The import of the Tuatara from Chester Zoo was a prime example of this. They're held in multiple MZ facilities and breed readily, but it was easier to import from Europe for the reasons you mention.
Melbourne Zoo Future of Melbourne Zoo 2023 (Speculation / Fantasy)
- Thread starter Jambo
- Start date
- Status
The import of the Tuatara from Chester Zoo was a prime example of this. They're held in multiple MZ facilities and breed readily, but it was easier to import from Europe for the reasons you mention.
I'm always fascinated to see Komodo dragon, but a sedentary adult has held little interest to the general public on my visits to the zoo's that have held them.
I'd love to see a large island exhibit, combined with facilities showcasing their husbandry - in particular the raising of hatchlings. Potentially Melbourne could aspire to this.
PaddyRickMFZ
Well-Known Member
I think a mammal bias is in order, because majority of the general public enjoy megafauna to reptiles. It’s not that I don’t think Komodo are extremely popular, it’s just unlikely they will actually attract a crowd, especially since they are made to replace elephants. Hence my thought process in suggesting 1 hectares for orang-utans and Komodo’s, 1 for sloth bears and 0.5 for a tropical dome. This dome would likely feature Philippine crocodile and other smaller species, but could also house indoor quarters for Komodo dragon and orangutan if we are optimistic. After all, one acre is a fair bit of space for small animals
A mammals bias is clear amongst the general public. A common complaint on socials is from people visiting and not seeing species. It’s impossible to miss an elephant or a giraffe in a paddock, but if you look in a row of small lizard tanks, odds are you’re only see half of them - and even then, only if you have the patience to stand there and look (most people don’t).
Generally speaking, mammals are more enabling. People love to anthropomorphise and it’s easy to draw comparisons - either to people; or the animated counterpart of that species in a movie.
The majority of megafauna species live in a social group versus most reptiles which are solitary. Any exhibit that holds a lone animal (of any species) is naturally less engaging than one holding a pair or group. This has been particularly noticeable at Auckland Zoo since Anjalee left, leaving behind Burma as their sole elephant; and is the same case for most reptile exhibits.
PaddyRickMFZ
Well-Known Member
This is an unrelated note, but I just looked into some American zoos. Some zoos are approximately the same size as MZ, but have far more species and enclosures that are larger if not the same size. Albeit Australian zoos have exhibits that are more furnished, why is it that American zoos have so much space for all these amazing species. Cincinnati is an example, or even Toledo to some extent. Another question is how big is the water treatment plant? Doesn’t seem overly useful and must have some size to it considering it is where the bison were onece held. Can anyone inform me on these points?
Melbourne’s current ‘actual’ elephant complex is equivalent to just a little more than one acre though (probably one and a half to be absolutely fair). I’d argue a whole additional acre is taken up by the village, the butterfly house and the Squirrel Monkey/Education building area.
So in all honesty they only have one to one and a half acres. Not an absolute lot. If Orangutans were to receive an expansion they’d have to them choose one or the other; Bears or a Tropical Dome to have the remaining third (0.5 acre). That would involve the barns and the current unused forest area though.
PaddyRickMFZ
Well-Known Member
I was told that the entire complex including off display, barn and village equates to approximately 2.5 ha? Talk to @Zoofan15 for proof on that
Melbourne for example is 50 acres, but only has about 30 acres actually ‘apart’ of the zoo. There’s plenty of space off display which I consider unnecessary. Other zoos have shown they can compensate without them. But I guess most of it is history, there’s a lot of heritage listed buildings back there. So if only 3/5ths of Melbourne’s space is on display, you can see where there flaws lie.
Also the Water Treatment Plant area would be no more than half an acre imo. It’s not that big, but is a fair amount of space for a medium sized species. Although we would call it unnecessary it does have some substance to it and is incredibly useful to the zoo and ultimately supports Zoos Vic’s objectives so I doubt they’d demolish it anytime soon.
Melbourne (and Taronga) have been subject to rampant phase outs over the past decade - and Perth and Auckland Zoo are following suit. The rationale has been to provide those remaining with larger exhibits.
