I cant work out just which giraffe it is. This is partly because Monarto zoo don't make a big fuss in the media bout births, especially giraffes. If they don't advertise a birth (through media or on their website) and provide details of parentage I can't get the details. So the only female that I know of that was born at Monarto approx. two years ago is Asali, daughter of Myeisha and Tambo and she was sent to Perth Zoo. If anyone can tell me more details that would be great.
Australia Zoo Australia Zoo Updates
- Thread starter MARK
- Start date
I cant work out just which giraffe it is. This is partly because Monarto zoo don't make a big fuss in the media bout births, especially giraffes. If they don't advertise a birth (through media or on their website) and provide details of parentage I can't get the details. So the only female that I know of that was born at Monarto approx. two years ago is Asali, daughter of Myeisha and Tambo and she was sent to Perth Zoo. If anyone can tell me more details that would be great.
Electus Parrot
Well-Known Member
Currenlty the breeding male giraffe has been taken out of the herd, usually they only announce the first giraffe birth of the season and the others are usually not announced to the media just to the site.
any comments on this? In NZ there are no problems with zoos being open all day on ANZAC Day
Australia Zoo investigated for Anzac trading | News.com.au
Australia Zoo investigated for Anzac trading | News.com.au
One comment that I have is that this is yet more evidence that Australia Zoo seems to think that it does not have to abide by the same laws and regulations that other businesss do. This may have worked when Steve was alive to schmooze his way around things but it isn't acceptable.
As for ANZAC Day. I know that NZ doesn't regard iot as such a big thing as Australians do. Here it is so entwined with nationalism and all the jingoism that seems to go with it that it has become the de facto Australia Day.
As for ANZAC Day. I know that NZ doesn't regard iot as such a big thing as Australians do. Here it is so entwined with nationalism and all the jingoism that seems to go with it that it has become the de facto Australia Day.
While, as an older guy, I have the utmost respect for Anzac Day and all it means, I can't help feeling that the Queensland Government and the RSL are being a bit precious about it all. Was every other Australian zoo closed until afternoon? No way!
You can't force people to have reverence for any institution by shutting down everything that competes with it - that attitude became outdated many years ago when there was no sport, movies, shopping or anything else except church services allowed on Sundays.
A large proportion of Australia Zoo's visitors are overseas tourists, to whom Anzac Day means little or nothing. It was their right to visit Aus. Zoo if they wanted to.
You can't force people to have reverence for any institution by shutting down everything that competes with it - that attitude became outdated many years ago when there was no sport, movies, shopping or anything else except church services allowed on Sundays.
A large proportion of Australia Zoo's visitors are overseas tourists, to whom Anzac Day means little or nothing. It was their right to visit Aus. Zoo if they wanted to.
@Ara I have to disagree. ANZAC day is obviously an important day. There are established trading hours for Australia Zoo and all like companies. I know that Dreamworld opened at 1:30 on the day as did the other large theme parks. They followed the law and have large portions of overseas visitors. Does the law not apply the same. They violated it and now should pay the consequences. I am sure it was not a surprise.
The merit or otherwise of everything closing on ANZC aside, I agree with Ptig that australlia Zoo shouldn't be an exemption that all other business has to abide by. This was always what I disliked about Australia Zoo and the way it was run. Steve always seemed to think that he was outside the law and that personal diplomacy would achieve everything for him. Whether it was the helicopter debacle and his threats to remove the zoo to Brisbane if the local council wouldn't allow him to run hourly helicopter flights all day every day or the way he obtained land and exemptions through his personal schmoozing with the Premier or Prime Minister.
If Australia Zoo doesn't like the having to wait to 1.30 to open on ANZAC day then maybe they need to get a represtative going with Dreamworld et al (who would be affected in just the same way) and lobby the govt through proper channels to get it changed.
Last edited:
ANZAC Day
I doubt they would have been granted any exclusion from established trading hours. If this were the case you would see every tourism attraction do the same. They just probably thougt they would get away with it or just pay the fine. They probably paid for the fine by trading longer anyway.
I doubt they would have been granted any exclusion from established trading hours. If this were the case you would see every tourism attraction do the same. They just probably thougt they would get away with it or just pay the fine. They probably paid for the fine by trading longer anyway.
