Taronga Zoo the zoo tv program

C

Coquinguy

Well-Known Member
im a great believer in zoos, and their role in conservation.
i enjoy this show.
i think its great that many hundreds of thousands of australians are watching the program and learning a few things about how zoos really work.
but just as simple zoo signage or grandicose media announcements about zoos saving species annoy me, so too do programs which seem to mislead deliberately, elevate the importance of zoo breeding programs and deliver improper facts.
from the coverage tonight, we were told that only one breeding pair of pygmy hippos is left in Australia. not true. they are endangered, yes, but a breeding program in sydney is not as important as you would be led to believe.
does anyone else see the problem in this dumbing down of what are actually serious issues. to what extent should we 'soapify' or 'sunrise wash' such serious issues as the loss of biodiversity.
zoos can and do come under criticism at times for blowing their own trumpet a little too hard, and at times im inclined to agree. the paper by dave hancocks posted recently on this website has a clear example of public censorship in it which is completely opposite to the aim of the zoo and zoos in general; educating the public about conservation.
you cant educate people if you dont provide them with facts. breeding petra the pygmy hippo at taronga zoo is not going to save the species, though it does satisfy and mirror our western view of reducing things to icons. but it doesnt seem to have stopped the zoo saying so.
if zoos are to seriously convince the public, which may be a little more discerning than they even guess, that their animals are truly ambassodors for conservation than they need to be presented as such in true context...
ie, the birth of Australia's second pygmy hippo in two years is not valuable per-se for pygmy hippos as a whole but valuable for the zoos who want to keep pygmy hippos in australia because we are running out!!!

the anti zoo sentiment in this country might not be as vocal as in overseas regions, but at the same time zoos need to, at all times and through all outlets (even zoochat forums) remain transparent and clear. anti-zoo sentiment can quickly flare up and destroy all those fluffy red panda and tiger cub carefully staged photos. and then comes the editorial pieces, and the scandals.
please, zoos, talk to the public in realistic terms and without the rhetoric. doing so might actually empower them to make a difference. were not as stupid as you think....
 
I picked up instantly on the 'only breeding pair in Aust.' as well and was annoyed but then thought that that statement might have been meant as 'the only breeding pair in a state owned zoo'. The implicatuion being that the others are not 'proper' zoos or that the series is based on just the three instutions.
This series is a bit soapy, feel good show so I think that you might have too high expectations for it. In its favour it isn't glossing over death (ie the pelican) and is raising issues such as animals swallowing junk, getting caught in stuff etc.

But re most of what you said I would agree. One other point . Considering how much it costs to treat an animal I think that it should be raised as an issue. ie should we be spending thousands of dollers on a pelican, which seemed likely to die anyway and is a common species, when that money might be better used elsewhere?
 
I will just bring up something that bothered me from the other week, i had it on the big telly at work so got to see it, normally am am out on tuesdays so miss it.
Lets Bring in a Shark attack seal!
As far as i am concerned if an Animal has been attacked by another animal in a natural case then why rescue it, that Seal was destined to be Shark Food and people intervened, Poor Sharks and other Marine animals may no go hungry!
Maybe i am just that kind of person, unless the animal has been injured by human action or a consequence of human action it should not be rescued.

Its just a feel good show, and i dont beleive it is based in fact at all, facts may be presented but the whole show is just to make people goo Ohh and Ahh!
 
I think we must take into account who this show is marketed to.

A wide variety of the community would watch this show, from young children, to animal lovers of all ages, to people like us who have a close interest in the industry, to any other demographic.

Therefore the show, while perhaps not technically correct in everything that is said, does have an underlying message - that zoos do have a place and do actually do good things.

While the birth of a pigmy hippo might not save the species, this does apply to other species (particularly native), some who have already been showcased, including the new insurance populations of tassie devils.

However this does also apply to exotics such as Sumartran tigers, Western Lowland Gorillas etc

While there is a balance of what is bred for conservation and what is bred to keep the gates open, we cannot discount their is a role for zoos.

Zoos need the flagship-type exotic species, as they generally are of more interest to the majority, than for example the yellow-footed rock wallaby.

So is using a pigmy hippo (which is of interest) to educate the role of zoos in general terms such as bad thing?
 
It rates its socks off too! (In the top 5 shows in Sydney last week.)

