3.6.3 Recovery Document Analysis

Although my interviewees briefly mentioned some of the recovery strategies that their institution was involved with, I found through examination of the transcript that those discussions were somewhat light on the exact details of how the zoos were involved with species recovery. I therefore decided to conduct a document search for all the federally listed management plans, recovery strategies, and action plans available through the Species at Risk Registry (Canada 2016a). This search found 757 results, including 51 Action Plan records, 162 Management Plans, and 544 Recovery Strategies (SARA 2016g).

In order to narrow these results down, I instead used a species search of the database that was limited to geographical areas in which I knew the zoos were working – thus, I searched for species that could be found in Alberta, the Arctic Ocean, British Columbia, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Ontario, and the Pacific Ocean. As none of my interviewees mentioned involvement in plant recovery strategies, I also limited my search to arthropods, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals that were classed as extirpated, endangered, threatened, or special concern by COSEWIC. This second search resulted in 403 records, which I felt was as refined as I could manage using the available search criteria (Canada 2016b). Unfortunately, there was no way to search for both certain species and limit that search to recovery documents; I therefore had to go through each of the 403 results one-by-one in order to find links to the recovery documents, assuming they were available for that species. Of the 403 species populations, I found that 111 were mentioned in an action plan, while 68 had management plans and 143 had recovery strategies written for them. 90 species had at least two different kinds of recovery documents available including 48 species that had links to both action plans and recovery strategies, and 33 which were mentioned in action plans and management plans. In addition to these, six species had links to both management plans and recovery strategies (indicating that they had undergone a change of status), and three species were included in all three types of recovery documents.

Finding provincial recovery documents was a less complicated process. From my interviews, I knew that zoos were generally concentrating their efforts within four different provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario. I therefore decided to focus on finding recovery documents from these four provinces. This was accomplished by searching for “recovery

40 strategies” on each of the provinces’ websites, which, save Manitoba, brought me to a list of recovery documents published by the province. After contacting Manitoba’s wildlife office, I discovered that Manitoba had not, in fact, published any provincial recovery strategies; instead, they historically had simply adapted the federal documents for their own purposes (pers. comm. May 9 2016). Thus, there were no provincial recovery documents from Manitoba. The other three provinces all had a variety of provincial recovery documents, including 88 from British Columbia (62 recovery strategies and 26 management plans) (British Columbia 2016), 40 from Alberta (26 recovery plans and 14 management plans) (Alberta Environment and Parks 2016), and 107 from Ontario (101 recovery strategies and 6 management plans) (Ontario 2016).

In order to determine the number of recovery efforts that the four case study zoos were involved in, I used key words to search through the available provincial and federal recovery documents. The key words used to search for zoo involvement were “zoo” or “aquarium”. Any documents that contained these key words were examined more closely in order to determine which zoos were named in the recovery document, as well as what role the zoo was playing in the federal recovery of species. The results of these document examinations are discussed in detail in Chapter 8.

Chapter 4 Captive Breeding and Reintroductions 4.1 Introduction

Historically public zoos purchased most of their animals; when breeding in captivity did take place, it was generally for the purposes of increasing the number of animals on exhibit, or to sell excess animals to other zoos (Rees 2011). However, much has changed in the past few decades, in that today captive breeding is considered an important tool to maintain genetic diversity for small populations and avoid the extinction of critically at-risk animals (Owen and Wilkinson 2014, Robeck 2009). This chapter examines how Canadian zoological institutions are involved with captive breeding programs, and the importance of captive breeding to federal and provincial species recovery efforts. I also investigate the extent to which the case study institutions are participating in reintroducing species, while using interviewee responses to lay out the advantages and disadvantages of zoo-led captive breeding/reintroduction programs.

All four case study zoos were selected in part because they are involved in some kind of captive breeding or reintroduction program, according to their institution’s website. Yet very little is known about these programs or why the zoo participates in captive breeding initiatives in the first place. Interviews conducted at the zoos suggest that captive breeding is a major area of focus for each zoo. Indeed, the interviewee discussions on captive breeding were helpful in illustrating the extent to which Canadian institutions are involved with captive breeding programs, examining the motivations behind zoo involvement in breeding and reintroduction efforts, and evaluating if the breeding programs were a useful tool in species at risk conservation. In order to facilitate understanding of the variety of programs in this area, I have separated my discussion on captive breeding into four main sections: breeding-only programs, breeding with a reintroduction component, headstarting, and the advantages and challenges of captive breeding in a zoo setting.

Ultimately, though captive breeding and species reintroduction is not an ideal solution for recovering species at risk, it is vital to preserving highly at-risk populations. Zoological institutions are the best situated to take charge of these breeding and reintroduction programs, as the staff familiarity with caring for animals and available space are something that very few other organizations would be able to supply. Therefore, it is important for both governments and

42 non-profit organizations to continue to support zoo-based captive breeding and reintroduction programs, as zoos are beginning to reach the limits of potential involvement in these kinds of species recovery strategies.

4.2 Captive Breeding Programs at the Case Study Institutions

Since the earliest days of publicly exhibited captive animals, zoos have been breeding species in order to maintain their zoological collections (Rees 2011, Interview: CZ-7). While the practice of breeding animals for exhibit maintenance is still certainly occurring (Interview: VZ-4), zoos appear to be moving towards restricting their captive breeding activities to focus on breeding animals for conservation (Interview: CZ-7). Conservation-aligned captive breeding programs at the four study institutions are coordinated by outside organizations, mainly through international AZA Species Survival Plans (SSPs) or through local government initiatives.

4.2.1 International and Federal Recovery Planning

As of 2015, the Assiniboine Park Zoo was involved in more than 50 breeding programs (roughly 30% of their total number of species) managed either by the SSP or through the European Endangered Species Program (EEP), both of which coordinate breeding efforts across multiple zoos through the use of studbooks, which keep track of parentage and determine the best breeding partners for individuals in a given species (Assiniboine Park Zoo 2015). The Calgary Zoo is also heavily involved in international breeding programs; through a phone call with a member of the Calgary Zoo’s media department, I found that 37% (n=45) of the Zoo’s 122 species were part of SSP projects (Calgary Zoo, pers. comm., May 9 2016). The Toronto Zoo is currently involved in breeding programs for 122 species, 43 of which are coordinated through SSP programs, with the remainder organized through various other national and international studbooks (Toronto Zoo 2016b). Of the four case study institutions, the Vancouver Aquarium participates in the fewest official breeding programs, with only eight species involved in SSP efforts (Vancouver Aquarium, pers. comm., May 16 2016).

Captive breeding programs at Canadian zoos are not only part of international breeding initiatives, but also play a part in federally-based species at risk recovery efforts. In total, there are 33 SARA-listed species and/or populations in Canada whose current federal recovery strategies or management plans reference the involvement of zoos or aquaria. Of these 33

43 documents, six of them include a current captive breeding component: whooping crane8, Oregon spotted frog9, Blanding’s turtle10, Massasauga rattlesnake11, swift fox12, black-footed ferret, (Environment Canada 2007, 2015a, 2016; Parks Canada Agency 2015, Pruss et al. 2008, Tuckwell and Everest 2009). Two other recovery documents, including the eastern sand darter13 and the greater sage grouse14, mention the potential of captive breeding to assist in the recovery of the species (Environment Canada 2014, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012). Two other recovery strategies, which do not mention zoos or aquaria, also include captive breeding in their methods: burrowing owls15 and peregrine falcons16 (Environment Canada 2012, 2015b).

Habitat protection is usually the first objective in federal recovery strategies; indeed, the identification of critical habitat and mitigation of threats to it are mandatory components to species recovery in Canada (Canada 2016c). In cases like the six aforementioned species, populations in the wild were so low that simply conserving habitat and encouraging natural breeding in the wild would not be enough. The Vancouver Island marmot17, for instance, experienced a 50% decline in its wild population from 1997-2007, 80% of which was caused by predation events (Canada 2016d). These dramatic decreases in the wild population spurred the need to begin a captive breeding and reintroduction program. Originally, four institutions were responsible for breeding Vancouver Island Marmots, including two zoos (Calgary Zoo and Toronto Zoo) and two non-profit organizations (The Tony Barret Mount Washington facility and

8 Grus americana

9 Rana pretiosa

10 Emydoidea blandingii

11 Sistrurus catenatus

12 Vuples velox

13 Ammocrypta pellucida

14 Centrocercus urophasianus

15 Athene cunicularia

16 Falco peregrinus

17 Marmota vancouverensis

Mountain View Conservation); however, today only the Calgary Zoo and the Toronto Zoo continue with the breeding and reintroduction program for these animals (Interview: TZ-3).

4.2.2 Provincial Recovery Planning

In addition to the six federal recovery strategies that currently include zoo-based captive breeding, provincial recovery efforts are also beginning to recognize the potential of captive breeding in restoring species with extremely low populations. Seven of Ontario’s published provincial recovery strategies or management plans include captive breeding. For two of these plans (piping plover18 and peregrine falcon), captive breeding efforts have already been used to successfully increase population numbers, with the Toronto Zoo taking an active role in breeding peregrine falcons (Kirk 2013, Ontario Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 2010). Five other recovery plans (round hickorynut19, wavy-rayed lampmussel20, madtom21, pugnose shiner22, and eastern sand darter) mention the need to evaluate whether captive breeding is possible for the species, and how it could be accomplished, illustrating the potential for future collaboration between the Ontario government and zoos (Morris 2010, 2011; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).

In Alberta, there are four current recovery strategies that include a captive breeding component: the northern leopard frog23, greater sage-grouse, peregrine falcon, and swift fox (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 2012, 2013; Alberta Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 2005, Alberta Swift Fox Recovery Team 2007). All four off these strategies have received input and participation from the Calgary Zoo, although the Calgary zoo itself is not currently involved in the breeding of northern leopard frogs (Interview: CZ-2). However, the

18 Charadrius melodus

19 Obovaria subrotunda

20 Lampsilis fasciola

21 Notorus gyrinus

22 Notropis anogenus

23 Lithobates pipiens

Vancouver Aquarium is the primary breeding facility for northern leopard frogs, and works with the Calgary Zoo on the northern leopard frog project in both Alberta and British Columbia (Interview: CZ-2).

Like Alberta, the government of British Columbia also has four provincial recovery documents that mention captive breeding, which include the Puget Oregonian snail24, the Oregon spotted frog, the northern leopard frog, and the Vancouver Island Marmot (British Columbia Invertebrates Recovery Team 2008, Canadian Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team 2014, Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Team 2012, Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Team 2008). Though the Puget Oregonian snail recovery team is still in the process of determining whether captive breeding is a viable strategy for this species (British Columbia Invertebrates Recovery Team 2008), the other three species have current captive breeding programs occurring at the Vancouver Aquarium (both frog species) (Interview: VA-3, VA-4), and the Calgary Zoo and Toronto Zoo (Vancouver Island Marmots) (Interview: CZ-1, TZ-3).

While three of the four provinces in which my case study zoos are located have their own recovery strategy procedures, the Province of Manitoba does not. In a phone call with a member of the Manitoba Wildlife Branch, I discovered that Manitoba had introduced legislation mandating the development of provincial local recovery plans in 2012 (Manitoba Wildlife Branch, pers. comm., May 9 2016). However, due to the recent nature of this legislation and the time intensive process required to develop full recovery plan, the government of Manitoba has not yet been able to formally publish any recovery strategies, save for woodland caribou (Manitoba Wildlife Branch, pers. comm., May 9 2016). As they work on developing new recovery strategies, the provincial government has continued their former practice of adopting the federal recovery plans for any species occurring in the province (Manitoba Wildlife Branch, pers. comm., May 9 2016). Of these, two (the burrowing owl and peregrine falcon) include captive breeding components (Environment Canada 2012, 2015b). The Assiniboine Park Zoo currently is assisting the provincial government with the burrowing owl captive breeding program by providing genetic analysis to recommend pairings and housing the owls during the breeding process (Interview: AZ-5).

24 Cryptomastrix devia

Many species at risk recovery documents do not include mention of zoo involvement through captive breeding programs, as taking animals out of the wild for reproduction purposes is often a last result. As well, many of the federal and provincial species recovery plans are centred around plants, which are not the major priority for most zoological institutions. While captive breeding is a vital component of some species at risk recovery planning, zoos are involved with species recovery through other methods as well; these methods will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. Nevertheless, for the species that do require captive breeding programs, zoos are an essential partner in these efforts, and are often the only organizations capable of managing large scale breeding programs.

4.3 Zoo Involvement in Recent Reintroductions

While captive breeding is an important part of the role of Canadian zoos in species at risk recovery efforts, most interviewees (n=20) felt that zoos should also be involved in reintroduction efforts, and that “putting animals back” into the wild was a good fit for zoos (Interview: CZ-6). All four of the case study institutions are involved in reintroduction programs, which focus almost exclusively on native species; as several interviewees stated, there is a local species focus for reintroductions due to the need to protect what is in their own backyards (Interview: CZ-2, AZ-1) and because focusing on local conservation efforts is a more efficient use of resources (Interview: CZ-2, TZ-1). The one notable exception to the native species focus is the Puerto Rican Crested Toad25 program at the Toronto Zoo, which not only involves breeding and reintroductions, but also a large amount of community outreach and education in Puerto Rico as well (Interview: TZ-2). Table 4.1 illustrates the active reintroduction-based programs at the case study institutions is included here.

25 Bufo lemur

Table 4.1: Current Reintroduction Programs at the Case Study Institutions Assiniboine Park Vancouver Calgary Zoo Toronto Zoo Zoo Aquarium - Burrowing Owl - Whooping Crane - Puerto Rican - Oregon Spotted - Vancouver Island Crested Toad Frog Marmot - Eastern - Northern Leopard Frog - Greater Sage Loggerhead Shrike Grouse - Vancouver Island - Burrowing Owl Marmot - Swift Fox - Black-footed Ferret - Trumpeter Swan - Blanding’s Turtle - Wood Turtle - Oregon Spotted Frog

4.3.1 Reintroduction Successes

Several of the reintroduction projects involving one (or more) of the case study institutions have been considered successes. For instance, the whooping crane project, of which the Calgary Zoo is the only Canadian breeding facility, has recently been in the news for its achievements. Crane numbers hit their lowest point in 1941, with just 15 wild individuals found (Canada 2015). Today, there are four wild flocks (Kelly Swan, pers. comm. May 10 2016) spread across the United States and Canada, three of which are now reproducing in the wild. The Wood Buffalo and Eastern Migratory flocks have both increased in population, to 329 and 105 individuals respectively (Buttler and Harrell 2016, Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership 2016). The Louisiana flock, which is fully made up of reintroduced individuals, sits at an estimated 46 individuals (Kelly Swan, pers. comm. May 10 2016); this year also saw the first crane chicks born in the wild in Louisiana since 1939 (McConnaughey 2016). Without the participation of the Calgary Zoo it is not clear if the Whooping Crane story would be such an overwhelming success.

Arguably one of the most successful reintroduction programs is the Calgary Zoo’s swift fox project. Native to Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Northern Montana, the swift fox (Vulpes velox) experienced rapid population declines following the settlement of the North American prairies, leading to their eventual extirpation from Canada in 1978 (Pruss et al. 2008). After reintroductions began in the 1980s, the swift fox was down-listed from “extirpated” to “endangered” in 1998 (COSEWIC 2011). Further reintroductions and monitoring by the Swift

Fox Recovery Team, of which the Calgary Zoo is a member, resulted in the swift fox being further down-listed to “threatened” in 2009 (COSEWIC 2011). A search of the COSEWIC Species at Risk database found that the swift fox is one of only six species in Canada to have ever been down-listed; a direct result of successful reintroduction efforts (Interview: CZ-1). The successes of the whooping crane and swift fox reintroduction programs suggest that zoos could make a significant and critical contribution to the survival of wild native species in Canada, and should continue their involvement in captive breeding efforts for the sake of species recovery.

4.3.2 In-Progress Reintroduction Efforts

Other reintroduction programs are still undergoing analysis to determine their effectiveness. Both the Calgary Zoo and the Vancouver Aquarium participate in the northern-leopard frog reintroduction project in British Columbia (CZ-2, VZ-3, VZ-4). In 2014, over 2000 captive bred tadpoles were reintroduced to the wild (Kootenay Conservation Program 2014); however, monitoring the introduced populations will continue to occur for several more years before the program can be declared a success or not (Kootenay Conservation Program 2014). The Vancouver Island marmot (Calgary Zoo and Toronto Zoo), Blanding’s turtle (Toronto Zoo), and burrowing owl (Assiniboine Park Zoo) projects are all in similar situations; although some reintroductions have occurred, it is still too early to tell whether or not those efforts have been successful. Zoos in Canada appear to be focusing not only on local or provincially listed species; instead, they are working collaboratively across provincial and federal borders, engaging with governments and non-governmental organizations outside of their home provinces to protect and recovery Canadian species.

4.3.3 Challenges to Reintroduction

Though there have been some notable successes in zoo-based reintroduction programs, there have also been some attempted reintroductions with less than optimal results. The black-footed ferret reintroduction program in Grasslands National Park, Saskatchewan, was one such effort. Formally thought to be extinct, a small population of black-footed ferrets was found in Wyoming in 1981 (Jachowski and Lockhart 2009). The wild ferrets were then brought into captivity, bred in several facilities (including the Toronto Zoo) and successfully reintroduced to several different sites in the United States and Mexico (Jachowski and Lockhart 2009). However, efforts to restore black-footed ferrets to Canada experienced some serious complications (Interview: TZ-

3). One year after the original group of ferrets was introduced to Grasslands National Park in 2009, plague arrived at the reintroduction site, devastating the prairie dog populations in the area (Interview: TZ-3). The black-footed ferret diet is almost exclusively (87-91%) black-tailed prairie dogs26 (Barrows 1997); thus, the dramatic decrease in the prairie dog populations led to the assumed demise of all of the reintroduced ferrets (Interview: TZ-3). Although staff from the Calgary Zoo, Toronto Zoo, and Parks Canada continue to survey the area for ferrets, none have been sighted since 2013 (Interview: TZ-3). While the zoo programs are not at fault for the appearance of plague in the area, it is important to remember that nature is often complex and unpredictable, and that reintroductions are not always going to be a success.

In other cases, even though a captive breeding program may be designed with a reintroduction component in mind, it is not always possible to restore the species to its native habitat. For instance, the widespread distribution of chytrid fungus, which releases a pathogen that destroys an amphibian’s ability to respire through their skin (Skerratt et al. 2007), now covers the entirety of the native range for the Panamanian Golden Frog27 (Interview VA-4). Both the Vancouver Aquarium and the Toronto Zoo are breeding populations of Panamanian golden frogs; however, the continued presence of the chytrid fungus in the animal’s range means that no reintroductions of the species can take place until this threat has been mitigated (Toronto Zoo 2016c). Although reintroductions may not always be possible using a captive-bred population, 25% of interviewees (n=6) mentioned that it was still worthwhile for zoos to breed animals, as the captive assurance populations provide a reserve of genetic material in case of a catastrophic event in the wild populations.

4.4 Headstarting

While conducting the interviews, many of the participants (n=10) mentioned how their zoo was involved in “headstarting” programs. Headstarting is defined as “a conservation technique for improving survival of species with high juvenile mortality” and involves taking eggs or young animals from the wild, overwintering them during their first year when mortality levels are

26 Cynomys ludovicianus

27 Atelopus zeteki

50 generally highest, and then reintroducing them back into the wild once that high mortality period has passed (Sacerdote-Velat et al. 2014, 1). Published headstarting studies almost exclusively focus on amphibians and reptiles, with some work also being done on invertebrates (Alberts 2007, Heppell et al. 1996, Mercaldo-Allen et al. 2015).

Of the four case study institutions, three of them are involved in headstarting projects. The Toronto Zoo focuses their headstarting efforts on Blanding’s turtles in the Rouge Valley National Park and wood turtles28 in other parts of Ontario (Interview: TZ-2). Both of the Toronto Zoo headstarting programs involve partnering with other agencies, including Parks Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, to remove eggs from the wild, hatch and raise the young at the zoo, and then release the young turtles into protected site (Interview: TZ-2). In the case of the Blanding’s turtle, headstarting was a high priority, as there were only an estimated six turtles remaining in the Rouge Valley area prior to the establishment of the head-starting program (Toronto Zoo 2016d). The first headstarted Blanding’s turtles were collected as eggs from stable populations in other parts of Ontario (Toronto Zoo 2016d). After being hatched, the juvenile turtles spent two years in captivity while they grew to a large enough size to reduce the risk of predation (Toronto Zoo 2016d). The first round of 10 headstarted turtles was released in the Rouge Valley park in 2014, and this project is anticipated to continue until 2024, with several more rounds of reintroductions planned and a monitoring program already in place to evaluate the success of the headstarting project (Jivov 2014, Interview: TZ-2).

However, not all zoo headstarting programs are focused on reptiles and amphibians. The Calgary Zoo and Assiniboine Park Zoo are both involved in headstarting efforts for burrowing owls in British Columbia and Manitoba respectively (Interview: CZ-3, CZ-5, AZ-2, AZ-5). Though the Calgary Zoo’s burrowing owl headstarting program is still in the planning stages, the Assiniboine Park Zoo has been involved with burrowing owl recovery since 2010, and is a founding member of the Manitoba Burrowing Owl Recovery Program (MBORP) (Assiniboine Park Zoo 2016b). Though their range once stretched across southern Manitoba, it is estimated that in 2012 there were only 10 breeding pairs of burrowing owls in the province (MBORP 2016). MBORP decided to incorporate headstarting into burrowing owl recovery efforts in order

28 Glyptemys insculpta

51 to minimize morality levels experienced during the owls’ winter migration (Wellicome et al. 2014). Furthermore, by taking some eggs to raise in captivity and leaving others, the project managers would be able to reduce nest competitiveness among siblings, ensuring that the owls raised in the wild would have more resources available (MBORP 2016). In partnership with MBORP, the Assiniboine Park Zoo is responsible for housing the owls (in a non-public area) over the winter, in addition to conducting all of the genetic testing and deciding which headstarted owls should be paired together in order to foster the greatest possible genetic diversity (Assiniboine Park Zoo 2016c, Interview: AZ-5).

Unfortunately, the Manitoba burrowing owl project has experienced several setbacks since headstarting began, including several years where flooding wiped out the nest site areas (Interview: AZ-5). The relatively small number of possible reintroduction sites in the province is also an issue; if something happens to the existing reintroduction sites, there are few other places where it would be appropriate to release the owls (Interview: AZ-5). It is therefore important to remember that, though headstarting can be a valuable tool to increase the populations of species with high juvenile mortality rates, equal emphasis must be placed on habitat preservation if the program is to succeed long-term (Heppell et al. 1996).

