Conservation work of Australian zoos

The Sleepy Hippo said:
I don't know - Melbourne Zoo/ Zoos Vic does more for animal conservation than any other zoos in th region. That always leaves me quite satisfied :D
Click to expand...

Do they? I don't think they do
They may provide a lot of conservation funding but that's not due to exceptional zoo management, purely being located in one of Australia's largest cities with a high population will do that for you.

Breeding-wise Melbourne definitely isn't outperforming other zoos, plenty of smaller zoos with less funding have produced more endangered species over the past few years than Melbourne and Taronga.

Personally, I think Melbourne and Taronga are overrated and slowly transforming into 'animal adventure parks' rather than traditional zoos, which is fine if that's their business model. Also, I'm not including Werribee or TWPZ, just isolating Taronga and Melbourne alone.
 
Swanson02 said:
Do they? I don't think they do
They may provide a lot of conservation funding but that's not due to exceptional zoo management, purely being located in one of Australia's largest cities with a high population will do that for you.

Breeding-wise Melbourne definitely isn't outperforming other zoos, plenty of smaller zoos with less funding have produced more endangered species over the past few years than Melbourne and Taronga.

Personally, I think Melbourne and Taronga are overrated and slowly transforming into 'animal adventure parks' rather than traditional zoos, which is fine if that's their business model. Also, I'm not including Werribee or TWPZ, just isolating Taronga and Melbourne alone.
Click to expand...
We can agree to disagree then. I did say Zoos Victoria, so I am including all 4 sites, and stand by what I said. I do think ZV does more conservation than any other zoological entity. MZ may not individually do this, but I would argue that it is the 1 of the 4 sites that pays for the works of the other 3.
But again, we can disagree. :D
 
Swanson02 said:
pffft!!! Melbourne and Sydney coming to the rescue?!! Melbourne and Taronga have been going backwards for years now, two most overhyped zoos in the country imo. I don't know why so many threads on here are dedicated to them considering they disapoint us time and time again. If anything is going to save Mandrill it would be our small regional zoos that keep doing the heavy lifting like Altina and Darling Downs.
Click to expand...
I would have to agree completely both zoos have been slipping backwards for years unfortunately
 
Swanson02 said:
Do they? I don't think they do
They may provide a lot of conservation funding but that's not due to exceptional zoo management, purely being located in one of Australia's largest cities with a high population will do that for you.

Breeding-wise Melbourne definitely isn't outperforming other zoos, plenty of smaller zoos with less funding have produced more endangered species over the past few years than Melbourne and Taronga.

Personally, I think Melbourne and Taronga are overrated and slowly transforming into 'animal adventure parks' rather than traditional zoos, which is fine if that's their business model. Also, I'm not including Werribee or TWPZ, just isolating Taronga and Melbourne alone.
Click to expand...
I believe your assessment is right on point!
 
Swanson02 said:
Do they? I don't think they do
They may provide a lot of conservation funding but that's not due to exceptional zoo management, purely being located in one of Australia's largest cities with a high population will do that for you.

Breeding-wise Melbourne definitely isn't outperforming other zoos, plenty of smaller zoos with less funding have produced more endangered species over the past few years than Melbourne and Taronga.

Personally, I think Melbourne and Taronga are overrated and slowly transforming into 'animal adventure parks' rather than traditional zoos, which is fine if that's their business model. Also, I'm not including Werribee or TWPZ, just isolating Taronga and Melbourne alone.
Click to expand...

Alright I’ve stayed silent for a while but this is where I draw the line. I am very critical of Melbourne Zoo (and to a much lesser extent Taronga), and how their collection has diminished over the last decade and more and a lot of it is very fair criticism, many exhibits have been left empty for far too long and especially for Melbourne there isn’t a clear plan for life after Elephants, however both of these zoos have made positive steps in the right direction in the last six months (Melbourne with lots of bird, reptile and native mammal acquisitions and Taronga with their new nocturnal and soon to be opened reptile house), and that should be acknowledged.

More importantly, I find that this site undersells their conservation efforts, yes they may not be ‘big ticket exotic mammals’, yes they get a fair amount of resources and funding to do so but the sheer amount of successful species management programs, both in-situ and ex-situ set up by these two zoos is amazing and more are being added every year. Highlights include the very successful Orange Bellied Parrot breeding program which helps maintain numbers of that species in the wild, Taronga Zoo’s Bellinger River Turtle program which is responsible for the vast majority of turtles left in the wild after they were nearly wiped out by a virus, several programs for native frogs
and of course, the rediscovery and breeding of the Victorian Grassland Earless Dragon. The statement that smaller zoos have been doing more conservation than Melbourne and Taronga is simply untrue, smaller zoos still have an important role in conservation though as places such as Moonlit Sanctuary have shown.
 
Yoshistar888 said:
Alright I’ve stayed silent for a while but this is where I draw the line. I am very critical of Melbourne Zoo (and to a much lesser extent Taronga), and how their collection has diminished over the last decade and more and a lot of it is very fair criticism, many exhibits have been left empty for far too long and especially for Melbourne there isn’t a clear plan for life after Elephants, however both of these zoos have made positive steps in the right direction in the last six months (Melbourne with lots of bird, reptile and native mammal acquisitions and Taronga with their new nocturnal and soon to be opened reptile house), and that should be acknowledged.

More importantly, I find that this site undersells their conservation efforts, yes they may not be ‘big ticket exotic mammals’, yes they get a fair amount of resources and funding to do so but the sheer amount of successful species management programs, both in-situ and ex-situ set up by these two zoos is amazing and more are being added every year. Highlights include the very successful Orange Bellied Parrot breeding program which helps maintain numbers of that species in the wild, Taronga Zoo’s Bellinger River Turtle program which is responsible for the vast majority of turtles left in the wild after they were nearly wiped out by a virus, several programs for native frogs
and of course, the rediscovery and breeding of the Victorian Grassland Earless Dragon. The statement that smaller zoos have been doing more conservation than Melbourne and Taronga is simply untrue, smaller zoos still have an important role in conservation though as places such as Moonlit Sanctuary have shown.
Click to expand...
Thoroughly agree, Zoos Victoria and Taronga both put a considerable amount of dedication and resources towards their conservation efforts. It shouldn't be undermined.

Although it can be argued their conservation efforts may drastically lean towards native species, that isn't always be a bad thing. As you've highlighted they've worked extensively in past decades to help revive native programs in the wild and ensure their survival. I know a wonderful lady who leaded the Eastern Barred Bandicoot campaign within Zoos Vic, and thanks to her and the team they've managed to get the Bandicoots downgraded to 'endangered' after they were presumed to be extinct in the wild. Amazing effort, and they now have Bandicoots back out in the wild, in protected reserves, hopefully with further increase of success still to come.

Most of the trails at Melbourne also have a strong conservation message intertwined with them, that is consistently displayed throughout the trail, with interactive displays and the like. Gorilla Rainforest has the 'Calling for you' campaign, TOTE has 'Don't palm us off', Wild Seas has 'Seal the loop', Australian Bush has 'Wipe for wildlife' and the Carnivores trail has 'Safe cats, safe wildlife'. A heavy amount of commitment towards education and conservation; and I think Melbourne have done an awesome job educating the Victorian public on these conservation issues. Back when I was at school, we even had a program for donating old Mobile phones to support the gorillas are calling for you campaign.

Although Melbourne's collection is rather underwhelming, I don't think it takes away from the conservation success they've had and continue to have. The species they've lost don't have specific conservation programs dedicated for them (at least regionally), and in turn they have actually acquired a fair amount of species within the past decade that do align with their conservation efforts and programs.
 
Yoshistar888 said:
Alright I’ve stayed silent for a while but this is where I draw the line. I am very critical of Melbourne Zoo (and to a much lesser extent Taronga), and how their collection has diminished over the last decade and more and a lot of it is very fair criticism, many exhibits have been left empty for far too long and especially for Melbourne there isn’t a clear plan for life after Elephants, however both of these zoos have made positive steps in the right direction in the last six months (Melbourne with lots of bird, reptile and native mammal acquisitions and Taronga with their new nocturnal and soon to be opened reptile house), and that should be acknowledged.

