This is the hub of the problem. Whatever the size of the exhibits, the Melbourne and Taronga exhibits could never be called "generous" and while they may be adequate from a professional husbandry point of view, they are vulnerable to criticism from animal rights activists and from the general public. A former senior curator at Taronga told me they never received complaints about the elephants at Western Plains, but had continual complaints about them at Taronga. What worries me is that by going down the path they have, both zoos have left themselves vulnerable to animal rights criticism, and have cut themselves off from pursuing other options. This could well affect the future of the zoos in a detrimental way. And, as far as I can see, the decision to exhibit elephants would seem to be primarily prestige related.
Taronga Zoo AI of A Elephant
- Thread starter Coquinguy
- Start date
- Status
This is the hub of the problem. Whatever the size of the exhibits, the Melbourne and Taronga exhibits could never be called "generous" and while they may be adequate from a professional husbandry point of view, they are vulnerable to criticism from animal rights activists and from the general public. A former senior curator at Taronga told me they never received complaints about the elephants at Western Plains, but had continual complaints about them at Taronga. What worries me is that by going down the path they have, both zoos have left themselves vulnerable to animal rights criticism, and have cut themselves off from pursuing other options. This could well affect the future of the zoos in a detrimental way. And, as far as I can see, the decision to exhibit elephants would seem to be primarily prestige related.
dragon(ele)nerd
Well-Known Member
I guess the great thing about Australia is sometimes, the problem, that people are so passionate over here,
I'm not sure what the reference here is, but if it refers to animal rights and general public concern for elephants, it should be noted that the oppostion to elephants in zoos in Australia is not yet anywhere near the level it is in the UK or the USA. That's my point, if opposition does grow, then the two zoos are in trouble with their "minimum size" enclosures.
dragon(ele)nerd
Well-Known Member
Oh, wow, ok I just based it on what I have seen in the news, though I lack knowledge of experince, I just thought the protesting for the arrival of elephants in 2006 was quite big, but from what your saying it seems huge in the USA and UK
MARK
Well-Known Member
It would seem it was quite big for a FEW people making a lot of noise
The fact that people dont complain about elephants at Western Plains Zoo isnt so much grounded in a knowledge of what these animals need; its more of a homo-centric projection of values which simply equates space with happiness for these large beasts.
As big as the paddocks are at WPZ, until recent years you could barely call them stimulating, enriched environments. Despite having a potentially viable breeding group of African Elephants for close to two decades this zoo never bred elephants; it never even acheived a pregnancy. Nor have the lifespans of elephants at WPZ been particularly high. Ironically, Taronga's sub-standard enclosure saw many elephants which lived into 60s, 70s and even 80s. And yet, you give elephants a big paddock and people just assume they must be happier.
The point is that there is no simple, and I say simple correlation between space available to elephants and their health. In the heated debate surrounding the importation alot of people had a say who perhaps didnt quite understand the issue fully. The common suggestion that the Asian Elephants should be kept at Dubbo next to the African Elephants clearly demonstrated that many people didnt understand the risk of disease transfer between the two species, amongst other things. Welfare 'experts' just regurgitated the same crap over and over again, that elephants need space, (an argument grounded in as much biological sense as what the average zoogoer has), when in fact we realise now they need more than that. You cant keep elephants on a concrete quarter acre block, but giving them a bare oval sized yard wont make them any happier.
Taronga has demonstrated that given an enriched environment you can keep a small herd of elephants very happy, and you dont need a huge amount of space to do it in.
Having said that, I again argue that Taronga need not stop at expanding its exhibit with the bull paddock; a third exhibit is needed. Melbourne too should look to develop other adjacent enclosures in the future.
Finally, selecting elephants for their prestige value is a little misguided and misses the point. Zoos here in Australia had been developing this program for nearly a decade before the elephants arrived, and informal in-situ links with Asian wildlife agencies going back to the early 90s were formalised by the ASMP for the Asian Elephant. Asian elephant fit the conservation mandate of the regions zoos for a number of reasons....theyre Asian, obviously which fits the orientation zoos in this country are taking.
They do generate interest and zoos had valid resources, skills and monies they could commit to in-situ conservation for these animals.
A viable ex-situ component could be developed for this species; they are slow breeding and suit our low TAG populations. And finally, as exotic animal populations around the country crash, Asian Elephants are one of the few species which actually can be imported. After all, Australian zoos arent very well placed to help bongo, or Arabian Oryx, or birds from the Pacific Islands etc due to our quarantine.
