Unfair criticism of Melbourne and Werribee Zoos "ABC animals"

[Grant Rhino]

This morning I spent about an hour reading various threads about Australian zoos, and I read a lot of posts on many different threads which were highly critical of Melbourne and Werribee Zoos and their "ABC Animals".

I think this criticism is unfair and I'd like to stand up for MZ and WORZ by pointing out the counter argument:

Firstly, I think the term "ABC Animals" simply trivialises and discredits the display of these animals in zoos. I prefer to use the term "High Profile Animals". Regardless which term we use though, displaying these animals is important when running a zoo. While many Zoo Chatters may be more interested in seeing banded mongoose, striped hyena, naked mole rat and 25 different species of antelope, the vast majority of the population would prefer to see elephants, tigers, gorillas etc.

Secondly, I'd also like to point out that while MZ and WORZ do mostly display high profile animals, they actually display virtually ALL high profile animals displayed in Australia. Between the 2 properties they display all of the following:

Elephants, giraffes, rhinos, hippos, zebras, lions, tigers, snow leopards, cheetahs, gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, baboons, other Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, red pandas, otters, lemurs, kangaroos, koalas, seals, African wild dogs, and meerkats.

If you have a serious look through this list, the only high profile species on display in Australian zoos which are absent are bears, hyenas, chimpanzees and mandrills.

While I am disappointed that mandrills are no longer on display at MZ, and that WORZ doesn't have a few extra small species like fennec fox, African porcupines, colobus monkeys and even spotted hyenas, I'm more interested in pointing out the animals that they do have:

Hippos: How many other Australian zoos have hippos? Only Dubbo.

Elephants: How many other Australian zoos have them? Only Taronga, Dubbo, Sydney, Perth and Australia Zoo.

Snow leopards: How many others have them? Only Mogo and Hunter Valley. How many other Australian zoos have actually bred them recently? None. Only MZ.

Gorillas: How many others have them? Only Taronga and Mogo. Note that MZ and WORZ display them at both properties.

Orangutans: How many others have them? Only Taronga, Adelaide, Perth and Mogo.

Vervet Monkeys: No other zoo in Australia has them - even though they're the most common monkey in Africa.

I'm not saying that other zoos don't also hold some of these animals - but what I am saying is that MZ and WORZ between them hold ALL OF THESE ANIMALS.

If I was going to start a zoo from scratch, these are the animals that I'd be looking to acquire - not the obscure small animals that most of the general public know nothing about.

All in all, I feel that there has been far too much criticism of MZ and WORZ about the species that they don't display and almost nothing about the multitude of high profile species that they do display.

While the general public love visiting MZ and WORZ, I don't really know what these 2 zoos need to do to make Zoo Chatters happy? If they stop displaying any of their high profile species they will get criticised for doing so, and there aren't realistically too many more they could bring in except perhaps for spotted hyena.

Is it a case of simply adding some smaller and more obscure animals to their collections? Would this make Zoo Chatters happy? If the lack of smaller and less well known animals is the biggest problem with MZ and WORZ then both zoos are doing very, very well in my view.

On a cheerful note, I'm looking forward to MZ reopening so that I can go and see the snow leopard cubs - the only ones in Australia!

 

[Zoofan15]

I don't really know what these 2 zoos need to do to make Zoo Chatters happy?

If I could answer this in one sentence (fragment): Stop phasing stuff out at Melbourne Zoo.

99% of the criticism Zoos Victoria has received on here relates to people’s disappointment at the decrease in species held at Melbourne Zoo over the years. This is a trend that extends to the other main zoos in the region - but appears to have been felt most acutely at Melbourne Zoo (due to the sheer volume of species they’ve phased out). Melbourne Zoo had a primate and cat collection during the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s that my generation can only dream of; and the generation before much misses (both the ZooChat community and people I’ve spoken to off the forum - including several who have only a vague interest in zoos).

I appreciate the diversity of species of yesteryear came at the expensive of accomodation that was lacking in space and stimuli alike; so it is a double-edged sword, but I fully understand (and share) people’s desire to see a greater variety of species in any zoo - Melbourne included.