The greater variety of species in North America means they can make more efficienct use of space. Species can easily be sourced which can cohabit, whereas we’re limited to what we can import; and what we can import can’t always cohabit.
The final factor is the prevalence of kitch in our region’s zoos - airplanes and supermarkets at Taronga; Asian villages at Melbourne. They sound great in the zoo’s annual report waxing lyrical about public engagement; but from the perspective of people interested in zoos, they just take up valuable space.
That’s the size of the whole Trail of Elephants area; everything past the Tigers and Orangutans pretty much. Also includes the Bong Su Function Centre (and Tree Kangaroo enclosure) which I didn’t mention too.
And don’t forget Melbourne’s expansive lawns too which take up A LOT of space.
Can’t really be angry though, they are aesthetically nice for the zoo and can’t say I haven’t enjoyed something to eat on them before. 
The complex is 2.5 hectares, but @Jambo was referring to the elephant exhibits, which take up a fraction of that space.
Their dimensions are:
Enclosure 1 is 1050 m², including the 'village tank' pool that is about 150 m².
Encosure 2 is 1750 m².
Enclosure 3 is the bull yard of about 1100 m² including a small pool.
Source: ZooLex Exhibit - Trail of the Elephants
And don’t forget Melbourne’s expansive lawns too which take up A LOT of space.
Agreed. They contribute to Melbourne Zoo’s park like feel, which isn’t easy to generate in a city zoo. Visitors definitely appreciate them.
With the exception of Growing Wild (which in an ideal world would be bulldozed), Melbourne Zoo make efficient use of space considering the parameters that otherwise limit them.
I anticipate we’ll see examples of this in the complex replacing the elephants - be it terraces; or rotational island exhibits.
PaddyRickMFZ
Well-Known Member
Apologies, I thought you were referring to the entire elephant complex. The lawn adjacent to the peccaries could have so much potential, but if it contributes to the overall feel I can’t be too mad. Growing Wild however contributes nothing and has almost no redeeming factors. @Jambo stated there is quite a lot of back exhibit space not currently in use, which is a little disappointing. Would love to see that converted since there don’t seem to be too many current species in need of backstage breeding by areas(aside from snow leopard maybe). I hope when the elephants leave they won’t just be replaced, but the outline of the zoo revamped. One think I don’t understand is the Japanese garden, does it have an explicit purpose or is it just there?
No problem. There’s a lot of back of house exhibit space not being used - namely the back of house facilities servicing the Sumatran tiger exhibit. They’ve been useful in the past in managing the breeding of the two litters of cubs in 2006 and 2010 and I’d be happy to see a breeding pair brought in to utilise them again in the future; but it makes the housing of this species in the Carnviores precinct seem unnecessary imo.
The Japanese garden opened in 1991. It celebrates the tenth anniversary of the sister state relationship between Victoria and the prefecture of Aichi, Japan. Many cities (and zoos) worldwide have Japanese gardens for the same reason, though Auckland Zoo packed their’s away in a box because they needed the space for redevelopment.
The Sleepy Hippo
Well-Known Member
There's a tree kangaroo enclosure?
The back of house areas are quite useful. Melbourne's held an array of species off display over the years whether it's birds, monkeys or even small and big cats. You can't forget the many off display facilities they also have for the smaller endangered species they breed; insects, reptiles and the like. The main ones are behind the Tigers and I believe that's the main off display housing area. The area behind Growing Wild is mainly the 'lorry' area used for deliveries of food and the sort. The area behind the Gorilla Rainforest is then the 'staff' area with cottages for directors ect. and also education buildings. So everything sort of does have a use, Melbourne is Zoos Vic's 'headquarters' after all; so a lot of their senior office staff do work there too.
The Japanese Garden isn't overtly large so I don't have a problem with it. It's a nice little area and can be a cool place to sit down and watch the saimangs when they're on the island.
Yes, it’s adjacent to the function centre. Off display.
The Sleepy Hippo
Well-Known Member
Off display! Gotcha.
PaddyRickMFZ
Well-Known Member
Sorry I was just echoing what you said. I thought u were insinuating a lot of the space isn’t on use, but that was a misinterpretation on my part
- Status