Asian Elephants may be big and for want of a better word prestigious, but you couldnt call them a money spinner. Considering the facts, I think to link the elephant import to commercial imperatives is about as dumb as saying all elephants need is space to be happy. And lots of people are guilty of that.
As big as the paddocks are at WPZ, until recent years you could barely call them stimulating, enriched environments. Despite having a potentially viable breeding group of African Elephants for close to two decades this zoo never bred elephants; it never even acheived a pregnancy. Nor have the lifespans of elephants at WPZ been particularly high. Ironically, Taronga's sub-standard enclosure saw many elephants which lived into 60s, 70s and even 80s. And yet, you give elephants a big paddock and people just assume they must be happier.
The point is that there is no simple, and I say simple correlation between space available to elephants and their health. In the heated debate surrounding the importation alot of people had a say who perhaps didnt quite understand the issue fully. The common suggestion that the Asian Elephants should be kept at Dubbo next to the African Elephants clearly demonstrated that many people didnt understand the risk of disease transfer between the two species, amongst other things. Welfare 'experts' just regurgitated the same crap over and over again, that elephants need space, (an argument grounded in as much biological sense as what the average zoogoer has), when in fact we realise now they need more than that. You cant keep elephants on a concrete quarter acre block, but giving them a bare oval sized yard wont make them any happier.
Taronga has demonstrated that given an enriched environment you can keep a small herd of elephants very happy, and you dont need a huge amount of space to do it in.
Having said that, I again argue that Taronga need not stop at expanding its exhibit with the bull paddock; a third exhibit is needed. Melbourne too should look to develop other adjacent enclosures in the future.
Finally, selecting elephants for their prestige value is a little misguided and misses the point. Zoos here in Australia had been developing this program for nearly a decade before the elephants arrived, and informal in-situ links with Asian wildlife agencies going back to the early 90s were formalised by the ASMP for the Asian Elephant. Asian elephant fit the conservation mandate of the regions zoos for a number of reasons....theyre Asian, obviously which fits the orientation zoos in this country are taking.
They do generate interest and zoos had valid resources, skills and monies they could commit to in-situ conservation for these animals.
A viable ex-situ component could be developed for this species; they are slow breeding and suit our low TAG populations. And finally, as exotic animal populations around the country crash, Asian Elephants are one of the few species which actually can be imported. After all, Australian zoos arent very well placed to help bongo, or Arabian Oryx, or birds from the Pacific Islands etc due to our quarantine.
Asian Elephants may be big and for want of a better word prestigious, but you couldnt call them a money spinner. Considering the facts, I think to link the elephant import to commercial imperatives is about as dumb as saying all elephants need is space to be happy. And lots of people are guilty of that.
Last edited:
As a zoo is run as a business these days. I wonder what the projected increase in atttendance is for a baby elephant?
I bet this has all been costed out.
At a guess,
Melbourne Zoo
1000 extra visits = app $20,000
10000 = app $200,000
100000 = app $2,000,000
300,000 = app $6,000,000
It's a business decision. A Elephant baby will be BIG money for the Zoo. This had to have contributed to justifiying the huge expense thus far with the elephants.
I am not making a judgement on Melbourne or Sydney zoo importing theses elephants, just that it should be transperent.At a guess Sydney may expect double this increase in revenue.
Maybe at a guess the baby elephants at both zoos will be the only animals that are totally self supporting.
I bet this has all been costed out.
At a guess,
Melbourne Zoo
1000 extra visits = app $20,000
10000 = app $200,000
100000 = app $2,000,000
300,000 = app $6,000,000
It's a business decision. A Elephant baby will be BIG money for the Zoo. This had to have contributed to justifiying the huge expense thus far with the elephants.
I am not making a judgement on Melbourne or Sydney zoo importing theses elephants, just that it should be transperent.At a guess Sydney may expect double this increase in revenue.
Maybe at a guess the baby elephants at both zoos will be the only animals that are totally self supporting.
dragon(ele)nerd
Well-Known Member
I guess its good thing to be a zoo member, beforehand, hope there is a naming contest of somewhat, I have so many suggestions prepared,
That is the point. You can argue in a measured, educated and reasonable way (as you have just done) as much as you like that the elephants are happy campers. But in my experience animal rights activists don't play by these rules - the first accidental death, the first pregnancy that goes wrong and the issue of enclosure size will become paramount. They don't play fair.
