hey zoopro,
when we talk of lack of space - is it that the zoos actually don't have the room to build any new enclosures on any of their properties, or is it that they don't have the money to build any new enclosures?
in regards to city zoos i can fully understand how the former might actually pose a problem - often developing a new exhibit takes years of pre-shuffling and or downsizing of the collection to make the room.
but has dubbo, monarto and werribee actually already allocated all of their available land to future developments?
is there absolutely no space whatsoever for facilities for any additional species that are as yet not allocated a space of land?
a point i bring up frequently here on the forum is that, with things the way they are (and i assume we all aknowledge there is a bit of a crisis going on at the present in regards to maintaining populations) australia's zoo don't really have a choice but to make more space. short of another dozen or so really well funded zoos popping up in australia over the next decade, our few major zoos will have to start to think about the reality of distributing these target sizes amongst themselves.
short of my views being unrealistic, the scenario i put forward seems to be about the only one i can see as being practical. i don't deny that lack of "enclosure space" is an issue, but i want to know why zoos haven't addressed this by creating more.
of course another way to create space for larger populations is to reduce the amount of species being held, a process that is in place with numerous species being listed as intentional "phase-outs" (and a whole bunch more unintentional ones!!!). so why, when we are trying to downsize, are we allowing zoos like dubbo to import new species? firstly, the program is forever destined to be totally reliant on expensive international co-operation (by expensive i am talking about the need for regular import/exports) and secondly, we don't have enough space to even hold decent population sizes of the species we already have programs for.
my guess is that (and i don't work in the zoo industry so i admit i can get shut down here) the problem lies not with there physically being not enough space. i think the problem is more to do with zoos not wanting to spend the money building more simplistic generic-holding facilities for more members of the same species at their open-range sister properties, when they are struggling to finance multi-million dollar developments to (and rightly so) modernise and secure themselves a future in the 21st century.
by doing this though i argue that they are shooting themselves in the foot. our populations of most species are in collapse and my guess is that in about 5-15 years time you will feel the true impact of this at a trip to the zoo.
naturally, i want our zoos to be able to maintain a good range of species and i want to see our conservation breeding programs flourish, not be held back. personally, i think it was a little ambitious to expand our collection to 3 rhino taxa when ARAZPA was struggling to develop more regional partcipation with a 2nd species (of course i personally love indian rhinos and if i developed the regions collection plan we would probably just have them and 1 african species).
so if questioning why we can claim to have a problem with space whilst two open range zoos in australia remain particuarly underdeveloped is unreasonable - what are we going to do?
how are we going to reach our target population sizes?
are there going to be 180 rhino of 3 different taxa all at dubbo?
or are our zoos resigned to the fact that they will never reach sustainable numbers of these species?
when we talk of lack of space - is it that the zoos actually don't have the room to build any new enclosures on any of their properties, or is it that they don't have the money to build any new enclosures?
in regards to city zoos i can fully understand how the former might actually pose a problem - often developing a new exhibit takes years of pre-shuffling and or downsizing of the collection to make the room.
but has dubbo, monarto and werribee actually already allocated all of their available land to future developments?
is there absolutely no space whatsoever for facilities for any additional species that are as yet not allocated a space of land?
a point i bring up frequently here on the forum is that, with things the way they are (and i assume we all aknowledge there is a bit of a crisis going on at the present in regards to maintaining populations) australia's zoo don't really have a choice but to make more space. short of another dozen or so really well funded zoos popping up in australia over the next decade, our few major zoos will have to start to think about the reality of distributing these target sizes amongst themselves.
short of my views being unrealistic, the scenario i put forward seems to be about the only one i can see as being practical. i don't deny that lack of "enclosure space" is an issue, but i want to know why zoos haven't addressed this by creating more.
of course another way to create space for larger populations is to reduce the amount of species being held, a process that is in place with numerous species being listed as intentional "phase-outs" (and a whole bunch more unintentional ones!!!). so why, when we are trying to downsize, are we allowing zoos like dubbo to import new species? firstly, the program is forever destined to be totally reliant on expensive international co-operation (by expensive i am talking about the need for regular import/exports) and secondly, we don't have enough space to even hold decent population sizes of the species we already have programs for.
my guess is that (and i don't work in the zoo industry so i admit i can get shut down here) the problem lies not with there physically being not enough space. i think the problem is more to do with zoos not wanting to spend the money building more simplistic generic-holding facilities for more members of the same species at their open-range sister properties, when they are struggling to finance multi-million dollar developments to (and rightly so) modernise and secure themselves a future in the 21st century.
by doing this though i argue that they are shooting themselves in the foot. our populations of most species are in collapse and my guess is that in about 5-15 years time you will feel the true impact of this at a trip to the zoo.
naturally, i want our zoos to be able to maintain a good range of species and i want to see our conservation breeding programs flourish, not be held back. personally, i think it was a little ambitious to expand our collection to 3 rhino taxa when ARAZPA was struggling to develop more regional partcipation with a 2nd species (of course i personally love indian rhinos and if i developed the regions collection plan we would probably just have them and 1 african species).
so if questioning why we can claim to have a problem with space whilst two open range zoos in australia remain particuarly underdeveloped is unreasonable - what are we going to do?
how are we going to reach our target population sizes?
are there going to be 180 rhino of 3 different taxa all at dubbo?
or are our zoos resigned to the fact that they will never reach sustainable numbers of these species?
Last edited: