International Giant Otter Studbook Husbandry and Management

emaining 3 institutions bred otters, but they did not rear them successfully. These zoos were
Chestnut Centre, who only had aborted pre-mature fetuses, Parque del Este in Caracas, who did
not mention that they provided privacy for any of their 9 failed litters, and Dortmund Zoo where
no litter is expected to survive (see above). These three zoos do not fit into the “successful”
category, so information from these zoos was not used to base conclusions on. Although the
number of total known zoos that have bred otters is small, this has to be compared to the small
population and small number of holding zoos that have existed historically. This also has to be
compared to the small number of animals that are/were held as mated pairs. For example worldwide,
between 2002 and 2003 there were only 25 otters (or 51%) that were in a mated situation,
out of the total of 49 otters who were 2 years old or older.
In 1971, Sao Paulo Zoo found and published later (Autuori and Deutsch 1977), that when they
provided isolation from human disturbances and presence, a litter was reared with success. Sao
Paulo did not achieve this until they used this method during cub-rearing. (No further reports
about management methods used for two litters born after their success were available.)
Twenty-one years later another zoo (Hagenbecks Tierpark) first published their research
(Hagenbeck and Wünnemann 1992) stating that when parents were rearing litters, privacy from
human disturbance and presence was the most important management factor needed to promote
successful cub-rearing at their institution. (They too did not have success until and unless they
used this method.) “Despite optimal feeding, comprehensive vaccinations and control of
parasites breeding results have been unsatisfactory….In total there were 42 otter pups born [i.e.
from one of their multiple breeding pairs], of which 6 (14.2%) were either still born or did not
survive the first two days of life. Sadly, only nine animals reached adulthood. There were
multifaceted causes of death. Foremost among necropsy results are malnutrition,
bronchopneumonia and enteritis. We suspect, based on our unfortunate experiences, that the
actual cause of death in almost all cases involved stress to the mother animal and consequent
milk deficiency. Secondary causes were pups weakened due to various microorganism
infestations.” (translation of Flügger 1997). “Normally, giant otters are curious of visitors and
don’t feel disturbed by their presence. This changes completely when they have cubs. At this
time they are more vulnerable against disturbance than all felid mothers (!)…” (Wünnemann
1995). Hagenbeck was the first zoo to use video cameras (with microphones) to monitor giant
otter cub development and health and parental care without disturbance to the parents. In 1992,
they recommended that this management technique be used at other institutions as well and they
discussed these points in their future publications, based on continuing research at Hagenbecks
Tierpark (Wünnemann 1995; Flügger 1997).
The other zoos, with successfully reared litters demonstrated or found that isolation from human
disturbance and presence promoted successful cub-rearing, but from what is known at this time
(September 2003), they did not publish anything about these matters. It is important to note that
none of these zoos, unless the “exhibit design” alone naturally permitted isolation, had
successful litters until and unless this management method was purposely offered when parents
were rearing litters.
Since the first successfully reared litter in Sao Paulo in 1971, 27 more years passed before it was
found that privacy from human disturbances and presence during cub-rearing is the most
important management factor responsible for successful parent-rearing of giant otter litters in
zoos world-wide and historically (Sykes 1997-99; Sykes-Gatz 1998/2002 and 2001 &
unpublished reports, 2003).
25