More importantly, I find that this site undersells their conservation efforts, yes they may not be ‘big ticket exotic mammals’, yes they get a fair amount of resources and funding to do so but the sheer amount of successful species management programs, both in-situ and ex-situ set up by these two zoos is amazing and more are being added every year. Highlights include the very successful Orange Bellied Parrot breeding program which helps maintain numbers of that species in the wild, Taronga Zoo’s Bellinger River Turtle program which is responsible for the vast majority of turtles left in the wild after they were nearly wiped out by a virus, several programs for native frogs
and of course, the rediscovery and breeding of the Victorian Grassland Earless Dragon. The statement that smaller zoos have been doing more conservation than Melbourne and Taronga is simply untrue, smaller zoos still have an important role in conservation though as places such as Moonlit Sanctuary have shown.
Click to expand...

And yet Perth zoo, Alice springs dessert park, featherdale/mogo/hunter valley, Australia zoos all absolutely wipe the floor with taronga and Melbourne zoos. Just because the large zoos have entire PR teams to spin good news stories, and have ability other facilities don't have to step in and collect wild animals. Doesn't mean they are conservation power houses. Im not sure about Melbourne. But out side koalas, corroboree frogs and bellingen river turtles what else is taronga doing ? All other campaigns taronga deals with for exist conservation is hinged on taronga western plains zoo.

In comparison feather dale wildlife park, before the acquisition of mogo or hunter valley zoo. Was part of the Tasmanian devil, swift parrot, regent honey eater, spotted quoll, golden shouldered parrots, to name a few. Which is still more then taronga zoo which is exponentially larger in space, income and ability.

The stamens that our smaller private zoos are doing more is exactly on the money. You look at places like Moonlite sanctuary, central coast reptile park etc and there native programs are much more extensive but far less in notoriety due to there lessened PR teams.

For the flagship large zoos with the reputations they have. The actual work they are doing conservation wise is shrinking drastically. Conservation doesn't make money, it only justifies a zoos existence. And for at least the last decade these two are very vocal at the small programs they do work with. While collapsing the conservation projects they once had/or took part in.
That doesn't under mine the conservation work they do actually do. Which for the relevant species is crucial. But there participation in native regional programs and exceedingly underwhelming.
 
i don't know enough about Taronga, so I won't speak about it, but I will stand up for Zoos Victoria here:

Firstly, (as has been said previously on this thread), Zoos Victoria are the entity with the power to undertake conservation programs (not Melbourne Zoo, or WORZ - they are just branches of the larger organization).

Zoos Victoria are actively trying to protect 27 different Australian native species - here they are:

1. Alpine She-oak Skink
2. Baw Baw Frog
3. Brush Tailed Rock Wallaby
4. Eastern Barred Bandicoot
5. Giant Burrowing Frog
6. Golden Rayed Blue Butterfly
7. Grassland Earless Dragon
8. Guthega Skink
9. Helmeted Honeyeater
10. Key's Matchstick Grasshopper
11. Large Brown Tree Frog
12. Leadbeaters Possum
13. Lord Howe Stick Insect
14. Mallee Emu Wren
15. Mountain Pygmy Possum
16. Northern Corroboree Frog
17. Orange Bellied Parrot
18. Plains Wanderer
19. New Holland Mouse
20. Regent Honeyeater
21. Smoky Mouse
22. Southern Bent Wing Bat
23. Southern Corroboree Frog
24. Spotted Tree Frog
25. Southern Barred Frog
26. Swift Parrot
27. Tasmanian Devil

Here is a link about this on the ZV website too: Local threatened species (zoo.org.au)

When I went to look this list up, I had thought there were 20 species on it - as there were around 10 years ago, but now that list is at 27.... (that's 7 more than 10 years ago).

On top of that, you can throw in the breeding work they are doing with:

28. Oryx
29. Prezwalski Horse
30. Asian Elephant
31. White Rhino
32. Snow Leopard
33. Gorilla
(just to name a few that I can think of off the top of my head)

Add in the conservation campaigns over the years ("They're calling on you", "Don't palm us off", "Beads for Wildlife" to name a few).