4.5 Staff Opinions Regarding Captive Breeding and Reintroduction Programs

While asking about the kinds of conservation programs that were happening at the four case study zoos, many of the interviewees also offered their opinions on how those programs were doing, and what the main advantages and challenges were part of zoo-led conservation initiatives. Many interviewees (17 or 71%) were active participants in captive breeding and reintroduction programs; their insights regarding these zoo-led efforts are therefore extremely valuable, and provide important direction for future examinations of zoo conservation programs. In the final section of this chapter, I will disseminate the advantages and challenges facing zoo participation in captive breeding and reintroduction programs, as communicated to be by the interview participants.

4.5.1 Advantages of Zoo-led Captive Breeding/Reintroduction Programs

Over the course of the interviews, the zoo staff members were asked why they thought their institution was participating in captive breeding/reintroduction programs. Responses to this question were generally in agreement with the idea that “zoos need to be involved in captive breeding because they have the space and the expertise to do so,” as discussed by over half (n=13) of the participants. In particular, staff from the Calgary Zoo brought up the existence of the zoo’s Devonian Wildlife Conservation Centre (DWCC) (Interview: CZ-2, CZ-5, CZ-7), which is located in a rural area outside of the city and is not open to the public (Calgary Zoo 2015a). This space is exclusively used for breeding animals for the zoo’s conservation programs (Interview: CZ-5, CZ-7), including animals that require large amounts of space, such as the zoo’s herd of Przewalski’s horses (Calgary Zoo 2015a). The existence of the DWCC increases the Calgary Zoo’s ability to participate in breeding programs, and the massive amount of non-public space dedicated to conservation helps to distinguish them from other organizations (Interview: CZ-7).

Expertise was also felt to be a major advantage for zoos, with 63% (n=15) of respondents citing experience with keeping and breeding animals as one of the most important factors to why zoos were involved with breeding and reintroduction programs. When captive breeding programs become necessary for the recovery of a species, it follows that the people in charge of coordinating the breeding program be experts on keeping animals in captivity. However, even though the people coordinating zoo captive breeding programs are experts, there are challenges associated with zoo-led breeding and reintroduction efforts that can affect the success of the programs.

4.5.2 Challenges of Zoo-led Captive Breeding/Reintroduction Programs

Although the amount of space zoos can offer was cited as one of the major advantages to zoo conservation programs, lack of space was felt to be a challenge by staff members from two of the case study institutions (Interview: VZ-3, VZ-4, TZ-4). In particular, the non-exhibit space at the Vancouver Aquarium is quite restricted, and limits the ability of the facility to participate in large-scale breeding or reintroduction programs (Interview: VZ-3, VZ-4). The institution’s response to the restricted space problem has been to concentrate breeding efforts on smaller species (amphibians in particular) that are more easily housed; however, even these species

53 programs are limited by space. While aquarium is currently breeding both northern leopard frogs and Oregon spotted frogs, the facility staff would like to see the frogs kept for a longer period of time instead of being released as soon as they reach the tadpole morph (VZ-3, VZ-4). Tadpoles have a much higher mortality rate than adult frogs, mainly due to higher predation levels at the tadpole stage (Berven 1990) and increased exposure to pesticide runoff, which can have detrimental effects on their development and behaviour (Bridges 2000). By holding off on the release of individuals until they had fully metamorphosed, survival rates would likely be much higher; nevertheless, the aquarium simply does not have the space or the resources to support large numbers of adult frogs (Interview: VZ-3, VZ-4).

In addition to lack of space, another challenge related to captive breeding in zoos was the need to address two contradictory components: the need to keep animals away from humans so that they do not become habituated (Griffin et al. 2000), and yet encourage the public to see conservation programs in action so that they are more inclined to support them (Interview: CZ-2, TZ-1). For instance, although the Calgary Zoo is the only Canadian breeding facility for whooping cranes, few members of the public are aware of this, as the whooping crane breeding takes place at the non-public DWCC. Whooping cranes can imprint on humans, which makes it very difficult to raise them in captivity while ensuring that they are still able to be successfully reintroduced. To combat this, whooping cranes at breeding centres such as the Calgary Zoo’s DWCC are kept away from humans; the only contact they have with keepers is when the staff are dressed in crane costumes, a technique called “costume-rearing” (Urbanek et al. 2010).

Though captive breeding, reintroductions, and headstarting projects are all a large component of conservation programming at the four Canadian zoos examined, the fact remains that some staff members feel that these projects are not sufficient to save species in the wild (Interview: CZ-1, AZ-4). In order to make a true different to the survivability of a species in the wild, zoo staff tend to agree with the ideas expressed by Heppell et al (1996): without concentrated efforts to understand and protect species in the wild, reintroduction efforts cannot by themselves overcome the challenges of species at risk recovery efforts. More research is needed to truly grasp what management strategies will have the most impact on saving a species (Heppell et al. 1996); luckily, zoos seem to have taken this idea to heart. In the next chapter, I relay what my interview participants discussed regarding zoo-headed research projects, and how Canadian zoos in particular are helping to fill in critical knowledge gaps to further the recovery of species at risk.

Chapter 5 Research and Academic Partnerships

As discussed in the previous chapter, Canadian zoos are active participants in captive breeding and reintroduction programs. However, those programs alone do not make up the extent of zoo involvement in species at risk recovery. During my interviews, all but one participant (n=23) mentioned that their institution was conducting research projects, both in the field as well as at the zoos themselves. Research can thus be considered a common goal of the four case study institutions; yet, the structure of the research programs and the variety of projects occurring at the zoos is generally unknown to the public and under-examined in the literature (Interview: AZ- 2, CZ-3, TZ-3). In this chapter, I argue that Canadian zoos are participating in a wide variety of research projects, both through their own individual research departments and through collaborative efforts with academic institutions. Zoo research can investigate questions that no other organization would be able to accomplish, and provide valuable testing and training facilities for new equipment and scientists. I also discuss some of the challenges that come with zoos attempting to conduct their own research. Ultimately, this chapter concludes that zoo-led research plays an important role in species at risk conservation, and that zoos in Canada should continue to support and expand their research programming.

5.1 Research at the Zoos

5.1.1 Organizational Structure of Research Departments

Before examining the depth of research occurring at the case study institutions, it is important to understand each facility’s capacity for conducting research. Of the four zoos, three of them have separate research departments with a small number of dedicated staff. According to my research, the Calgary Zoo’s Conservation Research department is the best staffed of the three zoos, with nine full time scientists employed within the department. Some part-time staff are also hired to assist with seasonal field projects, but the number of these staff members varies from year-to- year. The Vancouver Aquarium and Assiniboine Park Zoo also have separate research departments, which currently employ seven (Interview: VA-5) and three (Interview: AZ-2) and full-time staff respectively. Within all three of these institutions, the departmental staff members are tasked with coordinating and conducting research projects, as well as publishing papers relating to those projects and disseminating the results of those programs to the public. Keeper

55 staff and veterinarians are also involved in research projects at each of these three zoos, although their involvement is limited by the demands of their other responsibilities (Interview: AZ-5).

The Toronto Zoo coordinates its research programs according to a different hierarchical structure than the other three institutions. Instead of having all of the research under one departmental umbrella, research is instead the responsibility of individuals in multiple departments. The Toronto Zoo employs multiple curators, each of whom oversee different taxa groups within the zoo, including: Amphibians and Reptiles, Birds and Invertebrates, Fishes, and Mammals. These curators are also responsible for coordinating in-situ research projects relating to their assigned taxa; however, as they rely mainly on graduate students and grant funding to support these initiatives, the number of staff conducting research under the curatorial umbrella varies from year to year (Interview: TZ-1, 2, 4). Research projects are sometimes also managed by the Zoo’s Behavioural Research and Animal Health departments. The animal health department employs one of the Toronto Zoo’s three full time researchers, a reproductive physiologist, who runs their own lab and oversees between 6-8 graduate students at a time (Interview: TZ-5, Toronto Zoo 2016e).

5.1.2 In-Situ Research Projects

Research projects conducted in the field vary widely between the institutions, as each zoo has their special areas of focus. Table 5.1 displays the field research projects currently underway at the four case study institutions.

Table 5.1: Species at Risk Research Projects within the Case Study Institutions Zoo-led In-Situ Research Zoo-led Ex-Situ Research Current Academic ZOO Projects Projects Partnerships •Restoring native soil •Testing non-invasive • Pollinator hotspot following the removal of methods of studying polar identification and invasive trees bears and seals analysis •Monitoring polar bear •Examining how effective • Soil sampling in the and seal dynamics in the exhibits on climate change Assiniboine Park Canadian Arctic are at teaching people and •Lynx accelerometer •Tagging monarch changing their behavior collar testing Assiniboine butterflies and •Richardson’s ground •Richardson’s ground Park Zoo monitoring migration (in squirrel population squirrel population partnership with dynamics (with U of M) dynamics Monarch Watch) •Polar bear stress levels • Population structures •Monitoring bird strikes of seal populations on windows in Winnipeg (in partnership with the Manitoba Museum)

• Long-term population • Improving whooping crane • No official monitoring of northern breeding success in captivity partnerships mentioned leopard frogs in AB/BC •Various animal health at this time • Black-footed ferret and research projects black-tailed prairie dog •Analysis of conservation Calgary population monitoring in translocations Zoo Grasslands National Park •Amphibian translocations • Monitoring •Marine translocations reintroduced swift fox •Reintroduction motivations populations in Alberta in N. America and Saskatchewan

• Turtle and amphibian • Effectiveness of zoos in • Reintroduced monitoring in Ontario public education Blanding’s turtle •Population monitoring • Polar bear energetics population monitoring of Blanding's turtle in • Reindeer GPS collar test •Population studies of Rouge Valley NP •Breeding and artificial wood turtles in ON •Population monitoring insemination of wood bison • Polar bear energetic of black-footed ferrets in • Behaviour, genetics and studies Toronto Grassland's NP, SK biomechanics of cheetahs •Reproductive Zoo •Freshwater mussel •captive behaviour of physiology projects surveys and population orangutans monitoring through • Scent as big cat enrichment citizen science research •Pup development and in Ontario maternal care in marmots •Endocrinology studies

Zoo-led In-Situ Research Zoo-led Ex-Situ Research Current Academic ZOO Projects Projects Partnerships • Surveys of belugas in • Morphometric monitoring •Captive frog population the St. Lawrence river, of captive frog populations research with the purpose of •Acoustics of false killer •Energetics and dive advising on future whales, white-sided physiology of Stellar sea protected area dolphins, harbour porpoises lions and northern fur boundaries and belugas seals • Killer whale population •Metabolic rates/physiology •Metabolic rates of monitoring and of white-sided dolphins white-sided dolphins ecological studies in •Pulmonary function of various Pacific Ocean belugas and white-sided sites dolphins • Howe Sound ecosystem •RFID reader testing on studies harbour seals • Impacts on beluga Vancouver vocalizations in Nunavut Aquarium •Humpback whale research in various Pacific Ocean sites •Ocean pollution monitoring in the Pacific Ocean using harbour seal blubber chemistry •BC Cetacean sightings network (citizen science monitoring program) •Lingcod and rockfish population surveys in various Pacific Ocean sites

5.1.3 Future Directions for Research

While conducting my interviews with zoo staff members, many of the participants not only described their institution’s current research projects for me, but also mentioned areas of future research that they were planning to pursue. All four institutions had two common areas of interest for future research: what are the most effective ways of engaging the public, and to what extent were zoos encouraging people to make environmentally-friendly changes in their day-today lives? (Interview: CZ-4, VA-1, AZ-2, TZ-1). One of my Assiniboine Park Zoo interviewees told me that the head of the research department was actively looking for a way to hire a full- time social scientist to examine these questions (Interview:AZ-2), while a curator at the Toronto Zoo has started doing initial investigations into the feasibility of a similar project, though

58 funding was a serious limitation (Interview: TZ-1). Several other future research projects were also discussed, including habitat surveys and captive breeding techniques for the endangered Poweshiek skipperling at the Assiniboine Park Zoo (Interview: AZ-3) and Ontario bat species surveys through the Toronto Zoo (Interview: TZ-3).

5.2 Academic Partnerships

Partnerships with academic institutions are an important driver of zoo-based research. 63% of my interview participants (n=15) discussed how their institution worked with students and academia to increase the amount of in-situ and ex-situ research done through zoos, indicating that facilitating research through partnerships is a high priority for Canadian zoological institutions. The interviewees also mentioned some of the current projects that academic institutions were involved in at the zoos, ranging from in-situ population monitoring, to genetics work, to metabolic studies.

As outlined in Table 5.1, zoo staff at all four case study institutions are actively involved in research projects, both within and outside of the zoos themselves. Unfortunately, financial limitations and restrictions on staff time often prevent zoos from being able to do all of the research projects they are interested in (Interview: AZ-5). Three of the four study zoos (excepting the Calgary Zoo) appear to be attempting to mitigate this problem by utilizing their connections to academic institutions, encouraging graduate students and professors to conduct their own research in partnership with the zoos. The number of partner academic institutions varied across the case study zoos; of the four locations, the Toronto Zoo appeared to work with the greatest number of organizations, including the University of Toronto, Laurentian University, University of Guelph, Trent University, York University, and many local colleges (Interview: TZ-1, 2, 5). In fact, one interviewee estimated that there were roughly 75 graduate students currently working on research projects at the Toronto Zoo (Interview: TZ-5).

Assiniboine Park Zoo had the next greatest diversity in their academic involvement. Not only does their research department have memoranda of understanding with the University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg, University of Alberta, University of Guelph, and Trent University, but the head of the research department is also an adjunct professor at the University of Winnipeg (Interview: AZ-2, 3, 5). According to the interviewees from the Vancouver Aquarium, their institution has longstanding partnerships with three institutions: Simon Fraser

University, Vancouver Island University, and the University of British Columbia. The latter organization is a has been collaborating with the Aquarium for decades (Interview: VA-1, 3, 5). Finally, although the Calgary Zoo does not have any current partner programs with local academic institutions, their Conservation/Research department has strong ties to the University of Calgary. The head of the department is an adjunct professor at the University of Calgary, and, during my fellowship with the Calgary Zoo (March 2013-April 2014), I found that several of the research staff did their master and PhD projects through the same institution.

It seems intuitive that, in the absence of the finances or staff availability to conduct all of the necessary research themselves, zoos would turn to academic partnerships to offset these challenges. While clearly advantageous for the zoological institutions, zoo-academic partnerships are beneficial for the academic institutions as well. By partnering with zoos on a variety of research projects, academics can communicate their investigations and results to a much wider audience. Zoos across Canada draw in millions of visitors per year (CAZA 2016b), most of whom are assumed to not often be exposed to academic research. According to one interviewee, conducting and displaying a research project in a zoo is far more advantageous when trying to disseminate results; after all, putting up a poster or a sign in a public, highly visited institution will reach a much wider audience, while if you display your research in an academic setting, it is only other academics who will see it (Interview: AZ-3).

In addition to increased publicity for both universities and students, partnering with zoos also gives outside researchers access to specialized equipment and expertise. For instance, the Assiniboine Park Zoo is highly involved in training students how to extract and analyze DNA from tissue, blood, and hair samples (Interview: AZ-3). Zoos also provide students, especially biology students, a vital opportunity to gain hands-on experience with live animals (Interview: VA-1). The Toronto Zoo facilitates unique opportunities for students, including a veterinary student internship program and a collaborative Conservation Biology master’s program (in partnership with the U of T) (Interview: TZ-5). By partnering with zoos, academic institutions and their students are able to take advantage of greater opportunities for publicity, training, and research projects.

5.3 Advantages of Zoo Research

When discussing research in Canada, it is important to remember that academic institutions do not have the ability to conduct all of the necessary investigations themselves. Many other institutions, including government and non-government organizations, play vital roles in furthering the development of better policies and procedures through their research efforts. In particular, Canadian zoological institutions are able to play an important part in research. The following section will highlight zoo’s ability to (1) undertake unique research, (2) investigate questions that would not be possible to study in the wild; and, (3) test out new equipment and field techniques in a controlled environment.

During their interviews, several study participants observed that zoos have a unique ability to research species that no one else may care about, or have the opportunity to investigate. Research at all four facilities is conducted by scientists, and their investigations are “the quality of the universities” research (Interview: CZ-4). However, where academic professors are generally rewarded for the number of publications they generate, research at zoos tends to be more results driven (Interview: CZ-4). Zoo research is inherently practical; though it may not always focus on the most well-known or rarest species, researchers at zoological institutions aim to eliminate knowledge gaps and directly impact conservation policies with their findings (Interview: CZ-4, AZ-3).

For instance, although northern fur seals29 are listed by COSEWIC as threatened (COSEWIC 2011b), there is currently no federal recovery strategy or recovery schedule for the species (Canada 2016f). Since the federal government has prioritized other species at risk for recovery, there is no current federal research being done on northern fur seal populations, even though this species has dramatically declined in recent years (Vancouver Aquarium 2016c). However, scientists from the Vancouver Aquarium have been investigating this problem themselves, and have hypothesized that limited access to high-calorie food sources, such as herring schools, is the driving factor behind declining northern fur seal survival rates (Vancouver Aquarium 2016c). Research into this issue is still ongoing; yet, without the Aquarium’s investigation and

29 Callorhinus ursinus

61 involvement, it appears likely that no other organization would have been able to explore this issue until the federal government began its development of a recovery strategy, adding years to the period where this species would be under little-to-no observation.

Zoo research can be especially advantageous when a need arises to investigate a species that is not federally listed or threatened at all. Species such as the ringed seals30 or harbour seals31 in the Canadian arctic, for instance, are so numerous as to be given a global status of “least concern” (Kovacs et al. 2008, Thompson and Härkönen 2008). These species completely lack any kind of at-risk status; nevertheless, they are still important research subjects. Not only are they some of the main prey sources for charismatic, at-risk species like polar bears32, but the seals themselves may soon start to feel the effects of climate change (Interview: AZ-3). There is thus a need to begin proactive research to examine how seal populations are responding to the changing climate, and how their predators are affected by those changes (Interview: AZ-3). Yet, because arctic seals are so numerous, there is no government support for projects such as this, as resources are dedicated to more immediately threatened animals. If the necessary research on key species like seals is to be done, other organizations such as the Assiniboine Park Zoo will need to take the lead on coordinating research investigations on these and other animals in similar, no- status situations.

Another advantage of zoo-based research that individuals from all of the institutions agrees on is that zoo animal collections offer a unique opportunity to investigate questions that would not be possible to study in-situ (Interview: AZ-3, CZ-5, TZ-1, VA-5). For instance, it is impossible to monitor what an animal eats and how it metabolizes different kinds of food in the wild, as researchers would be unable to control what the animal eats (Interview: VA-5). However, in a zoo setting, animal diets can be changed and their feces collected immediately for analysis, providing important nutritional information that can then be extrapolated to wild populations (Interview: VA-5). Several of the case study zoos are currently investigating the metabolic rates

30 Pusa hispida

31 Phoca vitulina

32 Ursus maritimus

62 of some of their animals, including pacific white-sided dolphins33 at the Vancouver Aquarium (Interview: VA-5) and polar bears at the Assiniboine Park Zoo and Toronto Zoo (Interview: AZ- 3, TZ-5).

In addition to metabolic studies, basic physiology investigations are also important contributions that zoos can make to research. The Vancouver Aquarium in particular is involved with several physiology-based studies, including examining the diving capabilities of stellar sea lions in conjunction with the University of British Columbia (Interview: VA-5). Another study that the Vancouver Aquarium is involved in is analyzing the pulmonary functions of small cetaceans, including belugas34, harbour porpoises35, false killer whales36 and white-sided dolphins (Interview: VA-6). These studies will result in vital ground work that will influence future research in the wild; however, it is necessary to do these physiology studies in captivity, as “there are things you can learn about animals because they are in an aquarium, that you could never learn easily from them in the wild” (Interview: V-6). In fact, species such as the false killer whale are so difficult to study in-situ that animal care experts are not even sure what they eat (Vancouver Aquarium Staff, pers. comm., February 22 2016). The Vancouver Aquarium’s single false killer whale (in captivity due to permanent injury) offers researchers the possibility to discover vital information about this species, which has so far proven impossible to accomplish in the wild.

In some cases, although an experiment could potentially be done in a wild setting, it is far easier to conduct the research at a zoo facility. In this setting, not only are researchers able to control the conditions of an experiment, but the animals are more familiar with humans, and many of them have been trained to assist with data collection. All four case study institutions have training programs for this purpose. For instance, Amur tigers37 at the Calgary Zoo are trained to

33 Lagenorhynchus obliquidens

34 Delphinapterus leucas

35 Phocoena phocoena

36 Pseudorca crassidens

37 Panthera tigris altaica

63 press their bodies against the enclosure fences, enabling zoo staff to take hair samples for genetic analysis without anesthetising the tiger (Calgary Zoo Staff Member, pers. comm.). In order to get this same data from a wild tiger, researchers would have to track and tranquilize the animals first, which is a time consuming, stressful process for all involved. By utilizing their relative comfort with humans, captive animals housed in zoos have the potential to greatly increase basic knowledge about a species’ health and genetics.

As well as providing valuable baseline data relating to animal metabolism and physiology, zoos also provide a tremendous opportunity to create and test new equipment and techniques– something that “doesn’t usually get enough credit for helping wild conservation” (Interview: VA-5). Canadian zoos appear to be highly supportive of these tests, as interviewees from three of the four case study institutions brought up their zoo’s involvement in similar projects. The Assiniboine Park Zoo supports a joint zoo-university project that is testing accelerometer collars for Canadian lynx38 field studies, while also gathering baseline data on the heartrates of the zoo’s lynx during different activities (eating, sleeping, hunting, etc.) (Interview: AZ-2, 3). At the Vancouver Aquarium, scientists are experimenting with an acoustics monitoring tool known as a “jawphone”, testing it on some of the aquarium cetaceans in order to determine the best location to attach the jawphones before attempting the procedure in the wild (Interview: VA-5). The Toronto Zoo is also involved in field equipment studies; for instance, there is currently a project underway that is testing different kinds of radio collars on the zoo’s woodland caribou39 (Interview: TZ-3). In this case, the collars are not tested only for functionality, but also to help to determine which models are safest for the animals themselves (Interview: TZ-3). These collars will soon be used on endangered wild caribou herds in order to follow their migration routes (Interview: TZ-3).

5.4 Challenges of Zoo Research

Canadian zoos are supporting a wide variety of research projects, from focusing on otherwise overlooked species, to assisting with valuable baseline data collection, and testing new field

38 Lynx canadensis

39 Rangifer tarandus

64 equipment for both functionality and animal safety. However, many of my interview participants emphasized that conducting zoo-based research is not a simple process. There are many challenges that restrict the scope and effectiveness of zoo investigations, including limited resources and restrictive approval processes.

