Australia Zoo Australia Zoo in Trouble

It seems as if there are lots of rumors floating around, as an article in the Aussie press (and found in the news section here at ZooBeat) states that selling Australia Zoo to Animal Planet is a possibility. But at the same time there are many denials of that claim, and it's truly sad at the amount of bad publicity that the zoo has been receiving. There are numerous large-scale plans for the establishment, and expanding from 28 hectares to 400 hectares means that the African Savannah/hotel/railway idea might one day be realized.
 
patrick said:
zoos and queensland just don't seem to mix! ;)
Click to expand...

AAARRRGGG you are so right.
Talking to several of friends on the coast this weekend. General response to the rumours about selling up was 'told you so'. Terris image is really tarnishing badly. Unfortunately there is a large element of anti US bias here as well from them. It would appear that the Irwins Golden run has now reached its end.
 
maybe it has, maybe not, remember the bad run a few yars abck- the bob croc thing, then the antartic wildlife thing.

i hope it all woprks out- cause i would agree with older bob, it wouldnt be steves dream to ever sell that zoo.
 
Zoo_Boy said:
maybe it has, maybe not, remember the bad run a few yars abck- the bob croc thing, then the antartic wildlife thing.

i hope it all woprks out- cause i would agree with older bob, it wouldnt be steves dream to ever sell that zoo.
Click to expand...

To my mind 2 issues really do stand out, the rest is total hogwash (your tall poppy syndrome):

1. the over the top commercialisation of Australia Zoo by Terri c.s. that has obviously produced a rift with good old Bob. Terri was the financial mastermind, whilst Steve was the conservation buddy (now that he is gone and she is at the helm alone it shows - so no anti-US bias, it has to do with policy and direction). This entire selling the zoo business is exemplary for Terri's attitude/"vision".
2. the serious oversight in conservation issues by the current management of Australia Zoo, where it has just not heeded the conservation regulations (koala hospital and release). Oncemore, this is Terri's attitude/"vision" at play here.

Now my knowledge of internal Queensland policy does not go that far, so like most non-Australians, I can not discern whether this Queensland "told you so" ethic is worth more than the salt it is written on. I just understand from comments by all you Ozzies that Queensland is not exactly at the front of taking adequate conservation measures for the native flora and fauna.

To me - given that your are so opinionated on the Queensland govt. conservation track record, there must be some substance to it - it seems now Steve is no longer with us, the powerful conservation lobby that he stood for is gone and the antis now see their moment of glory.

As non-Australians I do wish that some of you - Zoo Boy et al - to explain to us (but I guess that would mean an entirely different thread and somewhat off-topic here) what exactly the Queensland conservation and government attitude towards it scene is today. :confused:
 
jelle said:
To my mind 2 issues really do stand out, the rest is total hogwash (your tall poppy syndrome):

1. the over the top commercialisation of Australia Zoo by Terri c.s. that has obviously produced a rift with good old Bob. Terri was the financial mastermind, whilst Steve was the conservation buddy (now that he is gone and she is at the helm alone it shows - so no anti-US bias, it has to do with policy and direction). This entire selling the zoo business is exemplary for Terri's attitude/"vision".:
Click to expand...

I didn't post the actual comments that were made which showed the bias that many I know have. Comments like 'What can you expect of a bloody yank, marry your way in then and then think of only the money." "Shrill harpy voiced yankie woman" "Money grubbing Yank" etc. Maybe it's just the circles I mix in but Terri was always the least popular. He may have been embarressing but 'but at least he was a true Aussie - and he had a heart of gold and really cared about the bush and stuff"



jelle said:
Now my knowledge of internal Queensland policy does not go that far, so like most non-Australians, I can not discern whether this Queensland "told you so" ethic is worth more than the salt it is written on. I just understand from comments by all you Ozzies that Queensland is not exactly at the front of taking adequate conservation measures for the native flora and fauna.

To me - given that your are so opinionated on the Queensland govt. conservation track record, there must be some substance to it - it seems now Steve is no longer with us, the powerful conservation lobby that he stood for is gone and the antis now see their moment of glory.