What more does Zoos Victoria have to do??? Rewild the entire world? Plant 2 billion trees? Breed 1000 white rhinos and put them back into the wild?

I understand that people on here don't like the fact that Melbourne Zoo display less species than they did 30, 20 or even 10 years ago - but MZ are not about displaying a lot of species - they are NOT a traditional zoo in that sense: Zoos Victoria is a "Zoo based CONSERVATION ORGANISATION" - this is how this organization see themselves and define themselves. Their moto is "Fighting Extinction" - this is what they are about.

If you don't like this approach, then fair enough - they aren't the zoo(s) for you. However, to suggest that this organization doesn't do much for conservation is simply a ridiculous suggestion.
 
Tiger91 said:
And yet Perth zoo, Alice springs dessert park, featherdale/mogo/hunter valley, Australia zoos all absolutely wipe the floor with taronga and Melbourne zoos. Just because the large zoos have entire PR teams to spin good news stories, and have ability other facilities don't have to step in and collect wild animals. Doesn't mean they are conservation power houses. Im not sure about Melbourne. But out side koalas, corroboree frogs and bellingen river turtles what else is taronga doing ? All other campaigns taronga deals with for exist conservation is hinged on taronga western plains zoo.

In comparison feather dale wildlife park, before the acquisition of mogo or hunter valley zoo. Was part of the Tasmanian devil, swift parrot, regent honey eater, spotted quoll, golden shouldered parrots, to name a few. Which is still more then taronga zoo which is exponentially larger in space, income and ability.

The stamens that our smaller private zoos are doing more is exactly on the money. You look at places like Moonlite sanctuary, central coast reptile park etc and there native programs are much more extensive but far less in notoriety due to there lessened PR teams.

For the flagship large zoos with the reputations they have. The actual work they are doing conservation wise is shrinking drastically. Conservation doesn't make money, it only justifies a zoos existence. And for at least the last decade these two are very vocal at the small programs they do work with. While collapsing the conservation projects they once had/or took part in.
That doesn't under mine the conservation work they do actually do. Which for the relevant species is crucial. But there participation in native regional programs and exceedingly underwhelming.
Click to expand...
Except none of those zoos do as much as ZV. They do great work but none do the same amount. I'll concede that hit helps that they have the space, the money and government backing to fund and maintain their efforts which smaller zoos need to fund independently.

And contrary to what you said about them collapsing their conservation programs, to the contrary, since 2011 (and probably before that) when they changed direction to being, as @Grant_Rhino said, a zoo based conservation organisation, their conservation programs have only been expanding and growing.

But at the end of the day it is a team effort and I think the vast majority of our zoos and conservation parks are doing a wonderful job.

Also we probably should keep this thread focused on Adelaide Zoo, which itself does great work in conservation and fighting extinction.
 
Without further diverting the discussion, just wanted to agree with the comments about the work conservation work by Taronga and Melbourne.
I mainly watch this site, but felt the need to comment too, yet Grant Rhino got in first.

it is disappointing to see some quite bewildering comments in the last two weeks here about zoos that can be quickly proven untrue. We can dislike or be disappointed in a zoo and the direction they are taking, but wild statements like this and the one about Australia zoo last week can really demean the good nature of discussions. It is all good to have a view, but make sure it is backed up by fact.

Anyway, hopefully talk can get back to Adelaide zoo. I was speaking to someone today who spent a week behind the scenes at the zoo last week, there are some really exciting things in the pipeline, which I know will bring some great discussion and thoughts.
 
The Sleepy Hippo said:
Except none of those zoos do as much as ZV. They do great work but none do the same amount. I'll concede that hit helps that they have the space, the money and government backing to fund and maintain their efforts which smaller zoos need to fund independently.

And contrary to what you said about them collapsing their conservation programs, to the contrary, since 2011 (and probably before that) when they changed direction to being, as @Grant_Rhino said, a zoo based conservation organisation, their conservation programs have only been expanding and growing.

But at the end of the day it is a team effort and I think the vast majority of our zoos and conservation parks are doing a wonderful job.

Also we probably should keep this thread focused on Adelaide Zoo, which itself does great work in conservation and fighting extinction.
Click to expand...

