National Zoo and Aquarium National Zoo

Hix

Hix

Wildlife Enthusiast and Lover of Islands
15+ year member
Premium Member
Yesterday I visited the National Zoo and Aquarium. I hadn't been in almost two years, and had some time in the morning before heading back to Sydney so I thought I'd visit and see if it had changed much.

The other times I'd visited the zoo I'd been disappointed for several reasons: very few birds on display, very few reptiles/amphibians, very few native mammals, and too much perspex.

Also, the zoo appears to be more along the lines of a personal collection (albeit a well funded collection), than an actual zoo. For instance, the focus is on carnivores, more than anything else, and 'different' varieties - such as King Cheetah, Tigons, and now White Lions. Ande from what I could see there appeared to be little in the way of conservation. While this is all good and fine for a personal collection, the fact that the place is called the "National Zoo" I feel is misleading - with a name like that it should be focusing on conserving and displaying Australia's native wildlife.

Anyway, that's just a personal gripe, it's my opinion only and that should not discourage anyone from visiting and drawing their own conclusions.

Here's a rundown on my visit. A very hot day (35ºC), sunny but with a very strong wind.

I spent just under two hours all up at the zoo, and about 35 minutes of that was in the aquarium (most of which time was spent trying to work out how to get a decent photograph through thick curved perspex - I failed). There is an enormous Queensland Grouper in the shark tank - which I know I didn't see last time I was there - that dwarfs everything else in the tank. It's size has to be seen to be believed!

http://www.zoochat.com/photo/queensland-grouper-29213.jpg

There was a display of a Northern Australia river, with Archerfish and Lungfish and some other species. I tried several times to get pictures, which were mostly unsuccessful due to the low light conditions.This is the best one I could get (with shutter speed of 1/10 second):

http://www.zoochat.com/photo/northern-australian-river-exhibit-29220.jpg

There is a large pig-nosed turtle in one tank, and I found him stting on the bottom of the tank, which gave me the opportunity to take some pictures with longer shutter speeds as he wasn't moving very much at all. I wedged the camera up against the glass and the base of the exhibit to keep it steady.

http://www.zoochat.com/photo/pignosed-turtle-29222.jpg

The rest of the aquarium is pretty much as it was last time I was there. Other reptiles (besides the pignose) included Boa Constrictor, Blood Python, Shingleback, two species of large Green Tree Frog (L.caerulea and infrafrenata), Fijian Crested Iguana, some juvenile Alligators, Reticulated Python, Olive Python and Taiwan Beauty Snake.

And the rest of the zoo was pretty much the same too. The King Cheetah had gone, as had the Tigon. The white lions spent most of the day resting in the shade, despite images on TV the night before of them swimming in their moat.

http://www.zoochat.com/photo/white-lion-29236.jpg

The sun bears were no where to be seen on my first circuit of the zoo, but they were out foraging when I went past later.

http://www.zoochat.com/photo/sun-bear-29228.jpg

The Red Pandas were high up in a tree that was blowing around quite a lot in the strong winds. However, the pandas didn't seem to mind at all and were quite relaxed with all the movement. It reminded me of one of the old Red Panda exhibits at Taronga (where the otters are now) that had a large fir tree, and the pandas would be 60ft up in the top branches, asleep while the tree blew around in the breeze.

I took a picture of the pandas in the tree, and circled one of them so you can get some idea of where they are. I waited until some visitors walked past to give a scale, but because they were closer to the camera than the trees in the exhibit, it doesn't really show you how high up the pandas were - about 20ft.

http://www.zoochat.com/photo/red-panda-tree-29225.jpg

I saw the cougars for the first time, both in the shade of their rock den, keeping out of the excessive heat.

http://www.zoochat.com/photo/cougar-29208.jpg

One of the tigers - a female I think, judging by it's size, was also in the shade, but crunching on a bone. She was in a spot where the only photos could be taken through the wire, and most of the wire had the sun on it but I found a spot where the mesh was shaded (and had very little impact on the image).

http://www.zoochat.com/photo/tiger-crunching-bone-29232.jpg

And I finally saw the snow leopards, hidden behind a Bunya Pine in their exhibit. To dark for photos, and they weren't in a good spot anyway.

