Evolution of the Zoo Industry in Australasia Public pressure has clearly played a part in the evolution of our zoos both in Australasia and overseas - even before the advent of PETA and other animal rights groups. With this in mind, I thought it’d be interesting to list a few of the trends we’ve seen: Discontinuation of pits to hold large carnivores - it’s now recognised that carnivores prefer to have a vantage point rather than be looked down upon. One of the last pits still in use was Auckland Zoo’s big cat pit (1922), which was demolished in 2017; while a bear pit from the same era now holds Nepalese red panda. Discontinuation of animals as entertainment - inspired by the chimpanzee tea parties at London Zoo, which were huge crowd-pullers, the trend was continued at Auckland and Wellington Zoo from 1956 until 1963 and 1970 respectively; while at Taronga Zoo, a chimpanzee was removed from its mother for the purpose of interacting with guests. Other forms of entertainment that have been phased out include elephant rides. Elephants held in multigenerational herds at open range zoos - this is an evolving trend, which has previously seen Wellington and Adelaide Zoo phase out their elephants in 1985 and 1991 respectively; and will soon see Auckland, Melbourne and Perth follow suit. It was previously common to see zoos keep a pair or even a single female elephant; whereas now it’s acknowledged to be in their best interests to hold them in multigenerational herds. Phase out of cetaceans in captivity - zoos such as Taronga held dolphins up until the 1970’s. Marineland (New Zealand’s last marine park) held dolphins before the death of the last one in 2008 and its subsequent closure. Dolphins are still held at Sea World Gold Coast and Dolphin Marine Magic in Australia. Decrease in species diversity - this trend is influenced by a desire to allocate more space to few species. It’s been seen across all main zoos - especially Melbourne and Taronga; with some of the regional zoos reviving breeding programmes for some of these species including the Maned wolf and Clouded leopard. Phase out of Hybrids - this is an interesting trend as it’s gone both ways. When most people think of hybridisation, they think of the species level and indeed you won’t find zebroids or tigons etc. within our region’s zoos. A breeding moratorium also exists for orangutans, with the last hybrid bred in 1990. What has increased however is the production of subspecies hybrids - with generic Plains zebra replacing purebred Grant’s zebra at several zoos (albeit by the efforts of DDZ and ZooDoo); and Dreamworld continuing to breed generic tigers while other zoos focus on purebred Sumatran. Consideration to climate suitability - All our main zoos have long phased out Polar bear - one of the animal stars of the 20th century. This trend was primarily influenced by their lack of suitability to the region’s climate. Similarly, Siberian tigers were phased out in favour of Sumatran tigers. There are exceptions to this rule. Melbourne have maintained Snow leopard at their zoo, with temperature controlled dens; while Auckland Zoo are building a tropical dome (29 Degrees) to house False gharial.
Great post and a well thought out 7 points. The first 4 points (about carnivore pits, entertainment, elephants and cetaceans) are all common sense to anyone who knows much about animals - and I wholeheartedly agree with all of them. The other 3 points are worth more discussion - here are my views: Decrease in species diversity: I support this. I believe it is far better to display 2 species of monkey/cat/dog/bear/gibbon etc really well in great enclosures than to display 8 species in average enclosures. Focusing in detail on one species allows the public to learn about this one species and then (if they wish to), they can learn more about similar species with some background knowledge of the displayed species. A lot of people here on Zoochat often talk about the regional zoos displaying more species, and while I don't mind this, I would like to point out that the way some of these zoos display these species leaves a lot to be desired.... For example, both Monarto and Altina display Lions, Hyenas and Cape Hunting Dogs - but have a look at the difference in how they display them. Monarto has huge enclosures for each, whereas the "enclosures" for these large carnivores at Altina could quite realistically be described as "cages" - at least this was the case when I was there in 2019. Werribee's enclosure for the Cape Hunting Dogs is great - but I wouldn't want it halved in size just so Werribee could display hyenas too. I'd rather see one species displayed well than 2 displayed less well. My favourite regional zoo is Mogo - because they don't try to display every species imaginable. Their "less is more" feel actually makes the place feel nicer. I do admit though that some of their enclosures could be a bit bigger - but they are very pretty and leafy at least. Phase out of hybrids: Hybrid animals (tigons, ligers etc) have no place in zoos at all in my opinion. They are simply a curiosity and can be placed in the same category as entertainment. It gets a bit trickier with "subspecies hybrids" though, and I can see this point from multiple angles. My personal view though is that I have no issue with subspecies hybrids. For example, a Sri Lankan leopard and an Indian leopard are both leopards. They are the same species and can breed and produce fertile offspring with one another. If you consider all the different types of grey langur monkeys in India, you have a whole heap of different species