Don't forget the potential spin off effects of sending off surplus maned wolves to other regions and/or to an operating reintroduction scheme in their Argentinian-Uruguayan-Paraguayan homeland!!! 
De Brazza's Guenons
- Thread starter Ara
- Start date
It gets worse than that... In the late 80s Perth Zoo had a model breeding program for Maned wolves. They consisted of two unrelated pairs that were breeding regularly and descended from European lines. The exhibits were nothing much to look at, linkmesh fencing with alot of tall grass. For those familiar with the zoo it is roughly in the Farmyard area. Apart from some problems with trying to breed numbats next door (think distinctive predator odour...), the only reason the maned wolves were deleted from the collection was that the current-at-the-time masterplan did not include South American species (ignore the fact that Boa constrictors and macaws are still in the collection). Out went a very charismatic species to be replaced by a classic white elephant in the Farm, an area that was a promising pre-cursor to Taronga's 'Backyard to Bush' which failed to set the visitor's attention alight, eventually lost all the animals and became down-graded to a 'convention room'. Why marketing people get their way with zoo management beats me! Not sure of it's current use. I would be probably correct that some of WPZ wolves are originally from Perth's group.
While I appreciate the need for good species management, I always get the feeling that ARAZPA/ASMP loses the plot a bit. Dholes are a nice species when displayed well, and this means in large groups like hunting dogs. In alot of ways maned wolves make a much better city zoo species, then trying to cram a potential pack species into limited real estate for the sake of fitting a theme. Ask any casual zoo visitor which is the more impressive species and I would be surprised if dhole came out on top, unless you happened to see them in the wide spaces of an open-range facility.
Sorry from diverting away from West African guenons...
Actually usually not that high up if you are meaning THE person who runs the zoo. It is the curators and animal managers who attend the TAG meetings where decisions are made. Without wanting to point the finger too critically, the people with the most power tend to come from the biggest collections - Taronga and Melbourne. Even the next cabs on the rank Adelaide and Perth (+ NZ) have to put up a good fight against these two, while also being guilty of not supporting poorly represented species.
Before anyone mentions it I do appreciate that each zoo in Australasia cannot take it's fair share of individuals when managing every species, afterall who wants to see cloned collections in every city. But as has been argued on this forum too many species have slipped silently through the net and will continue to.
the biggest problem is the complete lack of acceptance by australia's major zoos NEED TO HOUSE MORE ANIMALS!
and by that i don't necessarily mean more species - i mean MORE OF THE SAME SPECIES.
these animals do not need to be on display. these animals do not need to be housed at their urban zoos (taronga, melbourne and adelaide all have large amounts of land available to them at sister properties). nor do these animals need to be housed in enclosures that satisfy anything more than the needs of the keeper and resident species.
smaller privately owned zoos frequently hold big cats and primates in far simpler and cheaper accomodation being unable to afford the luxury of developing an immersion type display.
adelaide, taronga and melbourne need to stop pouring money into this stupid competition of who's rebuilt more, and secure themselves in a position to actually be contributing to endangered species captive preservation, rather than being a drain on it.
and by that i don't necessarily mean more species - i mean MORE OF THE SAME SPECIES.
these animals do not need to be on display. these animals do not need to be housed at their urban zoos (taronga, melbourne and adelaide all have large amounts of land available to them at sister properties). nor do these animals need to be housed in enclosures that satisfy anything more than the needs of the keeper and resident species.
smaller privately owned zoos frequently hold big cats and primates in far simpler and cheaper accomodation being unable to afford the luxury of developing an immersion type display.
adelaide, taronga and melbourne need to stop pouring money into this stupid competition of who's rebuilt more, and secure themselves in a position to actually be contributing to endangered species captive preservation, rather than being a drain on it.
i dont swallow the 'cloned' collections argument. besides the fact that we need to absolutely strengthen regional collection plans and therefore thin out the diversity of species, does the average zoo visitor to perth zoo complain when they go to sydney zoo once in ten years to see a similarish collection? no.
