ZOO 496

Zoo Biology 16:103106 (1997)

COMMENTARY

Species Survival Programs: Are They

for Everyone?
Dennis A. Meritt, Jr.*

Zoos, aquariums, and wildlife facilities are frequently encouraged to participate in the American Zoo and Aquarium Associations (AZA) Species Survival
Plans (SSPs), either directly by holding animals, or indirectly by incorporating
the program in educational or interpretive presentations. Institutions, especially
those with limited resources of staff, facilities or dollars, often inquire of AZA
SSPs, searching for ways to participate, given these limited resources. Two questions invariably result from these inquiries. Why should I participate in the SSP
Program? and, once answered, How can I become involved in SSP work? Depending on the particular SSP and its coordinator, as well as SSP identified needs,
the response may be variable and not well defined.
Since the inception of the SSP concept and program, (Meritt, 1980; Conway,
1982) concern has been expressed, in one form or another about various facets of
the program. There have been individual as well as institutional concerns about
questions of ownership, how SSP participation may infringe on local sovereignty,
the impact on institutional animal collection planning, and the perceived potential
conflict between individual or institutional needs and national or SSP needs (Schmitt,
1990). It is not my intention to focus or dwell on these perceptions or, in some cases,
realities (Bruning, 1990; Hutchins and Wiese, 1991; Soule, et al., 1986).
In my view there are any number of reasons for institutions, regardless of
size or resources, to become involved with AZA SSPs. Foremost, these captive
management programs provide some insurance against species extinction. Not all
SSPs lend themselves to species reintroduction, nor is this appropriate in many
cases. Nevertheless, these management plans provide a genetic pool which is
safeguarded into the future. SSPs also provide an opportunity and allow us to tell
zoo and aquarium visitors about wildlife, and our individual as well as collective
cooperative efforts to insure their survival in captivity, and in nature. SSPs actually demonstrate how well zoos work together. Professionally, we have a unique
Received for publication 2 May 1996; revision accepted 1 September 1996.
*Correspondence to: Dennis A. Meritt Jr., Zoo Biologist/Consultant, 2710 Ewing Avenue, Evanston,
IL 60201.

1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

104

Meritt

opportunity through our institutions and supporting members to increase public

awareness and to influence decision making on wildlife and environmental issues. SSP programs provide a vehicle to accomplish this. Additionally, SSPs can
be used as very specific fund-raising tools to support a program for a particular
species. It has also been suggested that participation in SSPs may, and perhaps
should, be done for purely selfish reasons, that is, zoos and aquariums must have
animals to exhibit. The acquisition of wild caught animals in most cases is not
necessary, nor desirable if captive stocks are managed correctly.
Let me point out that there are those with insight who would emphasize the
point that zoos must participate in current and future cooperative breeding programs, not just SSPs as we know them today, to protect and insure zoos animal
inventories and their survival. Additionally, the various federal and international
regulatory agencies have enacted rule making and legislation which, in simplest
terms, makes the acquisition and importation of almost any species, even those
evaluated as doing well in nature, difficult at best.
At the simplest level any institution can and should provide information to
members and visitors in their interpretive programs and/or graphics. The SSP
Rhino logo and explanation of what an SSP is, can easily and inexpensively be
incorporated into graphics or handout materials. The recent development and
availability of an SSP fact sheet assists this information exchange process. Each
institution also has the ability to publicize their own efforts and achievements, as
well as those of the SSP as a cooperative program, in their publications, publicity
releases, and marketing efforts.
Institutional staff members and appropriate volunteer paraprofessionals can
provide various resources to individual SSPs by assisting with almost any facet
of the SSP. This ranges from the collation of materials and envelope stuffing, to
conducting library research as the SSP develops a bibliography or reference file.
Those with special skills, such as writing, editing, computer science, observational skills, or technical training, can assist in different ways. SSP coordinators
are learning that they can ill-afford and should not overlook the use of skilled
volunteers for public relations, education, marketing, and fund raising needs.
Opportunities for assistance are only limited by the creativity of the SSP coordinator and the management group. A competent coordinator will find ways to
utilize interested and motivated volunteers, whether they are professionals or
paraprofessionals. SSP coordinators are learning that delegation of projects is
essential to effectiveness. Two examples which could be taken for models are the
Orangutan SSP and the Tree Kangaroo SSP. In the first example, the SSP has an
extremely active and competent keeper component, and keeper representative,
fostered and encouraged by the SSP Coordinator. In the second, the Tree Kangaroo SSP has a Coordinator who takes responsibility for assigning duties, based
largely on talents, skills, and interests, to various individuals within the SSP.
There are other equally notable examples within the SSP Program.
At another and more complex level of SSP cooperation, facilities can offer
to participate by actually having SSP animals on site at their institution. Again,
this can be achieved in different ways, ranging from holding living animals to
actual full fledged management and research programs on behalf of the SSP.
Some SSP management needs are as basic as providing an adequate home for
holding individual or small groups of animals until they reach the designated age

Species Survival Programs: Are They for Everyone?

