Table Of ContentStandards for Data Entry
and Maintenance
of North American
©
Zoo and Aquarium Animal Records Databases
Standardized for ARKS3
Edited by
Joanne M. Earnhardt
Steven D. Thompson, PhD
Ginny Turner-Erfort
Published by
Lincoln Park Zoo
2001 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60614
USA
1998
organized and supported by
LINCOLN PARK ZOO
with additional support from
Institute of Museum and Library Services - Conservation Project Grant (#IC-60120-96)
Chicago Park District - The Lincoln Park Zoological Society
Central Park Wildlife Center
Chicago Zoological Park
Columbus Zoological Gardens
Detroit Zoological Park
Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo
The Living Desert
Milwaukee County Zoological Gardens
National Zoological Park
The Phoenix Zoo
Philadelphia Zoological Garden
Riverbanks Zoological Park
Roger Williams Park Zoo
San Francisco Zoological Gardens
Toledo Zoological Gardens
Wildlife Conservation Society
Woodland Park Zoological Gardens
Zoo Atlanta
and
American Zoo and Aquarium Association
International Species Information System
United Airlines
Zoo Registrars Association
Project Leaders
Joanne M. Earnhardt, Conservation Biologist and Registrar, Lincoln Park Zoo
Steven D. Thompson, PhD, Director of Conservation and Science, Lincoln Park Zoo
Thank you to the following who assisted in the development of these guidelines:
Beth Bahner, Animal Collections Manager, Philadelphia Zoological Garden
Jon Ballou, PhD, Population Manager, National Zoological Park
Gretchen Bickert, Registrar, Columbus Zoological Gardens
Nanette Bragin, Registrar, The Phoenix Zoo
Terri Correll, Curator of Animals, The Living Desert
Anita Cramm, Curator of Birds, Lincoln Park Zoo
Ed Diebold, Director of Animal Collections, Riverbanks Zoological Park
Glenous Favata, Registrar, Toledo Zoological Gardens
Nilda Ferrer, Registrar, Wildlife Conservation Society
Lucy Greer, Registrar, Chicago Zoological Park
Veronica Hawk, Registrar, Zoo Atlanta
Jay Hemdal, Curator of Fishes and Invertebrates, Toledo Zoological Gardens
Fred Koontz, PhD, Director of the Science Resource Center, Wildlife Conservation Society
Anna Marie Lyles, PhD, Associate Curator of Animals, Central Park Wildlife Center
Adrienne Miller, Registrar, Roger Williams Park Zoo
Diane Mulkerin, Collection Manager, Lincoln Park Zoo
Karin Newman, Registrar, Milwaukee County Zoological Gardens
R. Andrew Odum, Curator of Herpetology, Toledo Zoological Gardens
Lori Perkins, Director of Conservation Technology, Zoo Atlanta
Warren Pryor, Animal Curator, Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo
Leslie Saul Gershenz, Insect Zoo Director, San Francisco Zoological Gardens
Bob Seibels, Curator of Birds, Riverbanks Zoological Park
Andy Snider, Curator of Herpetology, Detroit Zoo
Ginny Turner-Erfort, Project Coordinator, Lincoln Park Zoo
Alan Varsik, Collection Manager, Lincoln Park Zoo
Wendy Wienker, Registrar, Woodland Park Zoological Gardens
Kevin Willis, Avian Conservation Manager, Minnesota Zoological Garden
Nate Flesness, Larry Grahn, Mike Kelly, Steph Porter,
Paul Scobie, and Cris Wilson at
International Species Information System
We gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments of :
Jean Miller, Judith Block, Marvin Jones, and Carol Bach
FORWARD
Zoos and aquariums are guardians of captive wildlife populations; animal records databases
are tools that assist animal management staff and population biologists in providing the best possible
care for these animals and their respective populations. Accurate and unambiguous data permit
informed decisions for conservation and management of the species and specimens in our care.
A recent study suggested that inconsistencies and errors among and within animal records
databases at individual institutions limit the applicability of these databases and databases derived
from institutional records (e.g., studbooks, the International Species Inventory System [ISIS] database)
for species management, global planning, and Regional Collection Plans. Inconsistent data entry
practices by institutional records keepers were identified as a primary source of errors and
inconsistencies in all types of animal records databases (Earnhardt et al. 1995). This variation in
records quality can be significantly reduced through the adoption of standardized protocols for data
entry. Standardized data entry protocols should improve communication among institutions wishing to
exchange or acquire specimens, improve population management and permit preservation of greater
amounts of genetic diversity, and reduce curatorial and records keeping time devoted to correction
and/or verification of incomplete, incorrect, or incongruous records. In short, standardized records
procedures should improve institutional operations. The present document is the result of a
cooperative effort by many individuals and institutions to develop standards and guidelines for entry of
animal records data in North America.