Fine looms for Zoo Anzac trading | Local | The Sunshine Coast Daily
well, here's a tricky one for the RSL, accepting money on ANZAC day for veterans, then turning round and critising Australia Zoo for being open.
Maybe the people that chose to go to the zoo that day learnt more about ANZAC day with the reported service in the crocoseum than they would going to McDonalds, Which I passed on two occassions that morning and was doing a roaring trade!
well, here's a tricky one for the RSL, accepting money on ANZAC day for veterans, then turning round and critising Australia Zoo for being open.
Maybe the people that chose to go to the zoo that day learnt more about ANZAC day with the reported service in the crocoseum than they would going to McDonalds, Which I passed on two occassions that morning and was doing a roaring trade!
Whilst I also agree that no organisation should be above the law, I cant help but comment on Jay's glaring inaccuracies:
Yes, I do recall Steve suggesting that he could move Australia Zoo to Brisbane but that was years before any helicopter debate.
As far as I am aware, any land that Steve acquired was bought with his money, that he earned from television shows (don't tell me Jay, you don't think much to them either!!). Looking back on past threads, many members of zoochat seem to have an issue with Australia Zoo purchasing, acquiring and running land for australian wildlife? WHY?
With regards to "personal schmoozing with the Premier or Prime Minister", now who would of thought, utilising your position, either as an organisation or an individual to further your business or cause? The fact that Australia Zoo would be pivitol in the local region's economy, should and does allow it to have some political clout. God knows, the big State run Zoos do it all the time!
Last edited:
You may be right and I have got the wrong details, (I'll look into that as I really did think it was the helicopter affair) but the fact is that Steve was refused something by the local govt. and then threw a tantie and tried to blackmail the govt. into doing what he wanted.
No I don't, I never liked his style but the shows did what they were designed to do. I don't have a problem with them existing and for other people to enjoy, I just never did.
I have a problem with anyone, person or organisation that thinks that because they have a personal relationship with the Authority, that it can then floout due process and get what it wants by a few friendly words with 'my mate'. This is CORRUPTION. Because it is done for a good cause does not make it right. Steve tried to do this and seemingly was successful in some cases. If a mining company wanted to dig up a rainforest would you be pleased that the CEO got the rights to do so without goinf through due process because he was great friends witht he Premier?
With regards to the ANZAC affair, and this relates to other events in its history, the Australia Zoo management, who ever made the desision, decided that behaving ethically and abiding by the law came second fiddle to making money. Conservation is about behaving ethically and morally as wel as about saving the enviroment. By this decision they all but said that business is more important than law. If thet felt they had a case for opening, and perhaps as you said they do indeed have a good case, then they should have lobbied to have the law changed.
I know I am biased against Australia Zoo because I never liked the man. That doesn't mean that I don't acknolwedge and cheer the things that he did for conservation, just the way he appeared to go about it. Perhaps I expect too much from a business that touts itself as being all about conservation when in reality it needs to make money like every other business.
I'm not sure what the law is in Queensland compared to NSW and if it differs because they are government organisations but TWPZ and Taronga were open ANZAC day which is why I thought it may have been granted for Aust. Zoo. I'm not sure about the other zoos in the state though. But again I don't know the law. And as Ptig said Dreamworld and the other big theme parks closed, they would probably have lost more than Autralia Zoo in visitor numbers, especially being a public holiday on a Sunday. So if they can abide by the rules it should be no problem for Australia Zoo.
John Howard gave him about $6.5 million to buy the station they still own on Cape York. They still run most of this place as a cattle station and their managment, or lack of it has been in the media a few times. There have been claims that all feral pig control was stopped by that american woman. Since John Howard left politics he has said in an interview that it was his wife who pushed to give them the money to buy the property as she was a big fan. What realy upsets me is that we paid for this place with our taxes but the place is completly closed to the public.
but the fact is that Steve was refused something by the local govt. and then threw a tantie and tried to blackmail the govt. into doing what he wanted.
I have a problem with anyone, person or organisation that thinks that because they have a personal relationship with the Authority, that it can then floout due process and get what it wants by a few friendly words with 'my mate'. This is CORRUPTION. Because it is done for a good cause does not make it right. Steve tried to do this and seemingly was successful in some cases. If a mining company wanted to dig up a rainforest would you be pleased that the CEO got the rights to do so without goinf through due process because he was great friends witht he Premier?