or a whole heap of different subspecies (depending on which scientist you ask) and then this classification changes when something new is found, and then it changes back when something else is found etc. However they are all basically the same animal, they look the same, eat the same food, live in the same region, behave the same way etc. Discussing hybridisation between subspecies of these types of animals (leopards, langur monkeys etc) is just pedantic to say the least... Consideration of climate suitability: This one is important in my view too - but there is some leeway and should be considered on a case by case basis. Snow Leopards have been mentioned here, so I will use them as an example. They are endangered, and any zoo which is prepared to display them appropriately should be encouraged to do so - even if in a warm climate. I would not support displaying reindeer though in a warm climate, because they are not endangered and displaying them in a warm climate doesn't really achieve much. A zoo could just as easily display spotted deer or hog deer instead - visitors then get to see a deer. There isn't really any warm weather equivalent to a snow leopard though, so there isn't really a substitute species to display instead. That said, if you do display snow leopards in a warm climate then some type of climate control is needed. A really good example of this is Helsinki Zoo in Finland. I went there about 20 years ago - and they are a great zoo. They only display cold weather species because of the climate. However this doesn't stop them displaying iconic zoo animals such as monkeys and tigers. They display Japanese Macaques or Barbary Macaques (as their monkey representatives) as they are appropriate for the weather, and they display Siberian tigers (rather than Sumatran tigers) as their tiger representative. They do display some warm weather animals, but they do that in a biozone type thing where a warm indoor environment has been created for smaller rainforest animals such as marmosets, tamarins, parrots etc - like a huge greenhouse. So in my view, if you can find a suitable way to display an endangered or iconic species, go for it - but don't just display them inappropriately for the sake of displaying them. Conclusions: Clearly zoos are changing, and in my view this is not a bad thing. I really do believe that less is more in this situation. Zoos don't need to display every single species in order to be interesting or viable or relevant. The role of a zoo (in my view) should primarily be about educating the public about the natural world with a focus on conservation. All in all I'd much prefer to see less species but have them displayed really well than see more species displayed in an average manner - the latter just rewards mediocrity. One general trend I've noticed over the last 5 or so years here on Zoochat is the use of the word "progressive" to describe the private zoos in Australia which are obtaining more and more species. I disagree with this completely. I don't see anything progressive about displaying more species just for the sake of it - especially when they are not displayed in the very best enclosures. See my above comment about the way Altina displays large carnivores for example. At the same time, I have also noticed a lot of criticism of the large city zoos (particularly Melbourne and Taronga) for phasing out species. However, while they clearly now have less species on display, the enclosures displaying these species are generally of a far higher quality than the ones at the private zoos. Some examples include the following: 1. Gorillas at Melbourne 2. Snow leopards at Melbourne 3. Tapirs and dusky langurs at Adelaide 4. Pandas at Adelaide 5. Tigers at Melbourne 6. Gorillas at Taronga 7. Rainforest at Taronga 8. Baboons at Melbourne Special mention should be made of Mogo here too - for their gorilla exhibit and their primate islands - these are at the same standard as those in city zoos. Wildlife in zoos: I would also like to add another category in here - Wildlife in zoos. I think this should be spoken about more. One thing I love about visiting Werribee Zoo is the amount of wildlife that simply lives within the zoo grounds. Same at Melbourne Zoo. Zoos are about conservation and preserving the wild - so what better way to see a real life example of this than by having the very wildlife we speak about living freely within the zoo grounds - free to come and go as it pleases. This is what all zoos should be aiming for. The future: The AR lobby ask the question "do we need zoos?" (or push the answer "no"), which I think is obviously ridiculous. I'm not an AR person at all - I'm a conservationist and an animal lover - and I actually believe that AR and conservation are simply incompatible with one another. That said, their questioning of zoos does deserve some discussion. However, instead of asking if we need zoos (obviously we do need them), we should be looking at what a zoo should look like in the future and what role it should play.. Everything in our daily lives, from fashion, the hairstyles, to buildings, cars, sports, furniture, food and attitudes to social issues changes over the period of 50 years - so why shouldn't zoos? What people want from a zoo now is completely different to what they wanted 50 years ago - and it is also different to what people will want 50 years from now. 100 years ago people had no idea about climate change, and they often thought smoking was good for ones health..... A lot has changed in the world since then..... Anyway, great post - can't wait to read more responses!