Development of these standards and guidelines was supported by a grant from the Institute of
Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Grant support was obtained (August 1996) and the project was
initiated (January 1997) to develop standards and to produce guidelines to implement these standards
using the ARKS3 software (Animal Records Keeping System, version 3). ARKS3 was expected to be
the industry standard for at least the next 3-5 years. During the 18-month course of the project, ISIS
began to develop new institutional records keeping software to replace ARKS3. Although this new
software is scheduled for release in August 1998, the present project could not develop guidelines
specific to this new software. However, the transition from ARKS2 to ARKS3 was very slow and it is
likely that the transition from ARKS3 to the new software will also be slow. Thus, it is likely that before
the new software enjoys widespread use, these guidelines will be used by many institutions and will do
much to standardize records keeping practices over the next 2-3 years.
The development of the standards and guidelines proceeded through several stages. Stage
one was a general assessment of records keeping issues; this included a survey of North American
regional records keepers and a comparison of institutional, studbook and ISIS central databases. The
second phase was a series of workshops aimed at identifying additional issues and developing taxon
specific standards for mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. The third stage
entailed documentation of the developing guidelines; this was written and reviewed by participants
throughout the workshop process. The fourth stage was finalization of the written guidelines via a
workshop and technical editing.
Because the data are used throughout the zoological community, these standards and
guidelines were developed as a consensus effort with contributions from a group of 27 zoo and
aquarium professionals that included registrars, collection managers, curators, software experts, and
population biologists with special expertise in the management of small populations. In addition, a draft
of the guidelines was reviewed by representatives of 20 regional or international records and
conservation offices. The objective throughout the project was to build a consensus tactic for
standardizing (1) each data entry option in ARKS3 and (2) entry of important data that have no clear
analog in the ARKS3 data structure. In some cases, because of constraints imposed by the structure
or function of ARKS3, it was impossible to make a recommendation that satisfactorily records the
desired information in a completely unambiguous manner. Thus, in many cases, a compromise was
devised to facilitate consistent entry of a specific data type across all institutions. To the skilled
i
records keeper, many of these compromises may seem awkward or obscure. Nevertheless, it was the
consensus of the project participants that each recommendation represents the best possible means
of ensuring that each institution enters data in an identical manner and that interpretation of data
among and within institutions is unambiguous.
Future modifications or clarifications to the guidelines will be possible and users are
encouraged to submit suggests for additions, corrections, or other changes to existing sections.
Updated pages or sections will be distributed to all users on a regular basis.
Institutions that use the guidelines in their routine record keeping will contribute to higher
quality records for all animal records databases. Use of these standards and guidelines will require a
commitment from records keepers and the staff that support the institution’s animal records data.
However, dedication of these resources will ultimately increase our efficient and effective use of data
and improve the quality of our animal management at all levels.
Joanne M. Earnhardt Steven D. Thompson
Conservation Biologist and Registrar Director of Conservation and Science
Lincoln Park Zoo Lincoln Park Zoo
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
Forward i
Table of Contents iii
Use of This Manual 1
The Big Picture: Why Records and Data Quality are Important 2
BACKGROUND
What is an Institutional Animal Records Database? 5
The Role of a Records Keeper/Registrar 6
Background on ARKS3 7
Data Flow and Data Management 9
The Role of Daily Reports 11
DATA QUALITY
Truth and Fiction 12
Relationship Between Institutional Animal Records Databases 16
and Studbooks
Relationship Between Institutional Records Databases 18
and ISIS3 Database
Relationships Between Institutional Records Systems 19
When and How to Use Data Integrity Checks 20
When to Enter Unknown 25
Missing Data Reports 26
DATA ENTRY in ARKS3
What and When to Accession 28
Accession Numbers: What and Why 35
How to Enter Taxonomic Name 37
How to Enter Hybrids 40
How to Enter Birth 41
How to Enter Acquisitions from the Wild 43
How to Enter Acquisition as Follows 46
How to Enter Sire and Dam ID 48
How to Estimate and Enter Dates 52
iii
How to Enter Birth Dates 57
How to Enter Sex 60
How to Enter Birth Type 62
How to Enter Rearing 63
How to Enter Vendor or Recipient Institution
and Vendor or Recipient Specimen ID 66
How to Enter Dispositions 69
How to Enter Death Codes 73
How to Enter Identifiers 75
How to Enter Weight and Length Information 79
How to Use the Enclosure System 81
Comment Codes 86
How to Use and Enter Management Plan Information 94
When and How to Enter Groups 95
How to Enter Historical Specimens 99
References 101
APPENDICES
1. EGGS Software 102
2. How to Measure Weight and Length 103
3. Transponder Implantation Site Recommendations 106
4. Glossary 108
5. Sample Daily Report 111
6. Sample Specimen Reports 112
iv
Use of This Manual
This manual is separated into five sections. The first section is an overview of institutional
animal records and their role in the captive breeding community. The second section presents
background and perspective on institutional animal records. The third section focuses on data quality
issues which are central to the guidelines. The fourth section contains the standards and guidelines
(descriptions) for data entry. The appendices contain additional information that may be helpful in
implementing the standards.