Both of the above examples are not blackmail or corruption, unfortunately, whether we like it or not, its politics. Many companies and industries try and smooze politicians and parties in government - in fact there is a whole industry of them, call lobbyists!
With regards to the ANZAC affair, and this relates to other events in its history, the Australia Zoo management, who ever made the desision, decided that behaving ethically and abiding by the law came second fiddle to making money. Conservation is about behaving ethically and morally as wel as about saving the enviroment. By this decision they all but said that business is more important than law. If thet felt they had a case for opening, and perhaps as you said they do indeed have a good case, then they should have lobbied to have the law changed.
I agree with you if the intention was a blatant middle finger to the law, but has anyone considered that Australia Zoo has been open every ANZAC day for 40 years and might have over looked that a "permit" was required or some similar situation.
As for ethically and morally, as mentioned, they have a service with RSL members gratefully recieving a donation every year - are we suggesting it morally more acceptable for them to get a permit and carry on with business as usual? If the local paper quotes that "hair salons" in the area have been granted a permit - chances are the zoo would get one if they applied?
I know I am biased against Australia Zoo because I never liked the man. That doesn't mean that I don't acknolwedge and cheer the things that he did for conservation, just the way he appeared to go about it. Perhaps I expect too much from a business that touts itself as being all about conservation when in reality it needs to make money like every other business.[/QUOTE]
I agree, Australia zoo might not be everyones cup of tea, so if you do praise them for the good work they do, then good on ya mate.
And again you are right, they are a business, a private one, not supported with millions of dollars of tax payers money, like many other zoos; and need to make money to support their activities - which is at the end of the day is conservation.
I have a problem with anyone, person or organisation that thinks that because they have a personal relationship with the Authority, that it can then floout due process and get what it wants by a few friendly words with 'my mate'. This is CORRUPTION. Because it is done for a good cause does not make it right. Steve tried to do this and seemingly was successful in some cases. If a mining company wanted to dig up a rainforest would you be pleased that the CEO got the rights to do so without goinf through due process because he was great friends witht he Premier?
Both of the above examples are not blackmail or corruption, unfortunately, whether we like it or not, its politics. Many companies and industries try and smooze politicians and parties in government - in fact there is a whole industry of them, call lobbyists!
With regards to the ANZAC affair, and this relates to other events in its history, the Australia Zoo management, who ever made the desision, decided that behaving ethically and abiding by the law came second fiddle to making money. Conservation is about behaving ethically and morally as wel as about saving the enviroment. By this decision they all but said that business is more important than law. If thet felt they had a case for opening, and perhaps as you said they do indeed have a good case, then they should have lobbied to have the law changed.
I agree with you if the intention was a blatant middle finger to the law, but has anyone considered that Australia Zoo has been open every ANZAC day for 40 years and might have over looked that a "permit" was required or some similar situation.
As for ethically and morally, as mentioned, they have a service with RSL members gratefully recieving a donation every year - are we suggesting it morally more acceptable for them to get a permit and carry on with business as usual? If the local paper quotes that "hair salons" in the area have been granted a permit - chances are the zoo would get one if they applied?
I know I am biased against Australia Zoo because I never liked the man. That doesn't mean that I don't acknolwedge and cheer the things that he did for conservation, just the way he appeared to go about it. Perhaps I expect too much from a business that touts itself as being all about conservation when in reality it needs to make money like every other business.[/QUOTE]
I agree, Australia zoo might not be everyones cup of tea, so if you do praise them for the good work they do, then good on ya mate.
And again you are right, they are a business, a private one, not supported with millions of dollars of tax payers money, like many other zoos; and need to make money to support their activities - which is at the end of the day is conservation.
Last edited:
Always wondered about the pig that is fed to the dozens of crocs at Australia Zoo, must be domestic ones bought from the local butcher - no wonder they need to be making so much money, because that would be expensive!
Wow - that is interesting, a serving prime minister gives money because his wife pushed him to. Which relative you reckon pushed him to join the illegal war with United States against Iraq??