Taronga Zoo Taronga and Western Plains in the news

Nigels views

A good response , but it took a LONG time coming .
Are zoo administrators really aware of the vibes outside the zoos , irrespective of how well informed or otherwise ?
If zoos wait too long before responding , a good response might just be too late
 
ill tell you what i think! i think that what the guy is saying in his article is true. most people are absolutely unaware of the full scale of the work being done by our zoos, work that doesnt stop at the gate but is tied to money made at the gate.
the argument that zoos are all commercial, money making entities is a load of crap. this isnt disney world were talking about. the constant reference to wild elephants is beyond a joke. where do these anti-zoo lobbyists think pornthip and co came from? the jungle? these elephants have a much better chance of being kept in a stable family unit then they ever would have had in thailand, where they were beasts of burden. the gap between the zoo and the wild is closing in all the time, seperated by degrees. nowhere on the planet is any animal free from human impacts. so to suggest that elephants living in thailand or anywhere in Asia or Africa are somewhat better off and safe and free from human impacts is a load of crap.
and if the zoo has to have elephants, or any animal, god forbid it is a zoo, to ge tpeople to pay to come and see them so that they can then afford to carry out the work on the many species that people dont actually care about like frogs and stick insects and tree kangaroos etc, but for which extinction is also a reality, then thats the way it as to be.
i dont think a breeding program jus ton its own is going to save elephants, but thats not how the program has been designed to work. these elephants are conservation tools, analogues for their wild cousins, advocates for the animal kingdom.
i saw a fabulous cartooon yesterday of a an ark (a zoo) filled with endangered animals floating in a stormy sea with anti-zoo/greenies in a boat with a save the whales placard, and all the animals looking down at them. it sums up the whole argument so succintly. the two parties are supposed to be on the same side!!!
 
Heres the response by David Hancocks to the zoo article.
The right and wrong ways to zoo it - Opinion - brisbanetimes.com.au

Whilst I agree with some of his arguements I think he is painting with a very broad brush. Also I'm a bit concerned about how out of the loop he is, how long has it been since he was at werribee?
I have a great deal of respect for him but I definately sense some sour grapes. His arguement comes across a bit like " The things that I was involved in and created are wonderful but everything else isn't"

With regards to the zoos article I thought it was good, explained things that needed explaining, I especially like the comment about letting emotion and ignorance colour your judgement. etc the SMH had a letters to the editor that I think says what many people might be thinking. I can't quote it exactly but it said something like " I can't get the image of an elephant pacing a small enclosure out of my mind - that's what zoos are really about" For some people it doesn't matter what zoos are now, they are tarred with the brush of yesteryear.

On top of this I just read an article in New Scientisy where an electric fence is being built around a small African National Park (in Kenya I think) to protect the animals and prevent them from getting into the surrounding farms. Excuse me but isn't this a zoo in another disguise. Certainly the animals are now fenced in. Another article I read a long time ago said something like that the wild in Africa is just a series of islands surrounded by a sea of humanity. There is NO wild in Southern Africa.
 
Why do i always get the feeling that one side says that "Zoo's are all bad" and the other says "Zoo's are all good".

As far as i can tell, most major western country's have a rediculous amount of Zoo's and you can't tell me that the majority of the smaller Zoo's main concern is surviving for another day and making some money out of it. I don't doubt that most of them try and breed rare (and for them hopefully expensive) animals just for the money aspect of it, and showing animals in exhibits that are not the largest in the world just to attract a lot of people.

The totally deranged aspect of bringing in white tigers and white lions and claiming "we bred a really rare white tiger who's almost extinct because there's only 150 of them left" would be a hint to all of us of how sound some of our parks are.

Still, every country has some major zoo's, most of them with gouvernment support who have enough money not to just want to survive untill tomorrow. This, what is becoming a better and better organised netwerk of knowledge and cooperation is really trying to contribute more and more to the wellfare and existence of rare species. To me, getting the smaller zoos more involved and dragged into the field of conservation is what it is all about and if parks don't want to, the green movement can harras them into oblivion for all i care.
 
as most of you know i'm a somewhat torn individual. on one hand i love visiting zoos partly becuse i love looking at the animals and even more so because i'm interested in the artistry, design and innovation that goes into the faux habitats we make for them.

on the otherhand i don't think most zoos are yet the what they say they are. i don't think zoos are the powerhouses of modern global conservation. even the breeding programs, touted by zoos as saving species, often only focus on zoos replenishing their own stock and there are many examples of them not even succeeding very well here either. unfortunately as i have learnt more and more about zoos over the years (mostly on this forum) i have slowly seen them more and more as despite their talk, still very much stuck in the menagarie mindset.