there has to be some overlap in terms of collection composition. this is vital, but every zoo around Australia will remain unique in some way or another, no matter how closely they align themselves, collectively with regional planning, particualrly for exotic species.
adelaide zoo will never have elephants ever again, but by the end of the year they will have giant pandas. perth zoo is likely to be the only major zoo where you can see most of the western half of this continents indigenous fauna, once again setting them apart. my bet is taronga will always be unique for its views, its pinnipeds and great apes, and i think melbourne zoo (once they decide what theyre doing) will remain a unique for its immersion/cultural displays, its botanical aspects and a range of other things.
until each zoo starts building absolutely identical exhibits i think its silly to suggest people will get bored by the range of species on display. particularly when your typical zoo favourites such as lions, elephants, giraffes, tigers and monkeys etc remain secure and well represented.
the average zoo visitor really wouldnt give a **** if its an indian rhino or black rhino, a malayan or brazilian tapir, or a javan or a francois langur. a real zoo enthusiast might, but in principle we should be supporting regional collection planning because it represents one of the best ways our zoos can contribute to ex-situ conservation. and finally, with our zoos spread out across such a vast continent its unrealistic to suggest, for examplethat the citizens of perth should expect to see a wholly different set of animals in a zoo in sydney, when, essentially, our cities and therefore our zoos are so far apart no average joe is likely to notice that the tigers in perth may look similar to the ones at sydney.
there has to be some overlap in terms of collection composition. this is vital, but every zoo around Australia will remain unique in some way or another, no matter how closely they align themselves, collectively with regional planning, particualrly for exotic species.
adelaide zoo will never have elephants ever again, but by the end of the year they will have giant pandas. perth zoo is likely to be the only major zoo where you can see most of the western half of this continents indigenous fauna, once again setting them apart. my bet is taronga will always be unique for its views, its pinnipeds and great apes, and i think melbourne zoo (once they decide what theyre doing) will remain a unique for its immersion/cultural displays, its botanical aspects and a range of other things.
until each zoo starts building absolutely identical exhibits i think its silly to suggest people will get bored by the range of species on display. particularly when your typical zoo favourites such as lions, elephants, giraffes, tigers and monkeys etc remain secure and well represented.
the average zoo visitor really wouldnt give a **** if its an indian rhino or black rhino, a malayan or brazilian tapir, or a javan or a francois langur. a real zoo enthusiast might, but in principle we should be supporting regional collection planning because it represents one of the best ways our zoos can contribute to ex-situ conservation. and finally, with our zoos spread out across such a vast continent its unrealistic to suggest, for examplethat the citizens of perth should expect to see a wholly different set of animals in a zoo in sydney, when, essentially, our cities and therefore our zoos are so far apart no average joe is likely to notice that the tigers in perth may look similar to the ones at sydney.
This makes sense to me. The only plausible reason why dholes are a priority species when Taronga/Western Plains are the ONLY zoos interested in exhibiting them is politics. The fact is, spotted hyaeanas have much more interest from the region - Perth and Monarto have them, Werribee, Mogo, NZA want them. There's a good reason for that, too - spotted hyaeanas are a unique species in Australian collections as the only representatives of their family, whereas dholes look pretty much like dingoes. But dholes are a "recommended species" and hyaenas aren't. Go figure.
I fully agree with this and can see no real reason why not.
Herein lies part of the problem. Under most State Government's Standards, even off-exhibit animals need to have the same spatial requirements and facilities as on display animals. The expense of providing such facilities will often be a secondary priority to a zoo going all out to build super-dooper on display exhibits.
But surely space itself isn't the major cost. It's more likely to be decorative/interpretive "extras". For instance, a seal pool like Taronga's leopard seal enclosure would cost a heap with that huge acrylic viewing window. But the same enclosure without the window is much, much cheaper. The leopard seals aren't going to care.
