I LOVE Australia and I lived there for 2.5 years when I was younger (Bunbury, south of Perth). I also spent 6 weeks travelling all around the nation in 2007 on my honeymoon, and if my wife and I won the lottery we'd have to make a serious choice between southern California and south-eastern Australia as our final destination. Taronga and Melbourne are great zoos, Adelaide is a wonderful little zoo with a terrific sense of history, and places like Healesville Sanctuary are superb. I adore Australia and cheer for that nation in everything from World Cup soccer to cricket to Olympic sporting events. Canada will always be #1 but the Aussies are right up there! I don’t want this thread to be seen as a severe negative against Australian zoos, but my thoughts should be regarded as healthy criticism. However, after visiting 14 zoos/aquariums in quick succession in 2007 (and having been to 18 in total in my life) there is the sense of déjà vu due to the draconian importation laws prevalent in that nation. Seeing wombats is awesome for a Canadian, but then after they are seen at every tiny mom n' pop wildlife park (of which there are over one hundred across the country) all of a sudden wombats are taken for granted. The number of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians found in Australia and nowhere else on the planet is staggering, but at the same time many run-of-the-mill wildlife parks contain them everywhere you go. The cost to enter Aussie zoos is highly expensive as Taronga is $45, Australia Zoo is $50 and even small places are super-pricey; the Asian and Australian species on show are practically the same at every zoo; and the nation lacks a truly great aquarium. The wildlife facilities are wonderful and I'd go back in a second, but they are most definitely very similar to each other and that might never change due to the strict import laws. Australia has 4 big zoos set in major cities (Taronga, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide) and there has been some discussion on ZooChat about the sense of déjà vu that zoo enthusiasts feel when touring the establishments. Each zoo is of a high quality and Taronga and Melbourne are definitely comparable to any of the top-notch facilities that I have visited in the United States. However, one knock against Aussie zoos is the lack of diversity, which is frustrating for visitors but in the end it makes sense in terms of a cooperative, regional breeding program. For example all 4 major zoos have large Australian sections that feature remarkably similar lists of species, but each zoo also has an Asian zone that mirrors the next big zoo. While locals might not be bothered, when I visited 14 zoos/aquariums in the space of 6 weeks in 2007 I was surprised at how repetitive the collections were. If you walk around one of the major zoos this is what you’d see in regards to Asian animals: All 4 zoos have Sumatran tigers. All 4 zoos have orangutans. All 4 zoos have Asian small-clawed otters. All 4 zoos have various gibbon species. All 4 zoos have red pandas. There are 3 zoos with binturongs. There are 3 zoos with Asian elephants. There are 3 zoos with sun bears. There are at least 2-3 zoos with Malayan tapirs. With all of the zoos having a large Australian section and then a large Asian section it is left to the African and South American areas for diversity. Here there is also some repetition as the zoos have an abundance of marmosets and tamarins, which are engaging to see and truth be told most zoos around the globe showcase those popular, tiny primates. Also… All 4 zoos have giraffes. All 4 zoos have zebras. All 4 zoos have lions. All 4 zoos have meerkats. All 4 zoos have ring-tailed lemurs. All 4 zoos have giant tortoises (2 have Galapagos while 2 have Aldabra) There are 3 zoos with African wild dogs. There are 3 zoos with Hamadryas baboons. There are 3 zoos with white-cheeked gibbons. There are 3 zoos with pygmy marmosets. My essential point is that the 4 major Australian zoos are remarkably similar, and the abundance of small wildlife parks that dot the landscape are almost identical at times due to the reliance on native species. If one were to embark on a large-scale road trip around Australia then they would cherish the image of polar bears at SeaWorld near Brisbane, or the giant pandas at Adelaide Zoo, or the dugongs at Sydney Aquarium; because there is most definitely a sense of déjà vu across the nation. There is an incredibly limited offering of exotic birds, rodents, hoofstock, bats, bears and many other animals and it doesn’t seem likely to change in the near future. The zoos are terrific and the animals have access to a wonderful climate, but the facilities are often mirror images of each other.
Many American and European zoos are very similar in their collections. I'm not seeing the point of why this is a bad thing.
This is a true statement, and I noticed that on my latest road trip when practically every single aquarium had a huge shark tank with sandbar, sand tiger and nurse sharks in it. However, having been all over Australia I feel compelled to point out that the 4 major Aussie zoos are so similar that is can be eerie at times. When I drive south of Canada to Woodland Park Zoo, Point Defiance Zoo, Oregon Zoo, San Francisco Zoo, Los Angeles Zoo, San Diego Zoo, etc, there is nowhere near the similarities that are found at Taronga, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. Just one visit to Cincinnati Zoo or Saint Louis Zoo reveals a greater diversity than in just about the entire nation of Australia!
Snow leopard I certainly can understand your frustration as I share it and everything you have said is true. But you mentioned in yout posts the reasins for this and why it's not likely to change so O'm not getting the purpose of your post.