The people that post in the Australasian forums have a knowledge of the region’s zoos second only to those working in the industry (some of which we’re privileged to have amongst us). It’s reasonable to assume that a lot of the positives you list would add little value to the forum if posted on here. For example, I could log in and comment how great it is that Werribee Open Range Zoo have hippos, because only them and TWPZ have them; but this wouldn’t generate any discussion or tell people anything they didn’t already know (#pointless). Conversely, it’s interesting to read a list of species that a zoo once had and compare/contrast it with a current one.

I don’t think the criticism is unfair or unfounded. For the most part, people have been quite balanced; and it has generated a decent amount of debate. If the aim of ZooChat is discussion (and I believe it is), people should have the opportunity to express their views - both positive and negative.

 

[amur leopard]

@Grant Rhino Of course your argument could be extended to other zoos such as HWP, YWP and Howletts here in the UK and many others on the continent. However, it is important to note that people aren't criticising the zoo for having ABC animals, although by the time each of us have been to more than 10 zoos we are likely all bored of them, we (almost) all recognise the importance of them.

We are criticising them (and I say them, because the same goes for many other zoos: London Zoo etc.) because they have replaced odd and intriguing animals with animals that, while they attract visitors, have no conservation value at all nor likely any conservational value. I do not know specifically about the situation in Australia although I understand that a variety of ABCs is less possible than in Europe or the USA. However, Australia has so much unique fauna not seen anywhere else on Earth, which should be celebrated and conserved, not pushed to the sidelines in favour of a larger, more charismatic animal from halfway across the globe. Many of these species do not fit in with the Australian climate and would have much more conservational value back in their home countries and areas with similar climates where they can breed best.

Of course, this course of action raises a problem - the areas of greatest biodiversity on Earth are often those with the fewest zoos and the most unstable governments and little peace. This means that it is hard for us to conserve species that come from the rainforest without bringing them to larger, more stable places, often with a different climate. However, these zoos will strive to recreate their natural habitat and the climate as best they can, whilst still conserving the species that are native to the surrounding area.

However, this is not happening. Europe and North America, while many of their megafauna is not endangered, are home to a plethora of critically endangered smaller, less charismatic species. As I have mentioned before on a different thread, Europe is home to hundreds of species of endangered or critically endangered freshwater fish species that are endemic to only a few isolated streams. Surely we, in Europe, should be saving our own species, not looking down on other, less peaceful or well-off countries with our holier than thou stance which has caused so many conflicts and so much resentment?

I think the same goes for Australasia especially. Your continent has so much to offer fauna-wise, so much that can be found nowhere else. Perhaps this should be the next step for all zoos around the globe - looking internally rather than externally, and saving the species that are struggling right in their country rather than looking abroad.

Of course, I am not trying to undermine the importance of bringing in visitors. However, in order for zoos to continue to function as sites for conservation, that is the path they have to take in my opinion. Once their own, native wildlife is safe and back on its feet, then they can start helping other countries to conserve their wildlife. But right now, it is essential for the survival of those fish and herps from these 'developed' countries that zoos from those nations react.

I hope that has answered your post suitably.

 

[Grant Rhino]

@Grant Rhino Of course your argument could be extended to other zoos such as HWP, YWP and Howletts here in the UK and many others on the continent. However, it is important to note that people aren't criticising the zoo for having ABC animals, although by the time each of us have been to more than 10 zoos we are likely all bored of them, we (almost) all recognise the importance of them.

We are criticising them (and I say them, because the same goes for many other zoos: London Zoo etc.) because they have replaced odd and intriguing animals with animals that, while they attract visitors, have no conservation value at all nor likely any conservational value. I do not know specifically about the situation in Australia although I understand that a variety of ABCs is less possible than in Europe or the USA. However, Australia has so much unique fauna not seen anywhere else on Earth, which should be celebrated and conserved, not pushed to the sidelines in favour of a larger, more charismatic animal from halfway across the globe. Many of these species do not fit in with the Australian climate and would have much more conservational value back in their home countries and areas with similar climates where they can breed best.