essentially i think it comes down to this. as anyone who reads this taronga/dubbo article can see - one of the biggest excuses used by the zoos to justify their existance is to breed and conserve endangered species. nearly everything these days is under threat in some way or another so its not supprising to see that most of the species in a zoos collection is becoming increasingly rare in the wild.

but lets put this into context. i think its reasonably fair to say thay the vast majority of zoos practical conservation work is done with native animals.
thats no supprise, its where OUR zoos specifically can make the biggest positive impact. we can rehabilitate wildlife that would otherwise have died. our captive breeding programs work well. the animals are usually cheaply housed as they are adapted to teh loacl environment. they generally are injected with regular blood from wild animals, be them captured or rehabilitated. we are also in a good position to reintroduce animals because we are not on the the other side of the globe from their native habitat. and importantly these animals are in a unique position to educate and influence people who are in positions to do something. saving australian animals has relevance to australians becuse they live in our backyard (both metaphorically and literally).

but the vast majority of large animals in zoos are not native animals. they are the exotic species from places, far, far from where we live. its some of these animals that are the zoos biggest attractions and also the ones which cop the most cricism from welfare groups. because it is here where zoos most often fall short of their apparent goals. we know why - its not that easy manging a conservation program for a species when your in an entirely different continent from that of the species origin. there are, as we all know import restrictions, the immense costs involved in doing so, lack of availability, small genepool as a consequence, lack of regional support, poltics and in the end another countries government, elected by another nations people is largely responsible for that species protection in the wild. all factors that heavily compromise any serious attempts to propagate the species in captivity and reintroduce it into the wild.

what supprises me is that whenever an anti-zoo statement gets made in the media everyone on this forum bands together and begins delivering the conservation rhetoric like its going outta style. but you guys are the biggest bunch of zoo critics i know! and we all whinge constantly about the phasing-out of this, and why can't we import more of that, and why don't the zoos pair up this animal with that, that is until zoopro reminds us of the realities of the scenario. you all know very well just how many exotic "breeding programs"
have come to a dead end in australia with zero contribution to the species in the wild. its not always about conservation and re-introduction.

for me the reality is this. just as its misguided and wrong for the animal welfare groups to say zoos are nothing more than institutions of public entertainment, its wrong for zoos to justify ALL their decision by cloaking them under the guise of conservation.

probably the worst possible example of this would be the way our zoos handled the elephant issue. arguing that they deserved elephants for conservation reasons when up to that very point in time both zoos had demonstrated a long history of elephant neglect only echoed an adolescent arguing for the keys to the car when they hadn't yet got a license. its not that they can't potentially look after elephants - its that they were a good ten years late and clearly showing an alterior motive in their proposition.

i think euthanasing healthy zoo animals like lions is a maelstrom of controversty just waiting to happen there as well.

its decisions like these that heavily undermines what the zoos claim to be their motives and opens them up to easily aimed fire.

zoos are getting some things right, but its my opinion, my belief, that they are they have become a little too confident hiding behind their conservation shield. thinking they could import more elephants after ignoring decades of critcism about space only illustrates this. as more of the worlds wild places disappear, as more species become rarer and the value of each species increases, zoos are going to find it increasingly hard to justfy the way they manage wild animals and the way they keep them. and to be honest if zoos really do want to become the global arks of species preservation, then i don't think they are up to the task the way they think they are.

believe me i can sit here and argue equally as long about why i think the animal welfare groups are nasty hypocrites as well. i could write a long essay on the potential of zoos as conservation forces, how important it is to have insurance populations of rare species and the effectiveness of well manged captive breeding to boost wild numbers. but i could do the same on the lack of vision, logic and creative input there seems to be the board at taronga and melbourne zoos.

i started writing this yesterday, inbetween bouts of working in a frenzy. taking care to try to be honest but not hypocritical or unfair. i hope i have acheived that. i actually became distracted and this post sat in the dock of my computer until today. i see that since i wrote most of it, jay has posted hancocks response. i don't know much about david hancocks. i don't know if he practises what he preaches. i remember reading his response to the elephant issue some time ago. and like then, i agree with him.

lets give zoos credit where credit is due, but let them take their criticism where thats due too...
 
Last edited:
David Hancocks article

His first line is interesting .
He doesnt like zoos .
If he doesnt like zoos , why did he work in that field for 30 odd years ?

it certainly is sour grapes material .

However , having said that , I agree that Taronga Zoo has a very small enclosure for 5 elephants ( more if they breed successfully )
I am sure there is more room at open range parks for elephants
 
Wow, Patrick, you really nailed it!
I had to read your posting (above) 3 times to get my head around it.