Interesting your other comments, re the long term planning because of course in the decade prior the zoos had planned to phase out elephants, and had planned to concentrate the Indian elephants in the country at Monarto. Plans change, often with personal changes. I'm not sure the first plan wasn't the right one.
Hi Django, I'm not sure where this information came from - as far as I know, there has never been plans to phase out elephants, Asian or otherwise from this region. The bigger zoos will always want to hold elephants. Like it or not, they are one of the key species that the punters always expect - the old lion, tiger, zebra, elephant and giraffe group, and the bigger zoos come under frequent pressure to ensure these species are represented.
Monarto has discussed African elephants in the past, and are still considering this for the future, as the climate there is completely unsuitable for Asian elephants. But I don't ever recall there being plans to phase Asian elephants out.
Oh and Glyn, as usual, your comments are spot on and well thought-out
A reliable source, and I didn't mean in the region but certainly out of city zoos. But anyway this really isn't the point of the discussion.
Maybe once but less so today, at least overseas. Neither of the "capital" zoos in the UK, London and Edinburgh, hold elephants, and many other zoos in the UK get by without them too. There is even an elephant statute at the entry to Edinburgh Zoo proudly proclaiming the fact they don't have elephants, and the reasons why. In the US there is a lot of pressure to either "get big or get out" of elephants. Zoos are being hounded by "elephant sanctuaries" to pass their elephants on.
I didn't say it was a good idea. Actually I would like to say I am no elephant expert, I am NOT arguing anything on welfare grounds.
Oh and Glyn, as usual, your comments are spot on and well thought-out
OK well that does need a response, because there are a couple of things Glyn said that do need further comment.
Fair enough. Where?
Sun bears, tigers, and orang-utans would all serve equally well as charismatic focus species for in-situ conservation work in Asia.
Well this just shows how corrupted the TAG process has become. It was set up to produce sustainable populations for Australian zoos, but zoos have consistently failed to provide sufficient spaces to support it. This program is no more sustainable, run the numbers through Vortex if you don't believe me. The best that can be said about it is that this will not be noticed until the current crop of directors and boards have well and truly passed on.
I am not against keeping elephants in zoos, and I am perfectly willing to believe that the conditions in Taronga and Melbourne are world class. However I do think that these zoos are setting themselves up for a fall over elephants. I am old enough to (just) remember when Melbourne Zoo was threatened with closure in the early 1960's. People didn't want to go because they felt sorry for the animals. Of course (thankfully) it is a very different zoo today. The zoos could well come under pressure again because of elephants. And it will not be the educated, reasonable but complex arguments that Glyn put up that get publicity. It will be the simplistic but easily understood cry of the animal rights lobby that "the elephants don't have enough room".
here we go again.
for starters, the ASMP was developed in the 1990s, as pointed out. As far as I am aware, with the exception of Adelaide Zoo no Australian Zoo has planned to phase out this species. Melbourne Zoo had plans to expand its elephant habitat beyond 1993. The import of new elephants to Perth Zoo in the early 1990s also show that this species has never been the subject of a cooperative phase-out.
ASMPs and TAG has been around for decades now, in some shape or form. In fact, it was th association of Australian Zoo directors which formulated early models of the plan which spurred American zoos into such action. Some ASMP are foundering but the majority are working well and delivering results; overall, when zoos stick to the plans the focus species are mainly thriving. The exotic animal populations which are crashing are, in the main, meant to. By phasing out diversity in our collections and keeping a smaller range of species with more viable populations Australian zoos are better placed to meet their ex-situ conservation objectives. TAG groups like the carnivore and primate TAG with long-standing ASMPs show that these programs work and succeed in maintaining more viable groups. In other cases, like the Artiodactyl TAG quarantine regulations hamper efforts. Neither show corruption in terms of population management, but instead cooperation.
Orangutans, sun bear and Sumatran Tigers are, as you pointed out, all charismatic species able to represent the Asian eco-system. But the very fact that you named these big animal species underscores the mainstream expectation of zoo visitors-to see big animals! Furthermore, due to quarantine restrictions, the loss of elephants from Australian zoos could not be filled with the myriad of exotic species available to overseas zoos. Melbourne Zoo, and Adelaide Zoo more than any other at the moment typify the trend of giving fewer species more room, as within the last decade large areas previously used for hoofed-stock become vacant land.
Obviously, elephants attract people. That was evident by the redord breaking attendance rates in Melbourne following TOTE opening, and the overwhelming support and interest the new elephants in both zoos have attracted. without revenue zoos cannot deliver on their broader conservation mandate.
