DLC animal calculator

[nutrit]

Imo whole thing is very interesting, but 0-1-2 system isnt quite enough to represent everything well. Not every category should be equal and there should be some thresholds.
I will ommit subjective categories like visual appeal or morphology. Some people thought asian otter was reskin of giant otter afterall.

Example of few revamped categories:

Spoiler: Captivity Presence

View attachment 331204

Spoiler: Conservation Status

View attachment 331205

Spoiler: Popularity within playerbase

View attachment 331206

Spoiler: Uniqueness

View attachment 331207

Spoiler: Distribution

View attachment 331208

Feel free to share about more categories. Maximum points atm = 25
I will go with first 3 animals from this thread linnaeu's two-toed sloth:
1. Captivity Presence : 5
2. Conservation Status : 2
3. Popularity: 5
4. Uniqueness: 4
5. Distribution: 4
Overall: 20 / 25

Spectacled Bear
1. Captivity Presence : 2
2. Conservation Status : 3
3. Popularity: 4
4. Uniqueness: 3
5. Distribution: 3
Overall: 15 / 25

Spectacled Caiman:
1. Captivity Presence : 5
2. Conservation Status : 1
3. Popularity: 0
4. Uniqueness: 3
5. Distribution: 1
Overall: 10 / 25

This idea you proposed is actually really great. I still have a problem with distribution of extinct in the wild species which should be treated as the separate category in my opinion.

Also presence in captivity could be tricky since we don’t have raw data about US region, Asia, Africa and Australia.

Also there is huge difference between animals that we like and really want and species that are important from the conservation point of view.

That is why I think that Cuban croc or Chinese alligator deserve their place in the game but just as ‘another deer’ are just not so popular in the community because they are kind of repetitive visually.

That doesn’t change the fact that their captive populations are crucial for their survival and that should be highlighted in the game that claims that conservation efforts are important for the game educational mission.

I think that there is a place for both popular zoo species and those obscure and rare but important from the conservation point of view. It just should be balanced well.

Species that are on the brink of extinction and breed well in zoos should find their place in every pack among those more popular that will often sell the pack for their cuteness or popularity factor.

Is the raccoon good zoo animal? I really don’t think so but who am I to judge what is important for whom. They are obviously popular in the community so it’s great they were included because they will drawn more attention to the game and they would maybe make it easier for random player to discover why scimitar oryxes are so important from the conservation point of view.

CR and EN Species popular in zoo’s should have some kind of priority and find it’s way into the game because zoo’s right now are their only hope for survival.

Just to mention a few:

Black rhino
Golden lion tamarin
Somali wild donkey
Pere David’s deer
Chinese alligator
Arabian oryx
Lion tailed macaque
Addax
Dama gazelle

… and many more

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

Imo the biggest issue is that 0-2 is to low to differentiate.
Like take the kiwi for example.
Its in under 25 zoos world wide, so pretty rare right?
But is it a 1 or a 0?
When are animals a 2?
Are 50 animals a 2? Are 100?
The points dont tell much about the actuall attributes of the animal, which makes the whole thing miss kind of its own point

 

[Doran]

There is raw data for:
EU / NewZ : ZTL
Australia (efforts of zoochat users, updated often) Australia
Japan (official site): JAZA
NA: is kinda tricky, because there is data only for selected species by zoochat users. Not everything is done. USA

Overall i think data from Australasia, EU, NA and Japan is enough to determine oversea holdings.
Numbers from SA, Africa and Greater Asia can be treated as extra bonus, if someone have idea where to find them.

About distribution. I dont know how to start it at all. Suggestions?

 

[yoav_r]

There is raw data for:
EU / NewZ : ZTL
Australia (efforts of zoochat users, updated often) Australia
Japan (official site): JAZA
NA: is kinda tricky, because there is data only for selected species by zoochat users. Not everything is done. USA

Overall i think data from Australasia, EU, NA and Japan is enough to determine oversea holdings.
Numbers from SA, Africa and Greater Asia can be treated as extra bonus, if someone have idea where to find them.

About distribution. I dont know how to start it at all. Suggestions?

ZTL also has Israel, Singapore, Taiwan, Turkey, Kuwair, UAE and Georgia

 

[nutrit]

There is raw data for:
EU / NewZ : ZTL
Australia (efforts of zoochat users, updated often) Australia
Japan (official site): JAZA
NA: is kinda tricky, because there is data only for selected species by zoochat users. Not everything is done. USA

Overall i think data from Australasia, EU, NA and Japan is enough to determine oversea holdings.
Numbers from SA, Africa and Greater Asia can be treated as extra bonus, if someone have idea where to find them.