One area of consensus among interview participants was that, through animal care staff would generally like to participate in more research projects, it was rarely possible for them to become heavily involved. Several people emphasized how difficult it was to concentrate on research and animal husbandry at the same time; although they felt that the research was very important, and should be done, they had only enough time to concentrate on taking care of the animals (Interview: AZ-5, VA-3, VA-4). For example, a member of the Assiniboine Park Zoo talked about a potential project examining zoonotic diseases present among the zoo’s resident Richardson’s ground squirrel40 populations, which is especially relevant research considering that several people each year are bit by these animals (Interview: AZ-5). Although the zoo’s research department was supportive of the idea, there was no internal funding available for the project (Interview: AZ-5). Grant funding from organizations such as Manitoba Health would have almost certainly been available; however, the grant application process is so time- consuming that the staff member, though passionate about the merits of the project, was unsure when/if they would be able to find time to apply for the necessary money (Interview: AZ-5).

Funding for research projects in general is a serious limitation for all four case study institutions. All but one (the Calgary Zoo) employ full-time grant writers, who coordinate funding applications and the follow-up reports that are almost always required by the granting agencies (Interview: AZ-4, CZ-4, TZ-4, VA-2). Though many of the research scientists’ salaries are supported directly by their institution, outside funding is almost always required for the research projects themselves (Interview: AZ-5, CZ-5, TZ-5, VA-2). However, grant writing is incredibly time-consuming (Interview: AZ-4, CZ-4); in the words of one interviewee, “there’s a real trade- off in terms of the time invested in pursuing money, or, subsequently, reporting on it, and whether it’s worth pursuing at all” (Interview: CZ-4). Instead of employing a full-time grant writer to apply for a large number of grants, the Calgary Zoo’s research department restricts their

40 Urocitellus richardsonii

65 grant applications to major funding sources only; as one employee told me, any grant below a $50,000 value makes them “question whether it’s worth the effort” of applying and continuing to report their findings (Interview: CZ-4).

The zoo staff’s lack of time combined with the competitiveness of grants means that zoos sometimes turn to other sources for financial stability. For example, although grant funding from non-profit and government organizations play a part in funding the Calgary Zoo’s research program (Interview: CZ-2, 4), most of their projects are supported by funds from major industrial donations, including oil and gas companies (Calgary Zoo 2016c).

By contrast, the Vancouver Aquarium is highly restrictive in their acceptance of corporate donations (Interview: VA-2, 4). Several of the Aquarium staff members emphasized that their facility was extremely conscious of its reputation, and did not want to “be the greenwash” tool for a company that was causing environmental destruction (Interview: VA-2, 4). Instead, their research funding came mostly from small and large grants (Interview: VA-5). Yet the instability of grant funding, and its short-term structure, makes it difficult for the aquarium to create and conduct stable, long term research projects (Interview: VA-2, VA-5). The Assiniboine Park Zoo and the Toronto Zoo appear to stand somewhat in the middle on the grant-pursuing spectrum; though both organizations stress the difficulties of grant funding and the instabilities inherent in the process (Interview: AZ-4, TZ-4), they also try to avoid accepting agenda-driven corporate donations (Interview: AZ-2).

In order to combat the reliance on grant funding and industry donations, as well as mitigate the demands on staff time, some employees at the different institutions are trying to collaborate with academic institutions (Interview: AZ-5, VA-4). Partnerships with academia, as discussed previously, have many advantages for both the zoos and the academics themselves, including access to university funding and student labour. However, such partnerships are sometimes difficult and time-consuming to manage, and can take years to fully come to fruition (Interview: VA-4). Partnerships between academic institutions and zoos can also have conflicting goals and ethical procedures. For instance, the Assiniboine Park Zoo has had to turn away student research projects because the investigation could place undue hardship on the zoo animals, and it would take too much time to adjust the student’s plan to zoo standards (AZ-2). The concern over animal welfare is perhaps partly driven by the increasing public consciousness surrounding animal

66 rights, leading zoos to become more aware of their reputations and thus less willing to compromise for the sake of partnership or research.

Zoo-based research projects come with their own sets of challenges, which can restrict the ability of zoological research programs to investigate pivotal issues. With more access to long-term funding resources, zoos would be able to increase the number of research programs, branching out into new directions for research, and expand their role in conducting vital investigations into conservation issues. Nevertheless, although these projects are admirable, there remains a serious impediment to the effectiveness of zoo conservation programming: the general lack of public awareness regarding zoo breeding/reintroduction programs and research efforts. In the following chapter, I use the responses garnered from my interviewees to outline the major issues surrounding public awareness and education, and how zoos are both facilitating knowledge of conservation issues, while at the same time struggling to be heard.

Chapter 6 Education and Awareness

The previous two chapters have shown that Canadian zoos are participating in a variety of breeding, reintroduction, and research projects geared towards the recovery of species at risk. Zoos are also attempting to encourage a shift to conservation-oriented thinking among members of the general public by promoting awareness and action. During my interviews with key informants from each institution, all but one individual (n=23) mentioned the positive role zoos had to play in raising awareness of conservation issues through public education programs. Specifically, 67% of the interviewees (n=16) felt that zoos have a unique ability to connect people with nature; as one individual said, zoos “help inspire people and connect them to wildlife” while also generating “compassion, understanding, and awareness, so that they can take action in their own life” (Interview: CZ-6). This idea of zoos encouraging people to take action was shared by 63% (n=15) of the interviewees, who believed that people who experienced a connection at a zoo often become inspired to change their lifestyles. I found that the four case study institutions utilize a variety of methods in order to facilitating human connections to species at risk, including zoo signage, awareness campaigns, educational partnerships, and community outreach. While some methods are arguably more effective than others, I conclude that, overall, zoos provide valuable educational experiences for their visitors and partners, and play an important role in bringing species at risk into the forefront of public consciousness.

6.1 Zoo Signage

6.1.1 Appearance of Signage and Exhibits Sampled

As with similar institutions like museums and botanical gardens, signage telling the public what they are looking at can generally be found at every exhibit within zoos. In between conducting interviews, I examined the signage at specific exhibits within each institution.

Specifically, I wanted to investigate if and how the signage at exhibits, all of which represented species at risk that the zoo had a conservation project for, told the public about the conservation

68 concerns of the animal, rather than simply educating them on the animal’s general life history41. Through these exhibit examinations, I found that the depth of information given through the exhibit signs varied widely between zoos and the displays themselves. As discussed in Chapter 3 (Methods), I evaluated the signage for depth of information based on five separate criteria:

1) Does the exhibit mention the status of the animal?

2) Does the sign mention whether the exhibit is part of a zoo-based conservation project?

3) Does the exhibit provide details of the zoo’s efforts to conserve this animal?

4) Does the sign say where the animal can be found in the wild?

5) Does the exhibit say how the public can help the animal?

Table 6.1 illustrates the results of my research using these criteria.

Table 6.1: Depth of Signage Detail by Zoo

# of Mention Mention zoo Details Habitat How the Exhibits status of conservation of zoo of public can observed animal project project animal help Assiniboine 5 4 2 2 5 2 Park Zoo Calgary Zoo 5 4 4 4 5 1

Toronto Zoo 5 2 4 4 4 3

Vancouver 5 2 4 3 5 3 Aquarium All Zoos 12 14 13 19 9 Combined 20

41 In addition to exhibit signage, all four case study institutions include some form of “Keeper Talk” for several of their most popular exhibits. I was unable to conduct a thorough analysis of these keeper talks during this investigation; however, it is likely that these talks are an important method of educating the public on conservation issues, and a detailed analysis of these presentations should be conducted in future zoo-related research.

From this examination of the signage, I concluded that, though the zoo exhibits surveyed were already inclined to mention the habitat of the animal, less than half (n=9) of the 20 exhibits surveyed contained any detail about how the public could help the animal. Even though the public may be interested in taking conservation action, the lack of information about how they can help makes it unlikely that they will participate in any meaningful way. As one of my interviewees stated, “if you give [people] an easy step to do that will conserve those things, they are likely to take that step” (Interview:VA-6). Including ways for the public to help the animal through the signage would be a relatively easy step for zoos to take, and could potentially yield greater public action.

In addition to communicating the message of how the public can help, several of my interviewees felt that it was also important to tell people about what the zoo is doing to conserve the animal, especially when it comes to success stories (Interview: CZ-5, VA-6, AZ-1, AZ-6). One person mentioned they had been told by multiple people that conservation was depressing – that the messaging focused on how many species were in trouble, and about all of the bad things humans were doing to animals, was really just making people feel like there was nothing that could be done to help (Interview: CZ-5). Effectively communicating detailed success stories on their signage is an area in which all four case study institutions could improve; however, there is some debate around if it is worth putting resources into developing better signage when it is unclear how many people are reading them to begin with.

During the interviews, several people mentioned how they did not believe the public actually paid attention to the signage, and that educational messaging was more effective when delivered through direct communication with a zoo employee (Interview: CZ-2, CZ-3, AZ-1, AZ-6). However, other interviewees were of the opinion that signs were an important communication tool, and that their institution should be expanding its signage, especially relating to conservation projects such as research and reintroductions (Interview: CZ-6, VA-5, AZ-2, AZ-3, AZ-4, TZ-4). In order to get an idea of whether people at the case study institutions were reading signs or not, I conducted exhibit observations at each institution. During these observational sessions, I counted the number of people who read the exhibit signage, and compared that number to the total

70 number of people who visited the exhibit. I then broke the results down on an institutional level, as well as a combined total, which can be found in Table 6.2

Table 6.2: Breakdown of Sign Readership by Zoo

Total Visitors Read the Signs Observed Number % Assiniboine Park Zoo 284 43 15.1 Calgary Zoo 1014 198 19.5 Toronto Zoo 378 89 23.5 Vancouver Aquarium 569 45 7.9 All Zoos Combined 2245 375 16.7

As can be seen from these results, roughly 17% of the 2245 visitors observed during my research sessions stopped to read the signs at the exhibits, lending support to the idea that a majority of visitors do not pay attention to signage. However, I would recommend that each institution undertake a more detailed study of their exhibits, as my observations were only conducted three times per exhibit over a one-week period. More sessions of observations are necessary in order to make any significant conclusions, and surveying a greater variety of exhibits over a longer time period will help to refine the percentage of visitors who read signage. A follow-up study to test the long term retention of signage information would also be extremely beneficial for the case study zoos to test the effectiveness of different signage approaches.

In addition to investigating the proportion of people who were reading signs, I also decided to test a method of evaluating visitor engagement with an exhibit. This was done by examining visitor response to the exhibit in two ways: 1) How long they stayed at an exhibit for and 2) If they discussed the animal with someone else while at the exhibit. The length of time an individual stayed at an exhibit was more easily deduced when there were few people in a specific area; however, I soon observed that people tended to stay between 3-5 minutes at busy exhibits, and so I did timed counts of people during those observations instead of individual focal counts. The results of my surveys of visit length are tabulated in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: Length of Visit by Zoo

Total Stay for 1+ minute Stay for 3+ minutes Stay for 5+ minutes Visitors Number % Number % Number % Assiniboine 284 181 63.7 125 44.0 73 25.7 Park Zoo Calgary Zoo 1014 788 77.7 688 67.9 202 19.9

Toronto Zoo 378 76 20.1 7 1.9 2 0.5

Vancouver 569 214 37.6 142 25.0 112 19.7 Aquarium All Zoos 2245 1259 45.3 962 25.0 389 12.1 Combined

Before beginning the exhibit observations, I thought that the people who stayed the longest at an exhibit would also be more likely to read the signage. However, this appears to not be the case. As can be seen from the graph on the next page, the number of people who read signs appears to be completely unrelated to the length of time people stay at an exhibit, as can be seen from Figure 6.1. Although I consider length of visit to be one indicator of a person’s engagement, I also investigated another metric; namely, how a person talked about the exhibit with someone else.

Figure 6.1: The Proportion of People Who Read Signs as Compared to Visit Length

In order to evaluate peoples’ engagement with an exhibit through their conversations, I listened for the mention of seven different talking points, four of which were observed at least once during my sessions. These four points were:

1) Talking to someone else about the animal

2) Mentioning the animal’s status

3) Discussing conservation as it related to the animal

4) Talking about the zoo’s involvement with conservation programming

By mentioning more of these talking points during their conversation, it was assumed that an individual was more engaged by the exhibit than someone who did not speak. As speaking was the primary data collection tool, children under the age of three were assumed to be non-verbal and excluded from the total visitor tallies. Table 6.4 summarizes my observations regarding conversational engagement.

Table 6.4: Breakdown of Conversational Talking Points by Institution Talk to Talking Someone Animal's Talk about Zoo Points Total Else Status Conservation Involvement Total Visitors # % # % # % # % # Assiniboine 284 115 40.5 0 0.0 14 4.9 2 0.7 131 Park Zoo Calgary Zoo 1014 419 41.3 3 0.3 6 0.6 4 0.4 432

Toronto Zoo 378 46 12.2 2 0.5 0 0.0 4 1.1 52

Vancouver 569 88 15.5 3 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 91 Aquarium All Zoos 668 29.8 8 0.4 20 0.9 10 0.4 Combined 2245 706

By examining the number of times key conversational talking points were mentioned by members of the public, the results indicate that people generally remain unaware of an animal’s status and how the zoo is involved in helping that animal through conservation programming, even if they stop at the exhibit. Though this investigation is again limited by the number of

73 observations I was able to conduct, it seems clear that visitor engagement through exhibit displays is an area in which zoos need to improve. Further studies are needed to determine what kind of signage is more likely to engage visitors and stimulate discussions on species at risk.

6.2 Building Awareness

As well as using signage to spread conservation messaging, zoos also communicate information on species at risk through special events. All four of the zoos surveyed run single and multi-day campaigns designed to increase awareness of conservation issues, sometimes while fundraising for other organizations and promoting conservation actions. These awareness campaigns vary from single-day events, to special-event weekends, to ongoing initiatives. Table 6.5 provides a list of the current awareness events at the case study institutions.

Table 6.5: Current Zoo Awareness Campaigns and Events • Red Panda Day •International Polar Bear Day •Eco-cell cell phone recycling program Assiniboine Park Zoo •Big Cat Week •Sustainability Day • Polar Bear Run • Eco-cell cell phone recycling program Calgary Zoo • Endangered species day • International Vulture Awareness day • World Rhino awareness day • Penguin Awareness day • Insect Awareness day • Tiger Awareness day Toronto Zoo • Gorilla Awareness day • Cheetah Awareness Weekend • Eco-cell cell phone recycling program • Acres for the Atmosphere • International Migratory Bird Day • Seafood Watch • Save the Bay Ray Vancouver Aquarium •Ocean Wise

Single day and special event awareness weekends generally occur on an annual basis. These special events are often linked to international conservation organizations, such as the Red Panda

Day on September 19 (Red Panda Network 2016). Both the Assiniboine Park Zoo and the Toronto Zoo, along with 60 other locations, participated in Red Panda Day events in 2015 (Interview: AZ-3, AZ-4; Red Panda Network 2016). Funds were raised for the Red Panda Network, which helps to conserve red pandas42 in their native habitat; this was accomplished through art auctions at both zoos, as well as specialty cloth bags and slushie sales at the Assiniboine Park Zoo (Assiniboine Park Conservancy 2015, Toronto Zoo 2015b). Visitors to the zoos during Red Panda Day were also able to take part in special presentations and activities geared towards raising public awareness of red pandas and the challenges they face in the wild (Assiniboine Park Conservancy 2015, Toronto Zoo 2015b).

In addition to awareness campaigns structured around specific days, each zoo also has at least one continuously ongoing awareness initiative. For instance, three out of the four case study institutions (Assiniboine Park Zoo, Calgary Zoo, and Toronto Zoo) share a similar cell-phone recycling program, which sends the donated electronics to an organization called “Eco-Cell” (Assiniboine Park Zoo 2016d, Calgary Zoo 2016d, Toronto Zoo 2015c). Eco-Cell works to protect species by recycling parts of cell phones, specifically the coating present in the devices, which is made up of Coltan ore (Eco-cell 2014). Coltan is mined in the Congo, including areas of gorilla and chimpanzee habitat (Eco-cell 2014). By recycling the electronics through this organization, the demand for Coltan decreases, while extra parts are sold to generate funding for gorilla and chimpanzee organizations such as the Jane Goodall Institute (Eco-cell 2014). While there is very little research on how programs like this lead to changes in zoo visitor attitudes or increase their awareness of issues, there is some data available on how many cell phones have been recycled. For instance, in 2012, the Calgary Zoo collected 3640 devices and raised $3000 for Eco-Cell’s conservation program (Calgary Zoo 2012). The Toronto Zoo also provides recycling numbers for 2007-2014, which totalled 23,371 devices (Toronto Zoo 2016f).

Unlike the other three zoo’s cell phone recycling programs, the Vancouver Aquarium’s ongoing awareness initiative, Ocean Wise, is not structured as a fundraising operation. Instead, Ocean Wise is a program that aims to educate the public about sustainable fishing practices, while also facilitating their ability to choose better seafood options through the use of the Ocean Wise

42 Ailurus fulgens

75 symbol on restaurant menus and food labels (Ocean Wise 2016). There is also an Ocean Wise app for both Android and Apple devices, which enables the user to locate Ocean Wise partner organizations in their local area (Interview: VA-1). As of April 7, over 650 different organizations had partnered with Ocean Wise, each of whom undergo training from the Vancouver Aquarium to learn the newest information on sustainable harvesting methods and suppliers (Vancouver Aquarium 2016b).

6.3 Educational Partnerships

While Canadian zoos are heavily involved in awareness campaigns for the general public, they also participate in more traditional educational activities. Zoos have been popular destinations for school field trips for decades. The four case study institutions are no exception. In 2014, for instance, the Vancouver Aquarium delivered over 1,180 school programs, and over 54,000 people visited the Calgary Zoo during school trips (Calgary Zoo 2014, Vancouver Aquarium 2014). Each institution offers a wide variety of school programming, from classes focused on kindergarten students all the way up to high school and university. Using the websites of each institution, I have compiled a table on the following page that showcases the number of current school program offerings from the four case study zoos, with the names of programs that deal directly with species at risk/zoo conservation specified for each organization (Assiniboine Park Conservancy 2016, Calgary Zoo 2016e, Toronto Zoo 2016g, Vancouver Aquarium 2016d).

Table 6.6: School Programs at the Case Study Institutions Number of School Programs Dealing with Species at Risk/Zoo Programs Offered Conservation Efforts • Polar Bears (1-6) • Purrfect Predators - Big Cats (3-7) Assiniboine 12 • Arctic Field Research (7-10) Park Zoo •Endangered Species and Conservation (7-12) • The Role of Zoos in a Changing Climate (10, 12) • Ferreting Out a Future (K-12) Calgary Zoo 25 • Population/Community Dynamics (Bio 30) • Biodiversity and Climate Change (6) • Zoos & Conservation Presentation (8-12) Toronto Zoo 30 • Endangered Species Guided Tour (4-8) • Junior/Intermediate Panda Program (4-8) • Climate Change (10) • Research in Action: Counting on Howe Sound (4-12) Vancouver • Ecology Field School (4-12) 19 Aquarium • Arctic Biodiversity (4-7) • Big Picture Conservation (K-12)

While all of the case study zoos link their school programs into provincial curriculums (Calgary Zoo 2016e; Interview: AZ-6, TZ-4, VA-2), there is one zoo that stands out in their advancement of educational programming. The Toronto Zoo not only offers curriculum-linked programs for schools, but is actually helping to develop elementary, junior high, and high school curriculum with the Province of Ontario through the zoo’s “Great Lakes” program (Interview: TZ-4). This program has developed lesson plans for several grades in a variety of subjects, using native fish and environments to educate students on local environmental issues (Interview: TZ-4). The Toronto Zoo became involved in the development of curriculum because, although teachers wanted to introduce local species-at-risk education into their lessons, many lacked knowledge of local issues and did not have the time to research them or prepare new lessons (Interview: TZ-4). Instead, the zoo’s Great Lakes program creates simple, easily understood lesson plans for teachers that require little-to-no preparation (Interview: TZ-4). For instance, lesson plans for

77 grade 1 and 2 science classes use five local fishes (Atlantic salmon43, redside dace44, eastern sand darter, American eel45, and lake sturgeon46) to teach science topics such as “what is a fish?” and “life in a stream” (Toronto Zoo N.D.a). The lesson plans developed for grades 7 and 8 use the aforementioned species to address more advanced issues, such as ecosystem interactions and the importance of local fish to food webs (Toronto Zoo N.D.b). The Toronto Zoo’s Great Lakes program also provides lesson plans for high school classes in Biology and Environmental Science, encouraging students to analyze human impacts on aquatic ecosystems and discuss the management of water in urban environments (Toronto Zoo N.D.c, N.D.d).

In addition to partnering with the province to develop school curriculum, the Toronto Zoo also works with several universities to create advanced training and education programs (Interview: TZ-5). According to an internal report from the Executive Director of the Toronto Zoo’s Conservation, Education & Wildlife department, the zoo has been working with the Ontario Veterinary College since 1979 to provide training for veterinary students interested in zoo-based medicine (Rapley 2016). Senior zoo staff also lecture for a 3rd year biology course at the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus (UTSC) called “the Role of Zoos, Aquariums and Botanical Gardens in Conservation” (Rapley 2016). As well, the Toronto Zoo is one of several organizations, along with Parks Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, to collaborate with UTSC during the creation of their new Masters of Science program (Rapley 2016). The Toronto Zoo’s involvement with curriculum and course development showcases that zoo education departments have the potential to be much more to schools than simply field trip destinations. It remains to be seen whether other Canadian institutions can replicate the Toronto Zoo’s success in this area, but I believe that this in an important direction for future zoo conservation programming.

43 Salmo salar

44 Clinostomus elongatus

45 Anguilla rostrata

46 Acipenser fulvescens

Though working with schools is key to the educational goals of the case study organizations, I also found that three of the zoos (Assiniboine Park Zoo, Calgary Zoo, and Toronto Zoo) were partnering with Parks Canada for educational purposes (Interview: AZ-4, TZ-5, Schmidt 2014). These partnerships generally involved Parks Canada employees coming to the zoo to talk about wildlife issues with the general public through booths and presentations (Schmidt 2014). By coming to the zoos, Parks staff gain access to the tremendous volumes of people visiting the institutions every day; this audience, which is almost exclusively urban, provides a unique opportunity for Parks to reach people who have never been to a protected area before, and who know little about the Canada’s national park system (Interview: AZ-1, CZ-6, TZ-2, TZ-3, VA-6; Schmidt 2014).