The trend to phase out elephants from American zoos is non-existent from what I can see. Most American zoos that still hold elephants after some zoos relocated their animals a few years ago arent sending them to sanctuaries but instead spending millions on upgrading facilities. Think Denver, LA, San Diego, the National Zoo and Oklahoma. These zoos are just a few of over a dozen city zoos currently restoring their exhibits.
Both Taronga and Melbourne Zoo do still have land available to them which could be developed in the future, if need be. Again, whilst I have no problem with zoos in Northern climates housing elephants, I do believe city zoos in Australia dont need to provide as much space to their elephants because they can move inside/out all year round.
Finally, the decision to not keep elephants in the case of Edinburgh was not based on that zoos beleif that city zoos per-se couldnt provide elephants with an adequate environment, rather that that zoo in particular couldnt. If Edinburgh was cautious of keeping controversial animals full stop, theyd be steering well clear of polar bears as part of their future master-plan developments. But with a chilly climate, limited resources, space and a steep hillside, plus a limited supply of elephants phasing out this species was a good decision at the time.
Back to Zooman's comments about elephants creating revenue. That is crap. Taronga's elephants eat their way through over a quarter of million dollars worth of food per year. And thats just one part of their up-keep. If baby Giant Pandas in American zoos can just about send a zoo broke I cant see how your figures stack up. and especialy when our elephant keeping zoos are all non-commercial institutions.
for starters, the ASMP was developed in the 1990s, as pointed out. As far as I am aware, with the exception of Adelaide Zoo no Australian Zoo has planned to phase out this species. Melbourne Zoo had plans to expand its elephant habitat beyond 1993. The import of new elephants to Perth Zoo in the early 1990s also show that this species has never been the subject of a cooperative phase-out.
ASMPs and TAG has been around for decades now, in some shape or form. In fact, it was th association of Australian Zoo directors which formulated early models of the plan which spurred American zoos into such action. Some ASMP are foundering but the majority are working well and delivering results; overall, when zoos stick to the plans the focus species are mainly thriving. The exotic animal populations which are crashing are, in the main, meant to. By phasing out diversity in our collections and keeping a smaller range of species with more viable populations Australian zoos are better placed to meet their ex-situ conservation objectives. TAG groups like the carnivore and primate TAG with long-standing ASMPs show that these programs work and succeed in maintaining more viable groups. In other cases, like the Artiodactyl TAG quarantine regulations hamper efforts. Neither show corruption in terms of population management, but instead cooperation.
Orangutans, sun bear and Sumatran Tigers are, as you pointed out, all charismatic species able to represent the Asian eco-system. But the very fact that you named these big animal species underscores the mainstream expectation of zoo visitors-to see big animals! Furthermore, due to quarantine restrictions, the loss of elephants from Australian zoos could not be filled with the myriad of exotic species available to overseas zoos. Melbourne Zoo, and Adelaide Zoo more than any other at the moment typify the trend of giving fewer species more room, as within the last decade large areas previously used for hoofed-stock become vacant land.
Obviously, elephants attract people. That was evident by the redord breaking attendance rates in Melbourne following TOTE opening, and the overwhelming support and interest the new elephants in both zoos have attracted. without revenue zoos cannot deliver on their broader conservation mandate.
The trend to phase out elephants from American zoos is non-existent from what I can see. Most American zoos that still hold elephants after some zoos relocated their animals a few years ago arent sending them to sanctuaries but instead spending millions on upgrading facilities. Think Denver, LA, San Diego, the National Zoo and Oklahoma. These zoos are just a few of over a dozen city zoos currently restoring their exhibits.
Both Taronga and Melbourne Zoo do still have land available to them which could be developed in the future, if need be. Again, whilst I have no problem with zoos in Northern climates housing elephants, I do believe city zoos in Australia dont need to provide as much space to their elephants because they can move inside/out all year round.
Finally, the decision to not keep elephants in the case of Edinburgh was not based on that zoos beleif that city zoos per-se couldnt provide elephants with an adequate environment, rather that that zoo in particular couldnt. If Edinburgh was cautious of keeping controversial animals full stop, theyd be steering well clear of polar bears as part of their future master-plan developments. But with a chilly climate, limited resources, space and a steep hillside, plus a limited supply of elephants phasing out this species was a good decision at the time.