A monkey "cage" might not look amazing, but cages themselves are cheap relative to islands or walk-throughs or netted and glassed-in enclosures. The only difference as far as a mandrill is concerned between the mandrill and hamadryas enclosures at Melbourne is that one has more (albeit lower, something that you would fix with a new cage) climbing opportunities. The same goes for the state-of-the-art lion enclosure at Werribee and much older (and cheaper to reproduce) enclosure at the Royal Park campus.
Phoenix' point is a good one. There's no reason why the big three statutory zoo organisations (Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia), with their abundance of available space, couldn't support long-term viable population groups.
CGSwans [and phoenix] - I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
But, as a zoo owner, I'm trying to point out that there are some factors that may preclude the course of action that you are advocating.
I'm in no position at all to speak for Taronga/Western Plains, Melbourne/Werribee or Adelaide/Monarto but I do know that these zoos have long term plans that may well include development of what looks like surplus land to us at the moment.
In terms of expenditure on enclosures, it is a fact that animals can be accomodated much more cheaply at rural zoos because the public's expectations are less.
A well known NSW keeper explained to me years ago that Dubbo could get away with wire mesh and colourbond because it was in the bush but Taronga had to have the expensive mock rock and landscaping because the Prime Minister [Keating in those days] used to bring his kids there. Other dignitaries also visit Taronga and not Western Plains.
But, as a zoo owner, I'm trying to point out that there are some factors that may preclude the course of action that you are advocating.
I'm in no position at all to speak for Taronga/Western Plains, Melbourne/Werribee or Adelaide/Monarto but I do know that these zoos have long term plans that may well include development of what looks like surplus land to us at the moment.
In terms of expenditure on enclosures, it is a fact that animals can be accomodated much more cheaply at rural zoos because the public's expectations are less.
A well known NSW keeper explained to me years ago that Dubbo could get away with wire mesh and colourbond because it was in the bush but Taronga had to have the expensive mock rock and landscaping because the Prime Minister [Keating in those days] used to bring his kids there. Other dignitaries also visit Taronga and not Western Plains.
And not so long ago only Perth showed any interest in keeping hyaenas, which is why the male was neutered to stop any surplus pups. Yet another individual (both physically and genetically) loses out due to piss poor planning...
I wasn't suggesting that zoos in Australasia would become clones because I agree that each collection tends to do something different. But my point is that Melbourne has or had coatis, capybaras, maras and clouded leopards, all of which have veered from being priorities to not, over time. To a certain extent other zoos in the region have also had similar cases but a lack of co-operation has rendered all these species either extinct or near extinct in Australia. Had Melbourne been more committed to retaining these species then a program could have springboarded from there. Now the only chance for any of them is to completely import new individuals. If you compare this to other species and collections, and using Perth as an example, only one collection was involved in breeding with silvery gibbons and spotted hyaenas in the 90's, while now they are a must have. Komodos and clouded leopards were similarly only kept at Taronga. Onagers at Dubbo. Springbok at Orana. Lion-tailed macaques at Adelaide/Taronga. Sulawesis and talapoins at Perth. Golden cats and geladas at Melbourne. All of these species fluctuate between being in vogue and getting rid of them. All had useful genetics that get flushed down the toilet because there is no consensus between collections AND sticks to it. Again I fully appreciate the difficulties that Australasian collections have regarding strict import laws, but god help them they do not make it easy for themselves either!
Lion-tailed Macaques at Taronga? When was that?
Hix
Sorry got carried away; as Phoenix says LTM at Melbourne and Adelaide. A beautiful species that has been let go because nobody other than Melbourne and Adelaide showed any interest, and these two collections had limited space. There was also an issue of a unrelated blood from US, but nobody could agree on which species, then it fell to the Sulawesis, then that fell in a heap due to Herpes A. A waste of two good (highly endangered) species!