That's unfortunate, it does appear nicer to look at, without people thinking back to the days of old steel cages.
Tasmania Zoo Tasmania Zoo review
- Thread starter Grant Rhino
- Start date
That's unfortunate, it does appear nicer to look at, without people thinking back to the days of old steel cages.
You cannot compare Government run zoos and private run zoos. There isnt a private run zoo that has the financial ability that the gov zoos have. Tarongas Tiger trek costed 12 million, with there precinct area costs often running close to or over 100mil.
Biosecurity would be the reason. If the area is prone to flooding they would be not liking the risk of animals escaping through flood waters.
I actually believe that you can and should compare them:
Any business or organisation (in any industry) that seeks success should compare and contrast themselves to the best or most successful in their field (in this case the govt run zoos), as well as to their peers / rivals (in this case other private zoos).
What does this look like here though? Something like this:
Can we build something like Tiger Trek at Taronga? No - we don’t have that sort of money or space. But can we incorporate some of the ideas used in it? Do these ideas fit in with or mission statement or philosophies anyway? Yes they have nice trees or vines on their wire mesh (I assume they do - but I haven’t been there since that exhibit was built) - maybe we can do that. Hmmm, this isn’t within our means but they have a nice old boat in their penguin exhibit which looks good - we can certainly do that! (Again, I have no idea if Taronga has a boat in their penguin exhibit but you get the picture I assume).
Hmmm, we don’t have the resources of Taronga but what about Currumbin or Mogo? Both are privately run, both look beautiful and both are about the same size as us - what are they doing right? Can we do some of those things? Mogo has nice primate islands - but our local authorities won’t let us do that. Let’s scrap that. Both have lush vegetation - but our climate is different. We have wattle trees and cooler weather. MAKE THIS AN ADVANTAGE:
Why don’t we send some of the primates north to warmer climates and instead focus on cold weather species and ungulates which don’t need mesh enclosures? Let’s get bison then - they love cold weather, and prezwalski horses. Is it possible to import wolves? Japanese macaques love the cold if we really want a primate. Could we do a Patagonia theme?
We have space so why don’t we have zebras? Can we get a white rhino and be part of the local breeding program? Himalayan tahr would work well in our zoo - are they possible? Maybe not yet but maybe we can in 5 years time.
We have so much wattle so what species look good with wattle trees?
Etc etc etc
That type of conversation is what all businesses and organisations should have from time to time. Maybe Tasmania Zoo does this already - I don’t know.
In my opinion they could use their climate as an advantage and display some species unsuitable for further north (as they are doing with the snow leopards).
Their limitations (no islands, cheap building materials etc) suggest that they should focus on ungulates - which should be easy to acquire, house and feed.
This place has potential if it works smart within its limitations. But the worst possible thing this (or any) organisation can do is use those limitations as an excuse for mediocrity. Look at those who do better - not at those who do worse.
I can imagine Tassie has stricter bio security laws and regulations than most of Australia due to the unique environment so this is important. Hopefully this wouldn’t prevent them from acquiring certain species in future though.
I wonder if they just went and built the islands on the dam before trying to sound out the authorities beforehand. Surely they would’ve read the room first - maybe they did and then got an unexpected answer. It would be interesting to find out what happened there.
Zoo Tour Australia
Active Member
I believe that they should use resources on more important things such as enclosures for new animals and conservation than Aesthetics as they do not improve animal welfare.
Last edited:
We have murdered many vines over the past 20 years - just trying to get suitable ones to grow and to survive the attention of the occupants. I am a great fan of vines but there are two things to keep in mind.
Firstly, most of the hardy ones are toxic to animals. That rules all of them out.
Secondly, most of the non-toxic ones are tasty to animals. They don't last long either.
Has anybody ever wondered why the most common vegetation in zoo cages/enclosures/habitats [all just semantics] are Lomandra sp and Philodenron/Monsteria sp?
They have proven to have stood the test of time in zoos from Hobart to Cairns.
Your review has sparked some interesting, respectful comments and hopefully, has a way to go yet. However, as I feel sure that you will agree, it is one person's viewpoint at one point in time. The fact that zoos with cages are flourishing indicates that the marketplace is prepared to accept and embrace them. The fact that just about all of them, including Tasmania Zoo as you acknowledge, are identifying their own weaknesses and working hard to continually improve should ensure their survival for years to come. I know that, here at the DDZ, I am our own harshest critic, and I can only think of one private zoo and a couple of larger ones, that are content to rest on their laurels.
At the end of the day, animal welfare will always trump aesthetics as the number one priority.
Do they?
Have you read this again and had second thoughts about the harshness of this statement?
Moats waste space and are a death trap to many species - aesthetically pleasing no doubt but a risk to some residents.
Glass is the bane of a keeper's life. And keepers with a good work ethic are a rare species these days and that situation will probably continue until Australia gets back to an unemployment level of 6 - 7%. Keepers do NOT want to keep glass clean and, if it's not clean it looks worse than if it is not there.
We have not - and will not. Next time you visit a zoo with islands, particularly for arboreal primate species, close your eyes for a minute and then open them and ignore the lovely greenery. Concentrate on what the animals truly have to utilise. You may be surprised at the dearth of true brachiating opportunities that most of them have - particularly when compared with the opportunities offered by a cage. I totally agree that the cage should have plenty of vegetation, both inside and out, for the enrichment of the residents but that does not diminish the value of the "cage". Check out the many barren islands out there as well. To my mind one of the worst held this county's last Lar Gibbon. Brachiating opportunities were the width of one tree only and for the height of that tree - in other words, more vertical than horizontal. Mind you, it was a lovely tree - I hope that it is still there.