Back to Zooman's comments about elephants creating revenue. That is crap. Taronga's elephants eat their way through over a quarter of million dollars worth of food per year. And thats just one part of their up-keep. If baby Giant Pandas in American zoos can just about send a zoo broke I cant see how your figures stack up. and especialy when our elephant keeping zoos are all non-commercial institutions.
Last edited:
Glyn, a non-commercial institution like Sydney and Melbourne zoos. Are still run as a business. This is a fact weather you like it or not Glyn.
To call my comments crap, Is harsh butt you are young. Yet usually very eloquent and inteligent in your posts.
As l said in my post. The baby elephants will be self suporting. Attendance at both zoos will go through the roof. I am sure that this was looked at and influenced the justifing of the expense and future expenses of keeping elephants. Not at all the sole reason butt it would have contributed Glyn.
Both Melbourne and Sydney zoos like amusements parks in Queensland and USA must provide a new "big attraction" to continue attracting visitors to return. The AI of elephants is all part of this l belive. As l dont belive that Australa will ever have the size of a population of Elephants to "save them from extinction". It's all about attracting visitor $$. To provide world class exhibits at both of these world class zoos.To continue educating and entertaing the public.
Yes zoos do run as businesses even when they come under the government fold. But I'm not sure that either zoo could have put a monetary figure on the input of elephants on the gate. Nor could they guarantee that they would breed, and thus have extra attendence for babies. Perth is a very good example. The three youngsters were brought into the zoo in the 1990s and while the zoo had it's best attendence in that first year, it obviously settled since. The extra elephants are now treated as part of the collection. And there has not only been no offspring, but one of the trio was euthanased due to poor health. Since then they have had evening events, white tigers and animatronic dinosaurs to bring the public in.
I agree that zoo management look at the pros and cons regarding public interest of a new charismatic species, but the species selection process comes from the animal departments. Obviously when the managements of both taronga and Melbourne heard the words 'new elephants' they would have thought 'crowd pullers', but this would only be in the context of a single year. Zoos look at having at least one big attraction each year to remind the public there is always something new. If that happens to be baby elephants then that would work. But a year on those babies will not have the same impact. I just don't think there would be any evidence to suggest that they could be self-supporting.
Sorry boring you are we?
There was a plan to consolidate the Asian elephants in the country to attempt to start a breeding group. Never happened, obviously, and not important to this discussion, so I'm happy to drop it.
Corruption perhaps wasn't the best term, and I certainly did not mean it in the sense that the people involved are corrupt, quite the opposite. However you are giving the glossy brochure version of what is happening. Fact is programs are started because there is a desire to have the species in Aussie zoos. Then programs are cancelled because there are not enough spaces. Happens all the time. Not just in exotics, also in natives, and across all taxons. Your perspective seems to be of a grand plan being acted out. My view is of a chaotic scramble to try to pull programs together, then a retreat when the realisation hits that they just won't work. As for meeting ex-situ conservation objectives, the conservation component of program classification was removed some years back when the TAG process was "simplified". Not saying there are not good conservation breeding programs in Aussie, zoos, there are some bloody brilliant ones. Rather there is no overriding conservation consideration in Australian zoo collection planning.
What has this to do with elephants? Well the claim that this is a good example of a TAG program rankles, because it is geneticly unsustainable without additional imports. The fact that will not become obvious for many years because of the generational timespan of the species is not the point. And the programs have sucked up enormous resources, which could go into making other species more viable. But maybe the point is the money would not be available for these other species, because they are not as prestigious as elephants.
Thank you for misreading my motives, that is not what I meant at all. I was simply pointing out that if it was felt that a charismatic megafauna flagship species was required, there are other options.
What people want to see and what they enjoy when in the zoo is an interesting question, and beyond the bounds of this discussion. But I question your assumption that people require a "full set" of megafauna to be satisfied with their day at the zoo.
There were more species in Australia, they have died out. Not that I am saying they all should be here, but certainly we have lost species because of poor population management, and insufficient places. And yes, I know this is partly because of "churning" of master plans, and their associated collection plans.
And I hope that continues. because both zoos have tied themselves very tightly to elephants.
Once again a misrepresentation of what I said. I said American zoos were getting big or getting out of elephants, quite consistent with what you said. Point is how do the Australian zoos compare with the latest practice in the US? In particular can they turn to these developments as a defence against the charge the exhibits are too small?
Evidence for your belief is? No you don't have to convince me, I'm happy to beieve you, but if **** does hit the fan, I'm not the one you have to convince.