I think the problem is that modern zoos are anxious, because they are forever having to justify their existence in the face of mounting criticism, most of it uninformed. Consequently they play the "conservation breeding "card quite strongly, probably overdoing it, as you suggest.

We are forever being told that the purposes of a modern zoo are
Conservation
Education
Recreation

Whereas the first two of these are trumpeted about, the last is generally ignored, as if it is somewhat shameful to go to a zoo simply for the pleasure of looking at and admiring exotic animals.To hell with that bleeding heart attitude!

As far as I am concerned, Recreation is just as legitimate a purpose as the other two, and most of the world agrees with me.(In the U.S.A.,more people go to zoos than all the football games and baseball games put together.)

Sure, animals in a zoo are no longer in the wild, (not that there's much "wild" left), but most of them are a hell of a lot better off than most farm animals.

Zoos should be proud of providing a recreational facility which is enjoyed by so many people, and when uninformed criticism is thrown at them they MUST fight back.
 
Recreation is an ignored and undervalued reason for going to zoos. Personally I like to blame the extreme animal rights groups such as PETA ( I could be over the top of that) but members of PETA have stated that their aim to cut all contact between animals and humans. And that includes your pet dog or cat. The way they see it is that any enjoyment of animals by humans is exploitation of animals. The corolly of that could be that we must hate animals so as to save them. Which of course is rubbish.
I enjoy going to the zoo, I enjoy being amonst the vegetaion, seeing animals that I am NEVER going to get to see otherwise 0 Not all of us can or should travel. It is a day of recreation for me, to visit the zoo, and I learn from it. Just as I do when I visit a museum, art gallery or even the movies. There is every reason to enjoy learning.
 
Patrick, this is a fantastic post and I hope very much that some people from Taronga and Melbourne (and other zoos around the world) will read it. I couldn`t agree more.
 
What are the facts?

Freedom of speech
There are many opinions about the values and benefits touted by zoo belivers, agnostics and atheists. Each has a voice and each should be heard and acknowledge. It is best not to judge any one that has a certain view on zoos, but acknowledge that the opinions and debates are worth having. That everyone feels free to be honest in their speech will enable us all to get at the truth, to learn from the positives and also from the negatives.

Far too often staff within zoos do not speak the truth to the extent they would wish too. Omitting vital information in a discussion or a report or any commincation is to be dishonest. This is not the fault of the person omiting the information but usually as a result of fears about being judged, being punished, being overlooked for promotion or opportunities or being shunned by your peers. How many good keepers do you know that have been shut out by their management for being loud and opinionated (especially where they have an opinion contrary to their management or current practices); where the management's "special people" have been given the opportunities before the more knowleagable.

Do not knock the knockers, they too have their story to tell and we learn from them.

Value of zoos
On the issue of the value of zoos, each of the stories in the papers of late have referred to a number of books or research undertaken. They are all well worth reading if you want to gain more of a whole of zoo appraoch to visions, missions, conservation and commercialism in zoos. (Tribe, Hancocks, Lonsdale, Mazur). There are very few books that take such a broad and considered view of the values and activities of zoos.

The World Zoo Conservation Strategy is a guide to the best we should expect and strive for, but their is little literature or research that identifies how zoos can measure their outcomes. What is needed is far more collaboration with university academics to help develop such meaures that are identifiable and are able to be compared across zoos. Some interesting appraoches have been suggested by a number of members of the CBSG and other notable zoo organisations, however nothing as yet comes close to prescribing a model that is workable.

Measures of conservation success- an example
An example of a conservation outcome often touted as successful is the return of Prezwalski horses to their native home. This was achieved after many years of succesful breeding. What is often missed in the evaluations is the degree to which some organisations were honest in their reporting of the outcomes. Some of those animals returned were done so against the recommendations by the program coordinator, many of the animals died within their first year from exposure as they were introduced at the wrong time of year resulting in a lack of adequate food in the environment (there was not managed suplplemantary feeding at the time). This program is still touted by many as a key marker of their success at conservation programs.

What are the facts?
Opinions are varied, the degree of truthfulness in dicussion and reporting is varied, the amount of research is limited, KPI's that are measurable and comparable are non-existent.

In short; We do not have all the facts!
 
As much as I do not have all the facts , and most -- if not all -- people on this forum will have similar views ,

there are some people who write to the media with sour grapes , or some extra agenda . These are quite often not thought out with a grain of sense

the media is always after a story or sensationalism , and that is what is printed . Do you think they would ask the zoos permission to print something that slams zoos ? ( and to heck with right or wrong )
No . The media prints it anyway , and the zoo is left to pick up the pieces

Here we have David Hancocks devoting 30 years working for something he claims to hate . Can he REALLY have an honest and balanced view on the issdue , without any sour grapes or personal vendetta coming through ?
REALLY ? I find that one difficult to accept blindly ...