Thank you for your response @Grant Rhino. I wasn’t expecting anyone to write that much, but I’m glad you did as it was interesting to hear your perspective. I agree with many of your points and those I disagree with aren’t a criticism as there are no rights or wrongs here - merely personal opinions which we’re all entitled to (and encouraged to) express. Thanks again and I too hope others will in turn contribute their perspective. This has the potential to be a fascinating discussion. For the most part, I support this too given it’s inevitable species must be phased out when zoos (especially city zoos) don’t have infinite space. My objection to this (which I know a few others share) is when zoos make inefficient use of space. A prime example is the Growing Wild precinct at Melbourne Zoo, which takes up a large amount of room and adds very little value to the zoo. I do agree with the reduction in species enabling zoos to better communicate a message to the visitors. An example is Auckland Zoo’s South East Asia precinct which contains just four mammal species, but offers an immersive and captivating experience and hopefully gives the visitors a greater appreciate of these species and the threats they face. Taronga has attempted to do the same via their Tiger Trek, but it’s been widely criticised for the amount of floor space wasted on non-exhibit space e.g. a fake supermarket. Personally, I’m of the belief zoos shouldn’t hybridise subspecies from different geographic ranges. Part of the ethos of the modern zoo is to hold insurance populations should they become extinct in the wild. An Indian leopard that’s mated with an Amur leopard would have no conservation value to either wild population. It’s a moot point given the insurance population argument is purely hypothetical for over 99% of the exotic species held in the region. We’re not likely to see a release of any felid into the wild from within the region in the foreseeable future. With this in mind, I completely understand your point. Again, there’s arguments for both sides here. Generally speaking, the exhibits at the main zoos are indeed larger and more impressive than those seen at the regional zoos; thought to be fair, many of the main zoos have the advantage of government funding, which allows them to construct infrastructure beyond the means of what the regional zoos can accomplish. The regional zoos build within their means - and in many cases, have astounded us with the results. Darling Downs Zoo have recently constructed a zebra exhibit 8ha in size - which would take up a third of Melbourne Zoo; or half of Auckland or Perth Zoo. Their emphasis is on giving their animals space versus constructing high spec exhibits - with another example being their spacious Caracal and Serval exhibits, which dwarf many of those seen in the main zoos. These are just two examples of what I would consider progressive.
I know this one is a bit of a sore point for a lot of Zoochat members - and I think that 5 years before I had kids I'd agree with you (and others) on this. However, when I had toddlers I spent a lot of time at the zoo with them and I regularly saw with my own eyes how much they got out of "Growing Wild", "Keeper Kids", "Ranger Kids" etc. I think that those types of spaces are so important in a modern day zoo when it comes to engaging with children aged 2-6. A lot of young kids would much rather be playing in these areas than looking at the animals. A lot of young kids would also rather be out playing footy or soccer than watching AFL or soccer on television too. It's similar to that in my view. In the whirlwind that is parenting, once your kids get a bit older (late primary school for instance), I think it's easy to forget how much they enjoyed things like Growing Wild when they were little kids. While it was once seen as a fun thing (back when my kids were young), it's now something I wouldn't really take a lot of notice of - as my kids are too old for it. I can imagine that for someone who has never had kids at all, something like Growing Wild would be seen as just a complete waste of time, space and energy - and I'd pretty sure that 5 years before I ever had kids I'd have seen it that way too. In fact I may even have resented the fact that my local zoo was catering to kids instead of adults.... Since having kids I've become more tolerant of kids and I now see projects like this as important - although I can also appreciate that a zoo shouldn't only be about pleasing young families. It's there for everyone - childless people included. While it does take up a bit of room, I do think it adds value to the zoo - even if that value isn't appreciated by everyone.