About distribution. I dont know how to start it at all. Suggestions?

I think that this sheet is really solid but I would like us to find some resolution for extinct in the wild species.

I would personally add it as the separate category. I don’t think it should be considered as the historic range or attempted reintroduction.

In my opinion extinct in the wild status makes species extremely unique and puts them higher than any other animals that still have population in the wild. So new category or assign them to the 4p category for their uniqueness.
Since we don’t have birds there are not so much of those species anyway.

I would really like to know your opinions on that?

Amphibians

· Wyoming toad (Anaxyrus baxteri)

· Kihansi spray toad (Nectophrynoides asperginis)

Mammals

· Père David's deer (Elaphurus davidianus)

· Scimitar oryx (Oryx dammah)

South China Tiger

Reptiles

· Christmas Island blue-tailed skink (Cryptoblepharus egeriae)

· Christmas Island chained gecko (Lepidodactylus listeri)

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

Nah man, historic ranges should pretty much be free game when evaluating extinct in the wild species.
Pieres davids deer didnt just spawn in zoos, they are from china and the same with the SHO and north africa.
It only makes sense to treat them as animals from those regions

 

[nutrit]

Nah man, historic ranges should pretty much be free game when evaluating extinct in the wild species.
Pieres davids deer didnt just spawn in zoos, they are from china and the same with the SHO and north africa.
It only makes sense to treat them as animals from those regions

Sorry but I don’t agree with that.
What makes them special is exactly their absence in their historic range and the fact that they were wipe out by humans.

But convince me. I am more than open for debate.

 

[Chuditch]

Sorry but I don’t agree with that.
What makes them special is exactly their absence in their historic range and the fact that they were wipe out by humans.

But convince me. I am more than open for debate.

That doesn't stop them from being representative of the regions they came from. Besides, several of them are present in the wild in their historic range now - the IUCN is just playing it safe and keeping their listing as Extinct in the Wild until these reintroduced populations are proven to be viable in the long term. There are 400 scimitar-horned oryxes and nearly 3,000 Pere David's deer in the wild as we speak, there's no reason for them to get special treatment in regards to distribution.

 

[nutrit]

That doesn't stop them from being representative of the regions they came from. Besides, several of them are present in the wild in their historic range now - the IUCN is just playing it safe and keeping their listing as Extinct in the Wild until these reintroduced populations are proven to be viable in the long term. There are 400 scimitar-horned oryxes and nearly 3,000 Pere David's deer in the wild as we speak, there's no reason for them to get special treatment in regards to distribution.

As you said their status is still Extinct in the wild and that exactly what makes them special in terms of any treatment.

When their status would change like Arabian oryx for example from extinct in the wild to vulnerable then we can treat them as any other species that don’t need special treatment as the extinct in the wild species certainly do need.

Both Chad (scimitar) and Chinese (Pere David’s) populations are still highly unstable and poorly managed in controlled environment.
That is exactly why their conservation status didn’t changed yet. I would the happiest person if it will but the only truth is that for today it stays the same.

So no, in my opinion you are not right at all.

There are also aprox. 12000 scimitar oryxes on hunting farms in Texas should we also be counting them?

 

[Chuditch]

As you said their status is still Extinct in the wild and that exactly what makes them special in terms of any treatment.

When their status would change like Arabian oryx for example from extinct in the wild to vulnerable then we can treat them as any other species that don’t need special treatment as the extinct in the wild species certainly do need.

Both Chad (scimitar) and Chinese (Pere David’s) populations are still highly unstable and poorly managed in controlled environment.
That is exactly why their conservation status didn’t changed yet. I would the happiest person if it will but the only truth is that for today it stays the same.

So no, in my opinion you are not right at all.

There are also aprox. 12000 scimitar oryxes on hunting farms in Texas should we also be counting them?

Your point was that extinct in the wild species should be given special treatment in the distribution category because they are no longer present in their historic ranges, which is wrong for things like the oryx and deer. How “unstable” their populations are is irrelevant (and also exaggerated - the deer for example have been in the wild for 35 years now and their reintroduction is considered successful). There are many endangered and critically endangered animals whose wild populations are smaller and more unstable than those two species, why should they be treated any different?

Regardless of if they were present in the wild or not, I’d still disagree with them not being treated the same in regards to ranking in the distribution category. A Père David’s deer is just as representative of east Asia as a sika deer, no conservation status can change that.