As much as everyone has an opinion , my main concern is knowing the TRUTH
 
Another aspect that no one has brought up yet is the fact that the major zoos in Australia are govt run. This means that things like the hiring of the top layer of managers, the budget of the zoos, the direction that the will go towards are ultimately decided by beaurocrats and politicians that have no real contact with the zoo itself. They don't know anything about what animals need, how the public perceives the zoo, whether or not something is value for money. They are guided by what the particular department that controls the zoo dictates. So the keepers, who are on the ground get very little real say in what happens.
Guy Cooper is a particular case in point. He is the director(?) of the zoo so who was the person who hired him. Someone from within the department not actually working with the zoo. Some of Taronga knockers are using the fact that he comes from a business background, hasn't much experience with zoos as a negative thing, an example that the zoo is seeking profits before the welfare of the animals. That may be so but the decision for that would have come from politicians trying to make govt. enterprises pay their way, as seems to be the case with most govt. things these days. And the beaurocrat whose job it is to put the politicians aims into practice would have hired the person most suitable for that aim - a business man.
 
jay said:
This means that things like the hiring of the top layer of managers, the budget of the zoos, the direction that the will go towards are ultimately decided by beaurocrats and politicians that have no real contact with the zoo itself. They don't know anything about what animals need, how the public perceives the zoo, whether or not something is value for money. They are guided by what the particular department that controls the zoo dictates. So the keepers, who are on the ground get very little real say in what happens.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this statement Jay. Most of the larger government zoos (Taronga and Western Plains, the three Zoos Victoria properties, Perth Zoo etc.) are all government zoos, and all are administered via a Board and a CEO. While Guy Cooper is the CEO of Taronga and Western Plains Zoos, he answers to the Zoological Parks Board of NSW. The Board, like most zoo boards, is made up of a group of people from various fields of expertise (zoology, marketing, finance, science etc.). It is the Boards, the CEOs and the various Board Committees that ultimately decide on the direction of the zoos. And while some Board members, individually may not "know anything about what animals need", collectively, they make up a group of people that does know what animals need, what public perceptions are, and how and where the money is going to come from to allow the zoos to continue to grow.

You might want to read the follow summaries of those Boards:

Taronga and Western Plains Zoos
Zoological Parks & Gardens Board
Perth Zoo Board - Perth Zoo - Western Australia

As I a keeper at one of those zoos for many years, I thought (and I stress thought, as in I used to think), that keepers had very little say in the direction of the zoos. And most certainly, in those days, keepers were not usually involed in the long term strategic planning for the zoos, nor in large-scale exhibit design.

While zoos are predominantly about animals, and keepers take care of animals, there is a whole lot more to a zoo than only the keepers. Most large zoos these days have various planning teams, encompassing staff from all areas of the zoo (keepers, curators, marketers, educators, works staff, horticulture staff etc.) when new exhibits are being designed and planned. As is always the case when large numbers of people are involved in large projects, not all of the people get what they want all of the time, but by and large, keepers these days are most often included in exhibit design and implementation teams.

My experience has shown that generally, the keepers that complain that they are never listened to, and never involved in the planning processes, are often left out of these things for a particular reason ;). There are most certainly a good number of well-respected keepers that are intimately involved in the planning processes :).
 
and also in defence of mr cooper too, the man had a long history with the zoo before being given the job as director, and it was through his previous role as a director of a commercial company that the zoo received spinsorship. guy cooper might not come from a keeping background, but in a day and age where govt depts measure the zoos in terms of bottom lines, visitation and other commercial lines i think he brings a wealth of experience to the zoo, which can then be tempered by the life sciences staff.
face it, this guy is (haha) is pulling off the biggest overhaul in the zoos history.
 
wow what great news!

now this imidiately sparked in my mind 2 scenarios.

1) rehab and relase
or
2) rehab, breed, keep / rehab breed, release

whilst i will wait for a while to see how tarongas seal ppols are (i here they are under or very close to the minimum standards) to wheter we should keep another seal full time. i think keeping him around until a bub is born would be nice.

again my head also said, can management interveine and say keep it, or could a negotiation be struck with parks/wildlife, dept enviro, on the matter
 
i thought everyone was "ohh-ing" and "ahhh-ing" about tarongas new seal pools... when did you hear they were "barely satndard"?....
 
At the very least the enclosures wuld be equal to minimum standards. otherwise taronga would face, at worst, losing it's licence, or at the very least not being allowed to hold the animals in them. DPI has standards for most animals, but as far as I know none for marine mammals, atleast not downloadable from the website, then again neither are the reptile standards. I'm sure the exhibits meet the general standards for exhibiting animals though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top