Something I find very disappointing is that the only birds on display in the zoo are fairy penguins, an aviary with Java Sparrows, Golden Pheasants and Plumhead Parrots, and another aviary with Bush Thick-knees, Musk Lorikeets, Budgerigars, Rails and a few other nondescript bushland birds. There are moorhens and a few other waterbirds, but I suspect they are wild birds utilising the water features.

I've been visiting zoos and fauna parks all over the world for more tha 30 years, so I tend tt be a bit more critical than the average person, and I have certain expectations. Despite my earlier comments, the zoo is an adequate facility for the local people to visit and see some wild animals from around the world (and some aquatic species too).

The enclosures, by and large are quite good and generally on the larger side, especially for the lions, tigers, cheetahs and cougars.

http://www.zoochat.com/photo/cougar-exhibit-29209.jpg

Having said that, the dingo exhibit leaves a lot to be desired - it could be larger and just looks nasty with all the wire fencing. The fact it is beside an excellent exhibit like the cheetah enclosure makes it look even worse.

The three linked ungulate enclosures (dubbed the African Waterhole) are very plain, as is the Brown Bear enclosure. In contrast, the Snow Leopard exhibit is a masterpiece (although too rainforesty for my liking - it would be good for tigers, but not snow leopards). And there are two enclosures at one end of the zoo - containing alpacas and pigs - that look like they belong on a farm, they are that stark.

There is also a lot of perspex in the zoo. Whie this may have been a cheaper alternative to glass, it goes cloudy and is easily scratched which detracts from the view and makes photography a wasted effort. Although there is glass on some of the newer enclosures, the perspex on the Brown Bears, Sun Bears, Tamarins and Tigers really should be replaced. The Ruffed Lemur enclosure (which looks new) has a large glass front and looks good.

I also have some concerns about a stream that runs through the exhibits. It starts in the Snow Leopards, runs down through the Otters, then through the Tiger exhibit where it forms the large central pond before continuing down through the sun bears and into the lions moats. The water was very cloudy in the otters pond and had a lot of contamination in the sun bear's moat, but looked very clean in the tiger and lion enclosures. I could see, but I presume some filtration is used to clean the water between enclosures. My main concern would be the spread of disease if an animal upstream became ill.

Well, that's about it. As I said before I have my own views and opinions (on lots of things) but that should not stop anyone from visiting the zoo and making up their own mind.

:)

Hix
 
That's a pretty damn comprehensive review and I want to thank you because it has been years since my last visit (about 4 or 5) and it sounds like a fair bit has changed since then.
 
Thanks for your very detailed review Hix and also for the photos, love the Turtle
 
Great review Hix, and I am attracted to every zoo review on this forum and this one nicely complements your Christmas Day Taronga Zoo recap. Aside from the handful of top quality carnivore enclosures I've heard nothing but negative reviews of Australia's "National Zoo & Aquarium". With the King cheetah and tigon both now deceased the interest in seeing genetic anomalies has disappeared, and the zoo is clearly not a major tourist attraction for visitors to Canberra. I'd be intrigued to learn of the annual attendance of the collection, but when I toured all over Australia in 2007 I'm certainly glad that I didn't go out of my way to see the National Zoo.
 
Very interesting review and great photos, Hix! (I specially like your close-ups of the tigress and of the sun bear.)

Despite the rather grandiose title, this is essentially a small private zoo, and as such I feel that the owner has the right to specialise in those species which interest him; which means that he has the right to not have to keep those that don't interest him much. Probably a lot of people wouldn't agree with that, but after all he's paying for it; and really it is quite an accomplishment to set up and run a private zoo in Australia which, unlike most other countries, seems to have entrenched opposition to such an enterprise by those in authority.

(That doesn't mean that I agree to the list of species there. Being an aviculturist, I too am disappointed in the paucity of bird species.)
 
There are many different types of animal collections. The larger zoos usually follow a similar philosophy. Smaller fauna parks usually have a different agenda, predicated by smaller gate takings. That's not to say they are worse than zoos, just different. I've seen many small fauna parks that are good.

My main problem with the zoo in Canberra stems from the fact that the name 'National' Zoo has connotations for me, which aren't met. If I was in charge of a facility called the National Zoo, I'd be running it differently. Maybe that's just me, though.