 

[nutrit]

Your point was that extinct in the wild species should be given special treatment in the distribution category because they are no longer present in their historic ranges, which is wrong for things like the oryx and deer. How “unstable” their populations are is irrelevant (and also exaggerated - the deer for example have been in the wild for 35 years now and their reintroduction is considered successful). There are many endangered and critically endangered animals whose wild populations are smaller and more unstable than those two species, why should they be treated any different?

Regardless of if they were present in the wild or not, I’d still disagree with them not being treated the same in regards to ranking in the distribution category. A Père David’s deer is just as representative of east Asia as a sika deer, no conservation status can change that.

Why they should be treated any different?

Because their official conservation status is still extinct in the wild and unless you are working for IUCN you are unable to change that fact.

How unstable is their population is crucial for their survival so I really do think that this is relevant enough.

Species extinct in the wild deserve special treatment unless their status would be changed by IUCN and that is a fact.

“Père David’s deer is just as representative of east Asia as a sika deer, no conservation status can change that.”

That is completely not true because Père David’s deer is extinct in the wild and it WAS a representative of east Asia. But it is not anymore. And that is the very slight difference.

Your opinion is just your opinion - I can just accept it, I respect it and I won’t change it.

Extinct In The Wild (EW)​

A taxon is Extinct In The Wild (EW) when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalized population (or populations) well outside the past range. A taxon is presumed Extinct in the Wild when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon's life cycle and life form.
Species categorized as Extinct In The Wild (EW)

 

[Chuditch]

That is completely not true because Père David’s deer is extinct in the wild and I can agree to only thing that it WAS a representative of east Asia. But it is not anymore.

I’ve seen you refer to it as an Asian deer many times on this forum before, why is it different now?

 

[SalamAnders]

That is completely not true because Père David’s deer is extinct in the wild and I can agree to only thing that it WAS a representative of east Asia. But it is not anymore.

I have never been to a zoo that would actively leave their extinct in-the-wild species out of their region/continental-themed areas.

 

[nutrit]

I’ve seen you refer to it as an Asian deer many times on this forum before, why is it different now?

What in your opinion shall we treat extinct in the wild species then? Shall we treat them just as any other species from the continent that they originate?

 

[nutrit]

I have never been to a zoo that would actively leave their extinct in-the-wild species out of their region/continental-themed areas.

It’s not about leaving them out of their region/continental-themed areas.
It’s about acknowledging what extinct in the wild status actually means.

Those two species were lucky. There were people who saved them from extinction and I consider that a miracle. Not all species were so lucky and that is why we don have Thylacine or Passenger pigeons anymore.

 

[Chuditch]

What in your opinion shall we treat extinct in the wild species then? Shall we treat them just as any other species from the continent that they originate?

Yes. I use scimitar-horned oryxes in my Africa sections, and I’d have no issues with putting Père David’s deer in Asian sections. Again this is in regards to geographical representation, not importance to conservation (obviously they’re top priory there, but that’s not what we’re discussing).

 

[SalamAnders]

It’s about acknowledging what extinct in the wild status actually means.

I don't think anyone is not acknowledging the importance of this IUCN status. But it doesn't make sense to ignore where a species comes from, just because it is not there at the moment.

If we should no longer consider that the Père David’s deer comes from China, then how should we ever be able to re-introduce them?
If we should see them as not belonging anywhere then there is as much logic to set them free somewhere in South America, as to a specific place in China.
And we all know why putting species where they don't belong is a bad idea.

 

[Doran]

I would really like to know your opinions on that?

Poorly done in few minutes. Have other idea in mind atm.

Milu deer would get high score for distribution anyway, because its endemic to china. There is no doubt where it belongs.

If you really want to highlight its EW status then it should apply to conservation category, because thats whole point of it.

 

[UCKX]

Spectacled Caiman:
View attachment 331112

• Morphology: 0 - similar to the dwarf caiman
• Biome: 0 - similar to the dwarf caiman
• Distribution: 1 - found in central america unlike the dwarf caiman
• Conservation: 0 - LC by IUCN
• Popularity: 0 - not a well known animal
• Visual appeal: 1 - cool crocoilian
• Rarity in zoos: 1 - found in zoos
• Total: 3/14

Bruh and this one is the one that got on the game.

 

[FlameWizard492]

Walrus
Visual appeal - 1 (has by far the cutest face in the animal kingdom)

Debatable. I can think of a few that could give it a run for its money, such as quokkas, rabbits, capybaras, seals, ducklings, sloths, and the human baby, to name a few.