Australia Zoo Why all the hate for Australia Zoo?

nanoboy

nanoboy

Well-Known Member
I have been on the forum for a few months, and in that time I have seen quite a few threads and posts - mostly negative - about Australia Zoo and the Irwins.

I'm not affiliated with the zoo of course, but I've got to ask: what's the beef with the zoo?

I thought that Steve and the Irwins did/do a lot for wildlife conservation, and their zoo is one of my favourites in Australia. So, what am I missing?
 
I was a massive Steve Irwin fan and for all of his quirks I think that he did a fantastic job of educating the public about issues surrounding conservation. However, as to why his zoo has received bad press on ZooChat here are some of my theories:

- The lack of exotic animals
- Non-native creatures kept behind the scenes and only shown to those willing to pay exorbitant fees to go backstage
- Expensive entrance fee for a park that has almost all Aussie animals
- $172 for two adults and 2 kids (or $59 for a single adult) is simply OUTRAGEOUS considering what is on offer
- Constant reference to all animals as "cute little blokes" and "sweeties" (paraphrasing)
- Everything is "crikey" this or "crikey" that (including the zoo's magazine!)
- Non-protected contact with big cats
- Lots of vague plans about the future that have yet to come to fruition
 
I worked there. Adults were just $25 back when I started in 2005. HUGE price rise since, and what extra exhibits have been added since then?

Foxes were removed and replaced with a Binturong or two (I couldn't even see them when I looked in there last year). Camel was removed and the baby calfs are now in their yard. They now have a small red panda exhibit.

$59 for an adult now? :eek: WOW!

Also, Lemur Island was supposed to open Dec 2005. Steve didn't die until Sept the following year, so can't blame his death on that one.

I hope they aren't planning to put the price up again once African Safari section opens.
 
It's been 11 moths since my visit to Australia Zoo (and many other Aussie zoos) from the UK, so some things may have changed - but here's what I hated about the place:
- an exhibit for freshwater turtles, labelled simply "Australian Turtles". Hardly very educational.
- a walkthrough macropod exhibit with NO labels. Even the staff [we asked several] didn't know which species of rock wallaby was exhibited. Hardly very educational.
- in the walk-through aviary, some of the scientific names on the bird labels had got mixed up (so that, for example, a species of pigeon was shown as having a scientific name that correctly applied to a whistling duck). Hardly very educational.
Is anyone noticing a theme here?
 
Hmm... so it's a case of not getting value for money. I thought that maybe the animals were being abused or something.

As long as there is a steady stream of overseas visitors willing to pay the $59 entry fee and make the long trek from Brisbane or the Gold Coast, then what's the big deal?
 
Personally I don't like it, I prefer to see animals not being handled at all, and instead being left to carry on a 'normal as possible' lifestyle at a zoo, but I do see how for most zoo visitors that this can be a good source of education and understanding for them.
 
nanoboy said:
Hmm... so it's a case of not getting value for money. I thought that maybe the animals were being abused or something.
Click to expand...

I only know of one issue at Australia Zoo that is an animal welfare one - not abuse, but certainly not an ideal situation if it is still ongoing - the wombats that are monitored to stop them burrowing.


nanoboy said:
As long as there is a steady stream of overseas visitors willing to pay the $59 entry fee and make the long trek from Brisbane or the Gold Coast, then what's the big deal?
Click to expand...

The existence of people who don't feel they're being ripped off doesn't mean that other people don't feel ripped off - I know I'd find it immensely frustrating to have to pay extra to see individual species at Australia Zoo's rates after paying such a hefty entrance fee.

My other beef with them (from afar!) is that they are aimed at kids/families (which isn't in itself a problem) but in this tedious sub-Disney 'animals in love' kind of way.

And Mike's reports of the education on site is not exactly drawing me there - an exhibit labelled just as 'Australian turtles' might as well not be labelled and is a complete waste of time educationally.


Having said all this, this all an outsider's impression - I've never visited, so maybe if I went I'd be won over*!


*this I doubt, however!
 
An American will never be able to educate Aussies on animals there just to over the top and self absorbed unlike the great man himself (Steve)! Maybe they should call it Zoo USA loud annoying with little substance when you delve deeper? No wonder Steve s Dad Bob has distanced himself?
 
Ricardo said:
An American will never be able to educate Aussies on animals there just to over the top and self absorbed unlike the great man himself (Steve)! Maybe they should call it Zoo USA loud annoying with little substance when you delve deeper? No wonder Steve s Dad Bob has distanced himself?
Click to expand...

I disagree, for me it is nothing to do with her being American, it is more the disneyfication of the zoo and her anthropomorphism of animals that annoys me.

I dont think she is as "over the top" as Steve, but he was more entertaining and original than the current crop of imitators. I am not surprised Steve's dad Bob left either.
 
I have never visited this zoo so I have no judgement of it. Having looked at their website and the photos here in the gallery though, I do wonder why people pay Disneyland level prices for what looks like a pretty medium sized zoo.