Of course, this course of action raises a problem - the areas of greatest biodiversity on Earth are often those with the fewest zoos and the most unstable governments and little peace. This means that it is hard for us to conserve species that come from the rainforest without bringing them to larger, more stable places, often with a different climate. However, these zoos will strive to recreate their natural habitat and the climate as best they can, whilst still conserving the species that are native to the surrounding area.

However, this is not happening. Europe and North America, while many of their megafauna is not endangered, are home to a plethora of critically endangered smaller, less charismatic species. As I have mentioned before on a different thread, Europe is home to hundreds of species of endangered or critically endangered freshwater fish species that are endemic to only a few isolated streams. Surely we, in Europe, should be saving our own species, not looking down on other, less peaceful or well-off countries with our holier than thou stance which has caused so many conflicts and so much resentment?

I think the same goes for Australasia especially. Your continent has so much to offer fauna-wise, so much that can be found nowhere else. Perhaps this should be the next step for all zoos around the globe - looking internally rather than externally, and saving the species that are struggling right in their country rather than looking abroad.

Of course, I am not trying to undermine the importance of bringing in visitors. However, in order for zoos to continue to function as sites for conservation, that is the path they have to take in my opinion. Once their own, native wildlife is safe and back on its feet, then they can start helping other countries to conserve their wildlife. But right now, it is essential for the survival of those fish and herps from these 'developed' countries that zoos from those nations react.

I hope that has answered your post suitably.

What you've described here is already happening here in Australia - and it's a great thing: Zoos Victoria (the organisation that runs Melbourne Zoo and Werribee Open Range Zoo) also runs a third zoo called Healesville Sanctuary which only displays native fauna - much of which is endangered and much of which is far from 'high profile' or 'ABC'. In fact, this 'Conservation first' approach has even been criticised here on this forum because it values conservation ahead of displaying animals. I believe that this 'Conservation first' approach is the right approach and I know that much of what you have suggested is already being done here in Australia. I think we're arguing on the same side actually.

 

[Grant Rhino]

If I could answer this in one sentence (fragment): Stop phasing stuff out at Melbourne Zoo.

99% of the criticism Zoos Victoria has received on here relates to people’s disappointment at the decrease in species held at Melbourne Zoo over the years. This is a trend that extends to the other main zoos in the region - but appears to have been felt most acutely at Melbourne Zoo (due to the sheer volume of species they’ve phased out). Melbourne Zoo had a primate and cat collection during the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s that my generation can only dream of; and the generation before much misses (both the ZooChat community and people I’ve spoken to off the forum - including several who have only a vague interest in zoos).

I appreciate the diversity of species of yesteryear came at the expensive of accomodation that was lacking in space and stimuli alike; so it is a double-edged sword, but I fully understand (and share) people’s desire to see a greater variety of species in any zoo - Melbourne included.

The people that post in the Australasian forums have a knowledge of the region’s zoos second only to those working in the industry (some of which we’re privileged to have amongst us). It’s reasonable to assume that a lot of the positives you list would add little value to the forum if posted on here. For example, I could log in and comment how great it is that Werribee Open Range Zoo have hippos, because only them and TWPZ have them; but this wouldn’t generate any discussion or tell people anything they didn’t already know (#pointless). Conversely, it’s interesting to read a list of species that a zoo once had and compare/contrast it with a current one.

I don’t think the criticism is unfair or unfounded. For the most part, people have been quite balanced; and it has generated a decent amount of debate. If the aim of ZooChat is discussion (and I believe it is), people should have the opportunity to express their views - both positive and negative.

I'm in my 40s and I remember the large primate and cat collections at Melbourne Zoo well! They were great - and housed in great enclosures for the era (though these enclosures would not be deemed suitable in this era).

I do appreciate that people are disappointed that species are being phased out and I for one am particularly disappointed to see so few Old World monkey species in Australian zoos (Melbourne losing mandrills and practically losing Colobus was heartbreaking for me in a sense). However, Melbourne did have a far larger collection of species than most zoos for a long time hence some species were always going to be phased out eventually.

