Initially this seemed like an exciting and ambitious new venture. However, a scrutiny of the website reveals some cause for a bit of healthy scepticism.
The corporate structure is beautifully set up to cover all the bases - a pretty girl to get the media coverage, an academic to guarantee some conservation credibility, a businessman so that the donors can give generously in the knowledge that their money will be well managed.
However, the use of the word "sanctuary" is a bit disingenuous. We don't have a situation here in Australia where big cats need to be given "sanctuary" from unsuitable living conditions such as they have in the USA. Many of those "sanctuarys" are just an excuse for an individual to own a private zoo supported by public donations.
Karma Cats vision statement includes the curious statement that they are creating an "overseas escape". I wonder what that means?
The greater emphasis seems to be on creating a privately owned, big cat interactive playground. Your own private zoo financed by someone else! They talk about playing with a tiger cub and a one hour walk with a lion. One hour for heaven's sake!! They heavily emphasise cubs in their promotion.
I am also intrigued that they can confidently claim that they have "preliminary approval" from BQ. There is no such status.
Similarly, they don't appear to have purchased any land yet [they are still seeking donations] so it would not be possible to have "preliminary approval" from Ipswich City Council for an unknown site. Support, in principle, for the concept certainly but that is a long way away from "preliminary approval".
Depending on the identity of some of the, so far, faceless animal management experts they could well have "support" from ZAA but that should not be construed that they are "in".
And they will need to be well and truly "in" if they are going to achieve their species wish list by 2013. As a matter of fact they are going to have to jump the queue to achieve these species. As of this year's ZAA Conference this facility was not even on the radar. Under the new ZAA membership application protocols they will have to lodge an application for Associate membership. This will not even be considered until 2011. Given that there are a few applications in the queue ahead of them, it would be reasonable to assume that their application won't be considered until late 2011. Then they will need to be Associate members for a minimum of one year before they can be considered for Full Institutional Membership and thus participation in the breeding programs that they talk about. This means late 2012. During this time they would be able to house aged, post-reproductive or neutered rejects from ASMP programs but such specimens wouldn't really fit the image that they are trying to cultivate. And there are already waiting lists for Snow Leopards, Cheetah, Tigers etc from institutions already in ZAA, let alone those waiting to join who are already in the queue ahead of them.
I am also intrigued by the claim that they have three employees with a total of over 44 [or 45 depending on the page] years of big cat breeding and handling. As Liz can only claim "a couple of months" voluntary experience at Zion, Australia Zoo and the CLBC plus 3 years employment at Dreamworld it would be reasonable to ask who are the other two employees with the other 40+ years experience.
Which brings me to the most curious aspect of the claims made on this website. The Testimonials page features a glowing reference from a senior manager at Dreamworld! Some of you will recall the hysterical opposition to the fledgling Darling Downs Zoo that came from Dreamworld [and the other Big 2 on the Coasts]. Much of this opposition was due to the fact that we were building a zoo within their visitor catchment area. Now we have a much larger and slicker facility proposed for an area which is nearly 2 hours closer to Dreamworld than our zoo. And a Dreamworld senior manager [whose expertise I highly respect] is supporting it? Curiouser and curiouser. I look forward to his comments.
Having said all that, if this a fair dinkum proposal I welcome it.
Some years ago, when the Big 3 were trying to annihilate us, I maintained that a new Park will not reduce the portion of the visitation "cake" available to us. If it is any good it will increase the size of the cake available to all of us. No doubt there will be a bit of visitation fluctuation in the early days but it will all settle down and we should all benefit. Bring it on!