Zoos are a highly appropriate place for national parks to be doing outreach, as all of the case study zoos have exhibits that focus on native Canadian species. At the Calgary Zoo, for instance, Parks Canada staff set up booths in the Canadian Wilds section of the zoo during the summer months, directly linking the animals found in the zoo to those that “can be found in different national parks throughout Canada” (Schmidt 2014). At the Assiniboine Park Zoo, staff from Wapusk National Park have found that the zoo’s Journey to Churchill exhibit (especially the polar bear display) is an ideal place to talk to the public about the polar bear protection and monitoring programs that are occurring in the national park – as well as providing an excellent opportunity to solicit potential tourists (Sutterlin-Duguid 2015). According to interviewees from the Toronto Zoo, they partner with Parks Canada not just because of their shared goals, but also because the proximity of Rouge National Urban Park to the zoo itself makes it very easy for the organizations to work together. In fact, four of the five Toronto Zoo interviewees brought up how the proximity of the Rouge Park has had an impact on the zoo’s programming (Interview: TZ-1, TZ-3, TZ-4, TZ-5). The location of the Rouge Park has also enabled the Toronto Zoo to participate in other conservation engagement activities, such as citizen science programs, which will be discussed in the next section.

6.4 Community Involvement

While school programs and awareness campaigns at zoos can facilitate the public’s knowledge and connection to conservation issues, zoo audiences are limited by their location, as many people in Canada do not live close enough to a zoo to participate in their programs. Admission

79 prices are likely another significant barrier for many members of the public. As discussed in Chapter 3, gate admissions make up the largest contributions to total revenue (Assiniboine Park Conservancy 2014, Deloitte LLP 2015, Toronto Zoo 2014, Vancouver Aquarium 2014), and are necessary funding sources for each institution. The Vancouver Aquarium’s fees are highest, with a single adult ticket priced at $31.00 (Vancouver Aquarium 2016f). General summer admission for adults is set at $28.00 for the Toronto Zoo, $24.95 at the Calgary Zoo, and $19.75 for the Assiniboine Park Zoo (Assiniboine Park Zoo 2016e, Calgary Zoo 2016h, Toronto Zoo 2016k). Though potential zoo audiences are restricted by zoo locations and by financial barriers, outreach programming appears to be on the rise at all four case study zoos.

Hal of the interviewees (n=12), including at least two from each study institution, brought up how their zoo was involved in outreach programming. Outreach initiatives are geared towards engaging people who are located outside of normal visiting distances of the zoos themselves. While the Assiniboine Park Zoo mostly concentrates its outreach efforts to schools and universities (Interview: AZ-1), the Vancouver Aquarium and Toronto Zoo are both involved in education and awareness-based outreach programs for schools and communities alike (Interview: TZ-2, TZ-4, VA-2, VA-5). For instance, the Vancouver Aquarium’s Aquavan program transports a mobile aquarium and educators to communities in northern British Columbia, Alberta, and even as far as the Northwest Territories (Interview: VA-2). This program has been able to reach thousands of people; in 2014 alone, the Aquavan program engaged nearly 45,000 people, students and community members alike (Vancouver Aquarium 2014).

Though the Toronto Zoo does not have a similar, travelling zoo-style program, staff members still participate in a wide variety of educational outreach programming. Nearly 46,000 people were engaged through Toronto Zoo outreach efforts in 2014, including the popular Adopt-a- Pond initiative, which encourages people to conserve their local wetland habitats (Toronto Zoo 2014). Toronto Zoo staff have also been requested to speak at community events regarding local species at risk. For instance, one interviewee told me how they had been asked to speak on snake conservation, specifically the Massasauga rattlesnake, for a community centre in cottage country (Interview: TZ-2). The Toronto Zoo is also involved in spreading conservation messaging surrounding the importance of often overlooked freshwater mussel species, which again involve staff travelling to different lake-side communities in order to educate the public about these species at risk (Interview: TZ-4, Toronto Zoo 2015c).

Unlike the other three institutions, which tend to concentrate their outreach projects on relatively local people and locations, the Calgary Zoo focuses their efforts on areas farther afield. Besides investigating and carrying out reintroduction projects, the zoo’s Conservation and Research Department is dedicated to facilitating “community conservation” in the developing world (Interview: CZ-1, CZ-3, CZ-4, CZ-5, CZ-6, CZ-7). The zoo’s community conservation program is based on the idea that many communities in developing countries, though potentially supportive of conservation, lack the economic incentives and ability to protect wildlife (Calgary Zoo 2016d). The Calgary Zoo thus partners with overseas community organizations to provide financial support, assist with the creation of jobs, facilitate local education, and improve general quality of life for the communities in question (Calgary Zoo 2016f). The zoo’s current community conservation efforts are all focused in Africa, and include projects on species at risk like mountain bongo (Kenya), lemurs (Madagascar), and sitatunga (Ghana).

While the three aforementioned projects are all relatively new, the zoo’s flagship community conservation program, the Wechiau Hippo Sanctuary in Ghana, has been in progress since 1999 (Calgary Zoo 2016f, Wechiau Community Hippo Sanctuary 2016). The Sanctuary was created with the dual goal of addressing declining hippopotami numbers and improving local socioeconomic conditions (Sheppard et al. 2010). Though the Ghanan government had proposed to support the reserve, the local chiefs were concerned that government intervention would lead to a loss of independence for the area; instead, they decided to establish a locally-run sanctuary, reaching out to the Calgary Zoo for support (Interview: CZ-5; Sheppard et al. 2010). An investigation into the effectiveness of this community conservation program found that hippopotami numbers stabilized and avian species diversity increased in the 10 years following the establishment of the sanctuary (Sheppard et al. 2010). The rate of development in the local area rose to 2-8 times higher than neighbouring communities, while the major sources of income have diversified; sanctuary-driven tourism, along with the newly established shea processing centre, are now counted as the two greatest industries within the community (Calgary Zoo 2015b, Sheppard et al. 2010). Though some may argue that zoos should be concentrating their efforts solely on Canadian species conservation, projects like the Weichau Hippo Sanctuary are an important reminder to the public that species are at risk all around the world, not just at home. The Calgary Zoo’s involvement in community conservation projects like the Wechiau Hippo

Sanctuary illustrate how Canadian zoos can directly affect species at risk conservation overseas, as well as in their own countries.

6.4.1 Citizen Science and Habitat Restoration Programs

Upon becoming aware of conservation issues, many people look for opportunities to take action. Canadian zoos are helping to facilitate this demand by establishing and managing programs that incorporate community involvement. Both the Vancouver Aquarium and the Toronto Zoo have established projects that utilize citizen resources to restore habitat, assist with scientific research, and contribute to protecting local species at risk (Interview: TZ-2, TZ-4, VA-1, VA-6). A list of their current citizen-based programs can be found in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7: Citizen Science Programs at the Case Study Institutions • Frogwatch Toronto Zoo • Turtle Tally • Wetland Guardians • Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup Vancouver Aquarium • BC Cetacean Sightings Network

The Toronto Zoo’s citizen projects are focused on members of the public who are interested in helping collect scientific data. For both the Frogwatch and Turtle Tally programs, individuals are given training materials to teach them how to identify local species of amphibians and reptiles, then asked to assist in monitoring local populations by reporting their sightings to the Toronto Zoo, either on a casual or more scheduled basis (Interview: TZ-2; Toronto Zoo 2016i, 2016j). According to the latest numbers publicly available, the Frogwatch program had 313 participants in 2013, while the Turtle Tally project, which operates in much the same way as Frogwatch, collected 673 sighting reports that same year (Toronto Zoo 2013, 2016i, 2016j).

While the Toronto Zoo’s citizen-based projects have been successful in engaging some members of the public in scientific research, the Vancouver Aquarium’s programs are in a different league altogether. The Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup, jointly coordinated by the Vancouver Aquarium and WWF, is “one of the largest direct-action environmental programs in Canada” (Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup 2016); in 2014 alone, over 54,000 people participated in the project (Vancouver Aquarium 2014). The goal of the project is not only to remove litter from shoreline areas, but also to educate the public about waste and its impacts on shoreline habitat

(Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup 2016). The Vancouver Aquarium’s research department also coordinates the extremely successful B.C. Cetacean Sightings Network, which encourages citizens to report their observations of animals such as killer whales, dolphins, and sea turtles (among many others), to a central data bank (Interview: VA-5, Wild Whales 2016). Over 3,600 observers have participated in the program so far, and can report their findings through the Wild Whales website, phone, e-mail, physical logbooks, or app (Interview: VA-5, Wild Whales 2016). The data collected from these sightings is used by many different scientific organizations, including the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to calculate relative density and movements of cetacean species (Interview: VA-5). The B.C. Cetacean Sightings Network also aims to educate recreationalists on the threats facing ocean species at risk by presenting to local community organizations, schools, and at special events (Wild Whales 2016).

As the Vancouver Aquarium’s projects showcase, zoos have the potential to engage thousands of people in on-the-ground, concrete actions to protect species at risk. Yet these programs require resources, such as volunteer coordinators and data managers, which some institutions are simply unable to provide. The Assiniboine Park Zoo is very interested in developing citizen-science based programming, and has been examining the potential of such projects for several years (Assiniboine Park 2016, Interview: AZ-6). However, a lack of resources, particularly staff, means that the Assiniboine Park Zoo has so far been unable to establish their own project, and instead have simply sent fundraising money to projects managed by other organizations (Interview: AZ-6).

6.5 Challenges of Increasing Awareness

Though the case study zoos utilize many methods of communicating conservation messages, 88% of my interviewees (n=21) felt that the public was still generally unaware of zoo conservation efforts. Several participants mentioned that even people one would generally assume to be more aware, such zoo members, often did not know about the zoo’s conservation programs, despite visiting an institution multiple times per year (Interview: CZ-3, VZ-1). One staff member brought up how their own friends and family, while knowing that the staff member worked for the zoo, did not seem to realize that working for a zoo involved more than simply “cuddling with the polar bears” (Interview: AZ-5). In fact, prior to working for the Calgary Zoo, an interviewee discussed how they were completely unaware that the zoo even did field research

– despite being a biologist themselves (Interview: CZ-3). When asked how people responded to learning about the research programs and other conservation efforts occurring at zoos, interviewee responses were universally positive. As one person stated, educating people about zoo conservation projects is “an incredible opportunity that we’re not yet capturing” (Interview: CZ-4). Though research departments at the Calgary Zoo and Assiniboine Park Zoo are pushing to make awareness of zoo conservation projects a higher priority (Interview: AZ-2, CZ-4), lack of public awareness is still a concern for staff at all of the study organizations.

Another challenge impeding public awareness of zoo conservation efforts is the persistent public focus on charismatic species. The biggest draw for zoo visitors is to see a live, charismatic animal (Interview: AZ-5; Skibins et al. 2013), which generally refers to large vertebrates (particularly mammals) with admirable qualities, including an attractive appearance or high intelligence (Ducarme et al. 2013). Examples of charismatic animals traditionally include giant pandas, tigers, dolphins and elephants (Ducarme et al. 2013). While people are generally receptive to messaging about the conservation of such species, it is harder for zoos to increase public awareness of less typically charismatic animals, such as frogs or fish (Interview: CZ-2, TZ-4; Skibins et al. 2013). Several interviewees expressed frustration that not only was it more difficult to communicate messaging on non-charismatic species, but that there was also less support, both internal and external, available for research projects on these animals (Interview: CZ-4, AZ-1, AZ-6, TZ-4). One interviewee lamented their choice to focus on African cichlid fishes, which “couldn’t be browner and duller” rather than a species that would encourage donors “to throw money” at them (Interview: TZ-4). While zoos have something of a captive audience, which they can use to introduce the public to species and conservation issues that they would have normally not sought out on their own, the fact remains that it is still challenging to get the public to care about non-charismatic species. Yet zoos are in a unique position among other organizations, in that people coming to them to be entertained may still learn about non- charismatic species, such as insects. Zoos should embrace this opportunity to educate the public about low-profile species, and begin to diversify their displays to include both charismatic and non-charismatic species alike.

The four Canadian zoological institutions examined are all involved in communicating conservation messaging on species at risk. Each institution is using multiple methods to increase public awareness of current conservation issues, while three of the four are involved in

84 facilitating direct, on-the-ground actions to improve the status of species at risk. However, zoos face some challenges in spreading their messaging effectively, and will require additional resources in order to study and address those issues. Overall, more research needs to be done in examining zoo awareness and education campaigns before any judgement as to their effectiveness can be made; yet, my experiences at each of the case study institutions suggests that Canadian zoos, at the very least, have the potential to effect large scale public involvement in conservation projects, as the Vancouver Aquarium’s Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup program illustrates. Zoo educational efforts and citizen-science programs are also key components of several provincial and federal recovery strategies, a topic which will be the focus of my next chapter.

Chapter 7 Zoo Involvement in Recovery Policies

As established by the previous chapters, Canadian zoos are playing a role in species at risk conservation through captive breeding/reintroduction programs, research, and promoting awareness of conservation issues. Zoo conservation tools, as well as the staff members themselves, are also being incorporated into many official species at risk recovery efforts on provincial, federal, and international levels. Involvement in recovery strategies was a major focus of my interviewee responses, with 79% (n=19) of participants discussing their institution’s involvement in species recovery efforts. Zoos appear to be using their own resources to ensure the success of species recovery, including taking action in areas that the government agencies responsible for recovery are not capable of addressing. This chapter argues that zoo involvement is a vital component of the recovery planning and implementation for multiple Canadian species at risk, as evidenced by the mention of zoos in both provincial and federal recovery documents, as well as in higher-level recovery planning committees on multiple jurisdictional levels. This chapter also examines the motivations behind zoo involvement in recovery strategies, and discusses some of the challenges that zoos face in increasing their participation in official recovery efforts.

7.1 Zoo Participation in Provincial Recovery Strategies and Management Plans

In order to evaluate zoo involvement in provincial recovery strategies, I examined the official recovery and management plans from the provinces that the zoos were located in. During the interviews, members from all of the case study institutions talked about how their zoo was involved in provincial recovery efforts. It is important to note that the Assiniboine Park Zoo is not mentioned in any provincial recovery strategies, mainly due to the fact that the province of Manitoba has not published any to date. There are, however, several federal recovery strategies which affect Manitoba wildlife; these will be discussed in the following section. As discussed in Chapter 3, the methodology included key word searches applied to both provincial and federal recovery documents in order to determine if there was any zoo involvement in the recovery

86 strategy planning or implementation. Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 thus provides a list of the provincial recovery strategies that mention the Calgary Zoo, Toronto Zoo, and Vancouver Aquarium47.

Table 7.1: Provincial Recovery Efforts Involving the Calgary Zoo

Province Recovery Strategy Role

• Member of Recovery Team

• Editing of recovery strategy Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Strategy 2010 • Background research

• Outreach to environmental groups Alberta Sage Grouse Recovery • Captive breeding program Calgary Zoo Strategy 2013 development

• Advisor to recovery team Swift Fox Recovery Strategy 2005 • Population monitoring

• Member of Recovery Team British Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Plan 2007 Columbia • Captive breeding

47 It is important to note that zoos are not restricted to solely working on recovery strategies in their own provinces, but are significant contributors to recovery strategies in other provinces as well.

Table 7.2: Provincial Recovery Efforts Involving the Toronto Zoo

Province Recovery Strategy Role

• Member of Recovery Team Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Plan 2007 • Captive breeding and research British Columbia • Member of Recovery Team Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Plan 2014 • Captive breeding

Allegheny Mountain Dusky • Providing funding Salamander Recovery Strategy 2007 • Member of Recovery Team

• Rehabilitation of injured animals American Badger Recovery Strategy 2010 • Advisor to recovery team

Fowler's Toad Recovery • Member of Recovery Team Strategy 2011

• Education and outreach Toronto Zoo Eastern Fox Snake • Member of Recovery Team Recovery Strategy 2010 • Advisor to recovery team Ontario • Education and outreach Eastern Hog-nosed Snake Recovery Strategy 2011 • Member of Recovery team

Queensnake Recovery • Education and Outreach Strategy 2011

• Member of Recovery Team

• Education and outreach Redside Dace Recovery Strategy 2010 • Habitat restoration

• Funding

Eastern Sand Darter • Education and outreach Recovery Strategy 2013

Table 7.3: Provincial Recovery Efforts Involving the Vancouver Aquarium

Province Recovery Strategy Role

Northern Leopard Frog • Captive breeding Recovery Strategy 2013 Vancouver British • Member of Recovery Team Aquarium Columbia Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Plan 2014 • Captive breeding

As can be seen from Tables 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3, the case study zoos are mentioned in 14 distinct provincial recovery strategies, with the Calgary Zoo and Toronto Zoo both involved with the recovery of Vancouver Island Marmots (Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Team 2008), along with the Toronto Zoo and Vancouver Aquarium sharing duties for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Canadian Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team 2014). Of these 14 strategies, staff from the case study institutions are named as recovery team members in 6 documents: the Alberta Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Strategy, the B.C. Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Strategy, the Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Strategy, and the Ontario Allegheny Mountain Dusky Salamander48, Fowler’s Toad49, Eastern Fox-Snake50, Eastern Hog-Nosed Snake51, and Redside Dace recovery strategies (Alberta ESRD 2012, Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Team 2008, Canadian Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team 2014, Eastern Fox Snake Recovery Team 2010, Green et al. 2011, Krause 2011, Markle et al. 2013, Redside Dace Recovery Team 2010).

In addition to being members of the recovery teams, employees of the case study zoos are involved with physically drafting some provincial recovery strategies. A staff member from the Calgary Zoo is credited with helping to write and edit the Northern Leopard Frog Recovery

48 Desmognathus ochrophaeus

49 Anaxyrus fowleri

50 Pantherophis gloydi

51 Heterodon platirhinos

Strategy (Alberta ESRD 2012), while staff from the Calgary Zoo and the Toronto Zoo are listed as advisors to the recovery teams for the Swift Fox Recovery Strategy, and the American Badger52 and Eastern Foxsnake Recovery Plans, respectively (Alberta Swift Fox Recovery Team 2007, Eastern Foxsnake Recovery Team 2010, Ontario American Badger Recovery Team 2010).

Another way in which zoos assist with recovery strategies is through outreach and educational programming. Five of the 14 provincial recovery strategies that mention zoos reference the important role they play in communicating messages about species at risk to the general public. Zoo education and outreach is mentioned in the strategies for the Northern leopard frog in Alberta, and the Eastern fox snake, Eastern hog-nosed snake, redside dace, and Eastern sand darter in Ontario (Alberta ESRD 2012, Eastern Foxsnake Recovery Team 2010, Kraus 2011, Ontario MNR 2013c, Redside Dace Recovery Team 2010). The Calgary Zoo’s role in reaching out to community groups and other local organizations is identified in the Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Strategy in several ways (Alberta ESRD 2012). Calgary Zoo supporters are mentioned as a target group for outreach by the recovery team; in addition, research on leopard frogs conducted by the Calgary Zoo was publicized in news coverage and scientific articles, increasing the profile of the northern leopard frog recovery efforts (Alberta ESRD 2012). Staff from the Calgary Zoo also personally assisted in outreach efforts, delivering “presentations to the public, naturalist groups, and other organizations” and posting information regarding the conservation of Northern leopard frogs on the zoo’s website (Alberta ESRD 2012: 13).

The Toronto Zoo’s involvement in education and outreach for recovery strategies focuses mainly on the promotion and distribution of educational materials, such as the “Snakes of Ontario” poster created through the Adopt-a-Pond outreach effort (Eastern Foxsnake Recovery Team 2010, Krauss 2011). The zoo also circulated brochures and created lesson plans focusing on species at risk, such as the redside dace and Eastern sand darter, through their Great Lakes Outreach Program (Ontario MNR 2013, Redside Dace Recovery Team 2010). Through a brief examination of their emphasized role in education and outreach for provincial recovery strategies, both the Calgary Zoo and the Toronto Zoo appear to have been identified as valuable

52 Taxidea taxus

90 partners for their ability to communicate conservation messaging to a wide audience – something that the recovery team alone would not have been able to accomplish.

While captive breeding and education/outreach seem to be the major roles of zoos in provincial recovery strategies, several other applications for zoos are mentioned. Of the 14 recovery strategies mentioning zoos, one –the Swift Fox Recovery Strategy – credits the Calgary Zoo with conducting important population monitoring studies, including the 2005/2006 census, which proved that swift fox populations in the province were stabilizing. (Alberta Swift Fox Recovery Team 2007). Other roles for zoos mentioned in recovery strategies include the Toronto Zoo’s identification as a long-term rehabilitation centre for injured badgers (Ontario American Badger Recovery Team 2010) and as an important funding source for the development of the redside dace recovery strategy (Redside Dace Recovery Team 2010).

7.2 Zoo Participation in Federal Recovery Strategies and Management Plans

Canadian zoos are even more involved with federal recovery strategies than they are with provincial efforts. An examination of published recovery documents in the Government of Canada’s Species at Risk Database found that 31 of the 254 official strategies and management plans mention the Calgary Zoo, Toronto Zoo, and/or the Vancouver Aquarium. A breakdown of the federal recovery documents mentioning the case study institutions can be found in Tables 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6.