As non-Australians I do wish that some of you - Zoo Boy et al - to explain to us (but I guess that would mean an entirely different thread and somewhat off-topic here) what exactly the Queensland conservation and government attitude towards it scene is today. :confused:
Click to expand...

I could go on about such stuff as damning the Mary river, the rampant clear felling etc but actually Queensland govts. have done quite a lot of good, such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, The Wild Rivers legislation (very controversial that is though), The protecting of the Daintree and of Fraser Island against strong commercial opposition, the govts. attempts to rein in the clear felling, the attempts to prtect and save the South east corners Koalas population. Bit of a mixed bag, like all govts. really
 
Last edited:
I also believe the zoos run by the queensland government have no problems at all and are doing great things for conservation. . .
 
the whole koala thing has probably been blown out of proportion because it combines two iconic elements-the koala and the Australia Zoo.
i would love to know how many private wildlife carers release rehabititated wildlife back into their exact spot of origin? Australia Zoo should be setting an example in leading the way and sticking to protocol and you cant have a major organisation like that flouting the laws but at the same time, put the law issue aside and theres not too much else to worry about unless you really want to broaden the argument and take into account the whole environmental stance of the QLD government......
off the top of my head, here are some classic and recent QLD enviro classics........................
the Govt sinking hundreds of vehicles, ships and other junk within a reef to create a reef and then publically crowing about it
the State Fishery's policy of translocating freshwater fish species
the land-clearing debacle
the multi-faceted argument of putting a skylift through the centre of the Daintree (although this provoked much debate I agree with this)
and for arguments sake and to be unfair (because it was a Federal suggestion) because its QLD and we can be unfair, this is the state with the world's largest reef which they proposed covering with shade sails to protect it from global warming??????????????????????
haha. not that NSW is any better environmentally, were just SEEN to take it more seriously due to the lack of fake tans and plastic boobs:rolleyes:
 
You wouldn't believe how many wildlife rescuers flout the release site rule.
 
Koala relocation

I thought the discussion was about the action of releasing Koalas in the wrong places. I cannot see an excuse. If there is a problem notify the department, don't just do it anyway.

God bless fake boobs!!!
 
relocating koalas

As a non Australian , I must confess that I am a little confused on one point .

Namely ; What is the OFFICIAL reason for the State of Queensland to make the legislation that the reintroduced koalas are replaced within 5 km of their original location ?
Why did they choose those parameters ( 0 - 5 km ) ?
What is the problem for relocation to a forest that is ( for arguments sake ) 6 km away , especially if with so much "development" -- usually meaning the destruction or limitation of koala habitat -- in SE Queensland , and especially near the coast ?

Some people have hinted about disease ....but . surely every animal would get a good check up from the zoos vet staff before relocation ?! I cant yet buy that as an official reason or excuse .

I do not condone Australia Zoos management if they have flouted rules , but I do not know enough about koalas to understand the QLD Governments position , irrespective of whether it is valid or draconion , or something else .

Hoping that someone can inform me ( and others ) on this point ...
 
I can't remember if it was fleays or another park, wasn't entirely sure but have seen a few docos on one of the queensland native wildlife parks having great success with breeding endangered aussies behind the scenes. Feel free to correct me If I've got the wrong park, am sure it is in queensland though.
 
I meant that there are no issues with licensing, you never hear of any wrong doing, the government run park comes accross as perfect, everyone has flaws is all I was getting at.
 
another point

if the animal is too far gone ( badly injured , aged , diseased ) does AUSTRALIA Zoo euthenase it ?
Do they have a standard or protocol about incoming animals needing rehab , or do they accept all and sundry ( including diseased ones ) ?
Are the animals that the zoo releases back in wild , still sufficiently wild enough to return , or has it become too domesticated through the intensive tlc of the zoo/vet staff ?
 
Tomorrow Bindi and Terri Irwin will be interviewed on Sunrise for our Aussie viewers. Don't know a time, Unfortunately I'll mis it but if it's interesting could anyone post a bit about it.
 
For those of you that did not see Terri Irwin on the tv today she stated that she is NOT selling Australia zoo and is NOT taking her kids to live in America, That now seems clear enought I feel
 
They could still however be using the land that was given to them by the queensland government to let animal planet build a themepark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top