Toronto Zoo Toronto Zoo Master Plan 2022

I think that's one of the most frustrating things with the phasing out of the Indian Rhino, we don't know the exact reason for them being phased out. If this is the continued plan, I think people are hoping for a reason to be provided in the Master Plan. And if it is still happening, people would like to know what is replacing them, rather than a broad idea of large herbivore or possible mixed species exhibit.
 
@StoppableSan, I honestly don't know why they want to phase out the rhinos unless there is a space requirement they dont think they can achieve but even then put them in the drive thru with the P horses. You could still separate them and have tons of space.

When it comes to why did they do the work and the decision to phase them out I think the work was done and the decision came later. At the point they did the renos the zoo had zero intention of phasing them out. I agree some of those who worked hard for the renos would be insulted. They did a pretty good job fixing up the indoor exhibit. It's a decision I think a lot of guests would disagree with if they knew. Only the true nerds like us know.

@Akula I think the rhino house could be rather easily converted to house tapirs, babirusa, otters, maybe even move the gibbons to free up space in the pavilion for a bigger and better orang exhibit.
 
I will say this. If the zoo decided to continue with the hate plan of phasing out the Indian Rhino, nothing short of a diverse mixed species exhibit will compare as a replacement. Having another large herbivore only replace them will not be satisfactory.
 
TZFan said:
@StoppableSan, I honestly don't know why they want to phase out the rhinos unless there is a space requirement they dont think they can achieve but even then put them in the drive thru with the P horses. You could still separate them and have tons of space.

When it comes to why did they do the work and the decision to phase them out I think the work was done and the decision came later. At the point they did the renos the zoo had zero intention of phasing them out. I agree some of those who worked hard for the renos would be insulted. They did a pretty good job fixing up the indoor exhibit. It's a decision I think a lot of guests would disagree with if they knew. Only the true nerds like us know.

@Akula I think the rhino house could be rather easily converted to house tapirs, babirusa, otters, maybe even move the gibbons to free up space in the pavilion for a bigger and better orang exhibit.
Click to expand...
I do hope new CEO Dolf can redress the errors of judgement made on this. I do think the captival investment in renovations specifically for rhinos (going out of tapirs et al).
 
@Kirfaru Bwana, I don't think Dolf will change the decision on the rhinos. The animal plan that called for the Indian rhinos to be phased out was developed after his arrival. If he wanted to nix that decision he would have done so by now. The only hope of keeping the rhinos would be if regular guests knew what was going on and they started complaining that the rhinos were leaving. Unfortunately most zoo guests don't even know there is an animal lives plan and wont ever know the rhinos are leaving until one day they are just gone. Its highly unlikely there will be any kind of mass support for keeping them not because people wouldn't want them but because they don't know they are at risk.
 
They way I know it: female Asha has had a definite transfer and breeding recommendation elsewhere. And this should be follow up soon ... I guess (the calf has been weaned). But nothing seems to have been set in stone for the other 2.

Could the Metro Toronto Zoo technically renege on their decision? Perhaps ... (allthough I think too ... not).
 
Last edited:
Yes Asha does have a definite transfer to Rum Creek in the cards. A crate was there last summer/fall I assume to crate train her but she didnt leave before winter which seemed odd considering the crate. However covid probably mucked it up. Nothing has been planned for Vishnu or Kiran but there really isnt any need until they decide to do something to the exhibit. The zoo isnt in a rush.
 
cypher said:
Very much a possibility @DelacoursLangur. But when your told that they're going to do an exhibit with Sea Otters, you'd think they'd look into these things before notifying the public. That way you don't sound like you've put your foot in your mouth as an institution.
Click to expand...
Master Plans should not be read as promises to the public or commitments to build exhibits. The plan is to set goals, priorities, directions and give Board and staff (and fund raisers) a tool to plan for next steps. I can see how the announcement of a plan would be taken as a promise but that is a mis-communication in the way it is announced. Very few Master Plans are fully realized. Pay closest attention to the short-term priorities listed in the plan and forget the mid-term and long-term priorities.
 