Most importantly - the animals are healthy and well-cared for. The same can't be said of some other facilities around the world.

Snowleopard - next time you're in Australia, I think you SHOULD visit the National Zoo. You might be disappointed, but you will at least have your own firsthand impressions of the zoo.

:)

Hix
 
One good thing that I can think of about ht eowner being especially into big cats is that if Australia was to ever get leopards, jaguars or clouded leopards back then this is the place that would do it.
 
You're right Hix; it is cheeky of them to call it the National Zoo when it is a smallish private zoo. It could be regarded as an attempt to mislead the public into thinking that it is the "official" zoo of the Australian Government, and therefore a much grander establishment. No doubt the owners would deny this, and claim that it's called National Zoo simply because it's located in the nation's capital, Canberra. In the same way, I was amused at the Irwin family's "Australia Zoo" when it was just a small reptile park. Think big, eh?

Having said all that, I like National Zoo for what it is - particularly the impressive big cat enclosures which are among Australia's best.
 
Ara said:
You're right Hix; it is cheeky of them to call it the National Zoo when it is a smallish private zoo. It could be regarded as an attempt to mislead the public into thinking that it is the "official" zoo of the Australian Government, and therefore a much grander establishment.
Click to expand...
that's exactly the impression I had (that it was an "official" government zoo) until I knew more about it from various threads on this forum.
 
The reason for the name is that the park originally went by the moniker 'National Aquarium & Wildlife Park'. With the addition of the large carnivores the owner changed the title. I think at the time the other grander older zoos in the country also thought that it was a cheeky move. It could have been known as the 'Zooquarium', which was/or still is there website name. 'A unique blend of aquarium and zoo', as if it doesn't exist anywhere else...

The alpaca and pig pens are a remnant of the previous wildlife park (although the pigs are new). I am surprised that this section has never been usurped for other species. Mind you one of the sons bought a shetland pony so that his daughter could learn to ride. Hell if you have the money (or access to dad's), why not?

The snow leopards were not the original inhabitants of the enclosure. There was two ex-circus leopards which really did look good in that exhibit. There is little chance that NZA will instigate importing new species into the country. The owner was dead-set for having Amur tigers (they are the largest, see?) but was roundly told no by ARAZPA. I think he is probably content having the lions, tigers, cheetahs and snow leopards.

Thge stream is a remnant from the early days and the exhibits were incorporated into the design. I should think that the regular turnover of water and low stocking density would negate any disease problems. However please note the otter underwater viewing is not directly connected to this flowing water. It will always suffer from cloudiness as it is exposed to plenty of sunshine.

As I have mentioned in previous posts about NZA the owner has no interest in native species and only maintains the barest collection. This will never change. most people have got it very right that this is one man's private collection and not really a true 'National' collection.
 
Thanks for that, Tetrapod.

:)

Hix
 
I assume that the zoo is a member of ARAZPA, otherwise what right does ARAZPA have to tell him what species he can or can't have?
 
Yes, they are a full institutional member.

:)

Hix
 
tetrapod said:
The owner was dead-set for having Amur tigers (they are the largest, see?) but was roundly told no by ARAZPA.
Click to expand...

Actually, ARAZPA doesn't tell zoos (members or not) what species they can or cannot have. ARAZPA has a number of TAGs (Taxon Advisory Groups) made up of a representative of every member institution, who jointly generate regional collection plans. If a member institution chooses to acquire a new species that is not recommended by the relevant TAG (in this case the Carnivore TAG), the issue is usually (but not always) discussed with the TAG first, and then the institution makes its own decision to either "go it alone" with that species, or follow the recommendations made by the TAG.

There are many good reasons why an institution choosing to be the only holders of a particular species in the region makes very little sense - one of the obvious ones is a very low founder representation in the region for that species, and most members of this forum are well aware of the consequences of that.

DEWHA (Department of Water, Heritage and the Arts) generally refer to regional TAG plans when deciding whether to issue an import permit to a particular institution, and although this doesn't in itself prevent DEWHA from issuing an import permit, it frequently results in DEWHA asking for additional information from the zoo wishing to import, in order to justify why they wish to go against a regional recommendation. DEWHA then decide whether to issue an import permit or not.
 
