I just want to put a short post-script on an old (but still very relevant and important) thread:-
I visited Taronga today for the first time since last summer. My continuing impression is of a beautiful zoo, well landscaped and with dedicated keepers (I chat to them and they politely humour an old guy like me), but Taronga is a zoo with fewer and fewer animals each time I visit, particularly exotics. This zoo was regarded as one of the world's best when I was a small boy, so over all I'm disappointed with the place nowadays.
I visited Taronga today for the first time since last summer. My continuing impression is of a beautiful zoo, well landscaped and with dedicated keepers (I chat to them and they politely humour an old guy like me), but Taronga is a zoo with fewer and fewer animals each time I visit, particularly exotics. This zoo was regarded as one of the world's best when I was a small boy, so over all I'm disappointed with the place nowadays.
Maybe he didn't speak English!
What were you doing there Steve? Secret zoo-owner's business?
Getting back on topic; don't get me wrong - Taronga is a very good zoo; but it could have been one of the greats.
It is fashionable nowadays to ridicule anyone who argues against continual reduction in the number of species held as having a "stamp collector's" mentality, but reduction in species numbers is only a virtue if it results in an increased number of spaces for the those that are retained, and by and large this doesn't seem to be happening in our big mainstream zoos.
If a zoo makes a commitment to Francois' langurs, Sumatran tigers or any other endangered species, if it's fair dinkum it HAS to provide more than one enclosure and keep more than one pair. If it decides to go into white-cheeked gibbons it should make provision for 8 or 10 white-cheeked gibbons, if it wants to be taken seriously. As the "late, great" Phoenix said earlier in this thread, resources to maintain fishing cats are not much different to what is needed for domestic moggies, so a zoo with a commitment to fishing cats should have the facilities to maintain 8 or 10 of them, even if most of them are kept off-display (where they will probably breed better anyway.) Otherwise our zoos, despite claims of being conservation minded, are just display areas, rather than serious breeding centres.
What were you doing there Steve? Secret zoo-owner's business?
Getting back on topic; don't get me wrong - Taronga is a very good zoo; but it could have been one of the greats.
It is fashionable nowadays to ridicule anyone who argues against continual reduction in the number of species held as having a "stamp collector's" mentality, but reduction in species numbers is only a virtue if it results in an increased number of spaces for the those that are retained, and by and large this doesn't seem to be happening in our big mainstream zoos.
If a zoo makes a commitment to Francois' langurs, Sumatran tigers or any other endangered species, if it's fair dinkum it HAS to provide more than one enclosure and keep more than one pair. If it decides to go into white-cheeked gibbons it should make provision for 8 or 10 white-cheeked gibbons, if it wants to be taken seriously. As the "late, great" Phoenix said earlier in this thread, resources to maintain fishing cats are not much different to what is needed for domestic moggies, so a zoo with a commitment to fishing cats should have the facilities to maintain 8 or 10 of them, even if most of them are kept off-display (where they will probably breed better anyway.) Otherwise our zoos, despite claims of being conservation minded, are just display areas, rather than serious breeding centres.
Also 8-10 white-cheeks or fishing cats would be about equal to the whole Australasian population of each.
I agree with the above comments about the frustration of zoos to stick to plans and commit to some of these species that are slowly drifting out of the region. Case in point - Taronga brought in silvery gibbons (an important small regional program that needs more spaces) and at the first sign of problems ditches the species for another...
I agree with the above comments about the frustration of zoos to stick to plans and commit to some of these species that are slowly drifting out of the region. Case in point - Taronga brought in silvery gibbons (an important small regional program that needs more spaces) and at the first sign of problems ditches the species for another...
I do agree. ZAA needs to stick to their guns on species and use the in situ angle on their doorsteps (Australia and S.E. Asia and Wallacea region).
MARK
Well-Known Member
I disagree, if only because there's simply no chance of it happening.
The more plausible approach is for ASMPs to be run as adjuncts to the European and American programs. Those are the ones with the critical mass of zoos able to - at least between them - manage sustainable populations of a given species. I know that's already happening with a number of species - red pandas, sumatran tigers, black rhinos, golden lion tamarins and gorillas come to mind. But it needs to be done, in effect, for all exotic species.
The way forward for Australasia is a) reliable regulations that will keep the door to imports open, rather than shutting at the merest whisper of a potential threat and b) a willingness on the part of the dozen or so reasonably sized organisations in this region to actually import and export more frequently.
animal kid
Well-Known Member
But are some of the smaller zoos interested in keeping these species?
also is there an update on some of the planned imports such a coati's?
and what are the main species aus zoos need more of?
also is there an update on some of the planned imports such a coati's?
and what are the main species aus zoos need more of?
These 2 main issues certainly need to be addressed if coordinated conservation breeding programmes are ever to come off the ground.
That it can be done proves the consortium imports of elephants and rhinos both in logistics, participating institutions and written commitments from individual zoos beforehand.
Over and above, the zoo community within Australasia needs to focus its attention fully to biodiversity regions that either are in close proximity socially or politically (S.E. Asia and Wallacea) and those biodiversity regions that more or less suit the Australasian clime and weather (mainly African savannah and Indian Subcontinent sub-tropics).
Admittedly, you have a somewhat small founder base of exotic wildlife facilities within and outside ZAA. But really I AM CONVINCED it can be achieved if the zoo community and the administration-political class come together on the issue.
And for what it is worth: Australasia has so much wonder to be merry and amazed about in terms of biodiversity. So, why not ... (in Europe I personally find that native fauna presentations are a real UNDER-ACHIEVER amongst both the smaller and major zoos in the region (sadly).