What makes this zoo special? Is it mostly living off of Steve Irwin's residual celebrity or do they have spectacular croc shows or some other ingredient that other zoos don't?
 
DavidBrown said:
What makes this zoo special? Is it mostly living off of Steve Irwin's residual celebrity
Click to expand...

Bingo.

or do they have spectacular croc shows or some other ingredient that other zoos don't?
Click to expand...

They do have a stadium show (yes, there's a stadium in the zoo) that I think is a major draw to a lot of people. It always involves crocs and usually macaws and cockatoos as well. Probably a few other animals at various times too, but I've only ever seen it once. More cringeworthy is when the feature of the show involves Bindi and her backup dancers doing a little song-and-dance number. Ugh. Overall, the feeling you get after a day at Australia Zoo is like a hangover after a night on the town. You enjoy each drink on its own, but the cumulative effect makes your head hurt and your stomach churn.

Terri Irwin doesn't deny, from what I've heard, that Disneyland is the inspiration for her business model. Australia Zoo is, in reality, a theme park with animals as the theme. It remains to be seen whether this approach remains viable for them in the future, with other animal attractions developing or starting up in South-east Queensland (Darling Downs, the new Alma Park, Paradise Country) and the likelihood that the Australian dollar will remain at least a partial turn-off to overseas visitors for the foreseeable future. They are probably the most exposed zoo/aquarium enterprise in Australia to downturns in overseas tourism.
 
CGSwans said:
Bingo.

They do have a stadium show (yes, there's a stadium in the zoo) that I think is a major draw to a lot of people. It always involves crocs and usually macaws and cockatoos as well. Probably a few other animals at various times too, but I've only ever seen it once. More cringeworthy is when the feature of the show involves Bindi and her backup dancers doing a little song-and-dance number.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info and analysis CGSwans.

The phrase "Bindi and her backup dancers" is all I need to know that this place will not be on my itinerary if I tour Queensland (which actually is on my lifetime travel to do list).

If all they have going for them is Steve Irwin's ghost I wonder how long this will remain viable? He left a big memory, but he has been gone awhile already and I wonder how long people will feel a nostalgic pull to visit his zoo?

Does this zoo do any meaningful conservation work or do any scientific research that gives it value beyond croc shows?
 
snowleopard said:
I was a massive Steve Irwin fan and for all of his quirks I think that he did a fantastic job of educating the public about issues surrounding conservation. However, as to why his zoo has received bad press on ZooChat here are some of my theories:
Click to expand...

snowy, did you visit this zoo when you were in Australia? If so, did you enjoy the zoo or any individual aspects of it?
 
Last edited:
Further to my earlier post. I certainly did not mean to offend Americans as I once lived there and loved it! I also visited San Diego Zoo when there and it would have to be the best Zoo in the world by far! Wonderful memories of it and the exceptional staff! Also in response to Monty Bob Irwin is a true naturalist and carer of animals, a very down to earth man with no ego, what you see is what you get with him as I've met him many times and in comparison to Terri Irwin he s genuine, this is all I meant. I ve also been to Disneyland and find no resemblance to Australia Zoo apart from cost. Sorry if I offended any USA readers it was not my intention.
 
DavidBrown said:
Does this zoo do any meaningful conservation work or do any scientific research that gives it value beyond croc shows?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know about scientific research. In Australia science tends to be preserve of public-funded institutions. We don't have a strong culture of private or philanthropic funding of research.

I don't know any figures, but certainly I do believe that Australia Zoo makes a contribution to conservation. The question I would ask is whether, in quantifiable terms, the reality matches up to the claims. When you're there, and I kid you not, if you purchase an item for $9.95 in the gift shop you are asked if you want to donate the 5c to conservation. That is the phrase that is used. Everywhere you are confronted with public relations material of some form or another, informing you that the Zoo is 'carrying on Steve's legacy' or some such, by looking after wildlife. A credulous visitor to Australia Zoo would come away with the impression that the Irwins are the Gerald Durrells of the southern hemisphere. How much of that is truth and how much is spin, I can't honestly say.
 
DavidBrown said:
snowy, did you visit this zoo when you were in Australia? If so, did you enjoy the zoo or any individual aspects of it?
Click to expand...

I did not visit Australia Zoo when I was down under in 2007, as my wife and I were in Cairns for 4 days but that was as close as we got to the Brisbane area.
 
Monty said:
I dont think she is as "over the top" as Steve, but he was more entertaining and original than the current crop of imitators.
Click to expand...

Did anyone here know Steve Irwin? I've always thought his OTT persona was created/encouraged by US TV programme makers +/- Terri because the normal rather dry Aussie persona doesn't suit American TV where they like a much more err ... upbeat delivery. Once or twice he seemed to lapse into quite a normal demeanour!

* Dry as in quietly witty not dull!
 
Last edited:
Maguari said:
The mere thought fair chills the blood, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Unknown to me my parents went to Australia zoo a couple of months ago.

They brought a Bindi Erwin DVD for my kids :eek: I do the best I can to keep away when they have it on to protect my sanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top