Table 7.4: Calgary Zoo Involvement in Federal Recovery Strategies and Plans

Recovery Strategy Role Black-footed ferret Recovery • Writing and editing the strategy Strategy 2009 • Member of Recovery Team • Testing methods of sage grouse habitat restoration and prairie dog colony expansion Grasslands National Park • Identification of swift fox critical habitat and Action Plan 2016 predictions of occurrence

• Developing captive breeding and raising methods Greater Sage Grouse Calgary Zoo Recovery Strategy 2014 • Creating procedures for population augmentation • Writing the strategy Swift Fox Recovery Strategy • Funding for development of recovery strategy 2008 • Co-chair of recovery team • Captive Breeding Whooping Crane Recovery • Member of International Recovery Team Strategy 2007

Table 7.5: Toronto Zoo Involvement in Federal Recovery Strategies and Plans

Recovery Strategy Role Allegheny Mountain Dusky • Funding for development of recovery strategies Salamander Recovery Strategy • Member of International Recovery Team 2016 American Badger Recovery • Rehabilitation partner Strategy 2013 • Advisor to recovery team Black-footed ferret Recovery • Member of Recovery Team Strategy 2009 • Breeding facility since 1992 • Assisting with monitoring efforts (through Ontario Turtle Tally) Blanding's Turtle Recovery Strategy 2016 • Headstarting programs • Education and outreach Eastern Hog-nosed Snake • Member of Recovery Team Recovery Strategy 2009 • Promotes education and public outreach Eastern Musk Turtle Recovery • Monitoring through Ontario Turtle Tally Strategy 2016 • Promotes education and public outreach Eastern Ribbonsnake • Identifying high mortality risk areas Management Plan 2015 • Promotes education and public outreach through the Eastern Sand Darter Recovery Great Lakes Program Toronto Zoo Strategy 2012

Fowler's Toad Recovery • Member of Recovery Team Strategy 2013 Massasauga Rattlesnake • Member of Recovery Team Recovery Strategy 2015 • Captive breeding Milksnake Management Plan • Identifying high mortality risk areas 2015 Northern Map Turtle • Promotes education and public outreach Management Plan 2016 Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery • Member of Recovery Team Strategy 2015 • Captive Breeding Snapping Turtle Management • Promotes education and public outreach plan 2016 • Monitoring through Ontario Turtle Tally Spiny Softshell Recovery • Monitoring through Ontario Turtle Tally Strategy 2016 • Promotes education and public outreach Spotted Turtle Recovery • Promotes education and public outreach Strategy 2016 • Monitoring through Ontario Turtle Tally

Table 7.6: Vancouver Aquarium Involvement in Federal Recovery Strategies and Plans

Recovery Strategy Role • Monitoring through BC Cetacean Sightings Network Blue, Fin and Sei Whales • Assisting with consultation process through Recovery Strategy 2006 AquaNews newsletter • External reviewers for recovery strategy • Monitoring through BC Cetacean Sightings Network Harbour Porpoise Management Plan 2009 • Participation in planning and workshops • Official partner for management actions

• Member of Recovery Team Vancouver North Pacific Right Whale • Assisting with consultation process through Aquarium Recovery Strategy 2011 AquaNews newsletter and aquarium website Northern and Southern • Assisted in development of recovery strategy Resident Killer Whale Recovery Strategy 2011 Northern Red-legged Frog • Provides education on world-wide species Management Plan 2016 amphibian declines • Monitoring through BC Cetacean Sightings Network Offshore Killer Whale Management Plan 2009 • Official partner for management actions • Participation in planning workshop Oregon Spotted Frog • Member of Recovery Team

Recovery Strategy 2015 • Captive breeding • Monitoring through BC Cetacean Sightings

Network Pacific Grey Whale Management Plan 2011 • Official partner for management actions • Participation in planning workshop • Monitoring through BC Cetacean Sightings Pacific Humpback Whale Network Recovery Strategy 2013 • Participation in planning workshop Sea Otter Management Plan • Training volunteers in oil spill response and 2014 wildlife handling Stellar Sea Lion • Official partner for management actions Management Plan 2011 Transient Killer Whale • Participation in planning workshop Recovery Strategy 2007

Despite thorough searching, no mention could be found of the Assiniboine Park Zoo in any official published recovery strategy or management plan documents. I believe this is due to the newness of the Assiniboine Park Zoo’s conservation department, which has only been in existence since 2011 (Interview: AZ-2). The establishment of the department pre-dates the publication of the Recovery Strategy for the Burrowing Owl by one year (Environment Canada 2012); though the Assiniboine Park Zoo is now a partner in burrowing owl efforts (Interview: AZ-5, MBORP 2016), the zoo was not officially involved in the species’ recovery until after the strategy was finalized, hence its non-appearance in the 2012 recovery strategy. A complete list of the other three zoos’ involvement with federal recovery efforts can be found on the following 3 pages.

As Tables 7.4 – 7.6 indicate, thirteen of the federal recovery strategies include zoo staff as official recovery team members. The Calgary Zoo is included as a member in three strategies (Environment Canada 2007, Pruss et al. 2008, Tuckwell and Everest 2009), while six recovery strategies include Toronto Zoo staff as members (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2016a, Environment Canada 2013a, Environment Canada 2015a, Parks Canada Agency 2015, Tuckwell and Everest 2009, Seburn 2009). Additionally, Vancouver Aquarium staff are listed as members of five recovery strategies and/or management plans (Environment Canada 2015a, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b).

Of the three zoos mentioned in federal recovery documents, the Calgary Zoo and the Vancouver Aquarium appear to be more heavily involved in the development process of recovery strategies and management plans than the Toronto Zoo. Staff members from the Calgary Zoo are credited as co-authors of the black-footed ferret and swift fox recovery strategies (Pruss et al. 2007, Tuckwell and Everest 2009); no other case study zoo appears to have been involved with the writing of a current recovery strategy in Canada. However, the Vancouver Aquarium is mentioned in six different management plans and recovery strategies as being an important contributor to the consultation and planning processes behind the recovery documents. As with some of the provincial strategies, the Vancouver Aquarium’s high profile helped during the

95 consultation process for the North Pacific right whale53 and the blue whale54, fin whale55 and Sei whale56 recovery strategies, as the Aquarium was able to solicit comments on the strategies from a wide variety of audiences (Fisheries and Oceans 2011a, Gregr et al. 2006). Expertise from aquarium staff was also sought during the planning processes for the transient killer whale57 recovery strategy, the northern and southern killer whale recovery strategy, and the management plans for the harbour porpoise and offshore killer whales (Fisheries and Oceans 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2011b).

Although the Toronto Zoo is not credited with assisting in the writing or planning processes of current federal recovery strategies, it is heavily involved in other aspects of official recovery efforts. The zoo is praised for assisting the recovery teams by providing valuable monitoring data on five turtle species with recovery strategies or management plans; the Blanding’s turtle, Eastern musk turtle58, snapping turtle59, spiny softshell60, and spotted turtle61 (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2016b, Environment Canada 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d). The Toronto Zoo citizen-science based program, Ontario Turtle Tally, is especially singled out as helping with the collection of data on turtle populations, with all of the aforementioned recovery strategies, excepting the snapping turtle management plan, mentioning the program by name (Environment Canada 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d).

53 Eubalaena japonica

54 Balaenoptera musculus

55 Balaenoptera physalus

56 Balaenoptera borealis

57 Orcinus orca

58 Sternotherus odoratus

59 Chelydra serpentina

60 Apalone spinifera

61 Clemmys guttata

The B.C. Cetacean Sightings Network citizen science program, managed by the Vancouver Aquarium, is also mentioned as a contributor to several documents, including the recovery strategies for the pacific humpback whale62 and the blue, fin and Sei whales, as well as the management plans for the eastern pacific grey whale63 and offshore killer whales (Fisheries and Oceans 2009a, 2010a, 2013, Gregr et al. 2006). Citizen science programs at both institutions are thus valuable contributors to federal recovery efforts in Canada; should zoos wish to expand their impact on recovery planning, supporting citizen science programming is an important step which, beneficially, could be taken without the need for a vast increase in staffing.

The educational and outreach potential of zoos is also a popular theme in recovery documents where zoos are mentioned. In fact, nine federal recovery strategies and management plans discuss how zoo education programming is beneficial to increasing awareness of the species at risk in question. Of these nine documents, eight mention the Toronto Zoo, including the Blanding’s turtle, eastern hog-nosed snake, eastern musk turtle, eastern sand darter, spiny softshell, and spotted turtle recovery strategies, as well as the management plans for the northern map turtle64 and snapping turtle (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2016b, Environment Canada 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d, 2016e, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012, Seburn 2009). The Vancouver Aquarium is also mentioned as assisting with the northern red-legged frog65 management plan through educational and outreach activities (Environment Canada 2016f). Although the long-term educational impacts of zoos are still generally unknown, as discussed in the previous chapter, public education is clearly an important criterion for federal recovery strategies. As the large audiences commanded by zoos illustrate their potential to reach a large number of people with conservation messaging, it seems that partnering with zoos on recovery strategy efforts would be mutually beneficial for both recovery teams and the zoos themselves.

62 Megaptera novaeangliae

63 Eschrichtius robustus

64 Graptemys geographica

65 Rana aurora

In addition to supporting recovery strategies through monitoring, captive breeding, and education programs, the case study zoos were also mentioned as assisting species recovery in several other areas. For instance, both the Calgary Zoo and the Toronto Zoo were acknowledged for their financial support, which led to the development of the swift fox and Allegheny mountain dusky salamander recovery strategies, respectively (Environment and Climate Change Canada 2016, Pruss et al. 2008). These zoos were also responsible for helping to conduct research on critical habitat and high mortality-risk locations for three recovery documents. The Calgary Zoo contributed to the Grasslands National Park action plan through their analysis of critical habitat for swift fox and sage grouse in the area (Parks Canada Agency 2016), while the Toronto Zoo assisted with road mortality and habitat connectivity barrier studies for the eastern ribbonsnake66 and milksnake67 management plans (Environment Canada 2015c, 2015d). Finally, the Toronto Zoo and Vancouver Aquarium were both mentioned in connection to their role as wildlife rehabilitators, which play important roles in the American badger recovery strategy and the sea otter management plan (Environment Canada 2013b, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2014).

From this in-depth analysis of federal recovery documents, including management plans, recovery strategies, and multi-species action plans, it seems clear that Canadian zoos are playing a wide variety of roles in national species recovery. From acting as wildlife rehabilitation centres, to conducting research on populations and habitats, educating the public about species, and even assisting with the writing and development of recovery strategies, the involvement of three of the case study institutions can contribute to federal recovery efforts. However, zoos appear to also be taking their involvement to higher levels by sitting on provincial, federal, and international committees that make decisions on prioritizing recovery efforts for species all around the world.

7.3 High-Level Recovery Planning

Each of the four case study institutions employs staff who are also involved in high-level species recovery planning. At the provincial level, a staff member from the Calgary Zoo in a member of

66 Thamnophis sauritus sauritus

67 Lampropeltis triangulum

98 the Alberta Endangered Species Conservation Committee (ESCC) (Alberta Environment and Parks 2016, Interview: CZ-1, 3, 7). The ESCC is an independent board, which receives detailed status reports from their Scientific Subcommittee (SSC) regarding current or potential species at risk (Alberta Environment and Parks 2016, Interview: CZ-7). The ESCC is then responsible for taking all available information and recommending a list status for the species to the Minister of Environment (Alberta Environment and Parks 2016, Interview: CZ-7). In order to be a member of the ESCC, an individual must have “a knowledge of how species listings work, familiarity with IUCN and familiarity with what species are listed, at least in Alberta” (Interview: CZ-7).

As well as assisting in the provincial species at risk listing process, Canadian zoos are also involved in contributing to provincial education policy. The Toronto Zoo is a board member of Ontario’s Biodiversity Education and Awareness Network (BEAN), an organization that was created to help the province meet the aims of Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy (BEAN 2016a, 2016b, Interview: TZ-5); namely, increasing awareness and understanding of the threats facing biodiversity, the benefits of having high biodiversity, and how the public can help (BEAN 2016b). BEAN is responsible for helping to develop curriculum-linked biodiversity resources, as well as coordinating a calendar of Ontario-based biodiversity/education events (BEAN 2016b). The Toronto Zoo’s links to public education, environment, and its experience in developing curriculum-linked programming all contributed to making them an “obvious” partner in the network (Interview: TZ-5) and combined with the Calgary Zoo’s involvement in provincially listing species at risk, illustrates how zoo staff are contributing to high-level provincial biodiversity and species at risk planning.

Canadian zoos are also playing a role on federal species at risk committees. As mentioned by several of my interviewees from Assiniboine Park Zoo, one of the institution’s staff members currently sits on the COSEWIC Terrestrial Mammals Subcommittee (COSEWIC 2016, Interview: AZ-2, AZ-3, AZ-4). The members of this subcommittee are responsible for developing detailed status reports, which are used by the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) to determine the official federal listing of the species assessed (COSEWIC 2009). In order to be a member of any of the COSEWIC subcommittees, the appointee must have expertise in either “conservation biology, ecology, taxonomy, wildlife management, stock assessment, population biology, Aboriginal or community knowledge, and related fields” (COSEWIC 2009).

Though I was not able to identify staff from any of the other case study institutions on COSEWIC subcommittees, I was told that a senior scientist from the Vancouver Aquarium was heavily involved in the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Advisory Boards (Interview: VA-5). Fisheries and Oceans regularly reaches out to members of the scientific community to provide input on questions being examined by the department (Canada 2016f). The Vancouver Aquarium scientist is often asked to sit on committees tasked with examining marine species at risk (Interview: VA-5); for instance, at a recent meeting of the DFO’s National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee (NMMPRC), topics for consultation including discussions on the required habitats for killer whales, fin whales, and Atlantic blue whales (Canada 2016f).

In addition to assisting with provincial and federal species at risk planning, staff members of Canadian zoos are also represented on international species recovery committees. One of the Toronto Zoo’s employees is a member of the AZA Freshwater Fishes taxon advisory group (TAG), which coordinates SSP programs for all zoo species in that taxa (Interview: TZ-4). The Freshwater Fishes TAG is the second largest group, with 32 species under its administration (Interview: TZ-4). The group’s 16 committee members, as well as the chairperson, are responsible for coordinating all zoo-led recovery efforts for the individual species under its umbrella, as well as overall strategic planning for the taxa in general (AZA 2014e).

Another way Canadian zoo staff are involved is through the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN is an organization that aims to create conservation solutions, support research, and coordinate multi-national conservation initiatives (IUCN 2016a). Both the Calgary Zoo and the Toronto Zoo are full members of the IUCN (IUCN 2016b). In order to be recognized as an IUCN member, an organization “must show a substantial record of activity in the conservation of nature and natural resources” (Calgary Zoo 2016h); a high distinction for both zoos. However, the Calgary Zoo is perhaps more strongly linked with the IUCN, as a senior researcher from the Calgary Zoo is also the chair of the IUCN’s Reintroduction Specialist Group, and has been involved with the group for several years (Calgary Zoo 2016h, IUCN/SSC 2013). Along with 15 other task force members, the IUCN Reintroduction Specialist Group was responsible for researching and creating an official document to steer future reintroduction and translocation initiatives, called “Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations” (IUCN/SSC 2013). Involvement with

100 the IUCN is not only prestigious, but also provides Canadian Zoos with the opportunity to effect conservation changes all over the world.

In addition to their involvement in provincial and federal government-led recovery strategies, Canadian zoos also participate in making high-level species at risk planning decisions at multiple jurisdictional levels. However, the question of why zoos should be involved in these kinds of recovery efforts remains to be explored. In the next section, I use responses from my interviews to illustrate some of the main struggles in species at risk recovery efforts, as felt by zoo workers. These insights shed light on some of the vulnerabilities of the current system for species recovery, and lead into a discussion on how zoos have the potential to address some of these difficulties.

7.4 Limitations of Current Species at Risk Protections

As I was interviewing zoo staff members, I asked them several questions about both the federal and provincial species at risk legislations. Most of the respondents (83%, n=20), self-identified as being somewhat – very familiar with the national Species at Risk Act (SARA); however, only 68% (n=15) of the interviewees who mentioned their province’s legislation said that they were somewhat – very familiar with it (two people did not mention provincial legislation during their interview). However, 60% (n=12) of the respondents who said they were familiar with at least the federal legislation expressed dissatisfaction with how current laws are protecting species at risk. A myriad of reasons were given for this dissatisfaction, which can be focused into three main categories: lack of adequate protections/consequences within the written laws, little enforcement of the rules that do exist, and an overall lack of funding limiting the legislation’s effectiveness.

Among the people who said they were unhappy with the effectiveness of the current species at risk legislation, almost all (n=11) of them mentioned the lack of consequences and adequate protection measures in their justification. Several people expressed frustration with the limitations of the federal legislation in particular; with SARA protections only applying to federally-managed lands, it seemed to some that the federal government was simply passing off responsibility for species at risk to the provinces, and they were convinced that this situation was not very effective (Interview: CZ-2, CZ-5). Some of the interviewees also compared Canada’s legislation with that of the United States, with varying opinions regarding the contrast. For

101 instance, one interviewee mentioned how the US legislation seemed to have much more in it in terms of habitat protections, which they, and several other interviewees, found lacking in Canada’s current regulations (Interview: CZ-2, VA-3, VA-5). However, another interview participant, while still unhappy with the pace at which species were recovered, felt that it was to the benefit of Canada’s SARA to be “a little bit softer and more encouraging of action” than the US Endangered Species Act, which they felt was too confrontational and alienated potential partners (Interview: CZ-4).

While many were simply frustrated with the lack of protections within Canada’s federal legislations, some also felt that the lack of enforcement of the current regulations was compounding the problem (Interview: CZ-3, CZ-4, VA-1, AZ-2, AZ-4). Though new legislations are slowly being introduced that provide more protection for species at risk, such as the Manitoba Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, “unless you’re practicing it and enforcing it, it doesn’t mean very much” (Interview: AZ-4). One interviewee mentioned, however, that enforcing wildlife laws over an entire province was nearly impossible to accomplish, as the conservation officers couldn’t be in every corner of the province (Interview: CZ-3). Another interviewee from the Assiniboine Park Zoo also mentioned that the simple lack of funding was the biggest limiting factor in the province’s ability to adequately enforce its own laws, as previous governments had cut Manitoba Conservation so much that they “just don’t have the capability” to enforce the laws like they need to (Interview: AZ-4).

A lack of adequate funding for species at risk in general was another popular source of dissatisfaction among interviewees, with five people mentioning how the government, especially the federal government, had appeared to prioritize economics when it came to making species at risk decisions (Interview: AZ-4, CZ-7, TZ-3, TZ-4, VA-2). For instance, when listing a species in Alberta, one interviewee told me that the ESCC could make recommendations about the status of a species, but had no influence over how much of a budget would be allocated to recovery efforts (Interview: CZ-7). Provincial recovery budgets could, according to this source, be anywhere from $8000 to $8 million dollars, but, more often than not, the higher amounts just “wouldn’t get spent” (Interview: CZ-7). Several interviewees from the Vancouver Aquarium and the Toronto Zoo expressed extreme frustration with the previous Conservative government’s attitude towards funding environmental agencies, especially regarding the massive cuts experienced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Interview: VA-2, TZ-4).

102

Inadequate protections, poor enforcement rates, and a lack of funding for species at risk all contribute to limiting the effectiveness of current species at risk recovery efforts. But what could zoos do to alleviate these issues, and why would they become involved in the first place? In the following sections, I will delve into the reasons behind zoo involvement in conservation efforts, discussing how zoos become involved, why their involvement is solicited, and why zoo staff feel that their organizations are needed in species recovery. I will also shed light on some of the factors that limit both the effectiveness of zoos in species recovery efforts, as well as the elements which prohibit their increased involvement.

7.5 Motivations Behind Zoo Involvement in Species at Risk Recovery

When asked how their zoos became involved in recovery efforts and other conservation partnerships, 92% (n=22) of the interviewees mentioned how their institution had been approached by other organizations and invited to participate. These requests came from all levels of government. Provincial government organizations, like the B.C. Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team, requested the Vancouver Aquarium’s assistance in establishing a captive breeding population of the frogs for future reintroduction efforts (Interview: VA-4). The Toronto Zoo was also asked to assist the Ontario government in creating new curricula dealing with native aquatic species for a variety of grade levels, as mentioned in Chapter 6 (Interview: TZ-4). In respect to federally-led advances, several of the case-study zoos have been contacted to assist with recovery efforts. The Calgary Zoo was approached by Environment Canada to collaborate on recovery planning for the greater sage grouse (Interview: CZ-1, CZ-4), while the Assiniboine Park Zoo has been requested to conduct a variety of studies for the DFO (Interview: AZ-4). Canadian zoos have also been invited to participate in international recovery efforts; for example, the U.S.A.-based black-footed ferret reintroduction team approached the Toronto Zoo in 1992 to act as the Canadian breeding facility for the species (Interview: TZ-3). Zoos from other countries have also reached out to Canadian facilities to assist with zoo-led conservation efforts; as of now, the Assiniboine Park Zoo is in talks with the Minnesota Zoo to partner on a breeding and habitat identification project for the Powesheik skipperling, a butterfly that is native to both countries (Interview: AZ-1, AZ-3).

103

In addition to being directly invited, my interviews with zoo staff members revealed that each institution had, on occasion, offered to assist a project when they believed that their involvement would be beneficial. Seven interviewees (29%) discussed how they had offered their assistance; for example, a staff member from the Calgary Zoo mentioned how an employee from that institution had heard about a Nature Conservancy initiative to investigate northern leopard frog populations and evaluate potential reintroduction sites for the species (Interview: CZ-2). As the zoo staff member had conducted a multi-year study of northern leopard frogs in Alberta, and had experience identifying ideal breeding habitat, they offered their expertise to the Nature Conservancy, and collaborated with them during habitat surveys and population counts (Interview: CZ-2). Another instance of zoo staff stepping in was discussed by a Toronto Zoo interviewee, who told me about how a former staff member (since retired) was the driving force behind organizing the original recovery team for the Massasauga rattlesnake (Interview: TZ-2). In this case, the zoo employee noticed that the species was in trouble, and that something needed to be done; they then approached partners to begin studying the species, conducting vital research independently before the federal government joined and took over leadership duties on the recovery team (Interview: TZ-2).

When asked why they thought that their institution was invited to help on so many different projects, the most common response interviewees gave was that zoo staff had the expertise to assist conservation efforts; not only were staff familiar with animal husbandry techniques and veterinary skills, but they were, in some cases recognized as one of (if not the) authorities on a particular species (Interview: CZ-3, CZ-4, TZ-3, TZ-4). As a Calgary Zoo staff member said, one of their employees had essentially become “the authority on prairie dogs and ferrets in Canada, as Park’s Canada has lost its own staff.” The idea of zoos becoming centres of research, especially in response to recent federal funding cuts, was repeated by staff from other institutions, including the Vancouver Aquarium and the Assiniboine Park Zoo (Interview: VA-2, AZ-4).

Another reason that some zoo staff believed their institutions were recruited to help with recovery efforts was because of the space offered by zoos (Interview: CZ-5, VA-4, VA-6, AZ-3, AZ-4, AZ-5). Having a physical space to actually do conservation was felt to be highly important to the success of projects, like the polar bear transition program at the Assiniboine Park Zoo (Interview: AZ-3). The zoo houses polar bears deemed dangerous or non-introducible by

104

Manitoba conservation (Interview: AZ-3). After undergoing a quarantine period, the bears then slowly begin training to adjust to a captive lifestyle (Assiniboine Park Zoo 2016f). In time, some of the polar bears may be moved to other zoos (Assiniboine Park Zoo 2016f); however, while in the transition program, the bears require a tremendous amount of space and staff time – something which the provincial government could not supply on its own.

In addition to providing expertise and space to conduct recovery projects, four interviewees also mentioned how zoos, which are mainly seen as unbiased, non-political organizations, were able to utilize their neutrality to achieve what other organizations could not (Interview: CZ-4, CZ-7, VA-2, AZ-3). One Vancouver Aquarium employee stated that they felt the aquarium was able to “facilitate a lot of those meetings between activist groups and political groups and the industries” when there was a need to collaborate on recovery planning; though noting that not every organization saw them in a positive light, the aquarium was seen as “neutral enough ground that everyone feels that they can meet around us” (Interview: VA-2). A Calgary Zoo employee also mentioned how the neutrality of zoos was beneficial in talking to landowners about sensitive topics such as species at risk potentially being on their property (Interview: CZ-4). While some rural landowners are very suspicious of government employees (even to the extent where the landowner will not allow government representatives on their land), they hold no such animosity towards institutions like the Calgary Zoo (Interview: CZ-4). In the interviewee’s words, the zoo’s presence in the field when conducting in-situ research is seen as “relatively neutral, probably cute and slightly confusing” – a far cry from the sometimes apparently threatening presence of government officials (Interview: CZ-4).