Zooplantman said:
You all have probably studied this document but pages 4-5 explain the criteria used to make collection decisions (see also p. 74 on)
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/zb/bgrd/backgroundfile-158681.pdf
Click to expand...
Yes and thank you aware of these. Category of Threat and Impact on Program ... spring to mind. GOHR are more endangered and fewer in number than white. Canadian.... no.

Public engagement value probably quite high... as it is the decision is contestable.
 
Zooplantman said:
Master Plans should not be read as promises to the public or commitments to build exhibits. The plan is to set goals, priorities, directions and give Board and staff (and fund raisers) a tool to plan for next steps. I can see how the announcement of a plan would be taken as a promise but that is a mis-communication in the way it is announced. Very few Master Plans are fully realized. Pay closest attention to the short-term priorities listed in the plan and forget the mid-term and long-term priorities.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware that Master Plans are more of an outline of what they would like to be done, and they aren't promises. However, it doesn't change the fact that there will still be disappointment when changes are made to something widely liked.

What I was referring to in that quote, was a project that should be starting late this year, so in terms of what you're saying, it was a short term priority and people weren't expecting the change that was made to the species on exhibit. That change of the species in a new exhibit was disappointing. There was no miscommunication as far as I can remember, it was an outright change due to budget, which most will understand. Doesn't change the fact that it's disappointing.
 
Kifaru Bwana said:
Yes and thank you aware of these. Category of Threat and Impact on Program ... spring to mind. GOHR are more endangered and fewer in number than white. Canadian.... no.

Public engagement value probably quite high... as it is the decision is contestable.
Click to expand...
It can be debated what ex situ contribution to conservation a cold weather zoo can make for a tropical megafaunal species. Therefore Impact On Program is minimal, no?
Exhibit suitability then must take into account how much of the year megafauna need to spend in limited indoor space.
Sustainability, consequently, would be low as would be scoring for Direct Cost of Care
 
@Zooplantman, the sea otters weren't on the old master plan last time round. In fact the last master plan called for river otters at the entrance which is what they have opted in the end. The zoo posted what we at the time thought was somewhat advanced drawings of the new front entrance and it said sea otter. Turns out it wasn't as far along the development path as we thought and it was just concept work but a lot of us got really invested in the idea of sea otters because they were quite literally the perfect entrance animal for the zoo. They are cold hardy which is critical for anything we put at the entrance as our animal to welcome guests. They have a great conservation and environmental story matching very well with the zoo's messaging and mission. They are a fairly iconic Canadian species so a great choice to welcome people to Canada's biggest zoo. And they are extremely entertaining and would be fantastic crowd pleasers. River otters lack some of that conservation focus and environmental messages plus we have always had them so you wouldn't get that swell of excitement for a new exhibit that you would with a new species. They are good but not the best choice. Considering we thought we were looking at some pretty advanced renderings of the new entrance and how perfect sea otters would be it has caused a lot of disappointment amongst us. Especially since none of us actually think the officially announced walruses will ever come and thanks to covid we seriously doubt the possible koala deal will happen. Just feels like another big let down for something cool at at time when we are also loosing some long time species we all adore as well. Unfortunate timing that makes it a bit of a sore spot.
 
Time for another question... What element(s) do you want to see dropped from the old master plan? Why?

I am glad to say my top gripe is definitely getting dropped. No way they are going to merge Australasia with Indo to make Oceana and covert Australasia to Canada. That was gonna be an epic disaster. Australasia would have made for a pretty good Canadian pavilion because it is small. And if Australia got its own new pavilion I would have been ok with that. Oceana was a terrible idea. Indo is far too small for what it has now forget trying to bring in all of Australasia. The birds, and smaller animals probably could have been fit in but we were gonna loose the roos, wallabies, wombats, and even the komodo who belongs there. They were even gonna take away the Sumatran tigers with no plans to swap over to the roos.