Darling Downs is one zoo I haven't actually visited - so I can't really make a proper judgement. However from everything I've heard it sounds great and I'd love to visit it sometime in the near future. The zebra, caracal and serval exhibits you've mentioned sound brilliant and by the sounds of it, what they are doing up there is a great thing. The main zoos with govt funding do have an advantage - undoubtedly. That said, private zoos should also aspire to have the very best living conditions for their animals despite starting from further back. If they can't display them well, then don't display them at all. It sounds like Darling Downs has really stepped up to the plate and is competing in the big league, and I also put Mogo into that category for the most part. One point I think also warrants some discussion here is how easy or difficult it would be for the private zoos to attain govt funding. I'm sure they will have tried in the past and I'd imagine there are various roadblocks in the way. Kyabram Fauna Park has now joined Zoos Victoria - presumably the possibility of govt funding played into that decision. If the private zoos were bought out and taken over by the state zoo umbrella bodies they would then get more govt funding - but of course they'd have to want to do that in the first place. Maybe an affiliation with the state body in order to provide some level of funding might work? I'm no expert of this, but if there is a way to get more funding into these private zoos then it would be a good thing - as long as it is used to improve facilities rather than just to acquire more species for the sake of it.
I have to say even as a dad (my offspring range from infant to preteen), I agree with others on here that Growing Wild takes up valuable space and to go off on a slight tangent, I feel the same about playgrounds and farmyard exhibits in zoos. Outside of a zoo setting, I enjoy going to a playground with my kids; but when we go to a zoo, we’re there to see the zoo animals we’ve paid to see - not do the stuff we can do down the road for free anytime of day. There’s similarly no shortage of parents complaining about the farm yard animals when everybody in New Zealand has either a family member or a friend with a farm - and they’re stuck waiting on a kid that’s more interested in a pig than a tiger. What I’ve actually found is without the kid centric stuff, my children enjoy the zoo more. Somebody had the bright idea to put Hamilton Zoo’s playground at the start so that the kids see it as soon as they come in and the whole way around the zoo, the kids under six are going, “Daaaaddddd, when are we going back to the plaaaaayground?” Auckland Zoo have their playground and farmyard in the middle of the zoo, so you can enjoy at least half of the zoo first and my kids are so much more engaged - commenting on things they can see in the exhibits etc. My almost three year old son loved seeing the elephant on my last visit and was telling me things about her. I can honestly say it’s one of my greatest zoo memories and I hope it’ll be one of his.
My personal opinions on these points: Discontinuation of pits to hold large carnivores - I agree that this is a good development. It is best when exhibits are as naturalistic as possible, or even if they include 'unnatural' elements, these support the enrichment of the animals. For instance, overhead tunnels which allow big cats to move between exhibits provide them with the enrichment of accessing multiple habitats, as well as the opportunity to be above the visitors. In relation to tigers, it appears to have been seen at both Auckland and Taronga that the animals benefit from this, as they prefer to look down on people rather than having people look down on them. Discontinuation of animals as entertainment - I agree with the phasing out of using animals in unnatural ways for entertainment purposes, ie tea party chimps. It is preferred for animals to demonstrate natural behaviours in a way which educates the public ie free-flight bird shows. While presentations such as seal shows may be considered a grey area, I believe at Taronga Zoo, all the behaviours demonstrated in the seal presentations are those which are either natural or those the animals have been trained to do for their own wellbeing, ie presenting their flipper for keepers to check, which allows the seal to point towards a sign supporting the message of the show about sustainable fishing. Elephants held in multigenerational herds at open range zoos - I likewise agree that this is a good development, and one in which I've noticed a shift in a relatively short space of time. As a child in Sydney in the 2000s, it was greatly exciting as the Thai elephants were imported and started to breed. While these are immensely fond childhood memories, I see now that it is best - both for the elephants themselves and for the success of the breeding program - that elephants are given ample space at open range zoos, and allowed to breed as naturally as possible. I'm personally not opposed to the idea of housing surplus bulls at city zoos if necessary, as long as they have enough space and opportunities for separation during musth periods as necessary. Breeding elephants in more natural ways will, for