It needs some ground cover. Although some parts of Australia may be sand, emus and kangaroos feed usually are found in areas that have plenty of grasses and ground covers. For some reason zoos seem to think that they either live on manicured lawns or sand.
Another reason I'm not particularly enamoured with this exhibit is the ziggurat backdrop (definitely not part of the Australian theme).
It needs some ground cover. Although some parts of Australia may be sand, emus and kangaroos feed usually are found in areas that have plenty of grasses and ground covers. For some reason zoos seem to think that they either live on manicured lawns or sand.
Another reason I'm not particularly enamoured with this exhibit is the ziggurat backdrop (definitely not part of the Australian theme).
maybe you would of been happier with a golf course then? cmon they have to make abit of a effort to make it oz like!
yeah i know what you mean, if you stand the other side of this exhibit you can see the B.T tower in the background, i dont remember seeing that in oz when i was there either, i mean what was they thinking!
I think overall they made a good job of creating a reasonable, though weak exhibit for this difficult and semi-decrepit area- the Mappins. While many marsupial species are fascinating in their own right, Emus, Wallabies etc presented in a general exhibit like this are never going to set the world alight. When I saw this exhibit I watched a few other people come up, take one short look and walk away again. I imagine that's what most folk do.
I hope when money is less tight they might redo the area yet again.
I think you have to be realistic to a certain extent; due to the historical nature of the original structure you are limited in what you can do.
Consider what has recently been done in the rest of the zoo: Gorilla Kingdom, Blackburn Pavillion, BUGS and the South American exhibits nearby, rennovation of the Clore, the Komodo dragon house, the African walk-through aviary, the giant tortoise enclosure, the new children's zoo and more... in fact the zoo is hardly recognisable compared with how it was twenty years ago.
It still isn't perfect but to repeat the usual mantra, the zoo receives no government funding. Plus it doesn't have the culture of philanthropy that exisits in the USA for example.
On top of all this, it's in a massively restricted site both in terms of size and in terms of what can be permitted due to historical buildings.
It's unfair to call it a waste of space for the zoo, it's clearly a stopgap measure and as such I think it works.
I do think however, that the signs are intrusive and stupid and kangaroos would have been better. But for now it's fine.
that's a really good point, they actually kept grey kangaroos until just before this exhibit was opened as the Outback. It might have more to do with the heating requirements of the occupants. I've no idea whether kangaroos need heated housing, but wallabies and emu certainly don't. However, I assume the dens occupied by the sloth bears did have some heating? Whether or not these would be appopriate shelters for larger macropods though is debatable, I've never seen them but I doubt they'd have been used by kangaroos.
I thought it was a nice exhibit to be honest. Road signs are a bit stupid, species too common and it is a bit dull but I still liked it though.
I remember at the time that it could be improved by putting netting over it and putting some austrailian birds into it....like Pigeons, honeyeaters and pheasants to name a few. And maybe a side section for Cassowaries, a species I was hoping to see while there (FTL of me I don't know why I thought London had Cassowaries)
