I still have a Melbourne zoo guide book from the mid 70s
If we could see it or have a summary that would be great!
Melbourne Zoo Melbourne Zoo Historic Map
- Thread starter Jambo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- history map melbourne zoo
If we could see it or have a summary that would be great!
Yes, it really puts me in awe seeing their collection at the time.
Hopefully with the elephants, Melbourne will have the initiative to redesign the whole area. An Indian themed forest would be great.
The precincts that followed Trial of the Elephants have only been ultimate failures in my eye - Wild Sea, Growing Wild and Carnivores.
The developments over the past decade or so have transformed Melbourne Zoo into a simplified version of itself. A diverse portfolio of species has been reduced to a handful of high profile drawcards, while losing the lesser known species that made the zoo special - Persian leopard, Temminck’s golden cat, Chacma baboon etc.
The current precincts are aimed at kids (namely Growing Wild); while the Carnivores precinct represents a childish interest in “cool animals with teeth” in an attempt to engage the general public.
Even the Wild Sea precinct has some kid aspects to it. Unfortunately a new direction which most zoos within our region are pursuing.
‘Carnivores’ or whatever it’s called isn’t abjectly terrible, just unimaginative and uninteresting. That’s what counts as a pass mark for Melbourne these days.
I used to say ‘but at least there’s still the GFA and reptile house’ but the aviary is down to about 12 mostly common species - it’s physically still there, but in spirit it’s gone too, or at least vacated. At least there’s still the reptile house?
That’s the most disappointing aspect to the Carnivores precinct. A world class zoo is supposed to inspire people and engage them. This precinct is unimaginative and fails to do that.
Given the funding available to Melbourne Zoo, I’d have expected more.
I agree. Carnivores is a concept which is aimed at the general public, and it has worked out well for them; it is one of the most crowded (if not the most crowded) trail around the zoo. For us though, the enclosures are uninspiring and most of the animals present are double ups anyway (found elsewhere in the zoo).
I've heard from a lot of friends the same thing - the Great Flight Aviary is not what it once was. I think the species drop is due to it being located along the Australian Trail; meaning they are now displaying Australian birds only.
Personally, i'd like to see it renovated in the future with trails allowing you to walk both in the treetops and the ground.
The Reptile House is still Melbourne's focal point imo, alongside their Gorilla Rainforest. Last visit, it was so crowded, almost to the point I could hardly make my way around without bumping into someone!
I don’t know about pre-early 1990s, but in my lifetime of Melbourne Zoo visits the GFA has always been solely native Australian birds.
Don't know about that. Melbourne Zoo in my childhood could be a dank and dark place. The bears and the primates in particular would have suffered terribly. I still remember very well the long row of big cat (tiger and leopard) cages and not so well the lion row. However even the new ape grotto was a decade out of date and a shocker - imagine not giving orangs a chance to climb. Sorry, if I want to study taxonomy I can go to the museum and look at stuffed animals, that is what a museum is for.
Since it's conversion to a walk through the GFA has always been all Australian birds. It was designed to represent three Australian habitats. Prior to that it was cut into sections. From one of my earliest visits I can just remember what I now know were king vultures. Otherwise I can't think of any exotics that were held in there, however one of the sections held ocelots for a period.
Yeah that’s fair enough. The fact zoos of today focus on animal welfare above packing as many species into the space they have is certainly nothing to complain about, though it’s always appreciated when zoos can combine that with exhibits that inspire - whether it’s through innovative design (such as Auckland Zoo’s orangutan exhibit) or through the exhibition of unique species not commonly seen at other zoos.
With the elephants leaving, Melbourne Zoo has an opportunity to build something great and I for one hope they take full advantage of it.
They were going to go to Monarto (remember there were only two or three then) together with Taronga's elephants. This changed with new directors at both zoos. Trail of the Elephants killed the Hancocks masterplan, which if it had been carried through would have produced a very different zoo.
It’s the hope that kills you.
But interestingly from the perspective of a teenager in the early '70's reading books and magazines about zoos around the world Melbourne seemed to be species poor.
Considering the make up of the board, perhaps we shouldn’t get our hopes up, though I’m encouraged by the developments ahead for Werribee.
Taronga is certainly less diverse than it was, but it doesn’t feel ‘empty’ in the way Melbourne does either.
You really are talking about Adelaide and Perth, that was it. I would have been barely aware of their existence, let alone species held. I did get to Taranga once in my childhood, something I really wanted to do so I could see the King Kong the gorilla.
I'm not sure what your definition of biodiversity is. To judge biodiversity you would need to analyze the number of Classes, Orders and Families kept, not just the number of species, as well as the spread. And are you saying that Darling Downs has more species that Melbourne now? (Genuine question, I would not know).
I'll be honest, I have not "done" Melbourne Zoo in over 20 years, I do go there regularly but don't see many animals, if the meeting is somewhere in the zoo I see those I walk past. I was there a couple of weeks ago and only saw one animal, a mouse.