I think that T.V. shows like this, and newspapers with "feel-good" photos etc. tend to over-emphasise the "conservation value" angle (even when it is a bit dubious) as a defence against the often strident misinformation and sometimes down-right lies of the animal lib. loonies.

I know a lot of you wouldn't agree with me, but I believe that even a zoo which is not a great contributor to "conservation" is still a valid cultural asset in its own right as a recreational facility and showcase of the world's animals. Don't get me wrong; every zoo should be doing its bit to help preserve endangered species; but even smaller zoos, if properly run, are valuable community assets.
 
I watch it every Tuesday as well, the zoo I think is just to show what happens behind the scenes of a zoo, usually shows : rescued animals, pregnancies and injuries needing to be tended to. Never the less quite entertaining in my opinion, seeing wild animals interact with humans, ;)
 
I think we need to remember that the show is made by a television production company - they film it, decide what stories to use, and edit it. They also write Melissa Doyle's voice-overs. The zoos concerned have very little input into the final product, and any such input would probably be from the PR dept.

The TV people's priority is ratings, not necessarily factual accuracy. And if it appears 'dumbed down', well that's because it is meant to be a 'feel good' type of program, one that doesn't need a lot of heavy thinking.

:)

Hix
 
I've only seen two episodes ...The one with the Tassie Devil breeding centre and the pygmy hippo birth and I think that to the average Australian (only see zoos as an attraction to take the kids to) would be impressed by it. It shows all the hard work that is put into the running of zoos and I don't think that most of the people watching are going to stress if there are 1 or 2 breeding pairs of pygmy hippos.

It was 7th most watched in Melbourne last week
 
there is no doubt about its popularity...and therein lies the rub. does anyone feel it would be less popular if perhaps it just broadened the view ever so slightly.
im not expecting anything that intelligent; after all its Channel 7 and not the ABC. but at the end of the day, its free publicity for the zoos which are supposed to be about public education. the shows wouldnt exist without the zoos approval, so you would guess that they could have some level of input (probably at the moment limited to just things they dont want the public to be told) and maybe up the anti a bit.
just because millions of people visit zoos every year just expecting to be fun is no excuse for our zoos to provide anything else but a recreational good. i think the zoos should be harnessing the immense popularity of this program and doing a bit more education and some publicity.
btw, did anyone else notice that the birth of the pygmy hippo must have been re-enacted? either that, or it was alot colder inside the hippos bran than outside when the keeper and vet were watching the monitor?
 
A lot of those scenes are re-enacted. The same with Border Security.

:)

Hix
 
lol thought as much...the zoo as you've never seen it before. almost alludes to something a bit more gritty doesnt it?
 
Im not really sure what you want from the program. Its a family show not a documentary show.

Also there is actually very little the public is told about what goes on behind the scenes of a zoo. The general public just wouldn't understand how a Zoo has to operate. Im not going to carry on here. Just remember that it was 3 weeks before the public was told that little Monifa was born. If she hadnt have survived the public would have never known. This goes on around the world at all zoos. And the general public would not understand if they were told of all that happens. This is why the Zoo program is so brief and simple for the public to understand

It is programs like this that help generate PR and Money for Zoo's both public and private.

As for the birth being re-enacted. It was not not everything on the program is re-filmed until it is right. It is just edited to seem that way. The crew who filmed the birth and the keepers have had some very long hours over the past month.
 
Nobody is knocking the keepers. They are special people and I'm full of admiration for them.
 
stretchedandy said:
Im not really sure what you want from the program. Its a family show not a documentary show.

i think thats a little bit like saying do you want your zoo a bit like a circus or more like a safari? what i want from the zoo program for starters is facts.
i also think that not all publicity is good publicity. i think the zoo program is a good form of publicity for taronga and the other zoos, and for some aspects of zoo conservation.
but i think, with such a large number of people watching the show the zoo could go beyond the glossy picture taronga in particular paints of itself and maybe show a lot of life, and a little more death and perhaps educate alot of people in a relatively controlled way about the ups and downs of zoo life and in turn educate them so that when the anti zoo lobby makes explosive allegations against zoos they (the public) would be more informed and the zoos would benifit from a more balanced public opinion.
for example, when zoos spend too much time marketing animals as individuals and personalities, and not as mere links in global programs, this can tend to backfire when the animals die.
i also think that even though zoos have become massive marketing machines, they are also positioning themselves as important scientific institutions. if thats another hat that zoos want to wear too, than they should project that too.
this leads me to wonder, just how should zoos be portrayed in the general media, or how do zoos want to be portrayed?
should they be 'soapified'? is the zoo a balanced representation of the full work of the zoo? could it all backfire if the animal stars of the program died as in 2007 when the zoos lose the orang, Cheri the elephant and Kua the rhino.
are the zoos using the program as effectively as they could?
and what role does the Zoo program effectively create for zoos in conservation, and how close it that to the real picture?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
glyn said:
stretchedandy said:
Im not really sure what you want from the program. Its a family show not a documentary show.