Of course I understand that ZooChat shouldn't just be a place where people say "Hey, how good are the hippos at Werribee!" but I do feel that over the past few days there have been a lot more negative posts about Melbourne's collection than positive ones. Yet, despite all the losses and phasing out of recent years, we now have a litter of 3 young snow leopards in Melbourne! While I think its good to have the discussion about the phasing out of various species we should also remember that while some species aren't here any more, that we do have breeding programs which are working for species which are interesting, endangered and high profile at the same time!

I guess the point of my post was to remind people that despite the fact that our zoos are not the same as what they were many years ago, they are still pretty good - and in some ways they are better than ever. Besides this, you never know what is in the pipeline - I for one was amazed when I heard the news of the snow leopard cubs - as I was when I heard of the new baby mandrill in Adelaide a year or so ago.

 

[Fallax]

@Grant Rhino Of course your argument could be extended to other zoos such as HWP, YWP and Howletts here in the UK and many others on the continent. However, it is important to note that people aren't criticising the zoo for having ABC animals, although by the time each of us have been to more than 10 zoos we are likely all bored of them, we (almost) all recognise the importance of them.

We are criticising them (and I say them, because the same goes for many other zoos: London Zoo etc.) because they have replaced odd and intriguing animals with animals that, while they attract visitors, have no conservation value at all nor likely any conservational value. I do not know specifically about the situation in Australia although I understand that a variety of ABCs is less possible than in Europe or the USA. However, Australia has so much unique fauna not seen anywhere else on Earth, which should be celebrated and conserved, not pushed to the sidelines in favour of a larger, more charismatic animal from halfway across the globe. Many of these species do not fit in with the Australian climate and would have much more conservational value back in their home countries and areas with similar climates where they can breed best.

Of course, this course of action raises a problem - the areas of greatest biodiversity on Earth are often those with the fewest zoos and the most unstable governments and little peace. This means that it is hard for us to conserve species that come from the rainforest without bringing them to larger, more stable places, often with a different climate. However, these zoos will strive to recreate their natural habitat and the climate as best they can, whilst still conserving the species that are native to the surrounding area.

However, this is not happening. Europe and North America, while many of their megafauna is not endangered, are home to a plethora of critically endangered smaller, less charismatic species. As I have mentioned before on a different thread, Europe is home to hundreds of species of endangered or critically endangered freshwater fish species that are endemic to only a few isolated streams. Surely we, in Europe, should be saving our own species, not looking down on other, less peaceful or well-off countries with our holier than thou stance which has caused so many conflicts and so much resentment?

I think the same goes for Australasia especially. Your continent has so much to offer fauna-wise, so much that can be found nowhere else. Perhaps this should be the next step for all zoos around the globe - looking internally rather than externally, and saving the species that are struggling right in their country rather than looking abroad.

Of course, I am not trying to undermine the importance of bringing in visitors. However, in order for zoos to continue to function as sites for conservation, that is the path they have to take in my opinion. Once their own, native wildlife is safe and back on its feet, then they can start helping other countries to conserve their wildlife. But right now, it is essential for the survival of those fish and herps from these 'developed' countries that zoos from those nations react.

I hope that has answered your post suitably.

At the end of the day, most zoos are charities which get their money from people visiting. Your average folk here in Europe cares a lot more about seeing exotic charismatic animals than small native ones.

 

[nczoofan]

Key thing as well is the genetic health of most "ABC" populations in Australia. While AZA monitors the genetic health of many of its species and attempts to maximize founders, Australian zoos often deprioritize this. What conservation value is their when you consistently inbreed a population to keep it going? Well the answer is its simply for exhibit purposes.

So if you are going to maintain a variety of ABC animals in your zoos, please can you at least make it so the animals could be part of the EAZA or AZA populations, as most animals on the continent would likely be excluded from breeding populations at those facilities.

 

[TZDugong]

At the end of the day, most zoos are charities which get their money from people visiting. Your average folk here in Europe cares a lot more about seeing exotic charismatic animals than small native ones.

Not just in Europe, the same would definitely apply to North America (although we have some megafauna which are popular zoo animals) and everywhere else in the world.

