Australia Zoo Why all the hate for Australia Zoo?
- Thread starter nanoboy
- Start date
Australia Zoo certainly does not have any intensive breeding programs like Jersey does. Their breeding efforts for critically endangered species are all aspirational at this stage, and also completely ridiculous. The zoo has listings for Sumatran rhinoceros and Northern hairy-nosed wombats for example. None of the latter exist in captivity and I'm sure you're familiar with the disastrous history of captive programs for Sumatrans. In this respect, Australia Zoo frankly talks big, but doesn't deliver.
Their conservation efforts revolve around three (real) branches. One is public advocacy. I think this is sincere but muddle-headed, and based on sentiment rather than science. For instance, they rail against culling kangaroos and farming crocodiles for meat and leather. The fact is, neither practice is even vaguely damaging to those species, and consumption of low-emissions meat such as kangaroo should be encouraged, compared to the environmental impact of beef.
The second branch is their wildlife hospital. I believe this is set up as a charitable operation, as you can 'donate' to the hospital. They certainly do provide rehab services for injured local wildlife, though I suspect the hospital also provides vet care for the zoo collection at a partly tax-deductible cost. I could be wrong about that and have no first-hand knowledge that it is the case. Whatever, the hospital provides a feel-good service but probably a marginal contribution to conservation at best.
The third branch is the one that is probably substantial. The Irwins own large tracts of land in Australia that is either prime wildlife habitat, or is being rehabilitated. I don't know the extent of that, but it's certainly the biggest tangible contribution Irwin Inc makes.
I have tried to be completely even-handed here but if you get the impression that I think the Zoo makes a lot of noise for not much action, you would be correct.
Their conservation efforts revolve around three (real) branches. One is public advocacy. I think this is sincere but muddle-headed, and based on sentiment rather than science. For instance, they rail against culling kangaroos and farming crocodiles for meat and leather. The fact is, neither practice is even vaguely damaging to those species, and consumption of low-emissions meat such as kangaroo should be encouraged, compared to the environmental impact of beef.
The second branch is their wildlife hospital. I believe this is set up as a charitable operation, as you can 'donate' to the hospital. They certainly do provide rehab services for injured local wildlife, though I suspect the hospital also provides vet care for the zoo collection at a partly tax-deductible cost. I could be wrong about that and have no first-hand knowledge that it is the case. Whatever, the hospital provides a feel-good service but probably a marginal contribution to conservation at best.
The third branch is the one that is probably substantial. The Irwins own large tracts of land in Australia that is either prime wildlife habitat, or is being rehabilitated. I don't know the extent of that, but it's certainly the biggest tangible contribution Irwin Inc makes.
I have tried to be completely even-handed here but if you get the impression that I think the Zoo makes a lot of noise for not much action, you would be correct.
Further to this point, Australia Zoo arguably doesn't even pull its own weight as a contributor to regionally managed breeding programs, whether for endangered species or simply for the purposes of maintaining the captive population of a species in the region. To illustrate this, ponder this fact. Australia Zoo currently has 21 different species in its collection that are part of ZAA managed programs. They have expressed an intention to provide spaces for a further 19 species, so in total they participate in 40 managed programs. Sound impressive?
Compare those numbers to Halls Gap Zoo. HGZ would, at a guess, get by on somewhere between 2-5% of the revenue generated by Australia Zoo. They have also been a member of the ZAA for a much, much shorter time than Australia Zoo and are at a comparatively much earlier stage in their development as a zoo. And yet, this minnow of the Australasian zoo stage manages to have 19 program species in its collection, with stated intentions to provide spaces for 24 more! With probably somewhere between one fiftieth and one twentieth of the financial muscle of Australia Zoo, Halls Gap manage to contribute roughly the same amount to regional collection management (and this, bear in mind, is the primary means through which zoos can contribute to ex-situ conservation) as the Irwins do.
Perhaps even more important is the make-up of those programs. At Halls Gap, the emphasis is particularly strong on Australian mammals. They participate in programs for 9 species of endangered natives. Australia Zoo participates in 6. Halls Gap participate in 12 programs for endangered exotic mammals. Australia Zoo, with its much greater focus on exotics, participates in 13. Halls Gap participates in 4 endangered species programs for reptiles and birds, Australia Zoo in 5. In total, Halls Gap is involved in ex-situ breeding programs for 25 species. Australia Zoo takes part in 24.
One of the things I noticed when visiting Australia zoo a few years ago was that they spend an awful lot of money on éntertainment'eg the crocosuarium and on big ticket exhibits. However the exhibits seem to leave a lot to be desired. When I visited they were making a great deal about the elephants, which was still under development. However from what I could see the exhibit was justa huge flat paddock with very little enrichment. no pools, hillocks, toys and it was even lacking in shade for the animals. I havent seen it since but i was unimpressed with it then.
Possibly they have done some good work on some land, but their cattle station on Cape York has only had bad press. The 6 or 7 million $ they used to buy the place was given to them by the previous Liberal government led by John Howard. I believe from what I have read that his wife convinced him to give them the money as she was a big fan. Since then feral animal control has been stopped and fires have burnt large areas, while they still run at least as many cattle as before. All public access is banned even though the tax payers payed for it.
I have not heard any recent reports, but dont have any reason to believe things have improved.
Thankyou for your detailed critique. Australia Zoo has really only come my attention through the popularity of Steve Irwin.
What are the percentages (approximately) nowadays in the Australia Zoo collection between native, and non-native/exotic species?
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
According to the list of species on their website, they don't have lions. It seems surprising that such a popular zoo would not have lions.
I'm sure lions are a priority now with the African zone open.
Surely more noteworthy is the fact that there are no primates on display at all? Three species in the collection are all off-display at present.
But these probably will go on display when the second phase of Africa opens.