the most part, cut down the need for AI (which is still a useful tool in some instances, such as if necessary for medical, social or genetic purposes), which will hopefully make the gender ratios of calves born a little more even. AI has been thought to result in a disproportionate number of male calves. In Australia, the following calves were naturally conceived: 1.0 Luk Chai 0.1 Tukta (deceased) 1.0 Sabai 1.0 Jai Dee (deceased) The following calves were conceived via AI: 0.1 Mali 1.0 Pathi Harn 1.0 Ongard 1.0 Sanook (deceased) 0.1 Willow (deceased) 0.1 Kanlaya So, albeit from a small sample size, the AI ratio is as expected, but 75% of calves conceived naturally were bulls, so the fears surrounding AI haven't been borne out thus far. Phase out of cetaceans in captivity - To be perfectly honest, I haven't thought too much about this one, so I might have to ponder it some more. I would have a hesitation if a non-marine specialty zoo, such as Taronga, suddenly said that they wished to hold the species again, as I think that resources would be best directed elsewhere. I readily accept that it's much more challenging to house large aquatic species with complex needs in capacity (such as whales and dolphins) as opposed to large land animals (such as elephants). Therefore, if there is not a conservation need for breeding these animals, I would question the need for it. I'm probably too personally removed from the issue to feel super strongly. Decrease in species diversity - Personally, I find this to be inevitable, even though I might lament it. Providing larger exhibits means reducing the number of species within a given zoo. Furthermore, I'd rather that our zoos have fewer species but can be more committed to their conservation and breeding. Like many of you, it does annoy me when it seems like resources are being more devoted to non-animal attractions or installations, than the animals themselves. Phase out of Hybrids - I've really gone back and forth on this point. I do believe that, where possible, zoos should breed purebred animals, as seen within the Sumatran Tiger and orangutan programs. I don't agree with Dreamworld and similar facilities breeding generic animals purely for display and handling; however, I acknowledge the large amounts of money they raise for conservation. A generic animal is better than no animal at all, although I would rather zoos breed purebred animals wherever possible. Consideration to climate suitability - Generally, I do think that this should be taken into account, although if an animal can still be housed suitably, I think that's still acceptable. Focusing a program such as the snow leopard program on colder-climate zoos, such as in southern Australia and New Zealand, would be preferred, although the Australasian region certainly isn't the only place with this problem - cold-climate zoos in the northern hemisphere have similar considerations when housing tropical species. What is considered a 'cold climate' zoo is also a little up for debate - I'd consider Canberra a cold place, but the National Zoo and Aquarium has phased out Snow leopard for Sri Lankan Leopard, not that I know for sure that the decision was climate-related. If the region lost Snow leopard in favour of Sri Lankan Leopard (or another more climate-suited species of leopard), then while it would be a shame, I would consider it to be understandable, particularly if such a decision makes it easier to breed more Sri Lankan Leopards and have a greater range of mates available for the animals we hold. Devotion of space and resources to non-animal attractions - I've added this as an additional point considering where this thread has travelled. I'm not a parent, so I don't claim to add too much to the discussion from that perspective, and welcome the points which both of you have raised. I recognise the pressures placed upon zoos to be financially sustainable, family-friendly attractions. I probably hold something of a contrarian view in relation to zoos developing accommodation and the like - I see the argument that such attractions can raise money for the zoo and have a much more tangible financial impact than increased visitation as a result of a new animal attraction. For me, how zoos use space is often key. I feel like one criticism of the Growing Wild precinct at Melbourne Zoo, for instance, is not so much the thought behind it - collecting animals attractive to children into one area of the zoo - but how that particular area of the zoo doesn't effectively use the space available to its aim. While I haven't visited Melbourne since 2017 (and I don't know if we even went through Growing Wild), I see a parallel at my own home zoo at Taronga, where the Tiger Trek development arguably wastes space through a mock plane and supermarket, and Sumatran village. Personally, I am sympathetic to the some of the views of animal rights groups; however, I do believe that zoos serve a purpose towards conserving animals and educating the public, as well as being important cultural institutions. I recall on this forum zoos being considered in the same lines as libraries or art galleries, and while there are added sensitivities involved with having living specimens, I broadly agree with this view.