Exactly - and they all serve different population centres who will want to see as many large exotic species - abc species - as possible. And I think Taronga and Melbourne zoos each have a distinct feel and atmosphere. EDIT: just saw DavidBrown made a similar point in the Auckland thread. Just to reiterate, I think a good zoo is a good zoo, there being a good zoo with a similar collection in the next state doesn't change that.
Seconded, Jay. I'd love for Australian zoos to have more diversity and I reckon the reduction of species has gone further than it needed to. But there *are* sound reasons for Australia's relatively few zoos to have similar line-ups. And as for all the native parks being similar - I think you've overstated this tendency (though perhaps the smaller ones are). But there is only so much diversity you can expect when budgets and available species are the same. And to be fair, it would be a very rare international visitor who would visit more than one native wildlife park anyway. FWIW, I still get a big kick out of visiting new Australian collections (Perth, Darling Downs, Altina, Tassie Zoo, Alice Springs, Territory WP and the eternally postponed Moonlit are the major ones remaining to me), even if I can't expect much in the way of new species. Perhaps I'm looking for different things - the exhibitry, the landscape, the zeitgeist for lack of a better term of a collection. That's not to say I'm not massively looking forward to trips to Singapore, the US and Europe to see animals I haven't seen.
Apologies if this was discussed before, but why exactly an Australian zoo cannot import new animals? I remember being fascinated by seeing an American raccoon in Hong Kong for the first time, and wondering why we can't have such a common and iconic animal here. Where could I see a jaguar or gazelle or Indian rhino or Nile croc or reindeer in Australia? Surely there should be a handful of iconic species that should be exhibited in every major city zoo? Snowleopard, we pay too high a price for everything in Australia. Check my movie review thread. :d
If I remember corrctly, in the case of ungulates, it is just in case to prevent mad cow disease or foot and mouth disease from reaching Australia and effecting the agricultural industry. Maybe someone else can expand. Indian rhino can be seen at Taronga Western Plains Zoo (they hold 1.1).
Is that two male years and five female years....? I can't really say that I have a problem with the Aussie (and even more so NZ) situation, which is basically aiming to have sustainable populations of representative (ideally those of conservation value) species of most major mammal families. While there are notable omissions, especially among the more "risky" groups of rodents and ungulates, other orders, especially carnivores and primates, are well represented. Your average visitor doesn't care what tiger/rhino/antelope taxa they see, and concentrating on few species should maximise their welfare and potential. While the exotic diversity has necessarily contracted over the last 20 years, a number of new species have become established, and other new and future entrants (e.g. coati) are likely to become established too. I expect that diversity will slowly rise again, although this will be a slow process, and you will still have the "deja vu" phenomenon. Australasian zoos will never be majorly diverse (excepting native species) and it is totally unrealistic to expect them to be.
I have been to California and British Columbia and there is no way I would even bother visiting California again, but I would love to live in BC, those two don't compare.
I knew you guys would point out where we could see the species I mentioned in my post. My point was that it would be great if some of these iconic animals were at zoos in major population centres.
I agree. even if each zoo had a couple of unique species. however they would have to be maintained as non breeding groups or as part of other countries breeding programs.
This x 100. Not many international visitors will be going on a Zoo tour of Australia. And to be fair, most zoo's start off with Australian species only, and then expand. And when there's room to add exotic animals, most zoos are happy with what they're given when it comes to species coordinators. Most overseas tourists would be happy to see all our native species in zoos - it's not like a north american tourist can go to a big zoo over there & see them. Ie - San Diego's "Australia" section has koala, wallabies & camels. That's it. Not really a good representation.
Also, in the OP it mentioned zebras at Adelaide Zoo - I certainly didn't see any when I was there last month. Do they have some there off display, or is the OP mistaken?
That's true, it won't. But nor will the cheap, small and no doubt ugly enclosures that many must have been housed in at that time. Large, naturalistic and expensive exhibits of the type you prefer necessarily mean carrying fewer animals for all but the world's very largest and richest zoos, which Taronga isn't. I know I've said it many times, but not every zoo in the world has the capacity to be San Diego, Bronx or Omaha. If you can't have it both ways, which would you prefer? A range of large postage stamp collections, or homogeneous collections with high quality presentation?
I'd choose the homogeneous collections with high quality presentations every single time. Taronga has been a construction zone for over a decade and the zoo that is there now is borderline fantastic. I'd give it the edge over Melbourne, but combined they give Australia a terrific 1-2 punch. Now the nation just needs a really great aquarium! On a side note, I'd be ecstatic to see all of the rumors come true and find out that Perth eventually builds an open range zoo similar to the ones near Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.
Not that I have been to it, but I hear that Reef HQ in Cairns is a contender for the best aquarium now in Australia. It completely focuses on Great Barrier Reef species, but from what I have seen of photos it looks really good. Also, I really can't wait for the new open range zoo to be built outside Perth. Hopefully the theming will be just as good if not better than Werribees.