 

[CGSwans]

While the general public love visiting MZ and WORZ, I don't really know what these 2 zoos need to do to make Zoo Chatters happy? If they stop displaying any of their high profile species they will get criticised for doing so, and there aren't realistically too many more they could bring in except perhaps for spotted hyena.

!

I’ll bite, because I’ll wager good money that some of the posts that have upset you so were mine. I think you haven’t quite grasped the point.

Yes, the collapse in species diversity at Melbourne is genuinely shocking: off the top of my head, I think we might be down to 24 exotic and 7 native mammal species on display? I might be short a couple but we are definitely not above 35, and birds aren’t much better. There’s no way around this: it’s a small collection, getting ever smaller.

The decline has been so sustained that you could be forgiven for thinking management are running a long-range experiment to see just how few animals a zoo can have without losing visitors. And the public are noticing. When I visit I keep an ear out for what other visitors are saying, and I’ve lost count of the number of comments I’ve heard from people who feel they’ve done an awful lot of walking without seeing any animals.

The multi-campus structure is a partial explanation, but only partial. You make a point of citing that Zoos Vic covers nearly all the ABC (sorry, High Profile) bases, but I’m not sure why that gives either of Melbourne or Werribee a pass in isolation. There’s plenty of repeats: lions, hunting dogs, meerkats, giraffes, zebras, gorillas. They’re not exactly *trying* to be diverse, are they?

They could have decided that meerkats would be a Werribee species, and devoted space at Melbourne to, I dunno, fennec foxes instead. They didn’t. Meerkats are cheap and immensely popular, so I get it. But does Melbourne really need *three* meerkat exhibits? Four if you count the one at the hospital. That’s six meerkat exhibits across Zoos Vic sites. Couldn’t one be for the foxes? Just one of the six?

Zoos Vic will turn around and say that they can’t maintain a big collection in a small region, that they need to keep fewer species and more individuals. That was certainly true a while back, but it has long since become a convenient excuse for empty exhibits. There’s at least a dozen species of exotic mammals that Australasia can easily sustain, and which Zoos Vic could provide support with minimal investment. Marmosets and tamarins, for instance: there’s six species present in the region, they cost a pittance to house and currently Melbourne only displays one of them. It’s not because of space. It’s not because of resources. It’s only because of lack of interest.

But I wouldn’t mind so much if we were at least getting the flip side of the fewer species/better zoo trade-off, but we aren’t anymore. From the late 1960s through to the 1990s, Melbourne built the zoo I grew up with and which I now recognise was genuinely world-class, with ambitious, progressive displays. I believe that if Melbourne had simply maintained the simple, organic aesthetic it had pursued with developments like the reptile house (still one of the very few globally to contain only live plants in all terraria), treetop primates, gorilla rainforest, savannah exhibit, and stage I of the Asian rainforest it would still be recognised for its sheer quality, even with a much-reduced collection.

it isn’t, though, and that’s because most of what has been done to the site in the last 20 years is a garish eyesore. Some of the new carnivore exhibits (tiger, lion, Tassie devil) are quite nice, but the elephant, orangutan, baboon, seal/penguin exhibits and the dead zone badged as “Growing Wild” are at best ugly, and sometimes downright insulting. They spent $20m on a seal and penguin building, and couldn’t find an extra grand or two to texture the stark, sharp-edged concrete walls in the penguin pool? It’s almost ugly enough to distract from the fake whale songs being drilled into your ears while you’re inside.

Somewhere along the line, Zoos Vic stopped caring if they built good exhibits. They only cared about building functional ones - and as few of them as possible. They don’t actually care about the *zoos* themselves: they are quite open that they are only cash cows for captive breeding programs. Those breeding programs are self-evidently good things, but a management team less openly contemptuous of the institutions they run might realise that it’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

It’s possible to feel generous and call Melbourne and Werribee “pretty good” - they’re certainly not ‘bad’ in any objective sense. But perhaps as late as ten years ago it was still possible that Melbourne, in particular, could be “great” and it was a conscious choice to be “pretty good” instead.