While I want the domain moved up to Old Eurasia and possibly the drive thru I do not want to see them take over new Eurasia exhibits. Sure its a weak area for animals right now there are great options the zoo could get if they just finished phasing out some of the animals. As always I hate mixing areas up. Also want to vote for no coyotes. We can pick better more animals with stronger conservation value.

Ravens Roost stunk. While I want places to stay at the zoo the roost just didnt tickle my fancy. I think they could do a better job if they used part of the abandoned domain instead. Of course I do believe you could also build a proper hotel (not massive but reasonable sized) on the outskirts of the zoo and if you did it up right it would be popular. Dont think the zoo will do that for a second.

Thankfully we also know they wont be demolishing the temple any time soon. Not gonna invest in renovating the jaguar exhibit if they still plan to bring it down. While I want musk ox I dont want it to come at the expense of the temple. I enjoy the waterfall. Even though it could use some beautification to hide the concrete it is one of the prettiest places at the zoo come summer. Just wish we could expand the temple and keep the spider monkeys and add some new critters.

I think those are my biggest gripes from the old plan. Definitely the parts I want gone the most since I remember them.
 
I'm in agreement on a lot of the elements @TZFan mentioned. Was not a fan of the plans concerning the Indo-Malaya Pavilion and Australasia Pavilion, for all the same reasons mentioned

Was not a fan of the Ravens Roost. Seemed like a plan that would not have lived up to expectations, thus making it a waste of investment.

Those were my biggest elements I'm glad to see go away.
 
I'll match the opinion on the Oceania/Canada Pavilion stuff, frankly the idea of moving all of the Australasia stuff over to the Indo pavilion was next-level bonkers, especially when you consider that Indo is already such a tight squeeze that our solution for when the false gharial gets too big for its exhibit is to switch it out for another one. Plus the only reason to do a Canada pavilion is if Americas goes full tropical, and there's still a big chance that won't happen.

One idea I remember definitely not wanting is reducing to one gift shop and turning the non-greenhouse one into an insect pavilion. If that happens then I won't be able to go in there anymore because bugs are awful and I really don't want that
 
Last edited:
Lol! Oh @hyena142 you and your never ending dislike of insects. You poor thing. That one really would be a nightmare for you. I still think reducing to one giftshop is very possible. However who knows what they might do with the main gift shop when its replaced by a worthy one at the entrance. So many possibilities if you think about it. Doesn't have to be your worst nightmare.
 
@hyena142 I don't think the Zoo gonna implement the idea of turning a gift shop to insect house, b/c this idea violates the Zoo's geographic theme. One day I talked with a keeper in African Rainforest about the future plan of African Cave & Burrowing, she said the space of Cave is not big enough and may no longer be used as exhibits. I asked what about building a new nocturnal house or transferring a giftshop to a nocturnal house, she said the Zoo won't build specific house for nocturnal species b/c that breaks the geographic theme.
 
@StellarChaser, the insect pavilion was the plan for the main giftshop as of the old master plan. They were more than willing to break geographic theming at that time but just for the bugs. And if we want to be nit picky the zoo breaks geographic theming when it suits them. South American emerald tree boas are in Australasia so they can compare with green tree pythons. Many of us agree the komodos belong in Indo rather than Australasia because the island of Komodo is literally in Indonesia, not that there is room for them there. The rainforest pavilion has animals that belong in savanna exhibits. They do what they want, when they want, for whatever reason they want. An insect house is totally possible if that is what the zoo thinks is best.
 
The other obvious break in geographic theme is the discovery zone, though it's really just a display area for most of their outreach/show animals.

I may be biased but insects also represent some of the lowest cost, maintenance, and space requirement for any exhibits in the zoo. Even for the squeamish there are more charismatic, less 'icky' species than tarantulas like leaf insects, tropical beetles, and butterflies like we used to have in the Malayan woods.

We also wouldn't even have to bring in any new individuals, the bug house by the greenhouse has a large number of off-display species. Either way, it would be a great move, and something really different for the zoo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top