Well, I've now read the latest Zoo Aquarium Newsletter and [as a non-ARAZPA member] all I can say is WHY?? Why on earth did they bother? Did nobody in the office have enough to do one wet afternoon? Certainly it's all very pretty but, to me, totally unnecessary. This is going to be very confusing to the average Joe Blow. Two titles, two acronyms [sorry ZooPro but they're already using ZAA], and about half a dozen different pretty backgrounds for logos. I don't doubt that ZooPro was correct when he stated that this was done "incredibly cheaply". It looks it. ARAZPA already was a brand - it just needed the promotion of it upgraded a bit. And, I wonder, did the membership have a vote on this? A couple of years ago even us individual members were consulted about a possible name change. This move, however, came right out of the blue and is NOT adequately justified in the Newsletter. It seems to have been presented to everyone as a fait accompli.
I'm not having a go at anyone or any institution, but that sounds suspiciously like zoo managment may have infiltrated and have an influence on ARAZPA behaviour. It reminds me of similar events with ASZK and Taronga's Silver Shovel Awards many years ago. Hix
Well the old ARAZPA website has now been rebranded and I have to stick by my original comment - this whole exercise appears to have been done on the cheap. There is a glaring spelling mistake on the home page and even ARAZPA doesn't know if it's created the Zoo Aquarium Association or the Zoo "and" Aquarium Association. A total waste of effort in my mind. There must be more important things for them to spend their time on - like my application for instance!!! LOL
The Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria is a ridiculously long and over descriptive name, i have always hated it. it did however, make for an acronym easily pronounced. its not helpful for anyone attempting to raise an organisations profile to have a long difficult to remember name like ARAZPA. we are used to it, but i don't think its likely to be remembered by most memebers of the public anytime soon. thus i personally have always supported a name change. but here lies the problem - "Association" "Aquariums" and "Australasia" all start with the same letter. and making things worse, the North American zoo network have already taken the AZA acronym for their Association of Zoos and Aquariums. i accept that ARAZPA is not a helpful name for the association. so i get what they are doing. but i also think its even more ridiculously confusing having two names. most of all as their web address remains Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria i say Aquariums are a type of zoo and thus can disappear from any title (giving us one less "A") so long "Z" stands for "zoological" and not just "zoo". for example - Australasian Zoological Association is a good title (but unfortunately becomes the already taken acronym of AZA) you could switch "australasia" for the lesser known title of "oceania". rather tempting if you the "Association" becomes an "Organisation".... Zoological Organisation of Oceania hmmmm nice. but as cool as that could be i'm just not into the title of "Oceania" and it would get rather confusing to the press when you consider that ZOO is made up of a number of zoos. my thinking? stick with ZAA and fully abandon ARAZPA - but incorporate Australasia in the title so its suitable for international use within the industry. rather that it being Zoo and Aquarium Association, make ZAA stand for: Zoological Association of Australasia. my two cents.
That was good value for only 2 cents! IF, and it's a big IF, there was demonstrated need for a name change and IF the membership had voted on it, I'd say that your proposal beats any other that I've heard to date. However, as I said earlier, this whole name change idea was canvassed with all members [including individual members] a couple of years back. For the record, I supported a name simplification back then - but a name that would identify the region in which we operate. At the time it was decided that a name change wasn't required, partly because of the strength of the existing name. Bear in mind that a lot of ARAZPA's communication is with zoos, other zoo bodies and with government. These people have no problem getting their heads around the existing name. On the rare occasions that ARAZPA needs to go public on an issue they have had no problem in identifying themselves as ARAZPA. The promotion of the existing "brand" could have been beefed up with minimal effort. Now we've got two names, two acronyms and about half a dozen different logos - go figure how that's simplified brand recognition!
don't get me started on that god aweful irrelevant logo! its as if someone's kid designed it whilst they were watching tv one tuesday night using microsoft word.