I don’t see why management should get a pass for having made that choice. Especially not in a city like Melbourne, where we have a culture of never accepting less than world-class. This isn’t a “pretty good” sort of city, and it’s very disappointing that Zoos Victoria don’t realise that.

 

[Andrew Swales]

At the end of the day, most zoos are charities which get their money from people visiting. Your average folk here in Europe cares a lot more about seeing exotic charismatic animals than small native ones.

First sentence (first half of it) - almost certainly not true - do you have the figures to hand, I'm sorry I don't....
Rest - certainly true!

 

[Fallax]

First sentence (first half of it) - almost certainly not true - do you have the figures to hand, I'm sorry I don't....
Rest - certainly true!

Just an assumption based on too limited knowledge I would correct the post if I could.

 

[Zorro]

I’ll bite, because I’ll wager good money that some of the posts that have upset you so were mine. I think you haven’t quite grasped the point.

Yes, the collapse in species diversity at Melbourne is genuinely shocking: off the top of my head, I think we might be down to 24 exotic and 7 native mammal species on display? I might be short a couple but we are definitely not above 35, and birds aren’t much better. There’s no way around this: it’s a small collection, getting ever smaller.

The decline has been so sustained that you could be forgiven for thinking management are running a long-range experiment to see just how few animals a zoo can have without losing visitors. And the public are noticing. When I visit I keep an ear out for what other visitors are saying, and I’ve lost count of the number of comments I’ve heard from people who feel they’ve done an awful lot of walking without seeing any animals.

The multi-campus structure is a partial explanation, but only partial. You make a point of citing that Zoos Vic covers nearly all the ABC (sorry, High Profile) bases, but I’m not sure why that gives either of Melbourne or Werribee a pass in isolation. There’s plenty of repeats: lions, hunting dogs, meerkats, giraffes, zebras, gorillas. They’re not exactly *trying* to be diverse, are they?

They could have decided that meerkats would be a Werribee species, and devoted space at Melbourne to, I dunno, fennec foxes instead. They didn’t. Meerkats are cheap and immensely popular, so I get it. But does Melbourne really need *three* meerkat exhibits? Four if you count the one at the hospital. That’s six meerkat exhibits across Zoos Vic sites. Couldn’t one be for the foxes? Just one of the six?

Zoos Vic will turn around and say that they can’t maintain a big collection in a small region, that they need to keep fewer species and more individuals. That was certainly true a while back, but it has long since become a convenient excuse for empty exhibits. There’s at least a dozen species of exotic mammals that Australasia can easily sustain, and which Zoos Vic could provide support with minimal investment. Marmosets and tamarins, for instance: there’s six species present in the region, they cost a pittance to house and currently Melbourne only displays one of them. It’s not because of space. It’s not because of resources. It’s only because of lack of interest.

But I wouldn’t mind so much if we were at least getting the flip side of the fewer species/better zoo trade-off, but we aren’t anymore. From the late 1960s through to the 1990s, Melbourne built the zoo I grew up with and which I now recognise was genuinely world-class, with ambitious, progressive displays. I believe that if Melbourne had simply maintained the simple, organic aesthetic it had pursued with developments like the reptile house (still one of the very few globally to contain only live plants in all terraria), treetop primates, gorilla rainforest, savannah exhibit, and stage I of the Asian rainforest it would still be recognised for its sheer quality, even with a much-reduced collection.

it isn’t, though, and that’s because most of what has been done to the site in the last 20 years is a garish eyesore. Some of the new carnivore exhibits (tiger, lion, Tassie devil) are quite nice, but the elephant, orangutan, baboon, seal/penguin exhibits and the dead zone badged as “Growing Wild” are at best ugly, and sometimes downright insulting. They spent $20m on a seal and penguin building, and couldn’t find an extra grand or two to texture the stark, sharp-edged concrete walls in the penguin pool? It’s almost ugly enough to distract from the fake whale songs being drilled into your ears while you’re inside.