The final area of consensus regarding why other institutions sought out partnerships with zoos has to do with the ability of zoological institutions to connect government-led recovery efforts to the public. Four interviewees observed that zoos were able to act as bridges between the government and the people, able to disseminate information effectively through their educational programs (Interview: CZ-6, TZ-4, VA-2, VA-6). One Toronto Zoo staff member relayed a story of their experience with working on a government-led recovery team, and finding it full of biologists working either in the field or with planners and developers – none of whom, besides the zoo staff member, had any experience in educating the public (Interview: TZ-4). The zoo employee found that, though the recovery team members were all very intelligent people, they were focused solely on selling their ideas to the politicians in charge, and did not realize that, by

105 engaging the public, the recovery team would be able to “use the public to move the politicians” instead (Interview: TZ-4). The zoo staff member stated that they felt like it was a very good thing for the zoo to be involved with the recovery team, especially in this situation, as they were able to act as a “bridge between the boots on the ground biologists that are the federal agencies or provincial agencies….and the public” (Interview: TZ-4).

Though zoo staff clearly feel that they, and their institutions, can offer vital support for official recovery efforts, there are also some barriers that limit zoos becoming more involved in conservation efforts. Though zoos are starting to get more recognition as species experts by other researchers, many people involved with recovery planning are still unaware of the expertise that zoos have to offer (Interview: CZ-1, CZ-2). As zoo staff network more, however, more people begin to think of them and invite them to participate in recovery efforts (Interview: CZ-4, AZ-2, TZ-4).

Unfortunately, even though they may be getting more requests to assist with species recovery, some of the case study zoos are already feeling stretched to the limit of their resources. Though heavily involved in recovery efforts for multiple species of turtles and snakes, financial constraints and a dependence on uncertain grant funding mean that the Toronto Zoo is already involved in “about as much as we can handle right now” – even though “there’s going to be a greater need” for zoo involvement as more species are threatened (Interview: TZ-2). Though there are grants available to support organizations like zoos in helping to recover species at risk, there are again issues with unstable funding, which result in uncertain staffing numbers and an inability to commit to long-term projects (Interview: TZ-2, VA-5).

Time constraints also present challenges to zoo staff, as they are taking on roles in recovery efforts in addition to their regular duties. An employee at the Assiniboine Park Zoo spoke of this dilemma as it related to the zoo’s head researcher, who “needs to go to meetings for COSEWIC and for advisory boards” on a semi-regular basis, while also conducting their own research and supervising the other staff (Interview: AZ-3). Though the zoo’s board of management was supportive of the researcher taking on these addition consultation roles, the zoo management “don’t necessarily know how much time he needs to spend out…or how much money it really takes” for the researcher to meaningfully contribute to these recovery activities (Interview: AZ- 3). Similarly, another interviewee told me that they hadn’t seen their dining room table in years,

106 because they were constantly filling out grant applications, writing reports, and doing extra work at home to keep up with all of the extra roles they had taken on regarding recovery strategies, educational development, and international work (Interview: TZ-4). As one Toronto Zoo employee said, talking on a recovery strategy is an enormous time commitment: “you need to write recovery strategies, you need to write action plans, you need to list out critical habitat, you need to do disease surveillance. And all of this has to be done before you can release a species” (Interview: TZ-3).

From my analysis of provincial and federal recovery documents, as well as through my interviews with zoo employees, I have found that Canadian zoos are participating in official species recovery efforts in a wide variety of ways. Many people remain unaware of how integral zoos are to the recovery of species in Canada; however, all of the zoos studied appear to be involved in every stage of the recovery process, from providing valuable research and habitat analyses, to captive breeding animals for reintroduction, to writing recovery strategies, all the way up to creating recovery policy for multiple jurisdictional levels. Zoo staff identified many ways in which current recovery legislation is not doing enough to protect species at risk, and believe that zoos would be able to fill in some of these gaps. Despite facing barriers to involvement, many of these staff members remain determined to increase their involvement in recovering species at risk, and believe that zoo assistance is necessary in order to successfully recovery highly at-risk species. Zoo staff are, however, still limited by uncertain funding and demands on their time, which will likely prohibit them from extending their involvement in recovery strategies.

107

Chapter 8 Conclusion 8.1 Summary of the Research

This work has examined the role of Canadian zoos in species at risk conservation through a framework of political ecology. Political ecology is a highly useful framework for interdisciplinary research, as it requires the investigator to examine the issue from social, political, and environmental perspectives. Zoo conservation efforts are subject not only to biological and environmental concerns, but are also heavily influenced by public opinion and political support, making political ecology the ideal framework for this research. While my research focused mainly on the perceptions of zoo staff and zoo conservation programs, further analysis of the public perceptions of zoos is needed to expand on the social components of zoos. Most urgently needed is an examination of public attitudes towards zoological institutions and how those attitudes impact publicly available funding for zoo-based conservation.

The qualitative methodologies required for this study were focused on gathering detailed information and discovering the breadth of opinion regarding zoo conservation programs; yet, because of the in-depth nature of the investigation, it was not possible to gather information from a large number of sources. It is thus impossible to apply the conclusions of this study in a general manner to all Canadian zoological institutions. However, as this investigation is the first to thoroughly examine the role of Canadian zoos in conserving species at risk, the methods and results of the study still provide an important overview of the issues, while also establishing a foundation for future enquiries into this topic.

This thesis found that Canadian zoos are necessary components of several different species at risk conservation programs. As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, zoo involvement in conservation is becoming more and more necessary in Canada, as urbanization increases the disconnect between the public and nature. Although governments should, in theory, be responsible for protecting species at risk, government action is historically limited. Non-governmental organizations are thus required to take on some responsibility for species at risk recovery, yet few groups are as well equipped to become involved as zoos are. Following the analysis of documents and interviews with key informants, this thesis came to five specific conclusions regarding the role of Canadian zoos, each of which is addressed on the following pages.

108

First, it was concluded that captive breeding and reintroductions are a vital part of the recovery of severely at-risk species. As discussed in Chapter 4, without zoos, these programs would not be possible; after all, zoos possess both the expertise (in the form of their staff) as well as the space to conduct breeding and headstarting activities. Canadian zoos are currently involved in programs for the international, federal and provincial recovery of many species; yet zoo involvement in these areas is limited due to financial restrictions and, in some cases, by the vast amount of space required to house larger or adult animals.

Second, this study found that many different research programs and academic partnerships are currently taking place at the four study sites. Chapter 5 delves into these research efforts, and discovers that Canadian zoos are investigating issues that are often overlooked or impossible for other organizations to examine. In particular, zoos are able to provide baseline data in several areas, such as metabolic or physiology studies, that are absolutely vital to determining the stress levels of wild populations. By partnering with academic institutions, zoos contribute to training new scientists and testing innovative field equipment and techniques. Zoos are also able to research animals and ecosystems that are deemed “less urgent” by the government, either for political or triage purposes. Again, however, zoos are restricted from conducting many necessary research projects because of the unreliability of funding. Most of the research money received by zoos comes in the form of grants, which, as they are renewed annually or bi-annually, do not allow for the organizations to employ high-quality researchers on a long-term basis.

A third conclusion reached by this study relates to the role of education and awareness programs at zoos, which was examined in Chapter 6. Though an analysis of zoo signage illustrated that conservation messaging is limited at most institutions, zoos were seen as having the potential to reach large audiences and encourage the public to take conservation action. Zoos in Canada also undertake a variety of educational awareness campaigns, and deliver community outreach programming to areas where the populations are not easily able to visit a zoological institution. Through citizen-science programming, zoos are directly involving the public in conservation, fostering stewardship ideals and facilitating connections to the environment that could potentially result in long-term changes to people’s conservation attitudes.

Fourth, this thesis concluded that Canadian zoos are involved in every stage of species at risk recovery processes, from writing and editing recovery documents, to funding research, to

109 advising, and also in implementing recovery recommendations. Chapter 7 casts light on the involvement of the four case study institutions in provincial, federal and international recovery efforts, finding that staff members from zoos are part of high-level species at risk committees while also being integral to on-the-ground recovery. Without zoos and their staff, recovery planning in Canada would be even more of a struggle, as zoos have taken leadership roles in multiple projects, and provided the push for more action to be taken on several species.

Finally, it is apparent that accredited zoos in Canada are often forced to stretch their staffing and space resources to the limit in order to participate in species at risk conservation programs. In particular, reliance on outside grants to fund the majority of breeding, research and education programs prohibits the hiring of the full-time staff members needed for these projects. Without more long-term funding from secure sources, it is highly unlikely that the case study institutions will be able to expand their involvement in conservation programs, regardless of the dedication of the staff members or the commitment of the institutions to supporting conservation.

There can be little doubt that accredited zoos in Canada play a vital role in the recovery of species at risk. In managing captive breeding and reintroduction projects, investigating understudied or politically sensitive species, connecting the public to nature, and taking on leadership roles in recovery planning, zoos are filling the gaps in current Canadian species at risk recovery efforts, in ways that very few other non-governmental organizations would be capable of.

8.2 Future Directions

While this research has provided a foundational overview of the ways in which Canadian zoological institutions are involved with species at risk recovery, there still remains much work to be done on this topic. One element that was continually brought up by interviewees was the limitations posed by the unreliability of funding sources for conservation work. An in-depth analysis of how species at risk recovery efforts conducted by non-governmental organizations would cast light on the difficulties facing these groups, and potentially lead to a shift in how these activities are funded.

Another major theme that emerged from this work is how many zoo conservation efforts have not comprehensively been tested for effectiveness, especially in Canada. An examination of the long-term effectiveness of zoo education programs, and how often they lead to people changing

110 their habits, would be extremely illuminating, and reinforce the critical importance of the role of zoos in affecting long-term change. In the same vein, the effectiveness of zoo signage is in desperate need of study; this thesis has provided a simple method of conducting observations at exhibits, but it would be highly beneficial to follow up with visitors later to see how much information they had retained from reading the signage, or whether the signage had taught them anything new.

Zoos in Canada are a severely understudied subject area, and would benefit from closer examination in almost every aspect of their operations and conservation efforts. Although many members of the public feel that they have a good understanding of what zoos exist for, the true motivations and effectiveness of zoos remains elusive. This study utilized unique methods, such as interviewing key staff members of zoological institutions, in order to bring major areas of Canadian zoo conservation programs to light. In addition to disseminating vital information regarding the benefits and challenges of zoo involvement in species at risk conservation, this thesis also provides other academics with a foundation from which to conduct their own investigations into other zoological institutions. Upon reviewing the results of this study, I have identified five future areas of research that I feel should be undertaken by the academic community:

1) A critical examination of non-AZA accredited zoos and their participation in species at risk conservation

2) The role of AZA accredited zoos in the United States, which would provide an important comparison to Canadian zoos as well as assist in the establishment of best practices for all AZA accredited facilities in North America

3) Evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of Canadian zoo education campaigns, including an examination of the relationship between increased knowledge of species and changes in behaviour to benefit species at risk in the wild

4) A systematic study of zoo financing, including how zoos are currently funded, what their major funding sources are, and how they could achieve greater financial stability

111

5) An investigation into the relationship between the sources of funding most used by a zoo and the abundance/depth conservation projects at that same institution

8.3 Future of zoos

From this study, it is apparent that accredited zoos in Canada have a vital role to play in species at risk conservation. However, it should be noted that few zoos have the financial resources to maintain high standards of animal care as well as become heavily involved with on-the-ground species recovery. While I feel that all zoological institutions should be held to AZA-accredited standards when it comes to the care of their animals, I don’t believe that requiring all zoos to become fully AZA certified is realistic - or, indeed, even advisable. Instead of stretching themselves to attempt to fulfil dress all areas of AZA certification, smaller zoological institutions should instead strive to excel in one area of zoo-based conservation, whether it be captive breeding/reintroduction programs, research, education, or on-the-ground recovery.

My hope for Canadian zoos is that the entertainment-only focus of some non-certified facilities, especially roadside zoos, diminishes to the point of non-existence. Instead, I advocate that zoos across the country embrace their potential as leaders in conservation, dedicating themselves to connecting the general public to wildlife, while also assisting in research and direct species recovery whenever possible. Without zoos, it is likely that the human-environmental disconnect will continue to grow; yet, through the display of captive animals and direct tie-ins to conservation, zoos may help to stem the tide of this environmental apathy. After all, as the environmentalist Baba Dioum famously said, “we will only conserve what we love. We will love only what we understand. We understand only what we are taught” (Ream 2012). In this sense, zoos are what teach people how to understand, and to love, species at risk, ensuring that these creatures will be cared for by humanity for generations to come.

References

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2016. “Alberta’s Species at Risk Strategies.” Accessed May 24 2016. http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/species-at-risk/albertas-species-at-risk- strategy/default.aspx Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2012. “Alberta Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Plan 2010-2015: Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 20.” Edmonton: Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). 2013. “Alberta Greater Sage-grouse Recovery Plan 2013-2018: Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 30.” Edmonton: Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Alberta Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 2005. “Alberta Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan 2004- 2010: Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 3.” Edmonton: Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Alberta Swift Fox Recovery Team. 2007. “Alberta Swift Fox Recovery Plan 2006-2011: Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 14.” Edmonton: Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Alberts, A.C. 2007. “Behavioural considerations of headstarting as a conservation strategy for endangered Caribbean rock iguanas.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(3): 380-391. Alroy, John. 2015. “Limits to captive breeding of mammals in zoos.” Conservation Biology, 29(3): 926-931. Animal Law in Canada. 2016. “Wildlife/Exotic.” Accessed June 28 2016. http://www.animallaw.ca/wildlife.html Assiniboine Park Conservancy. 2012. “2012 Annual Report.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.assiniboinepark.ca/docs/default-source/park/2012-assiniboine-park- conservancy-annual-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0 Assiniboine Park Conservancy. 2014. “2014 Annual Report.” Accessed May 17 2016. https://www.assiniboinepark.ca/docs/default-source/annual- reports/25070_ap_annual_report_2015_sb-cw_jy_tm_jg_web_rev.pdf?sfvrsn=4 Assiniboine Park Conservancy. 2015a. “Assiniboine Park Zoo Celebrates International Red Panda Day.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.assiniboinepark.ca/docs/default- source/2015---news-releases/assiniboine-park-zoo-celebrates-international-red-panda- day.pdf?sfvrsn=6 Assiniboine Park Conservancy. 2016. “School + Group Programs.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.assiniboinepark.ca/park-landing/home/learn-play/school-group-programs

112 113

Assiniboine Park Zoo. 2016a. “Explore: Animals.” Accessed April 25, 2016. http://assiniboineparkzoo.ca/zoo/home/explore/animals Assiniboine Park Zoo. 2016b. “Burrowing Owls.” Accessed May 11 2016. http://www.assiniboineparkzoo.ca/zoo/home/conserve/what-we-do/research-in- action/burrowing-owls Assiniboine Park Zoo. 2016d. “What You Can Do.” Accessed May 19 2016. http://www.assiniboineparkzoo.ca/zoo/home/conserve/what-you-can-do Assiniboine Park Zoo. 2016e. “Tickets.” Accessed June 12 2016. https://tickets.assiniboinepark.ca/WebStore/shop/ViewItems.aspx?CG=TKT&C=GA Assiniboine Park Zoo. 2016f. “Polar Bear Transition.” Accessed May 24 2016. http://www.assiniboineparkzoo.ca/zoo/home/conserve/international-polar-bear- conservation-centre/polar-bear-transition Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). 2013. Annual Report on Conservation and Science. Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). 2014a. “Becoming Accredited.” Accessed May 5 2016. bo Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). 2014b. “What is Accreditation?” Accessed May 5 2016. https://www.aza.org/what-is-accreditation/ Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). 2014c. “Species Survival Plan (SSP) Programs.” Accessed May 5 2016. https://www.aza.org/species-survival-plan-program/ Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). 2014d. 2014 Publications from the AZA Community. Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). 2014e. “Taxon Advisory Groups.” Accessed May 24 2016. https://www.aza.org/taxon-advisory-groups/ Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). 2015. “AZA Strategic Plan 2015.” Accessed May 6 2016. https://www.aza.org/StrategicPlan/ Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). 2016a. The Accreditation Standards and Related Policies: 2016 Edition. Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). 2016b. “List of Accredited Zoos and Aquariums.” Accessed May 5 2016. https://www.aza.org/current-accreditation-list/ Ausband, David and Axel Moehrenschlager. 2009. “Long-range juvenile dispersal and its implication for conservation of reintroduced swift fox Vulpes velox populations in the USA and Canada.” Oryx 43(1): 73-77. Balboa, Cristina Marie. 2009. “When Non-Governmental Organizations Govern: Accountability in Private Conservation Networks.” PhD. Diss., Yale University. Balmford, Andrew, N. Leader-Williams and M. Green. 1995. “Parks or arks: where to conserve threatened mammals?” Biodiversity Conservation 4(1): 595-607.

114

Banks, Peter B., Kai Norrdahl, and Erkki Korpimaki. 2002. “Mobility decisions and the predation risks of reintroduction.” Biological Conservation 103(2): 133-138. Bankes, Nigel, Sharon Masher, and Martin Olszynski. 2014. “Can Environmental Laws Fulfill their Promise? Stories from Canada.” Sustainability 6:6024-6048. Barco, S. and M. Swingle. 2014. “Marine mammal species likely to be encountered in the coastal waters of Virginia from analysis of stranding data.” Virginia Aquarium Foundation Scientific Report, 2014(07a): 0-14. Barongi, R., F.A. Fisken, M. Parker, and M. Gusset (eds). 2015. Committing to Conservation: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. Gland: WAZA Executive Office. Barrows, Morgan Elizabeth. 1997. “Captive Breeding and Reintroduction as Means of Preserving Species.” MSc diss., California State University. Batchelor, Megan. 2014. “Timeline: Assiniboine Park Zoo.” Global News, July 24. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://globalnews.ca/news/785224/timeline-assiniboine-park-zoo/ Berven, Keith A. 1990. “Factors affecting population fluctuations in larval and adult stages of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica).” Ecology, 71(4): 1599-1608. Betsill, Michele M., and Elisabeth Corell. 2008. “Introduction to NGO Diplomacy.” In NGO Diplomacy: The influence of Non-governmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations, edited by Michele M. Betsill and Elisabeth Corell. 1-17. Cambridge: MIT Press. Biodiversity Education and Awareness Network (BEAN). 2016a. “Ontario’s Biodiversity Education and Awareness Network Board of Directors.” Accessed May 24 2016. http://biodiversityeducation.ca/about/board/ Biodiversity Education and Awareness Network (BEAN). 2016b. “What is BEAN?” Accessed May 24 2016. http://biodiversityeducation.ca/about/ Biggins, D., J. Godbey, L. Hanebury, P. Marinari, R. Matchett, and A. Vargas. 1998. “Survival of black-footed ferrets.” Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 643-653. Blaikie, P. 1985. The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries. New York: Wiley. Blee, K.M. and Taylor, V. 2002. “Semi-Structured Interviewing in Social Movement Research.” In Methods of Social Movement Research, edited by B. Klandermans and S. Staggenborg, 92-117. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bridges, C. M. 2000. “Long-Term Effects of Pesticide Exposure at Various Life Stages of the Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sphenocephala).” Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 39(1): 91-96. British Columbia. 2016. “Recovery Planning documents.” Accessed July 1 2016. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/recoveryplans/recovery_doc_table.html

115

British Columbia Invertebrates Recovery Team. 2008. “Recovery Strategy for Puget Oregonian Snail (Cryptomastix devia) in British Columbia.” Victoria: B.C. Ministry of Environment. Brodbeck, Tom. 2015. “Human rights museum attendance dwarfed by zoo, other museums.” Winnipeg Sun, June 6. Accessed April 25, 2016. http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/06/06/human-rights-museum-attendance-dwarfed-by- zoo-other-museums Butler, Matthew J. and Wade Harrell. 2016. “Whooping Crane Survey Results: Winter 2015- 2015.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Accessed May 10 2016. http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_2/NWRS/Zone_1/Aransas- Matagorda_Island_Complex/Aransas/Sections/What_We_Do/Science/Whooping_Crane_Up dates_2013/WHCR%20Update%20Winter%202015-2016.pdf Calenge, Clement, Daniel Maillard, Nathalie Invernia and Jean Charles Gaudin. 2005. “Reintroduction of roe deer Capreolus capreolus into a Mediterranean habitat: Female mortality and dispersion.” Wildlife Biology 11(2): 153-161. Calgary Zoo. 2012. “Calgary Zoo 2012 Annual Report.” Accessed May 17 2016. https://www.instagram.com/calgaryzoo2012ar/ Calgary Zoo. 2013. “Year in Review.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.ab.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/2013-CGYZoo-AnnualReport_WEB.pdf Calgary Zoo. 2014. “Report to the Community: How Your Zoo Works.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.com/2014reporttothecommunity/ Calgary Zoo. 2015a. “The Calgary Zoo is a wild place – literally!” Accessed May 11 2016. https://www.calgaryzoo.com/keep-it-wild/calgary-zoo-wild-place-literally Calgary Zoo. 2015b. “Community Conservation Success in Africa.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.com/media-releases/calgary-zoo-heralds-community-conservation- success-africa Calgary Zoo. 2016a. “About Us.” Accessed April 30, 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.com/about-us Calgary Zoo. 2016b. “Discover Our Animals.” Animals. Accessed April 27, 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.com/animals Calgary Zoo. 2016c. “Our Partners.” Centre for Conservation Research. Accessed May 16 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.com/about-us/centre-conservation-research/our-partners Calgary Zoo. 2016d. “Cell Phone Recycling Program.” Accessed May 19 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.com/about-us/centre-conservation-research/cell-phone-recycling- program Calgary Zoo. 2016e. “School Programs.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.com/school-programs/programs-schools/wild-inquiries-programs-k- 12-45-90-mins