Each chapter is focused on a specific topic. However, despite attempts to maintain this focus,
substantial overlap of concepts and techniques is presented in separate chapters. Every effort has
been made to cross reference material between chapters and it is highly recommended that the reader
examine all cross referenced sections.
The manual will benefit both experienced and novice records keepers. Most of these
standards have been in use for many years, but have not been codified. Other standards are new and
will require some changes in record keeping procedures. Every effort should be made for each
institution to adopt these standards without retention of historical practices or customization for
individual preferences. If possible, historical records should be changed to conform with the new
standards, with the highest priority for change going to studbook species.
The manual uses the following conventions: ARKS3 field names (the name or type of data
entered) will be presented as <BOLD CAPS INSIDE ARROWS>. Information that should be entered
into a field (i.e., what is typed or selected during data entry) will be presented as {CAPITALS INSIDE
BRACKETS}. Items selected from menus or windows in ARKS3 will be shown in Italics With Initial
Letters In Capitals. Important concepts or actions will be in bold italics or in boxes.
Throughout this manual the reader will be guided by a pair of ducks, Data Duck and Danger
Duck. Data Duck will emphasize key points in record keeping practices. Danger Duck will alert the
reader to data entry problems that could compromise the integrity of records.
INTRODUCING:
DATA DUCK DANGER DUCK
1
The Big Picture:
Why Records and Data Quality are Important
Animal records form the permanent history of an institution’s animal collection. In the past, the
purpose of such records was unclear and few institutions had formal protocols for what to record or
how to record it. In many cases, institutional policies were vague and record keeping was a curatorial
responsibility; thus, records varied greatly in content and quality as each curator decided what should
and should not be recorded. For the most part, at the institutional level, the early emphases were on
inventory aspects: acquisition and disposition and related costs. Identification of individual specimens
was not a high priority as most curators and keepers “knew their collection”; relatively few animals were
born in captivity and even fewer moved between institutions. Moreover, animal collection staff typically
held jobs for long periods of time, and their successors learned about the collection and husbandry
practices by “coming up through the ranks.”
The current importance of records began to take shape starting in the mid-1970s. Several
divergent factors led institutions to develop more formal institutional records keeping policies: federal
regulations began to require more detailed information on permit reports, veterinary care improved
greatly and treatment became more proactive, importations of wild-caught animals began to decline,
and captive breeding success began to increase. The result was that identification and tracking of
individual specimens became more difficult and more important to zoo operations. It was this complex
tangle of legal and husbandry issues, not the least of which was basic genetic management such as
avoiding breeding of close relatives, that conspired to increase the need for more detailed and more
accurate information on individual specimens.
The value of each specimen (in the sense of how willingly other institutions will accept
it or its offspring) is now tightly linked to its individual identity and history. A specimen’s record
affects an institution’s ability to manage it effectively with respect to eventual disposition (e.g.,
loan, sale, donation), medical costs, and participation in cooperative conservation programs.
The less known about a specimen’s history, including previous medical treatment, exposure to
disease situations, breeding success, and pedigree, the more its value is diminished.
Detailed records are now essential for internal and external functions at every institution.
Internally, records are used to track husbandry practices, medical treatments and histories, potential
exposures to disease or mates, and events required for various local, regional, and federal permits for
possession, transport, and display of threatened, endangered, or potentially injurious wildlife.