Zoos vic was never in question it was Melbourne and taronga zoos as there own entities. Both majour zoos and both sit on there respective sister sites to carry them. When in reality small private zoos are doing more. Big flashy campaigns won't change this.

There conservation programs are in collapse, neither Melbourne or taronga take on the level of in house conservation breeding that they once did. Especially with there reduction in species held. Whether native or exotic both sites have reduced there conservation participation, in the name of concentrating on what's important. But when private zoos do more, questions have to be asked are they doing enough. From my perspective, both zoos have underwhelming efforts and are relying on programs run by there sister sites.
 
Tiger91 said:
Zoos vic was never in question it was Melbourne and taronga zoos as there own entities. Both majour zoos and both sit on there respective sister sites to carry them. When in reality small private zoos are doing more. Big flashy campaigns won't change this.

There conservation programs are in collapse, neither Melbourne or taronga take on the level of in house conservation breeding that they once did. Especially with there reduction in species held. Whether native or exotic both sites have reduced there conservation participation, in the name of concentrating on what's important. But when private zoos do more, questions have to be asked are they doing enough. From my perspective, both zoos have underwhelming efforts and are relying on programs run by there sister sites.
Click to expand...
Except my statement from the start was about Zoos Victoria, and as I stated, the work of ZV is integrated across all 4 sites, with MZ both bringing in the revenue to fund much of their work, my and are the face of the majority of their conservation campaigns.
 
Grant Rhino said:
i don't know enough about Taronga, so I won't speak about it, but I will stand up for Zoos Victoria here:

Firstly, (as has been said previously on this thread), Zoos Victoria are the entity with the power to undertake conservation programs (not Melbourne Zoo, or WORZ - they are just branches of the larger organization).

Zoos Victoria are actively trying to protect 27 different Australian native species - here they are:

1. Alpine She-oak Skink
2. Baw Baw Frog
3. Brush Tailed Rock Wallaby
4. Eastern Barred Bandicoot
5. Giant Burrowing Frog
6. Golden Rayed Blue Butterfly
7. Grassland Earless Dragon
8. Guthega Skink
9. Helmeted Honeyeater
10. Key's Matchstick Grasshopper
11. Large Brown Tree Frog
12. Leadbeaters Possum
13. Lord Howe Stick Insect
14. Mallee Emu Wren
15. Mountain Pygmy Possum
16. Northern Corroboree Frog
17. Orange Bellied Parrot
18. Plains Wanderer
19. New Holland Mouse
20. Regent Honeyeater
21. Smoky Mouse
22. Southern Bent Wing Bat
23. Southern Corroboree Frog
24. Spotted Tree Frog
25. Southern Barred Frog
26. Swift Parrot
27. Tasmanian Devil

Here is a link about this on the ZV website too: Local threatened species (zoo.org.au)

When I went to look this list up, I had thought there were 20 species on it - as there were around 10 years ago, but now that list is at 27.... (that's 7 more than 10 years ago).

On top of that, you can throw in the breeding work they are doing with:

28. Oryx
29. Prezwalski Horse
30. Asian Elephant
31. White Rhino
32. Snow Leopard
33. Gorilla
(just to name a few that I can think of off the top of my head)

Add in the conservation campaigns over the years ("They're calling on you", "Don't palm us off", "Beads for Wildlife" to name a few).

What more does Zoos Victoria have to do??? Rewild the entire world? Plant 2 billion trees? Breed 1000 white rhinos and put them back into the wild?

I understand that people on here don't like the fact that Melbourne Zoo display less species than they did 30, 20 or even 10 years ago - but MZ are not about displaying a lot of species - they are NOT a traditional zoo in that sense: Zoos Victoria is a "Zoo based CONSERVATION ORGANISATION" - this is how this organization see themselves and define themselves. Their moto is "Fighting Extinction" - this is what they are about.

If you don't like this approach, then fair enough - they aren't the zoo(s) for you. However, to suggest that this organization doesn't do much for conservation is simply a ridiculous suggestion.
Click to expand...

All excellent points.