116

Calgary Zoo. 2016f. “Outreach Across the World: Developing community-based conservation.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.com/about-us/outreach-across-world Calgary Zoo. 2016g. “General Admission.” Accessed June 12 2016. https://www.calgaryzoo.com/plan-your-visit/admission-and-hours/general-admission Calgary Zoo. 2016h. “Calgary Zoo Welcomed as IUCN Member.” Accessed May 24 2016. http://www.calgaryzoo.com/blog/calgary-zoo-welcomed-as-iucn-member/ Canada. 2013. “Emergency Order for the Protection of the Greater Sage-Grouse.” Ministry of Justice, amended March 7, 2014. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca Canada. 2015a. “Division of Constitutional Powers.” Last modified October 29 2015. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/taxation/8882 Canada. 2015b. “A to Z Species Index.” Last modified December 3 2015. http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm Canada. 2016a. “Emergency Order for the Protection of the Western Chorus Frog (Great Lakes/St. Lawrence – Canadian Shield Population.” Canada Gazette, June 29. Accessed July 14 2016. http://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-06-29/html/si-tr36-eng.php Canada. 2016b. “Species at Risk Public Registry: Searching species for Taxonomy, Range, and COSEWIC Status.” Accessed May 27 2016. http://www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/search/advSearchResults_e.cfm?stype=species&lng=e&advkeywords=&o p=2&locid=1%2c4%2c12%2c2%2c5%2c18%2c13%2c14&taxid=9%2c3%2c2%2c8%2c1% 2c5%2c4%2c7%2c6&desid=4%2c2%2c5%2c3& Canada. 2016c. “Species at Risk Public Registry.” Accessed May 27 2016. https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=24F7211B-1 Canada. 2016d. “Species Profile: Vancouver Island Marmot.” Species at Risk Public Registry. Accessed May 10 2016. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=136#ot18 Canada. 2016e. “Recovery Strategies.” Species at Risk Public Registry. Accessed May 10 2016. http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/recovery/recovery_e.cfm Canada. 2016f. “Species Profile: Northern Fur Seal.” Species at Risk Public Registry. Accessed May 15 2016. http://www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=325 Canada. 2016e. “Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Science Advisory Schedule.” Accessed May 24 2016. http://www.isdm-gdsi.gc.ca/csas-sccs/applications/events-evenements/index-eng.asp Canada. 2016f. “Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Terms of Reference, National Marine Mammal Peer Review Committee: Part II.” Accessed May 24 2016. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas- sccs/Schedule-Horraire/2016/02_23-26-eng.html

117

Canada Gazette. 2003. “Chapter 29: Species at Risk Act.” Canada Gazette 25(3), January 31 2003. https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/8BB77EC2-1BA6-4AC7-93BE- A7FB882A08F8/SARA-eng.pdf Canadian Association of Zoos & Aquariums (CAZA). 2011. Code of Professional Ethics. Canadian Association of Zoos & Aquariums (CAZA). 2016a. “Plan a Visit.” Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.caza.ca/visit.html Canadian Association of Zoos & Aquariums (CAZA). 2016b. “About Us.” Accessed May 5 2016. Canadian Association of Zoos & Aquariums (CAZA). 2016c. “Code of Professional Ethics.” Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.caza.ca/ethics.html Canadian Association of Zoos & Aquariums (CAZA). 2016d. Accreditation Process Guide: 2016 Edition. Canadian Association of Zoos & Aquariums (CAZA). 2016e. “Accreditation.” Accessed September 14 2016. http://caza.ca/accreditation/ Canadian Oregon Spotted Frog Recovery Team. 2014. “Recovery Strategy for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in British Columbia.” Victoria: B.C. Ministry of the Environment. Carbyn, Ludwig N., Harry J. Armbuster, and Charles Mamo. 1994. “The swift fox reintroduction program in Canada from 1983 to1992.” In Restoration of Endangered Species Conceptual Issues Planning and Implementation, edited by Marlin L. Bowles and Christopher J. Whelan, 247-271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carr, Neil and Scott Cohen. 2011. “The public face of zoos: Images of entertainment, education and conservation.” Anthrozoos 24(2): 175-189. Castree, Noel, Rob Kitchin, and Alisdair Rogers. 2013. “Political Ecology.” In A Dictionary of Human Geography. Published online. Accessed May 4, 2016. Chewka, Kaitlyn. 2007. “The Politics of Protecting Species: An Examination of Environmental Interest Group Strategies Before and After the Species at Risk Act.” MA Diss., University of Victoria. Chung, Emily. 2013. “Zoo Revolution explores ethical debate about zoos.” CBC News, October 3. Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/zoo-revolution-explores- ethical-debate-about-zoos-1.1894333 Cohn, Jeffrey P. 2000. “Working Outside the Box: Zoos and aquariums are shifting the focus of their conservation efforts to the wild.” Bioscience 50(7): 564-569. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2009. “About COSEWIC: Terms of Reference.” Accessed May 24 2016. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_2_e.cfm

118

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2011a. “Fox, Swift: Wildlife Species Search.” Accessed May 10 2016. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=140&StartR Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2011b. “Seal, Northern Fur: Wildlife Species Search.” Accessed May 15 2016. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=325&StartRow=2. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2016. “About COSEWIC: COSEWIC Composition” Accessed May 24 2016. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_4_e.cfm Deloitte LLP. 2015. “Financial statements of the Calgary Zoological Society, December 31, 2014.” Accessed April 30 2016. https://www.calgaryzoo.com/sites/default/files/pdf/The%20Calgary%20Zoological%20Soci ety%20-%202014%20Audit.pdf Dennis, Murray L., Todd D. Steury, and James D. Roth. 2008. “Assessment of Canada Lynx Research and Conservation Needs in the Southern Range: Another Kick at the Cat.” Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(7): 1463-1472. Devineau, Olivier, Tanya M. Shenk, Gary C. White, Paul F. Doherty Jr., Paul M. Lukacs, and Richard H. Kahn. 2010. “Evaluating the Canada lynx reintroduction programme in Colorado: patterns in mortality.” Journal of Applied Ecology 47(3): 524-531. Dickie, Lesley A., Jeffrey P. Bonner, and Chris West. 2007. “In situ and ex situ conservation: blurring the boundaries between zoos and the wild.” In Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? Edited by Alexandra Zimmermann, Matthew Hatchwell, Lesley Dickie and Chris West. 220-235. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dove, Tracy and Jenny Byrne. 2014. “Do Zoo Visitors need Zoology Knowledge to Understand Conservation Messages? An exploration of the public understanding of animal biology and of the conservation of biodiversity in a zoo setting.” International Journal of Science Education, Part B. 4(4): 323-342. Ducarme, Frédéric, Gloria M. Luque, Franck Courchamp. 2013. “What are ‘charismatic species’ for conservation biologists?” BioSciences Master Reviews 10(2013): 1-8. Ducks Unlimited Canada. 2015. “Our Work.” Ducks Unlimited Canada Website, last modified 2015. http://www.ducks.ca/our-work/ Dunn, Kevin. 2010. “Interviewing.” In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (3rd ed.), edited by Iain Hay, 101-138. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DurhamRegion.com. 2016. “Former Bowmanville Zoo director stripped of professional membership in light of animal cruelty charges.” DurhamRegion.com, April 16. Accessed September 14 2016. http://www.durhamregion.com/news-story/6500351-former- bowmanville-zoo-director-stripped-of-professional-membership-in-light-of-animal-cruelty- charg/

119

Eastern Foxsnake Recovery Team. 2010. “Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Foxsnake (Pantherophis gloydi) – Carolinian and Georgian Bay populations in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Eco-Cell. 2014. “Endangered Species.” Accessed May 19 2016. http://www.eco- cell.com/#!endangered-species/cm5z Elgie, Stewart. 2009. “The Politics of Extinction: The Birth of Canada’s Species at Risk Act.” In Canadian Environmental Policy and Politics: Prospects for Leadership and Innovation Edited by Debora L. VanNijnatten and Robert Boardman. 197-215. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2016a. “Recovery Strategy for the Allegheny Mountain Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus) – Carolinian population in Canada [Proposed].” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment and Climate Change Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2016b. “Management Plan for the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine) in Canada. [Proposed]” Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Environment and Climate Change Canada. Environment Canada. 2007. “Recovery Strategy for the Whooping Crane (Grus Americana) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2012. “Recovery Strategy for the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2013a. “Recovery Strategy for the Fowler’s Toad (Anaxyrus fowleri) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2013b. “Recovery Strategy for the American Badger, jacksoni subspecies (Taxidea taxus jacksoni) in Canada.” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2015a. “Recovery Strategy for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2015b. “Management Plan for the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum/tundrius) in Canada [Proposed].” Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2015c. “Management Plan for the Eastern Ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus), Great Lakes population, in Canada.” Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2015d. “Management Plan for the Eastern Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) in Canada.” Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada.

120

Environment Canada. 2016a. “Recovery Strategy for the Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), Great Lakes/ St. Lawrence population, in Canada [proposed].” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2016b. “Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Musk Turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) in Canada [Proposed].” Species at Risk Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada) Environment Canada. 2016c. “Recovery Strategy for the Spiny Softshell (Apalone spinifera) in Canada [Proposed].” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2016d. “Recovery Strategy for the Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) in Canada [Proposed].” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2016e. “Management Plan for the Northern Map Turtle (Graptemys geographica) in Canada [Proposed].” Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Environment Canada. 2016f. “Management Plan for the Northern Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora) in Canada [Proposed].” Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Escobar, Arturo. 2006. “Difference and Conflict in the Struggle Over Natural Resources: A political ecology framework.” Development, 49(3): 6-13. Evans, Bryan and Adam Wellstead. 2013. “Policy dialogue and engagement between non- governmental organizations and government: A survey of processes and instruments of Canadian policy workers.” Central European Journal of Public Policy 7(1): 60-87. Fa, John E., Stephan M. Funk, and Donnamarie O’Connell. 2011. Zoo Conservation Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Falk, John H., Eric M. Reinhard, Cynthia L. Vernon, Kerry Bronnenkant, Joe E. Heimlich, Nora L. Deans. 2007. Why Zoos and Aquariums Matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium. Silver Spring: Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Favrel, Laura. 2003. “Critics Question Zoos’ Commitment to Conservation.” National Geographic, November 13. Accessed May 6 2016. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1113_031113_zoorole.html Fetterman, David M. 2010. Ethnography: Step-by-Step (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Field, David A., and Lesley Dickie. 2007. “Zoo coalitions for conservation.” In Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? Edited by Alexandra Zimmermann, Matthew Hatchwell, Lesley Dickie, and Chris West. 303-321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

121

Findlay, C. Scott, Stewart Elgie, Brian Giles, and Linda Burr. 2009. “Species Listing under Canada’s Species at Risk Act.” Conservation Biology 23(6): 1609-1617. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2007. “Recovery Strategy for the Transient Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Vancouver: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2009a. “Management Plan for the Offshore Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Nanaimo: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2009b. “Management Plan for the Pacific Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010a. “Management Plan for the Eastern Pacific Grey Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010b. “Management Plan for the Stellar Sea Lion (Eumentopias jubatus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2011a. “Recovery Strategy for the North Pacific Right Whale (Eubalaena japonica) in Pacific Canadian Waters.” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2011b. “Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012. “Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in Canada: Ontario Populations.” Species at Risk Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2013. “Recovery Strategy for the North Pacific Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangeliae) in Canada.” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2014. “Management Plan for the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) in Canada.” Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Galbraith, David A. and William A. Rapley. 2005. “Research at Canadian zoos and botanical gardens.” Museum Management and Curatorship 20(1): 313-331. Grant, T.D. and R.D. Hudson. 2015. “West Indian iguana Cyclura spp reintroduction and recovery programmes: zoo support and involvement.” International Zoo Yearbook, 49(1): 49-55.

122

Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup. 2016. “About.” Accessed May 20 2016. http://www.shorelinecleanup.ca/en/about Green, David M., Anne R. Yagi, and Stewart E. Hamill. 2011. “Recovery Strategy for the Fowler’s Toad (Anaxyrus fowleri) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Gregr, E. J., J. Calambokidis, L. Convey, J.K.B. Ford, R.I. Perry, L. Spaven, M. Zacharias. 2006. “Recovery Strategy for Blue, Fin and Sei Whales (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus, and B. borealis) in Pacific Canadian Waters. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Vancouver: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Griffin, Andrea S., Daniel T. Blumstein, and Christopher S. Evans. 2000. “Training Captive- Bred or Translocated Animals to Avoid Predators.” Conservation Biology, 14(5): 1317- 1326. Griffing, D., S. Larson, J. Hollander, T. Carpenter, J. Christiansen, and C. Doss. 2014. “Observations on abundance of bluntnose sixgill sharks, Hexanchus griseus, in an urban waterway in Puget Sound, 2003 - 2005.” PLOS ONE 9(1): e87081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087081 Gubransdsen, L. and A. Steiner. 2004. “NGO Influence in the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, Flexibility Mechanisms, and Sinks.” Global Environmental Politics 4(4): 54-75. Gusset, M. and G. Dick. 2010. “Building a Future for Wildlife? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in-situ conservation.” International Zoo Yearbook 44(1): 183-191. Gwynne, John A. 2007. “Inspiration for conservation: moving audiences to care.” In Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? Edited by Alexandra Zimmermann, Matthew Hatchwell, Lesley Dickie and Chris West.37-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hallman, Bonnie C. and Mary Benbow. 2006. “Naturally Cultural: the zoo as cultural landscape.” The Canadian Geographer, 50(2): 256-264. Hamilton, Gaye and Graham R. Phelps. 1992. “Zoos and conservation education.” International Zoo Yearbook 31: 97-98. Hancocks, David. 2007. “The Future and Ethics of Zoos.” Presented at the Museums Australia National Conference, Canberra Australia. May 2007. Heppell, Selina S., Larry B. Crowder, and Deborah T. Crouse. 1996. “Models to Evaluate Headstarting as a Management Tool for Long-Lived Turtles.” Ecological Applications, 6(2): 556-565. Hinds, Joe and Paul Sparks. 2008. “Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2): 109-120.

123

Hoepfl, M. C. 1997. “Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology Education Researchers.” Journal of Technology Education 9(1). Accessed May 3, 2016. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/hoepfl.html Hoffmann, Catherine. 2008. “Keeping up with the feds: the provincial response to Canada’s Species at Risk Act.” LL.M. Thesis, University of Ottawa. Hutchins, Michael. 2004. “Zoo Vs. Sanctuary: An Ethical Consideration.” Animal Rights Articles. Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-zoo-aza.html Illical, Mary and Kathryn Harrison. 2007. “Protecting Endangered Species in the US and Canada: The Role of Negative Less Drawing.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40(2): 367-385. Innes, Julia. 2006. “Scholarly Communication and Knowledge Management in American Zoos.” PhD. Diss., Nova Southeastern University. IUCN. 2015. “Table 1: Numbers of threatened species by major groups of organisms (1996- 2015).” From IUCN Red List. Accessed March 16 2016. http://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/summarystats/2015- 4_Summary_Stats_Page_Documents/2015_4_RL_Stats_Table_1.pdf IUCN. 2016a. “About IUCN.” Accessed May 24 2016. http://www.iucn.org/about/ IUCN. 2016b. “Members’ Database.” Accessed May 24 2016. http://www.iucn.org/about/union/members/who_members/members_database/ IUCN/SSC. 2013. Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations: Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUDZG/CBSG. 1993. Executive Summary – the World Zoo Conservation Strategy: The Role of the Zoos and Aquaria of the World in Global Conservation. Illinois: The Chicago Zoological Society. Jachowski, David S. and Lokhart, J. Michael. 2009. “Reintroducing the Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes to the Great Plains of North America.” Small Carnivore Conservation 41: 58-64. Javed, Noor. 2016. “Bowmanville Zoo to close this year.” The Toronto Star, June 23. Accessed September 14. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/06/23/bowmanville-zoo-to-close- this-year.html Jivov, Alex. 2014. “Zoo releases 10 endangered baby turtles into eastern Toronto park.” The National Post, June 30. Accessed May 11 2016. http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/zoo- releases-10-endangered-baby-turtles-into-eastern-toronto-park Jule, K.R., L.A. Leaver, and S. E. G. Lea. 2008. “The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis.” Biological Conservation 141(1): 355-363.

124

Kearns, Robin A. 2010. “Seeking with Clarity: Undertaking Observational Research” In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (3rd ed.), edited by Iain Hay, 241-258. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kerr, Gordon R., and Arlene J. Kwasniak. 2015. “Wildlife Conservation and Management.” The Canadian Encyclopedia Online, last modified March 4 2015. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/wildlife-conservation-and-management/ Kirby, David. 2013. “The War Between CNN and SeaWorld Over ‘Blackfish’ Escalates.” Takepart.com, October 24. Accessed July 21 2016. http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/10/24/blackfish-cnn-seaworld-trainer-dawn- brancheau-tilikum Kirchgesser, Mandy L. 2014. “The Impact of Zoo Live Animal Presentations on Students’ Propensity to Engage in Conservation Behaviors.” D.Ed. diss., Temple University. Kirk, D.A. 2013. “Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) in Ontario.” Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Kootenay Conservation Program. 2014. “Endangered Frog Takes a Leap Forward.” Accessed May 10 2016. http://kootenayconservation.ca/endangered-frog-takes-a-leap-forward/ Kovacs, K., L. Lowry, and T. Härkönen (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group). 2008. “Pusa hispida.” The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008. Accessed May 15 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T41672A10505155.en Kramer-Schadt, Stephanie, Eloyi Revilla, Thorsten Wiegand, and Urs Breitenmoser. 2004. “Fragmented landscapes, road mortality and patch connectivity: Modelling influences on the dispersal of the Eurasian lynx.” Journal of Applied Ecology 41(4): 711-723. Kraus, T. 2011. “Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon platirhinos) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Lin, Doris. 2014. “Arguments For and Against Zoos.” About News, December 10. Accessed May 5 2016. http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalsinentertainment/a/Arguments-For-And- Against-Zoos.htm Lindemann-Matthies, Petra and Tobias Kramer. 2006. “The influence of an interactive educational approach on visitors’ learning in a Swiss zoo.” Science Education 90(2): 296- 315. Louv, Richard. 2005. Last Child in the Woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books for Chapel Hill. MacNeil, Robert. 2014. “Canadian environmental policy under Conservative majority rule.” Environmental Politics, 23(1): 174-178. Mallinson, Jeremy J. C. 2003. “A Sustainable Future for Zoos and Their Role in Wildlife Conservation.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8(1): 59-63.

125

Manitoba. 2014. The Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, C.C.S.M. c. E111. Manitoba Burrowing Owl Recovery Program (MBORP). 2016. “Manitoba Burrowing Owl Recovery Program.” Accessed May 11 2016. http://www.mborp.ca/ Markle, T.M., A.R. Yargi and D.M. Green. 2013. “Recovery Strategy for the Allegheny Mountain Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus ochrophaeus) and the Northern Dusky Salamander (Desmognathus fucus) in Ontario. Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Mazur, N. and Tim W. Clark. 2001. “Zoos and conservation: policy making and organizational challenges.” Bulletin Series Yale School of Forestry and Environment Studies 105(1): 185- 201. McCleery, Robert, Jeffrey A. Hostetler, and Madan K. Oli. 2014. “Better off in the wild? Evaluating a captive breeding and release program for the recovery of an endangered rodent.” Biological Conservation 169(1): 198-205. McConnaughey, Janet. 2016. “2 whooping crane chicks: Louisiana’s 1st in wild since 1939.” The Washington Times, April 14. Accessed May 12 2016. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/2-whooping-crane-chicks-louisianas- 1st-in-wild-sin/ McDevitt-Irwin, Jamie Marie, Susanna Drake Fuller, Catharine Grant, and Julia Kathleen Baum. 2015. “Missing the safety net: evidence for inconsistent and insufficient management of at- risk marine fishes in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences, 72(1): 1596- 1608. McLean, L. G., G. Lundie-Jenkins, and P. J. Jarman. 1995. “Teaching an endangered mammal to recognize predators.” Biological Conservation, 75(1): 51-62. McPhee, M. Elsbeth. 2003. “Generations in captivity increases behavioural variance: considerations for captive breeding and reintroduction programs.” Biological Conservation 115(1): 71-77. Mehaffrey, Trish. 2016. “Cricket Hollow Zoo owners face another lawsuit over mistreatment of animals.” The Gazette, July 12. Accessed July 21 2016. http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/cricket-hollow-zoo-owners-face- another-lawsuit-over-mistreatment-of-animals-20160712 Mercaldo-Allen, R., R. Goldberg, C.A. Kuropat, P. Clark, R. Alix, W. Schreiner, and J. Roy. 2015. “A Field-Based Nursery for Headstarting Lobsters to Improve Postrelease Survival for Potential Stock Enhancement in Long Island Sound, Connecticut.” North American Journal of Aquaculture, 77(2): 239-243. Miller, Brian, William Conway, Richard P. Reading, Chris Wemmer, David Wildt and Devra Kleiman. 2004. “Evaluating the Conservation Mission of Zoos, Aquariums, Botanical Gardens, And Natural History Museums.” Conservation Biology 18(1): 86-93.

126

Miller, L.J., V. Zeigler-Hill, J. Mellen, J. Koeppel, T. Greer, and S. Kuczaj. 2013. “Dolphin Shows and Interaction Programs: Benefits for Conservation Education?” Zoo Biology 32: 45-53. Mollett, Sharlene, and Caroline Faria. 2013. “Messing with gender in feminist political ecology.” Geoforum, 45: 116-125. Mooers, A.O., L.R. Prugh, M. Festa-Bianchet and J.A. Hutchings. 2007. “Bias in Legal Listing Under Canadian Endangered Species Legislation.” Conservation Biology 21(3): 572-575.

Mooers, Arne O, Dan F. Doak, C. Scott Findlay, David M. Green, C. Grouis, Lisa L. Manne, Azadeh Rashvand, Murray A. Rudd, and Jeannette Whitton. 2010. “Science, Policy, and Species at Risk in Canada.” BioScience 60(10): 843-849.