OK Grant - you've lost me now.
There is no such thing as an "arms race". That statement is tacky and trashy.
All of the gibbon species that you have been referring to, and want moved elsewhere, are at that particular zoo following recommendations from the ZAA Primate TAG. Some of them have been imported, at that zoo's expense, to set up conservation breeding pairs here in Australia in collaboration with other participating zoos.
The DDZ collaborates with Tasmania Zoo, and others, in many of these managed programs and is in a good position to give you an insight into the way things work. Hence my explanations on their behalf.
Let me very strongly reiterate - there is no "race" - that is only in the minds of ZooChatters who like to tally up scores of which zoo has how many species of what. No harm in that - just keep it in perspective.
I seem to recall that Queensland had stricter exotic animals laws than any other state in the country with many species not being able to be kept in the state which were allowed in the other states, I can only imagine that the rules even now are still extra strict in the design and regulations.
I also recall that DDZ broke new ground when the laws were relaxed to allow new species into the state such as Meerkats and a number of others.
I also recall that DDZ broke new ground when the laws were relaxed to allow new species into the state such as Meerkats and a number of others.
Lomandra (basket grass for anyone reading this) is a good option as it allows visitors to see animals fairly well too.
I love monsteria - we have quite a few in our house actually. I think it looks great in zoo exhibits too.
Question though: why don’t more zoos use jasmine? Most species are non toxic and it grows very quickly. Or does it just get eaten? Surely it would work well in feline or canine exhibits? Even with marmosets and tamarins if it’s given time to establish before residents move in.
Probably my favourite zoo plants are Moreton Bay Figs (Melbourne, Werribee, Adelaide, Taronga) but they are very slow growing so not too practical short term.
Animal welfare and aesthetics don’t need to be mutually exclusive though. The dusky langur enclosure in Adelaide with the Moreton bay fig tree and the gibbon islands opposite it look beautiful and are functional for the animals
The goal / detention centre comment was actually what my fiancé and I said to each other within seconds of each other when we were at the zoo - we just felt that in that section of the zoo there was just so much hard mesh.
What I will admit though is that this does look a lot worse when it’s new - it will look better in time as plants grow. I didn’t realise how new the leopard exhibit was either - it had been over ten years since I’d last been.
I’m curious about moats - which species are at risk? I refer to 45 degree angle moats rather than drop pits if that makes sense.
I agree with you about dirty glass - it looks horrible, but I’m surprised about keepers work ethics.
This is something that I will DEFINITELY do next time. Though most islands I can think of have a lot of climbing opportunities - not just with trees but with wooden structures and ropes.
What the cages have is the roof - which provides another opportunity.
That said I’d be prepared to sacrifice the roof for the aesthetics but obviously the island would have to have extensive climbing structures (natural or not).
Where is the lar gibbon? I’m not familiar with that island? Mogo or Dubbo I’m assuming.
I will trust that those in the know (yourself, ZAA etc) know what they’re doing on this then. If the cage model is in the best interest of the gibbons then I will accept it - but that doesn’t mean I will ever like it.
My arms race comment was actually directed at ZooChatters who constantly use the word “progressive” to describe zoos acquiring more species. That word in that context is a bugbear of mine. It certainly wasn’t directed at the zoo itself.
Red handed tamarins - I said golden handed.
Yes - totally agree: Any review is one person’s view at one time. And it can be affected by so many variables too.
As I’ve said, I don’t dislike the place - I just dislike certain aspects (particularly hard mesh cages). And I dislike these in ANY ZOO - even zoos that I like a lot.
The marketplace embracing cages is interesting and could be due to many factors. For example, are there nearby zoos without cages? This will be an interesting ‘watch this space’. If people are prepared to spend their money to go there then it’s working.
Almost nobody is going to like everything about a zoo, and no zoo can really replicate the wild exactly.
For me personally I’m far less interested in zoos now than I’ve ever been - but that’s probably because I’m far more interested in national parks and other wild spaces than ever before. That doesn’t mean I dislike zoos though - I still volunteer at one! However if given the choice between a zoo and a national park I’m choosing the park every time.
The fact that you’re your own businesses harshest critic is great and that’s why your business is successful. I am looking forward to visiting it next time I’m in Brisbane.
And the effort put in by Tasmania Zoo is also obvious to see - as I said in. Y original review (I don’t want this point getting lost)
This is what I thought too (that QLD had the strictest laws - due to the farmers lobby). However I noticed that Tasmania doesn’t allow fruit in at the airport and it made me think that being an island they also might have stringent laws about bringing in animals etc.
As a kid I always wondered why Queensland didn’t have a big zoo like Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide or Perth - and the laws and restrictions were probably part of the reason why.
I suspect it has as much or more to do with the fact that Brisbane is the only state capital that wasn't the dominant population centre of its state. Queensland has always been the most decentralised state of Australia and historically that was even more pronounced, and it's only been in the last 30 years or so that Brisbane has become more powerful politically and economically than the rest of the state as a whole. As such, many of its civic institutions were relatively weaker than those in other states: a Brisbane zoo never would have received the same government or philanthropic support as those in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and (somewhat later, because it was a much smaller place) Perth.