Do you have to use net fenced roofs to keep climbing cats from escaping?

Don't be too hard on poor old ARAZPA! In some ways they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. All of us would love to see a greater range of species in Australian zoos I'm sure. The problem is - this is Australia. We've got a comparatively small population base to support our zoos and so we've got a correspondingly small number of zoos with the resources to support our species management programs.

Take Snow Leopards for example. Currently 4 zoos in the region hold a total of 12 Snow Leopards. Another regional zoo is indicating some interest in holding the species in a year or so. Total planned holdings of this species is currently 19 animals. This is not enough animals to underpin a program at current levels. More spaces are needed to ensure the viability of the captive Snow Leopard program in this region.

BUT - if participating zoos were not following ARAZPA/ASMP guidelines and allocating some of those spaces to, say, Jaguars as well then both species would be well on the way to regional captive extinction. There just aren't enough spaces in our zoos over here to maintain viable captive populations of a wide variety of species. Priorities have had to have been set for the best possible outcome for the species - not the public or us Zoobeaters.

 

It comes from being burnt too many times! While I am happy to be out of all the politics I still miss the animal interaction.

My personal view on consultants - largely a waste of good money. In most zoos you will find the expertise for the ideas. You only need to employ a draftsman/builder to put those ideas together. Zoo design is a favourite for me, and so if I'm cynical about anything in zoos than it is architects. Hmmm and vets too. (Give me a moment, I'll probably think of a few more...)

 

If a zoo has approved a design that its own staff do not approve of, then the Director is the culprit, not the designer. And the Zoo reviews plans every step of the way. Unless they can't be bothered. In my experience, Curators look them over quite closely. In the best cases, they ask the keepers to join in. Architects do not decide who of zoo staff participates in the process, the Zoo (client) does. Architects will suggest involvement, but some in Zoo leadersip oppose including the staff.

I have been a part of projects where the Director or the Facility Director did not include their staff and so design mistakes were not caught. But having worked on both sides of this controversy, i now more easily see how bad projects can come largely from the Zoo leadership.

 

Okay I am probably being a bit harsh, but I think there needs to be a fundamental change of view with ARAZPA. My thoughts come from seeing collection management from a different perspective (& country). The UK despite having far more zoos and holding space than Australasia do not attempt to keep species within a solely UK breeding program. In fact they used to, then dropped it as unfeasible to move in with Europe. But to be honest relatively few species in Europe are even kept in large enough numbers to be self-sustaining populations. I would think that the American situation is the same. Now I realise that import laws for Australia and NZ make life difficult, but I don't see why Australasia cannot 'help' manage species on a more global scale. My example from another thread was lemurs in Aus/NZ. Only two species are managed as 'breeding' programs with a third left to die out. If (and this happened) a zoo wanted to import a new species that could be fundamentally linked to another program (or start up an Australasian one), then why do the big guns in ARAZPA have to put the kybosh on it? Take sifakas and aye-ayes as another example. There are only handfuls in captivity globally, but Australasia will not touch them until there are enough to form a self-sustaining population there. By default there will never be any more real programs for exotics, that haven't been started anywhere else. Doesn't this seem wrong to you?

 

PS to Steve
Just found the web site of your zoo, via your profile here at the site, of course! Literally a few seconds ago...

Will love to check it out, just as I wrote. I hope I will have the pleasure of discussing it with you, ask questions etc (some of them probably pretty stupid, but...) in the Autsralia section of this forum.

 

To a degree this already happens - but you have to be a "big gun" to be allowed to do it!

The Sea World Polar Bears are a classic example. Polar bears were a phase out, our climate is unsuitable, never to be seen again species for Australia. Sea World obviously could see the "bums on seats" potential for the species and manouevered an outcome whereby they overcame that ruling and imported animals that are kept in Australia but managed within the AZA program.

It didn't hurt the decision making process for Sea World to be represented on the ARAZPA Board.

PS: tetrapod - did you really say ...... kybosh? You must be a fair dinkum Aussie! LOL

 

Not quite right on a couple of fronts I'm afraid Steve. Firstly, there was no "ruling" about polar bears in Australia. Rather the directors of the then ASMP zoos decided that since we could not provide the right climatic conditions in Australian zoos (at the time the decision was made), it was agreed that for animal welfare reasons, zoos here would not house polar bears. Many years later, Sea World decided to spend the resources required to house this aquatic species in an appropriate, climate-controlled facility, and true to their word, provided a suitable facility. Since ARAZPA does not plan on managing polar bears, Sea World, as you say works within the confines of the SSP for polar bears.

The preferred bear species for the region is sun bear, and clearly, this is not a species that fits in with Sea World's aquatic theme in any way, so there were no potential spaces for sun bears at Sea World that were subsequently taken up with Polar Bears.

Having Sea World represented on the ARAZPA Board has and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the decision-making process. There were no implications to the ARAZPA programs. the correct conditions for the animals are provided, they are working in with a reputable overseas program, and Evironment Australia issued import permits accordingly.

 

I realise that the big guns are the ones who set the pace; it is just a pity that they have the level of control that they do. I guess another difference between the Uk and Aus is that there are relatively more big guns over here, and so there is more power sharing.

Didn't realise kybosh was an Australianism... As for being a fair dinkim Aussie... maybe I am.

 

ZooPro - thank you. My wording of things can often do with some fine tuning.

My point to tetrapod is that, there is flexibility in the process here in Australia and that Australian zoos can "help" [his/her word], or participate in, other programs should they wish to do so and be able to mount a compelling case.

However, I do maintain that it is much easier for a zoo to get ARAZPA support for such variances if they have some "clout" within the Association.

And I'm not knocking Sea World's Polar Bears - their exhibit is world class.

 

I disagree completely. ARAZPA member institutions that fully participate and cooperate in regional programs, for the benefit of of the region's animal collection, are far more likely to get approval for importation from DEWHA when they can prove that they participate and cooperate fully in the region. ARAZPA support (or not) had very little to do with the decision and subsequent approval to import polar bears. The approval was granted based on Sea World's long history of cooperation, combined with excellent animal husbandry skills, and the resources to provide the right enviornment for a species that would otherwise be very difficult to justify in the region.

The success and health of the polar bears at Sea World proves this.

Full and active cooperation in and support of the region's professional association definately has some "clout" in the eyes of the state and federal government agencies though.

"Clout" also has very little impact in regional decisions. The ability to put any case forward, in a professional and sound manner, and a proven history of cooperation in the industry will definitely get support from other ARAZPA members though.

 

What you say is, of course, quite correct - in theory.

I'm not sure that the actions ALWAYS match the words though.

Should the Darling Downs Zoo be successful in joining ARAZPA we'll know for sure. In the meantime we have to take into account what some current members tell us.

And, as I said previously, this is not a criticism of the Sea World Polar Bears. We are all looking forward to the possibility of the pitter patter of little paws there.

My reference to the Polar Bears is in an effort to show tetrapod that the Australian progams can accomodate non-regional endeavours.

 

My point about the third lemur import still stands - and this was through one of the major zoos in the country with a long track record, not a recent member. The 'clout' is not necessarily the institution, but individuals who 'run' the various TAGS. Not knowing who at Seaworld was behind the polar bear import, I can only imagine that they had enough balls to say that was the species they wanted, period. It does happen; I have seen in some of those meetings.