ZooPro,
Have you got any examples where the DEWHA has approached the regional TAG plan and then declined to give an import permit to a zoo for a particular species?

How often does or how often has this happened?
 
Hi guys. I'm a new member to zoochat but have been enjoying reading your threads for past 6 months. I'm reasonably easy to please when it comes to zoos as I enjoy going to almost any wildlife park/zoo (I am certainly capable of criticism too). However, I wanted to come to the defence of the National Zoo and Aquarium because I think there are a few more positives that could be put forward to encourage people to have a look for themselves. I have gone there about a dozen times over the past 5 years because my two kids and I love going. Some of those positives are:
(i) excellent enclosures and viewing areas for most of the big cats, especially the lions (including new white lions), tigers (bengal and sumatran), cougars and cheetahs;
(ii) good enclosures and viewing areas for the giraffes, monkeys, snow leopards, brown bears, sun bears, otters, monkeys (esp. capuchins, de brazza and B&W colobus) and some fish.
(iii) no crowds like Taronga, Melbourne etc, so I always feel relaxed there and easy for me and two young boys to get a good view, take photos, and stay as long as we want at each exhibit;
(iv) possibly the best close-up animal encounter experiences in the country and at a reasonable price. I did the junior tour with my 5 year old last year and we were the only one's on the tour - so for something like $55 for the both of us (I was there to supervise but they still let me do everything) we got a zookeeper to ourselves to show us behind the scenes, feed meat to both sumatran and bengal tigers, hold a snake and tortoise, hand feed the giraffes and emus and alpacas and pet the dingoes etc

So yes it's not as big or as diverse as other zoos and yes some of the animals are not part of a breeding program (noting I think zoos like this play a very important role in animal welfare for old circus animals, confiscated exotics etc) but it still has a great collection of animals and pleasant surroundings (gardens/views) so I thoroughly recomend a visit (and I recommend going during the week in non-holiday periods, especially not in the summer holiday season).

Also for info, they have had breeding success over the years with lions, zebras, capuchins, tamarins and marmosets. Plus, they are interested in opening an open-range zoo with sfarai-style accommodation next door in the old pine forest that was cut down after the 2004 canberra fires that came very close. My understanding is they have been offered the land and have all the ACT Government approvals but they just need the funds to make it a reality.

Hope this has been of some use.
 
ps. on the issue of rejecting import permits to zoos it would depend in the first instance if the animal was already on the approved live import list (plus of course AQIS also has legislative power to reject species on quarantine grounds)
 
boof said:
ZooPro,
Have you got any examples where the DEWHA has approached the regional TAG plan and then declined to give an import permit to a zoo for a particular species?

How often does or how often has this happened?
Click to expand...

Hi Boof,

No, I don't know of any actual instances of this, but then if you think of it, that's not entirely unreasonable.

Here's a made-up example completely unrelated to National Zoo. Let's say the director of Stamp Collection Zoo applies for an import permit to bring in Okapi. DEWHA checks the regional collection plan - Okapi are not on it. They go back to the director of Stamp Collection Zoo and ask for more justification on why they want to go against the regional collection plan, and the director provides sufficient reasons to make DEWHA comfortable with issuing the import permit. The Okapi eventually arrive, and guess what - I bet there wouldn't be many people on this forum that wouldn't hear about the new Okapi!

But if the reasons provided to DEWHA dodn't convince them to issue the import permit, then the only people that know about the "failed" import would be the director of Stamp Collection Zoo, and DEWHA. It's quite likely that no one one else would even get to hear about it.

Polar bears at Sea World are a great example of where additional justification for the import satisfied DEWHA, and the bears arrived, although they do have some conditions on the permit about transfer of the imported animals and/or any offspring.

Sorry this is a bit off the topic of the thread, but you did ask :)
 
thanks zoopro. I understand what you mean when you say that only the director applying for the permit and the DEWHA would know what has been rejected. I wasn't trying to put you on the spot, I just thought that you might have heard of a few different species rejections over the years.
before i joined this forum i had never heard of species management plans, stud book keeping and stuff like that. I have always been a fan of zoos but i knew nothing about managing and maintaining species within our region. I am slowly starting to get my head around the reasons for limiting the number of species that are displayed, but a part of me would still like a bit of variety between australian zoos.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top