Morin, Karen M. 2015. “Wildspace: The cage, the supermax, and the zoo.” In Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, intersections, and hierarchies in a multispecies world, edited by Kathryn Gillespie and Rosemary-Claire Collard. 73-91. Abingdon: Routledge. Morris, T. J. 2010. “Recovery Strategy for the Round Hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda) and Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris) in Ontario.” Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Morris, T. J. 2011. “Recovery Strategy for the Wavy-rayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola) in Ontario.” Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Moseby, K.E., J.L. Read, D.C. Paton, P. Copley, B.M. Hill, and H.A. Crisp. 2011. “Predation determines the outcome of 10 reintroduction attempts in arid South Australia.” Biological Conservation 144(12): 2863-2872. Nature Conservancy Canada. 2015. “What We Do.” Nature Conservancy of Canada Website, last modified 2015. http://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/what-we-do/ Northern Leopard Frog Recovery Team. 2012. “Recovery Plan for the Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) in British Columbia.” Victoria: B.C. Ministry of Environment. Ocean Wise. 2016. “About Ocean Wise.” Accessed May 19 2016. http://www.oceanwise.ca/about Olive, Andrea. 2014. Land, Stewardship, and Legitimacy: Endangered Species Policy in Canada and the United States. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ontario. 2007. Endangered Species Act, S.O. 2007, c. 6. Ontario. 2016. “Species at risk in Ontario List.” Accessed July 1 2016. https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-ontario-list Ontario American Badger Recovery Team. 2010. “Recovery Strategy for the American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

127

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2013a. “Recovery Strategy for the Northern Madtom (Norturus stigmosus) in Ontario.” Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2013b. “Recovery Strategy for the Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus) in Ontario.” Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). 2013c. “Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Sand Darter (Ammocrypta pellucida) in Ontario.” Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ontario Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 2010. “Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) in Ontario.” Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Owen, A. and R. Wilkinson. 2014. “In-situ conservation breeding and the role of zoological institutions and private breeders in the recovery of highly endangered Indonesian passerine birds.” International Zoo Yearbook 48(1): 199-211. Pagliano, Jenniger. 2016. “Toronto Zoo gets back accreditation after elephant controversy.” Toronto Star, April 7. Accessed April 30, 2016. http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2016/04/07/toronto-zoo-gets-back-accreditation- after-elephant-controversy.html Parks Canada. 2016. “Rouge National Urban Park Initiative: What’s New.” Accessed May 18 2016. http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/progs/np-pn/cnpn-cnnp/rouge/ne.aspx Parks Canada Agency. 2015. “Recovery Strategy for the Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus) in Canada.” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Parks Canada Agency. Parks Canada Agency. 2016. “Multi-Species Action Plan for Grasslands National Park of Canada [Proposed].” Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series. Ottawa: Parks Canada Agency. Patrick, Patricia G. and Sue Dale Tunnicliffe. 2013. Zoo Talk. Dordrecht: Springer Payne, Geon and Judy Payne. 2004. “Key Informants.” In Key Concepts in Social Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Pearson, Elissa L., Rachel Lowry, Jillian Dorrian, and Carla A. Litchfield. 2014. “Evaluating the Conservation Impact of an Innovative Zoo-Based Educational Campaign: ‘Don’t Palm Us Off’ for Orang-utan Conservation.” Zoo Biology 33: 184-196. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). 2016. “Animal Rights Uncompromised: Zoos.” Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/zoos/ Pfaff, Scott. 2010. “Abystomid Salamanders and Ornate Chorus Frogs.” In Amphibian Conservation: 2010 Highlights and Accomplishments. Online: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 7. Accessed May 7 2016.

128

https://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/Conservation/Commitments_and_Impacts/Amphibian_C onservation/Amphibian_Resources/AmphibianConservation_2010.pdf Prideaux, B. and A. Coghlan. 2006. “Wildlife Tourism in TNQ: an Overview of Visitor Preferences for Wildlife Experiences.” In Tourism Research Report 3. Cairns: James Cook University. Pruss, S. D., P. Fargey, and A. Moehrenschalger. 2008. “Recovery Strategy for the swift fox (Vulpes Velox) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Ryple, Robert Michael. 2003. “Nature Matrix: reconnecting people and nature.” Oryx, 37(2): 206-214. Randall, Lea A., Lynne D. Chalmers, Axel Moehrenschalger, and Anthony P. Russell. 2014. “Asynchronous Breeding and Variable Embryonic Development Period in the Threatened Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) in the Cypress Hills, Alberta, Canada: Conservation and Management Implications.” The Canadian Field Naturalist 128(1): 50-56. Rapley, William A. 2016. “University/College Partnerships – 2015 Summary.” Report to the Toronto Zoo Board of Management. March 30. Accessed May 19 2016. http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/zb/bgrd/backgroundfile-91707.pdf Ream, Mary-Katherine. 2012. “Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Connecting Through Conservation.” eJournal USA “Go Wild! Coming Together for Conservation.” 17(2): 34-35. http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2012/11/20121116138806.html#axzz3 tIhZ7ywZ Reading, Richard P., Brian Miller, and David Shepherdson. 2013. “The Value of Enrichment to Reintroduction Success.” Zoo Biology 32: 332-341. Red Panda Network. 2016. “International Red Panda Day.” Accessed May 19 2016. http://redpandanetwork.org/get-involved/international-red-panda-day/ Redside Dace Recovery Team. 2010. “Recovery Strategy for Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongates) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Rees, Paul A. 2011. An Introduction to Zoo Biology and Management. Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell. Ritchie, Jane. 2003. “The Applications of Qualitative Methods to Social Research.” In Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, edited by Jane Ritchie and Jane Lewis, 24-46. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Robeck, Todd R., Justine K. O’Brien and Daniel K. O’Dell. 2009. “Captive Breeding.” In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, edited by William F. Perrin, Bernd Wursig, and J.G.M. ‘Hans’ Thewissen, 178-183. Burlington: Academic Press.

129

Robert, Alexandre. 2009. “Captive breeding genetics and reintroduction success.” Biological Conservation 142: 2915-2922. Roe, Katie and Andrew McConney. 2014. “Do zoo visitors come to learn? An internationally comparative, mixed-methods study.” Environmental Education Research, published online. Roe, Katie, Andrew McConney, and Caroline Mansfield. 2014. “Using evaluation to prove or improve? An international, mixed method investigation into zoos’ education evaluation practices.” Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 2(4): 108-116. Rose, M. 2010. “World’s first Zoo – Hierakonpolis, Egypt.” Archaeology, 63(1): 25-32. Rowley, Jennifer. 2012. “Conducting research interviews.” Management Research Review 35(3/4): 260-271. Ryder, Oliver A. and A.T.C. Feistner. 1995. “Research in zoos: a growth area in conservation.” Biodiversity Conservation 4(6): 671-677.

Sacerdote-Velat, A.B., J. M. Earnhardt, D. Mulkerin, D. Boehm, and G. Glowacki. 2014. “Evaluation of headstarting and release techniques for population augmentation and reintroduction of the smooth green snake.” Animal Conservation, 17(S1): 65-73. Saldana, Johnny. 2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd Edition. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Schmidt, Colleen. 2014. “Partnership puts focus on Canada’s endangered species.” CTV News Calgary. August 14. Accessed May 18 2016. http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/partnership-puts- focus-on-canada-s-endangered-animals-1.1960511 Schultz, James G.W., and Steve Joordens. 2014. “The effect of visitor motivation on the success of environmental education at the Toronto Zoo.” 20(6): 753-775. Scott, Britain A., Elise L. Amel, and Christina M. Manning. 2014. “In and Out of the Wilderness: Ecological Connection Through Participation in Nature.” Ecopsychology, 6(1): 81-91. Seburn, D. 2009. “Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon platirhinos) in Canada.” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Parks Canada Agency. Semeniuk, Ivan. 2014. “Protection for at-risk species falters over Ottawa delays, scientists say.” The Globe and Mail, December 1. Accessed June 28 2016. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/protection-for-at-risk-species-falters-over- ottawa-delays-scientists-say/article21840705/ Sheppard, Donna J., Axel Moehrenschlager, Jana M. McPherson, and John J. Mason. 2010. “Ten years of adaptive community-governed conservation: evaluating biodiversity protection and poverty alleviation in a West African hippopotamus reserve.” Environmental Conservation 37(3): 270-282. Skerrat, Lee Francis, Lee Berger, Richard Speare, Scott Cashins, Keith Raymond McDonald, Andrea Dawn Phillott, Harry Bryan Hines, and Nicole Kenyon. 2007. “Spread of

130

Chytridomycosis Has Caused the Rapid Global Decline and Extinction of Frogs.” Ecohealth, 4(1): 125-135. Skibins, Jeffrey C., Robery B. Powell, Jeffrey C. Hallo. 2013. “Charisma and conservation: charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors.” Biodiversity Conservation, 22(4): 959-982. Smallwood, Kate. 2003. “A Guide to Canada’s Species at Risk Act.” A Sierra Legal Defence Fund Report. http://www.sfu.ca/~amooers/scientists4species/SARA_Guide_May2003.pdf Smith, Kathleen N., James H. Shaw, Tammie Bettinger, Beth Caniglia, and Tracy Carter. 2007. “Conservation partnerships between Zoos and Aquariums, federal and state agencies, and non-governmental organizations.” Zoo Biology. 26(6): 471-486. Snyder, Noel F.R., Scott R. Derrickson, Steven R. Beissinger, James W. Wiley, Thomas B. Smith, William D. Toone, and Brian Miller. 1996. “Limitations of Captive Breeding in Endangered Species Recovery. “Conservation Biology 10(2): 338-348. Sterling, Eleanor, Jimin Lee and Tom Wood. 2007. “Conservation Education in Zoos: an emphasis on behavioural change.” In Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? Edited by Alexandra Zimmermann, Matthew Hatchwell, Lesley Dickie and Chris West.37- 50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stuart, Simon N., Janice S. Chanson, Neil A. Cox, Bruce E. Young, Ana S. L. Rodrigues, Debra L. Fishman, and Robert W. Waller. 2004. “Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide.” Science, 306(5702): 1783-1786. Sutterlin-Duguid, Linda. 2015. “Wapusk National Park: Bringing Wapusk to Winnipeg.” Parks Canada. Accessed May 18 2016. http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn- np/mb/wapusk/ne/ne1/ne1_2015/ne1_2015_09.aspx Taylor, Adam. 2014. “China, Malaysia and the weird world of panda diplomacy.” The Washington Post, May 21. Accessed May 6 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/21/china-malaysia-and-the- weird-world-of-panda-diplomacy/ Teixeira, Camila P., Cristiano Schetini de Aevedo, Mike Mendl, Cynthia F. Cipreste, and Robert J. Young. 2007. “Revisting translocation and reintroduction programmes: the importance of considering stress.” Animal Behaviour 73(1): 1-13. The Canadian Press. 2016. “PETA claims giraffe shot several times with BB Gun at Bowmanville Zoo.” CBC News, July 20 2016. Accessed July 21 2016. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peta-giraffe-bowmanville-zoo-1.3687606 Theberge, Elysabeth and Joseph J. Nocera. 2014. “Less specific recovery strategy targets for threatened and non-charismatic species at risk in Canada.” Oryx 48(3): 430-435. Thompson, D. and T. Härkönen (IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group). 2008. “Phoca vitulina.” The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008. Accessed May 15 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T17013A6723560.en

131

Toronto Zoo. N.D.a. “Life Systems: Grade One and Two. Characteristics and Needs of Living Things.” Toronto Zoo Great Lakes Program. Ontario. Toronto Zoo. N.D.b. “Life Systems: Grade Seven. Interactions within Ecosystems.” Toronto Zoo Great Lakes Program. Ontario. Toronto Zoo. N.D.c.“Biology: Variety is the Framework of Life.” Toronto Zoo Great Lakes Program. Ontario. Toronto Zoo. N.D.d. “Environmental Science: Let’s Get to Work – Managing Water in an Urban Setting.” Toronto Zoo Great Lakes Program. Ontario. Toronto Zoo. 2012. “2012 Annual Report.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/pdfs/Toronto_Zoo_2012_Annual_Report.pdf Toronto Zoo. 2013. “2013 Annual Report.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/pdfs/Toronto%20Zoo_2013_Annual_Report.pdf Toronto Zoo. 2014. “2014 Annual Report.” Accessed April 30 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/pdfs/ZOO_AR_2014_feb8.pdf Toronto Zoo. 2015a. “Milestones of the Toronto Zoo.” Toronto Zoo History. Accessed April 30,2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/ExploretheZoo/History.asp Toronto Zoo. 2015b. “International Red Panda Day.” Accessed May 19 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/events/?pg=redpanda Toronto Zoo. 2015c. “2014-2015: Conservation & Education Programs.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/conservation/CEP2014-2015red.pdf Toronto Zoo. 2016a. “Check Out Our Amazing Animals!” Animals. Accessed April 27 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/explorethezoo/animals.asp Toronto Zoo. 2016b. “How We Keep Track.” Accessed May 8 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/explorethezoo/Animals.asp?pg=keeptrack Toronto Zoo. 2016c. “Panamanian golden frog.” Accessed May 10 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/explorethezoo/AnimalDetails.asp?pg=785 Toronto Zoo. 2016d. “Blanding’s Turtle Head-starting and Reintroduction.” Accessed May 11 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/adoptapond/urbanturtleinitiative.asp Toronto Zoo. 2016e. “Jobs and Careers.” Accessed June 12 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/ExploretheZoo/JobsAndCareers.asp?pg=2 Toronto Zoo. 2016f. “Cell Phone Recycling at the Toronto Zoo.” Accessed May 19 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/conservation/PhoneApes.asp Toronto Zoo. 2016g. “School Visits & Programs.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/EducationAndCamps/SchoolPrograms/

132

Toronto Zoo. 2016h. “Parks Canada and Toronto Zoo Summer Programs.” Accessed May 18 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/events/?pg=parkscanada Toronto Zoo. 2016i. “Frogwatch Ontario.” Accessed May 20 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/adoptapond/frogwatchontario.asp Toronto Zoo. 2016j. “Ontario Turtle Tally.” Accessed May 20 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/adoptapond/turtletally.asp Toronto Zoo. 2016k. “Admission.” Accessed June 12 2016. http://www.torontozoo.com/ExploreTheZoo/Admission.asp Tuckwell, J. and T. Everest. 2009. “Recovery Strategy for the Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) in Canada.” Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Urbanek, Richard P., Lara E. A. Fondow, Sara E. Zimorski, Marianne A. Wellington, and Mark A. Nipper. 2010. “Winter release and management of reintroduced migratory Whooping Cranes Grus americana.” Bird Conservation International, 20(1): 43-54. Vancouver Aquarium. 2012. “2012 Annual Report.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.vanaqua.org/files/4413/6752/4686/VA_AnnualReport_Online.pdf Vancouver Aquarium. 2013. “2013 Annual Report.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.vanaqua.org/annualreport2013/ Vancouver Aquarium. 2014. “2014 Annual Report.” Accessed April 30, 2016. http://www.vanaqua.org/annualreport2014/ Vancouver Aquarium. 2016a. “About the Organization.” Media. Accessed May 4, 2016. https://www.vanaqua.org/media/our-experts Vancouver Aquarium. 2016b. “Impactful Research.” Research. Accessed April 30, 2016. http://www.vanaqua.org/act/research Vancouver Aquarium. 2016c. “Northern Fur Seals.” AquaFacts. Accessed May 15 2016. https://www.vanaqua.org/learn/aquafacts/otters-and-pinnipeds/northern-fur-seals Vancouver Aquarium. 2016d. “The Puzzle of the Disappearing Stellar Sea Lions.” Research. Accessed April 23, 2016. http://www.vanaqua.org/act/research/steller-sea-lions Vancouver Aquarium. 2016e. “Field Trips for All Ages.” Accessed May 17 2016. https://www.vanaqua.org/learn/schools/programs Vancouver Aquarium. 2016f. “Tickets: Buy Tickets Now.” Accessed June 12 2016. https://www.vanaqua.org/visit/tickets Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Team. 2008. “Recovery Strategy for the Vancouver Island Marmot (Marmota vancouverensis) in British Columbia. Victoria: B.C. Ministry of Environment. Vilhunen, S. 2006. “Repeated antipredator conditioning: A pathway to habituation or to better avoidance?” Journal of Fish Biology 68(1): 25-43.

133

Walters, Joanna. 2016. “Animal experts challenge Cincinnati zoo’s decision to kill gorilla.” The Guardian, June 1. Accessed July 21 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2016/jun/01/cincinnati-zoo-gorilla-shooting-animal-conservation-experts Warren, Carol A. B. and Tracy Xavia Karner. 2010. Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research, Interviews, and Analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Waples R.S., M. Nammack, J.F. Cochrane and J.A Hutchings. 2013. “A Tale of Two Acts: Endangered Species Listing Practices in Canada and the US.” BioScience 63(9): 723-734. Wechiau Community Hippo Sanctuary. 2016. “Wechiau Community Hippo Sanctuary: Home.” Accessed May 17 2016. http://www.ghanahippos.com/ Wellicome, Troy I., Ryan J. Fisher, Ray G. Poulin, L. Danielle Todd, Erin M. Bayne, D. T. Tyler Flockhart, Josef K. Schmutz, Ken De Smet, and Paul C. James. 2014. “Apparent survival of adult Burrowing Owls that breed in Canada is influenced by weather during migration and on their wintering grounds.” The Condor, Ornithological Applications, 116(1): 446-458. Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans). 2014. FC 148 (CanLII). Accessed June 28 2016. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2014/2014fc148/2014fc148.html Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership. 2016. “Whooping Crane Update: March 2016.” Accessed May 10 2016. http://www.bringbackthecranes.org/technicaldatabase/projectupdates/2016/March2016.html Wild Whales: B.C. Cetacean Sightings Network. 2016. “About Wild Whales.” Accessed May 20 2016. http://wildwhales.org/ Wood, Stephan, Georgia Tanner and Benjamin J. Richardson. 2010. “What Ever Happened to Canadian Environmental Law?” Ecology Law Quarterly, 37(1): 981-1040. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 2015. “Science and Research.” Accessed December 4 2015. http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/science-and-research. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 2016a. “History.” Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.waza.org/en/site/about-waza/history World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 2016b. “What We Do.” Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.waza.org/en/site/about-waza/what-we-do World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 2016c. “Members.” Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.waza.org/en/site/about-waza/members World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 2016d. “Conservation.” Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 2016e. “WAZA Conservation Projects.” Accessed May 5 2016. http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/waza-conservation- projects

134

Wharton, Dan. 2007. “Research by Zoos.” In Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? Edited by Alexandra Zimmermann, Matthew Hatchwell, Lesley Dickie and Chris West. 178-191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Witzenberger, Kathrin A. and Axel Hochkirch. 2013. “Evaluating ex-situ conservation projects: genetic structure of the captive population of the Arabian sand cat.” Mammalian Biology 78(5): 379-382. Wojciechowski, Stephane, Sue McKee, Christopher Brassard, C. Scott Findlay and Stewart Elgie. 2011. “SARA’s Safety Net Provisions and the Effectiveness of Species at Risk Protection on Non-Federal Lands.” Journal of Environmental Law and Practice 22(3): 203- 222. Yawar, Mahnoor. 2016. “Bownamville Zoo says low attendance over cruelty claims forcing closure.” The Globe and Mail, June 23. Accessed June 26 2016. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bowmanville-zoo-to-shut-down-at-end-of- season-due-to-attendance-problems/article30575071/ Zimmerer, Karl S. 2006. “Cultural ecology: at the interface with political ecology – the new geographies of environmental conservation and globalization.” Progress in Human Geography, 30(1): 63-78. Zimmermann, Alexandra and Roger Wilkinson. 2007. “The conservation mission in the wild: zoos as conservation NGOs?” In Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? Edited by Alexandra Zimmermann, Matthew Hatchwell, Lesley Dickie, and Chris West. 303-321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendices Appendix I: Appendix I: Interview Questions

The following questions were asked during the interviews with key informants, conducted in various locations between February and April 2016.

1. How long have you worked here?

2. How are you involved with conservation at the aquarium/zoo?

3. Can you tell me about some of the other conservation projects the aquarium/zoo is involved in?

4. Is there a focus on local/international species?

5. Why do you think your institution wants to be involved in conservation?

6. Is the aquarium/zoo planning on expanding its involvement in conservation projects?

7. What do you think are the major issues facing zoos or aquaria that want to get involved or expand their involvement in conservation projects?

8. Are people (the public) generally aware that the aquarium/zoo is involved in conserving species at risk?

9. How do people react when they find out? Do they think that zoos should be involved in in- situ conservation? Captive breeding?

10. What kind of questions do people usually ask when they find out that the aquarium/zoo is conducting research?

11. Do you know if any of the aquarium/zoos conservation projects focus on federally or provincially listed species?

12. How familiar are you with Canada’s National legislation to protect species at risk?

13. How familiar are you with BC/Manitoba/Ontario’s species at risk legislation?

135 136

14. In your opinion, how effective are those laws at protecting species at risk?

15. Are any of the conservation projects here supported (either financially or in-kind) by provincial or federal governments? To what extent is that support needed?

16. Do you work or participate in any national or provincial recovery strategies, consultations, etc.?

17. Generally, do people or organizations approach you for help and invite you to become involved in conservation projects, or do you offer your assistance to them?

18. When you are conducting research or conservation projects outside of the aquarium/zoo, how do the public/landowners respond to your presence?

19. Do people often call you when they have questions about endangered wildlife?

20. What kind of role do you think the aquarium/zoo is playing, that no one else could do? Why do you think aquaria/zoos should be involved in conservation?

21. Any further comments?

137

Appendix II: Exhibit Observations Data Sheet Date:______Time Start:______Time End:______Zoo/Aquarium:______Name of Exhibit:______Type of Animal:______Animal on Display?______# of People who stop at the exhibit (Tally):______# of People (Total):______Picture Numbers:______

Exhibit Information

Yes/No Does the exhibit mention the status (IUCN/COSEWIC/Provincial Listing) of the animal?

Does the exhibit say if the zoo is part of a conservation/research project involving this animal?

Does the exhibit provide details about how the zoo is involved with this animal?

Does the exhibit say where (region, province, country, etc.) the animal can be found?

Does the exhibit say how the public can help conserve the animal in the wild?

Visitor Observations

Number of People Action Stay for more than 1 minute

Stay for more than 3 minutes

Stay for more than 5 minutes

Read the sign(s)

138

Visitor Observations (Continued) Number of People Action Talk to someone else about the animal

Mention the animal’s status

Talk about conservation

Talk about the zoo’s involvement in conserving/researching the animal

Talk about if/why conservation is important

Express a desire for more information about the animal

Express a desire to learn more about how the zoo is conserving/researching the animal

Other Observations/Notes:

139

Appendix III: Interview Analysis Codes

Main Category Sub-Category Code Habitat Restoration HR In-Situ Population Support PS Headstarting HT

Habitat Loss HL

Habitat Protection HP Community Support CS Field Methods Testing FMT Research Better Captive Rearing BCR

How are People Learning HPL

General Biology GB Overarching Theory OT Captive Breeding/ Assurance Populations AP Reintroductions Breeding for Release BFR

Translocation TL

Reintroduction RI Re-enforcement RE Potential to Raise Awareness A (raise) Lack of Awareness Education and Awareness A (lack) Connection to Nature CTN Inspiring Social Change SC (action) Ethics of Zoos SC (ethics)

Signage S

Education ED Stories ST Politics and Partnership Extending Assistance EA Involvement Invitation II Finding new partners P (new)

Partnership with academia P (academia)

Partnership with NGOs P (NGOs) Partnership with government P (gov't) High-level focus on conservation HLP (focus) High-level focus on native species HLP (native)

High-level desire to be a conservation leader HLP (identity) High-level need for zoos to be involved HLP (need) High-level license to operate HLP (license) High-level Planning to grow zoo involvement HLP (grow)

Easier for zoos to fundraise F (easy)

Not enough Funding F (lack) Funding from internal zoo sources F (internal)

140

Funding from grants F (grants) Funding from industry/private donations F (priv) Funding from government F (gov't) Not enough protection for listed species OLS (lack) Focusing on listed species OLS (focus) Involvement in recovery plans for listed species OLS (rec)

141