i think thats a little bit like saying do you want your zoo a bit like a circus or more like a safari? what i want from the zoo program for starters is facts.
i also think that not all publicity is good publicity. i think the zoo program is a good form of publicity for taronga and the other zoos, and for some aspects of zoo conservation.
but i think, with such a large number of people watching the show the zoo could go beyond the glossy picture taronga in particular paints of itself and maybe show a lot of life, and a little more death and perhaps educate alot of people in a relatively controlled way about the ups and downs of zoo life and in turn educate them so that when the anti zoo lobby makes explosive allegations against zoos they (the public) would be more informed and the zoos would benifit from a more balanced public opinion.
for example, when zoos spend too much time marketing animals as individuals and personalities, and not as mere links in global programs, this can tend to backfire when the animals die.
i also think that even though zoos have become massive marketing machines, they are also positioning themselves as important scientific institutions. if thats another hat that zoos want to wear too, than they should project that too.
this leads me to wonder, just how should zoos be portrayed in the general media, or how do zoos want to be portrayed?
should they be 'soapified'? is the zoo a balanced representation of the full work of the zoo? could it all backfire if the animal stars of the program died as in 2007 when the zoos lose the orang, Cheri the elephant and Kua the rhino.
are the zoos using the program as effectively as they could?
and what role does the Zoo program effectively create for zoos in conservation, and how close it that to the real picture?
Click to expand...

The program has facts. Not complete facts but who cares its a half hour family show not a Doco show. If you put to much info into it and dont make it entertaining people just wont watch.
I agree the show should educate ppl a little more about the facts of life(animals sometimes die) and such but its early days for the series and like ive said its aim purely at the family viewing. My wife for example doesnt have the same passion as me she gets bored with to many facts and would rather watch the cute and cuddly. I tend to agree there isnt much you can learn in a half hour, give me a hour and a couple of stories with a more indepth story and facts. But how would it hold up in the timeslot on TV probably not that well. Im sure if the program didnt have the format that it does now it would not be as popular. You can wish all you want to have more facts, more indepth backgrounds on animals and ppl, but at the end of the day I dont think it would work. The format that the program uses is done so ppl learn without having to really think to much. Which is perfect because the last thing you want is ppl to get bored and change channel.
Anyway I personal think the program is great. The keepers and writers do a great job, it is always going to be hard to please everyone out there, but I believe they have hit it on the money with this format of program.
Click to expand...
 
Glynn,

It's called Light Entertainment for a reason. The show you want it to be just wouldn't rate, and the TV networks know that.

In fact, some years ago they tried. A more serious TV series filmed at Melbourne Zoo lasted only a few weeks before being pulled off the air due to bad ratings.

The best TV series I ever saw about the inner workings of zoos was the BBC series "The Stationary Ark". Made back in the 1970's, I'd love to get it on DVD but it hasn't been released.

:)

Hix
 
Hix said:
In fact, some years ago they tried. A more serious TV series filmed at Melbourne Zoo lasted only a few weeks before being pulled off the air due to bad ratings.
Click to expand...

Hey Hix, are you reffering to the show zoo crew?
 
Hix i thought zoo-crew ran for the entire season?
ok ok, im not stupid guys, which is half the reason why i started this thread in the first place...to see what objections or benefits people could see in producing a show about the zoos in Australia along the lines of Home and Away.
i never proposed a science show, just thought that the term biodiversity or eco-system could have been used once, especialy as though probably 99% of the people watching the program wouldn't be able to tell you what one was.
 
I can't remember what it was called. But I remember it made several staff members look a bit stupid.

:)

Hix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top