105

or level of maturity for breeding, or there is an identified propagation need, or

simply because their future need has not yet been determined. Perhaps this point
needs additional emphasis, Holding animals for an SSP is as important to the
goals and long-term success of the SSP as breeding. Most institutions have, until
recently, seen their contribution as something less, if they could not engage in
propagation. Holding institutions continue to be in demand and can contribute
significantly to the overall effectiveness of a program by fulfilling this need.
Almost any institution can participate at this level, for all that is required
are suitable facilities, adequate support resources for husbandry, and veterinary
care, and most importantly, a desire to help. More and more SSPs have, or are
currently developing, husbandry manuals which provide the recipes necessary
to manage a given species. Many SSPs have special advisers who can assist
first-time facilities in caring for SSP animals. These include veterinary advisers,
colleagues with special expertise in nutrition, behavior, or education, and those
with long-term experience in several overlaying areas. Each of these individuals
is a resource, an invaluable one, that can and should be used by new and current
holders of SSP animals. No institution, regardless of size, location, resources, or
perceived abilities, should be reluctant or hesitant to become an SSP participant.
Recall that the SSP concept is based on volunteer efforts, cooperatively, on
behalf of the animals entrusted to our care. The program is only as effective as
are our abilities to work together and to share information. No contribution is too
small, no offer of assistance should be ignored, and no species is without additional needs. SSPs continue to evolve, both programmatically and individually.
Our best thinking is required to assist this ongoing process. No one has all the
answers, nor have all the right questions been asked. We know there are better
ways to accomplish our goals for SSPs, we only need to recognize them.
Frequently, SSP experience, even in a minimal way, will provide an institution with the opportunity to make a more significant commitment of resources.
Using the SSP as a focus, it is possible and desirable to ask institutional members, donors, and visitors to contribute to a particular SSP species. The appeal of
a given species can be effectively used as an educational and marketing tool, not
only for the species itself but for the institution and its own need to grow. Whether
it is fund raising to improve facilities, a grant request for educational programing, or a foundation request for scientific studies, dont discount the appeal of
our living collections and their conservation needs. It is important to note that
these conservation needs exist both in captivity and in nature.
Institutions lacking resources to expand staff or physical facilities may wish
to direct financial support to field studies of SSP or allied species (Meritt, 1987).
Small amounts of money and in-kind donations of materials and supplies go a
long way in developing nations and are desperately needed by students, wildlife
managers, and ecologists. For example, small grants, ranging from one to four
thousand dollars, have provided training experiences, educational opportunities,
and the collection of basic biological information, through the Scott Neotropical
Fund of the Lincoln Park Zoological Society. The success of this program can be
measured by the accomplishments of the Latin American student investigators.
Biological surveys, national park inventories, forest fragment assessment, the
development of museum exhibitry, bio-anthropologic investigations of hunters
and gatherers, and fossorial mammal surveys, are but a few examples of the

106

Meritt

types of projects supported and completed in the past decade with minimal but
adequate financial support from the Scott Neotropical Fund. This program, while
unique in its design and implementation, is one of several currently supported by
zoos or aquariums. These include the Nixon Griffiths program of the Wildlife
Conservation Society; the Mr. Fables program of the John Ball Zoo, the Sophie
Danforth Fund of the Roger Williams Park Zoo, and the SEACON program of
the Chicago Zoological Society.
The overall point to be made is that there are a variety of ways to assist
SSPs, in captivity and in nature. Assistance can take many forms, can be direct
or indirect, can be done by nearly any institution, regardless of size, location, or
resources. Significant advances can be achieved without being the largest, or
most famous, or most well endowed of the AZA facilities among us. Formalized
departments of research or conservation and science have their own level of
contributions to make, but there is also a pressing need for the level of SSP
participation described here, by those of us with other, and institutionally unique,
resources. You are encouraged to become an SSP participant and a partner in the
future of wildlife and wild places.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper has benefited from early review and the input of James Doherty,
Alan Varsik and Robert Wiese. I am grateful for their time and talents. The manuscript was improved by the comments of three anonymous reviewers.
REFERENCES
Bruning, D. How do we select species for conservation and breeding programs? Pp.313319
in PROCEEDINGS, 1990 AMERICAN ZOO
AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION ANNUAL
CONFERENCE. Wheeling, WV, AAZPA, 1990.
Conway, W.G. The Species Survival Plan: Tailoring long-term propagation species by species. Pp.
611 in PROCEEDINGS, 1982 AMERICAN
ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE. Wheeling, WV, AAZPA,
1982.
Hutchins, M., and Wiese, R. Beyond genetic and
demographic management: the future of the SSP
and related AAZPA conservation efforts. ZOO
BIOLOGY 4:285292, 1991.
Meritt, D.A. A Species Survival Plan for the
AAZPA. Pp. 5975 in PROCEEDINGS, 1980

AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE. Wheeling,

WV, AAZPA, 1980.
Meritt, D.A. Latin American conservation: what
zoos and aquariums can do. Pp. 526529 in PROCEEDINGS, 1987 AMERICAN ZOO AND
AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE. Wheeling, WV, AAZPA, 1987.
Schmitt, E. The surplus question: a general review of the problem. Pp. 320323 in PROCEEDINGS, 1990 AMERICAN ZOO AND
AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE. Wheeling, WV, AAZPA, 1990.
Soule, M.; Gilpin, M.; Conway, W.G., and Foose,
T. The millennium ark: how long a voyage, how
many staterooms, how many passengers? ZOO
BIOLOGY 5:101113, 1986.