Below are two extracts from the ARAZPA Current Census and Plan Report. This refers to Dhole: And this refers to Fishing Cat:
lts sad to see even more species leaving our zoo collections, but we do still have elephants and tigers
Urgh. A big part of me thinks that an Australasian zoo would be better off applying for membership of EAZA or AZA and relying on them for surplus animals. They'd probably have a better chance of acquiring those animals that actually can be imported, albeit at a higher cost.
No, no, no you have it the wrong way round. If zoos wanted more fishing cats and dholes, they could have them (breeding sucesses assumed). The problem is there are not enough spaces to support programs. Joining EAZA or AZA changes nothing.
we talk constantly about ARAZPA being only as good as its members and not the other way round but can we all at least just agree on one thing... that australian zoos, overall are really, really REALLY poorly managed. i mean seriously. they are. they are not in the slightest bit proactive. they run on bare minimum at all times. they have no permanent plans. they fail to follow through with anything. they phased out a huge range of species only to put no more effort in than usual with the ones they kept. fishing cats are one of only two small cat species they agreed to maintain. as easy to house as a domestic cat. and yet there is lack of places? they have tens of millions of dollars allocated to them constantly and yet, they can't afford to build a cage? who are these people. the zoo industry needs an enema.
Well, actually, it does. There are 60-70 places for fishing cats in each of those two regions. Here there are what, six or seven? It doesn't take a geneticist to work out that one model is viable and the other one isn't. We need to face up to the tyranny of distance - like countless other industries do - and accept that we need to regularly import and export animals to other parts of the world. That will also require ARAZPA (or its constituent members, I use the words interchangeably) getting serious with the federal government and explaining just how perilous the industry's position is without IRAs. I've only really been closely following how species management works in Australasia for the past year or so. But what I can see is an ever decreasing number of programs that are a 'regional concern'. I'm sorry. But a lack of spaces for an endangered small cat with a unique lifestyle and coming from what is supposedly the highest priority region for species management is the very definition of a "regional concern"! Either we want a zoo industry in this country or we don't. If we do, it's time to suck it up and accept the costs that are involved. I'm a huge fan of both big developments that have opened at Australian zoos in the past week. But perhaps instead of $20m seal exhibits and publicity/hype driven importations with huge cost and no conservation value... we should build a few cages for fishing cats, and talk to Europe or America about breeding a few extra for us. Lou, perhaps you could let us know how many exotic mammal species are now "regional concern" species? Let me guess - it's now below 50? How low does the zoo industry think it can go before it loses the public's interest? 40? 30? 20? Gah.
Agreed. It needs: 1) streamlining all collections and masterplans to a common vision. Taking into account what is already in Australia re exotics and zoogeographic area. 2) provide the capacity/spaces to hold sufficient numbers of each chosen taxon in the required numbers. 3) integrate 1)+2) in all relevant conservation programmes
To me one obvious answer is that zoos ned to accept that they can have more than just one pair of tigers (as an example), even if the extra cats are kept off exhibit at another campus. (ie melbourne tigers at Werrribee). Perhaps there is also a place for the zoos to get together and create a non zoo place where animals can be placed, sort of like the elephant sanctuary that was mooted several years ago. I don't understand why a small species like the fishing cats are not being better kept. You don't need millions of dollars to create an attractive exhibit.
Currently, there are 37 exotic mammal species in managed programs but the plans are to have 48. Not all TAG notes have been updated though so these figures may change over the coming weeks.
You may be right, but this of course involves considerable cost and difficulty. Are Australian zoo managers any more likely to cough up the money for the regular import of animals they consider to be of marginal display value than they are to cough up for more spaces to manage a population here? As for the "and export" it is unlikely that many European or American zoos would want to pay to import from Australia when similar animals are available "down the road". So Australia basically becomes an animal consumer, without even the pretence of a breeding program for many of these species. Bit sad, really. Wish you wouldn't because they are different things, and have different roles.