Somewhere along the line, Zoos Vic stopped caring if they built good exhibits. They only cared about building functional ones - and as few of them as possible. They don’t actually care about the *zoos* themselves: they are quite open that they are only cash cows for captive breeding programs. Those breeding programs are self-evidently good things, but a management team less openly contemptuous of the institutions they run might realise that it’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

It’s possible to feel generous and call Melbourne and Werribee “pretty good” - they’re certainly not ‘bad’ in any objective sense. But perhaps as late as ten years ago it was still possible that Melbourne, in particular, could be “great” and it was a conscious choice to be “pretty good” instead.

I don’t see why management should get a pass for having made that choice. Especially not in a city like Melbourne, where we have a culture of never accepting less than world-class. This isn’t a “pretty good” sort of city, and it’s very disappointing that Zoos Victoria don’t realise that.

Correct and right to the point, well said!

 

[Dassie rat]

Meerkats are cheap and immensely popular, so I get it. But does Melbourne really need *three* meerkat exhibits? Four if you count the one at the hospital. That’s six meerkat exhibits across Zoos Vic sites.

I accept that meerkats can make cheap, popular exhibits, but does any zoo need more than 1 exhibit? I worry about how many Australian zoos have meerkats. Just a few escapees could create havoc for local wildlife.

 

[nczoofan]

I accept that meerkats can make cheap, popular exhibits, but does any zoo need more than 1 exhibit? I worry about how many Australian zoos have meerkats. Just a few escapees could create havoc for local wildlife.

I agree, more than an exhibit, maybe 2 is unnecessary especially for a species with no conservation value. Given how many meerkats Australian zoos have they could keep a 2nd or even 3rd small carnivore species, fennec fox or banded mongoose (import) for example. Also many meerkat exhibits can be easily adapted for species that are slightly more arboreal. Or these same exhibits could hold some unqiue native Australian species.

 

[Andrew Swales]

I accept that meerkats can make cheap, popular exhibits, but does any zoo need more than 1 exhibit? I worry about how many Australian zoos have meerkats. Just a few escapees could create havoc for local wildlife.

I am sure your fears are unfounded. Meerkats are generally not escapologists, and Australian zoos do not have a record of unintentional releases. The serious problem for native animals comes from other spp, such as foxes and cats, which do not originate from zoo stock.

 

[nczoofan]

I am sure your fears are unfounded. Meerkats are generally not escapologists, and Australian zoos do not have a record of unintentional releases. The serious problem for native animals comes from other spp, such as foxes and cats, which do not originate from zoo stock.

Here's an interesting read from Tasmanian Govt on the risk of meerkats as an invasive species.

https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Meerkat-pest-risk-assessment.pdf

 

[Andrew Swales]

Here's an interesting read from Tasmanian Govt on the risk of meerkats as an invasive species.

https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/Meerkat-pest-risk-assessment.pdf

Yes, a pretty standard risk assessment, concluding a 'moderate' risk by totalled rating numbers, despite there being no record of the species ever establishing itself outside its native range. If they have done these for every non-native species, there must be others of much greater concern.

 

[nczoofan]

Yes, a pretty standard risk assessment, concluding a 'moderate' risk by totalled rating numbers, despite there being no record of the species ever establishing itself outside its native range. If they have done these for every non-native species, there must be others of much greater concern.

If we use the standard of only viewing species as a risk if they are already established outside their range, then we are setting ourselves up for failure as conservationists. And most non-native species would be lower risk, especially exotic animals in Australia that for the most part are larger animals, or animals with a slow reproductive rate. Not saying to ban Meerkats yet of the exotic species in Australia I would probably worry about them more than most others. Also this assessment was for Tasmania, I would imagine most places off that island in Australia would be higher risk.

Exir: Also they are Just one point away from being high risk.

 

[toothlessjaws]

This morning I spent about an hour reading various threads about Australian zoos, and I read a lot of posts on many different threads which were highly critical of Melbourne and Werribee Zoos and their "ABC Animals"....

I think this criticism is unfair and I'd like to stand up for MZ and WORZ by pointing out the counter argument.....