Externally, records are exchanged with other institutions and a central database at ISIS. Use of
these data depends on their presentation in a common language (format) that is readily interpretable
by others. These records are used for cooperative breeding programs, by scientists conducting
research, by other zoos, aquariums, and by governmental authorities regulating importation and
exportation of specimens across state and international boundaries.
Management of zoo animals now typically involves more than one institution. Communication
among institutions requires good records and scientific management of animals. Animals are the
cornerstones of the zoo and aquarium profession and the accurate inventory of those animals,
including individual status and history, should be a major priority of every institution. Each day key
legal and financial decisions are based on the presumptions that zoo records are complete, accurate,
and exchangeable (interpretable) from one institution to the next. Businesses that deal with animals
have long known the benefit of complete and accurate records. Animal scientists, whose research is
applied to improve livestock production, know this and spend tremendous amounts of money on
2
scientific research. Individual histories and pedigrees are key elements in this research and in the
daily operations of most livestock businesses.
The costs of poor animal records may be substantial. First, there are the genetic risks of
inadvertent inbreeding due to uncertain (or incorrect) parentage: increased birth defects, lowered
survival of infants, and lowered reproductive success are the most obvious and most costly effects of
these pedigree problems. In addition to these genetic consequences, operational costs are associated
with incorrect or uncertain pedigrees, either of which may have significant effects on institutional
budgets or operations. Because cooperative management programs rely on data derived from zoo
records, poor quality records may result in unnecessary moves (thus incurring shipping costs and
risks) or incorrect recommendations not to breed. Second, management may be hindered if
husbandry history, particularly medical or behavioral problems, is not carefully documented. Third,
legal citations for incomplete or inaccurate records can lead to costly fines and embarrassing
suspensions of permits. Lastly, poor record keeping hinders improvements in animal management and
husbandry. Few programs make good use of the husbandry and other data available from institutional
records. As a result, there are not only missed opportunities for improving animal husbandry but also
misallocation of efforts to improve husbandry by focusing on problems that are not supported by
accurate data.
Despite the clear needs and advantages, the importance of animal records, and their accuracy
and precision, are underappreciated by the zoo community. In some quarters these issues are either
taken for granted or treated with amusement. Few realize the complexity of the records keeping task;
even fewer appreciate the effect of bad records. There are three key issues involving the acceptance
that must be addressed before the accuracy and reliability of animal records will become adequate for
either internal or external use. First, administrators must appreciate the importance and complexity of
records keeping and maintenance of a single institutional (rather than departmental) database.
Although the animal collection is the key to most zoo and aquarium operations, more time and effort
are usually spent on accounting and inventory of retail goods or overall budget and finances than on
animal records. Regardless of how large an animal collection is, few institutions have more than one
animal records keeper — many assign records keeping tasks for the entire institution to a curatorial or
veterinary staff member whose primary job responsibilities are in animal management. Records
keeping is essentially the “accounting department for animals” and should be accorded the appropriate
resources for the size and scope of the collection. Just as each institution maintains a central
accounting ledger, regardless of whether individual departments track their revenues and
expenditures, each institution should embrace a single animal records database as its official record.
Second, zoo and aquarium professionals must realize that they can no longer rely on experience or
memory alone to track individual specimens; human memories can, and will be lost or corrupted by
time. Nor can they rely on clever, quirky, or unique records keeping procedures that rely on the
individual knowledge or experience of records keeping and other staff. It is no longer sufficient for an
institution to depend on individual staff members to recall or describe where information is recorded or,
more important, how to retrieve it. Third, standards must be developed to guide institutional records
keepers in the creation and maintenance of permanent, unambiguous records keeping databases that
are readily interpretable, without explanation, by any trained records keeper. Electronic record
keeping is moving out of its infancy. Until recently, few records keeping positions had turned over;
many of the pioneers in North American electronic records keeping still hold their original records
keeping position. Yet without standards, as these pioneers change jobs or retire, their successors will
be faced with the difficult task of unraveling the non-standard aspects of an institution’s paper and
electronic databases. The modern zoo or aquarium just has too much turnover - in collection and staff
- to permit accurate record keeping without rigorous data entry and maintenance protocols that
standardize record keeping within and between institutions. This is evident in the difficulties faced by
many new records keepers, most of whom struggle not only to interpret historical records, but also to
decipher or invent institutional protocols for data entry.
Even without the latter concerns, with more than 180 records keepers entering data and
3
Description:informed decisions for conservation and management of the species and
specimens in our care. A recent study suggested that inconsistencies and errors
