In non-Australian Zoos, I almost always only see very few and always the same few species of Australian mammals (Red Kangaroo, Eastern/Western Grey Kangaroo, Koala). Why are other ones such as Numbat, Tasmanian Devil, Wombat, Quokka, etc rarely or never exhibited outside of Australian institutions?
Why are most Australian mammals rare outside of Australian Zoos?
- Thread starter nrg2001
- Start date
Australia has very strict laws against the exportation of native species, making them very difficult for non-Australian zoos to acquire. The Red/Grey Kangaroo populations and the Matschie's Tree Kangaroo population were all well-established before these laws came into effect, making them the most common Australian mammals in US Zoos.
I remember one of the head-keepers of Hamerton Zoo, which has a fair amount of Aussie animals, mentioning something about laws and needing a license to get Australian animals over. I believe he mentioned a "big-five" of sorts - wombat, quoll, koala, platypus and Tasmanian devil. Hamerton has the former two, BTW (Common and Tiger, respectively).
There are more Tassie now in various zoo around the world.
Yes- we've definitely seen a growth is Tasmanian devils in recent years. The koala population is growing as well.
There are two major conditions to the export of Australian mammals:
1. The animals must be born in captivity. So if Australian zoos are not breeding them, forget it.
2. The zoo must be approved by Australian authorities as being suitable to receive the animals concerned. Obviously if the animal in a platypus this may be more difficult to prove than if the animal is a kangaroo.
There is of course paperwork and the process may take time but it is far from impossible. I think the problem may be that overseas zoos are not really interested it a lot of Australian mammals.
Of the animals above numbats would be pretty much impossible due to their diet, and Matschie's tree kangaroos are a New Guinea not Australian species. Quokkas are currently in short supply and there is unfulfilled demand in Australian zoos.
1. The animals must be born in captivity. So if Australian zoos are not breeding them, forget it.
2. The zoo must be approved by Australian authorities as being suitable to receive the animals concerned. Obviously if the animal in a platypus this may be more difficult to prove than if the animal is a kangaroo.
There is of course paperwork and the process may take time but it is far from impossible. I think the problem may be that overseas zoos are not really interested it a lot of Australian mammals.
Of the animals above numbats would be pretty much impossible due to their diet, and Matschie's tree kangaroos are a New Guinea not Australian species. Quokkas are currently in short supply and there is unfulfilled demand in Australian zoos.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
More the second, especially as quokkas featured prominently in pre-COVID Tourism Australia advertising.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Maybe some-one should take a look at the number of Australian bird species on display all around the world, and find out how these were obtained. To the best of my knowledge most, if not all, these birds are protected in Australia and not supposed to be caught or exported.
Zoos have to have animals that people want to see. Without visitors there is no money for conservation. If people ring you up and tell you they will only visit if you have a certain species, as has happened with quokkas, then you have to give them serious consideration.
Where I have a problem is when the zoo is all about attraction, and does nothing about conservation.
Funny that. You don't think something illegal might be going on?
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Yep, I definitely agree with you and as I said I think Australian zoos wanting to display quokkas is actually a huge improvement over exotics like white tigers or meerkats or whatever.
However, I do think if all of these zoos are so keen to have them and end up obtaining them then there should also be supporting in-situ efforts.
Many of the common species were exported and established pre-protection were they not? Though I definitely agree there has been some rather sketchy and likely illegal exports in recent years.
For the number of species that appear to be held in zoos outside Australia there would have have been many breeding success, and I personally do not believe that is the case. I may be wrong but I do think that there has to have been, and still is, illegal exportation occurring. Maybe zoos should not be buying?
Andrew Swales
Well-Known Member
As this thread is about Australian Mammals - some examples of this would be very interesting?
Although the discussion is mainly to with mammals, I am simply pointing out that there are many zoos that must be knowingly purchasing illegally exported birds, not only from Australia, and I believe they should not be doing so.
I don't think there is any illegal trade in Australian mammals to talk of. There is no real market for them. (There is always the chance of one-off cases). Zoos these days are most unlikely to buy smuggled animals, even if they don't have ethical problems with it the risk of reputational damage is too high.
Birds and especially reptiles are a different matter. However again zoos are unlikely to buy smuggled animals although no doubt zoos do acquire their descendants.
I'm interested in examples of such species. The bulk of Australian birds in overseas zoos are parrots and finches and waterfowl, all being groups which were exported in large numbers until the export ban and all three of which (mostly) breed readily in captivity.