There is a bit of criticism flying around but don't make the mistake of lumping everyones argument into one. Because whilst some overlaps, its not all coming form the same place. In response to you I would want to make two points:

1) That I concur with what @amur leopard said earlier - I don't think anybody is criticising Zoos Victoria for what particular species they keep (high profile or otherwise), what we are criticising them (and all the other zoos) for, is what they fail to keep. It's important to remember that.

For some people, that criticism come from a general "the-zoo-is-becoming-boring" perspective. But for others such as myself it is born from concern for the cyclical process of importing endangered species, contributing nothing to their conservation by allowing this unit to die out, only to then repeat the process.

2) I personally, continue to argue that large "mega-mega fauna" like elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and river hippos have no place in urban zoos. Thats not to say I think they have no place in zoos per se. I don't have issue with Zoos Victoria having elephants to use the best example. But I fiercely oppose them being kept at Melbourne (and I'll take a punt that every single elephant keeper at Melbourne would agree with me). The reason I am pointing this out is because that personal opinion of mine (and occasionally others) can get mixed up in the argument as it seems to have recently on the Adelaide Zoo thread.

But lastly, on your point of the publics expectation and their preference for ABC animals. I totally disagree. Peoples expectations are set by what the zoo chooses to display. Melbourne Zoo thinks nobody likes birds. But the Jurong Bird Park is packed every time I go. Taronga Zoo thinks people expect to see elephants, but Adelaide does just fine without them.

 

[nczoofan]

There is a bit of criticism flying around but don't make the mistake of lumping everyones argument into one. Because whilst some overlaps, its not all coming form the same place. In response to you I would want to make two points:

1) That I concur with what @amur leopard said earlier - I don't think anybody is criticising Zoos Victoria for what particular species they keep (high profile or otherwise), what we are criticising them (and all the other zoos) for, is what they fail to keep. It's important to remember that.

For some people, that criticism come from a general "the-zoo-is-becoming-boring" perspective. But for others such as myself it is born from concern for the cyclical process of importing endangered species, contributing nothing to their conservation by allowing this unit to die out, only to then repeat the process.

2) I personally, continue to argue that large "mega-mega fauna" like elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and river hippos have no place in urban zoos. Thats not to say I think they have no place in zoos per se. I don't have issue with Zoos Victoria having elephants to use the best example. But I fiercely oppose them being kept at Melbourne (and I'll take a punt that every single elephant keeper at Melbourne would agree with me). The reason I am pointing this out is because that personal opinion of mine (and occasionally others) can get mixed up in the argument as it seems to have recently on the Adelaide Zoo thread.

But lastly, on your point of the publics expectation and their preference for ABC animals. I totally disagree. Peoples expectations are set by what the zoo chooses to display. Melbourne Zoo thinks nobody likes birds. But the Jurong Bird Park is packed every time I go. Taronga Zoo thinks people expect to see elephants, but Adelaide does just fine without them.

Urban zoos are a broad category. In the United States for example we have some large urban zoos like the Bronx Zoo or National Zoo. So I generally like to look more at the size of the site. My metric is zoos under say 60 acres, although obviously every zoo is different and at some zoos much of the site is not usable.

I prefer zoos limit the amount of large mammals, they hold in urban environments. I have kind of gotten to the point where personally I don’t think zoos that can’t offer elephants at least 3-5 acres of space, should have them. Even then for breeding I would prefer even larger spaces that larger sites allow, and give more flexibility for management. Giraffes can be kept in urban zoos, and don’t need massive exhibits, yet they need a large enough exhibit that can house a small herd. I hate seeing the occasional zoo that can only house a breeding pair of giraffe max (Philadelphia Zoo for example). Rhino’s are a mixed bag. White rhinos are best suited for open-range or larger sited zoos, yet Black Rhinos are greatly suited for urban zoos. Obviously that’s dependent on a large enough exhibit. Lastly river hippos are interesting, as I was just discussing their management earlier today on here. Cheyenne mountain zoo in Colorado just completed an exhibit that allows for a herd of hippos, a rarity in their management. So if an urban zoo can create an exhibit that can house a herd, i’m all in. Yet most urban zoos have utterly failed this species in my country.