You can also add the following critically endangered or endangered exotic mammal species that Zoos Victoria work with:

Sumatran tiger
African wild dog
Nepalese red panda
Sumatran orangutan
Siamang
White-cheeked gibbons
Black and white ruffed lemur
Cotton-top tamarin

People are quick to complain about phase outs from Melbourne Zoo (and other main zoos in the region), but it’s something I’ve grown more accepting of over time. Sure the 1980’s had rows of big cats and monkeys, but would any of us consider their accomodation acceptable by today’s standards? I’d rather see a troop of 20+ Hamadryas baboon in an exhibit that can hold 40; than a handful of Hamadryas baboons crammed into a small cage adjacent to three other baboon species.

Zoos Victoria’s species criteria is around prioritising native species and endangered/critically endangered exotics, which is on the whole a positive thing. Conservation work with native species has a direct impact and has proved essential for the survival of some species.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. Melbourne Zoo has three empty exhibits (Mandrill, Eastern bongo and Malayan tapir) which have sat empty (or held filler species) for far too long; but on the whole, I think they do fantastic work and I for one was really impressed with Melbourne Zoo when I visited last year.
 
Looking Back on Melbourne Collection in the Past 30 years has shown a lot of species phased out, but what you have to remember is that the animals welfare standards and exhibits have advanced and changed, a lot of zoos now are not focusing on having the most amount of animals but having lush exhibits, that are relatively large, and have good animal husbandry areas, nowhere is this more apparent the at some of Melbourne zoos, why are Melbourne Zoo phasing out elephants, its not because they don't want them or they don't draw many people, they are probably the biggest drawcard Melbourne has, its for the welfare of the animal and the breeding programs that they can undertake and help this endangered species. Whilst i understand the critisizim it is largerly unfair
Zoos Vicotira between there 4 sights do amazing conservation works as grant rhino said there are a multitude of native and exotive species, they do amazing work with scimitar horned oryx which was extinct in the wild and the prezwalksies wild horese. I belive they are doing the most conservation work in Australia, and every trail does have a theme, look at the orangutan sancturary it has a whole section about palm oil and even a shopping area to raise awarnees
I completely agree with all the points zoofan has said, yes some exibits have been left empty for to long but hopefully melbourne makes a masterplan that can fix this
Not to mention the exhibits for the Malayan Tapir and Bongo needed work to make the more enriching for the animals, maybe this could be done and we see Brazilian tapir is the regions focus has gone to them
Also zebra phase out, this was for the better of the animals, taking them the werribee gives them a multitude of space the melbourne cannot offer
 
Last edited:
Tiger91 said:
Zoos vic was never in question it was Melbourne and taronga zoos as there own entities. Both majour zoos and both sit on there respective sister sites to carry them.
Click to expand...

But they are NOT their own entities - no matter how much you might want them to be. They are part of bigger organisations.

To suggest that the other campuses carry them is like saying that defenders in a game of football are carried by the forwards because the forwards kick most of the goals. It’s like saying that bowlers in cricket are useless because they don’t make runs with the bat.

Secondly, even if MZ do let WORZ (or Healesville) carry them, well so what?

In any normal organisation different parts of the organisation do more than others.

Tiger91 said:
When in reality small private zoos are doing more. Big flashy campaigns won't change this.
Click to expand...

Which small private zoos are doing more? And what exactly are they doing?

Please give some specific examples.

Tiger91 said:
But when private zoos do more, questions have to be asked are they doing enough.
Click to expand...

Questions have to be asked? Well I have a question too:

Why do private zoos even exist?

They are private businesses and private businesses exist fundamentally to make money. And there is nothing wrong with this. I myself run a business and I make money. If I ran a zoo I’d also like to make money.

If they also do great work in the conservation space and the education space as well then that is great - and they do! However as private businesses they exist to make money.

A great example is Mogo (one of my favourite zoos). Mogo (and Featherdale) are owned by a group called Eleanor Investments (ASX code: ENN) - which is a listed company. You can buy shares in this company. This company needs to make money for its shareholders to pay a dividend. This is the first priority. If they can do some good work in the conservation space too then that’s great - but the profits absolutely should come first.

To suggest that any small private zoo does more than ZV in the conservation space is just ridiculous because it would be virtually impossible for these businesses to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top