Edinburgh is considerably larger than either Taronga or Melbourne, and the site is not as steep as Taronga. Actually half a steep hillside would be a great exhibit for elephants, having struggled up and down elephant tracks in Thailand. Again I am not saying there should not be elephants (or polar bears) in zoos. But it is a bit like the old legal adage, justice not only has to be done, it must be seen to be done. With species such as these not only must their conditions be the best, they must be seen to be the best.
Except Australia Zoo, of course.
What makes you sure these proposals came from the animal departments. To quote from this article about Melbourne Zoo:
Animal rights and wrongs - In Depth - theage.com.au
While employed at the zoo, (the zoo's former strategic planning director David) Hancocks was involved in discussions about the Thai elephants. He says there is no doubt their importation was "first and foremost a commercial venture".
Former senior zoo curator and now zoo consultant Peter Stroud was in charge of the elephant program in the early 2000s and also party to discussions about the Thai elephants. Stroud now says he questions why, if purchase of the elephants was for conservation and animal welfare, neither Melbourne nor Taronga sent the animals to their respective open-range zoos. "Clearly the box office is an issue," he says. "It's preposterous to pretend that breeding elephants in Australia is some type of contribution to elephant conservation."
I cannot believe that people are still making this argument, the amount of money it costs to manage a herd of 5+ elephants far excedes the money guests would bring. A zoo may be run LIKE a buisness, but it is not fundementally a buisness. In todays world "Buisness" choices have to be made, but the zoo is not a buisness.
dragon(ele)nerd
Well-Known Member
I'd like to ask is the only team in the world that has performed A.I is the one from Germany? or is there another case in which somone else has?
OK ben, im happy to wrap up the debate. But before we do, I'd say this. If Django, you feel I am painting an overtly glossy view of the ASMP for exotic animals in this country than I am sorry. If you read over any of the posts I have presented since joining this forum over three years ago, and hence having had this debate many a time over, you would see that I am not shy of being critical of zoos deviating from regional collection planning. I am not blind, many programs stand on a knife-edge. My point is that the majority of programs are viable, and those with potential should not be compromised by further deviations. It is true that some species are being lost, or were lost because of poor collection planning. But by the early 1990s many animal populations in this country were so low in number, old in age and low in genetic diversity that even the most vigorous planning could not save them.
Having said that, I am a believer in the programs structure. In many cases programs that are faltering have less to do with regional cooperation but quarantine rules (bongo), unforseen medical conditions (malayan tapir), beurecratic red-tape (francois langur from China), unfortunate deaths like in the Indian Rhino program and other issues such as animals simply not breeding, like Asiatic Golden Cats and Silvery Gibbons. For now. But across the region most programs remain viable and are going well.
Regarding my comments regarding the ammount of space needed by elephants in urban zoos in Australia compared to zoos in less temperate, Northern climates. What I meant was that in the colder climate of the northern hemisphere you would reasonably expect city zoos to build bigger indoor areas to compensate for the animals being confined indoors which, when coupled with outdoor space would increase the ammount of land these animals would need.
Finally, I would like to go back to Zooman's comments on zoos being run as businesses. It is true that zoos are becoming more commercially orientated, but if making money was at the heart of everything they do, (and their primary motivation behind selecting species for collection plans), then all 3 of the government owned city zoos would have been bankrupted by now. And elephants are not a good financial investment.
Having said that, I am a believer in the programs structure. In many cases programs that are faltering have less to do with regional cooperation but quarantine rules (bongo), unforseen medical conditions (malayan tapir), beurecratic red-tape (francois langur from China), unfortunate deaths like in the Indian Rhino program and other issues such as animals simply not breeding, like Asiatic Golden Cats and Silvery Gibbons. For now. But across the region most programs remain viable and are going well.
Regarding my comments regarding the ammount of space needed by elephants in urban zoos in Australia compared to zoos in less temperate, Northern climates. What I meant was that in the colder climate of the northern hemisphere you would reasonably expect city zoos to build bigger indoor areas to compensate for the animals being confined indoors which, when coupled with outdoor space would increase the ammount of land these animals would need.
Finally, I would like to go back to Zooman's comments on zoos being run as businesses. It is true that zoos are becoming more commercially orientated, but if making money was at the heart of everything they do, (and their primary motivation behind selecting species for collection plans), then all 3 of the government owned city zoos would have been bankrupted by now. And elephants are not a good financial investment.
- Status