Unfair criticism of Melbourne and Werribee Zoos "ABC animals"

I’ve probably been the main offender of bashing Melbourne and Werribee Zoos declining exotic (and native) animal collection but I’ll explain my reasoning.

Firstly the decline at Melbourne Zoo has not been a slow decline but a massacre on the collection. On the Exotic Mammals thread I have compiled that Melbourne zoo alone has gained a whopping three species of exotic animals and lost 25 in a single decade (2010-may 2020), that’s not counting the several losses in the bird collection I don’t know about as well as the other animals in the zoo, this isn’t counting, even more species in the late 2000’s such as Jaguar, Asian Golden Cat, European Badger, various primates etc.

Secondly I have a strong attachment to the zoo (it’s my local zoo) and unfortunately I never got to see Melbourne in its prime of the early 2000s or 90s (age), and have seen the zoo constantly build these wasteful enclosures such as Growing Wild but my other gripe with the zoos is the constant increase of kids equipment and playgrounds, it is important to have one or two areas but melbourne zoo is awful in this department, Wiggles Coroboree Frog Disco, Keeper kids Hub, Growing Wild, The sand pit before Wild Seas, the bubble show, the kiddy signage, the discovery buildings and so much more just makes me want to vomit.

Thirdly as other members have stated above such as @Zoofan15 and @CGSwans it’s not about disliking the ABC animals, it’s about the over distribution (within a single zoo) of them, does Melbourne Zoo need three meerkat enclosures? Of course not!, how about 2 Tiger enclosures on opposite ends of the park, 2 Tasmanian devil enclosures on opposite sides of the zoo, Two squirrel monkey enclosures, two giant tortoise enclosures etc. Some of the old enclosures have been turned into administration such as the old Bongo enclosure back in 2014. I don’t hate or even dislike ABC animals, sure I’m not a fan of most of them but some of them rank among some of my favourite animals, Asian Short Clawed Otters for example I could spend hours sitting their.

Another statement is that conservation is the most important aspect of zoos and I agree and disagree at the same time, I think it is the most important aspect of zoos along with education, the problem with Zoos Victoria is their selective attitude of what they get and what they don’t, the one exception to this rule is Healesville sanctuary, the only problems being the departure of Numbat and Rakali as well as moving other animals offshow as well as their underwhelming reptile collection but they have been outstanding both with not overwhelming visitors with kids attractions, displaying and doing important conservation for a variety of native Australian animals by both conserving their habitat and creating healthy insurance populations as well as their great exhibits and well designed layout (unlike Weribees layout (it’s so bad I couldn’t even find the Serval exhibit after an hour of looking for it)


Ive also seen members on this site saying “Australia should focus more on their native animals etc etc”, this couldn’t be further from the truth, most zoos in Australia focus on Native Wildlife and those that do have exotics usually have them as a side attraction. Look at the great work done by Moonlit Sanctuary with their success with the OBP programme and most importantly attempting husbandry and breeding of Swift Parrots (an often neglected species) despite their relatively low visitor count, I hope they expand their conservation efforts to other endangered species that Zoos Victoria aren’t going to tackle.

All in all I think our critiques our valid, we just haven’t pointed out the great work zoos Victoria has done because they advertise it on every single platform available.

 

Despite being on the other side of the fence to mine, I think your argument is a good one and I agree with you on some of the points you've raised, for example:

I agree that 6 meerkat enclosures is excessive when 1 of the 6 could be used for fennec foxes - in fact one of those enclosures (at MZ opposite the lions) did once house fennec foxes. So I definitely agree with you on that one.

I also agree that MZ should be displaying more marmoset and tamarin species. As you've said they are easy to obtain, easy to manage and cost very little. I've never understood why MZ have never displayed common marmoset or pygmy marmoset for instance. As we all know, its easy for a zoo to have a great marmoset and tamarin exhibit (Mogo and Adelaide spring to mind when I think of good ones).

I also agree with you about the seal and penguin section - I've never liked that exhibit, but that's just my opinion. I do know quite a lot of people who think it's amazing.

While I agree with you on these points, I fundamentally disagree with you on some other aspects:

Firstly, I think the multi-campus structure is more significant than you do. The way I see it, we should be looking at the 3 facilities as one entity. I realise that many people will disagree with me on this, but they are 3 parts of the same organisation. You make a point with the doubling up of certain species, but those species are genuinely high profile and if they can be displayed in both zoos then why not do it?

I also disagree with you on the concept of "good exhibits vs functional exhibits". Surely the welfare of the animals must come first above and beyond anything else - and I know that these exhibits have been designed from the perspective of providing an enriched environment for the animals they house. Are they "natural" looking enough? Perhaps not. The orangutan exhibit doesn't look that natural, but then does this matter to the orangutans? It's a fair point you raise, but then again if you fill enclosures for great apes with live plants they often get destroyed easily and the enclosure looks worse than ever... As for the elephant exhibit, well I'm not sure what they can do with that (other than move the elephants to Werribee, plant the exhibit out and put something else in it).

I think that basically we seem to disagree on the direction ZV are taking. Personally I think that the idea of being a 'Zoo based conservation organisation' is better than simply being a zoo. However I do acknowledge that you can do both at the same time (walk and chew gum). I think that perhaps they can provide a bit more of a happy medium here and display some more smaller species (fennec foxes, marmosets, tamarins, porcupines, a small deer species such as axis deer or hog deer) as a point of difference along with the larger and more high profile species. That said, I still like and support the direction they are going in generally.

If it wasn't for the snow leopards though, maybe my view would be different

Just curious: what don't you like about the baboon enclosure? I really like it. It's huge, planted with palm trees and offers more than one viewing space and enrichment for the baboons. Is it just the metal that you don't like or something else?

 

Sorry for chopping your post up a bit but I've only done so in order to reply to certain aspects:

You're certainly not the only person who has "bashed" MZ and WORZ recently - and my post was never intended to target any one person.

RE Werribee's servals: They are not actually on display in a normal exhibit. They go on display once per day as part of a serval show - whereby a keeper demonstrates their hunting and foraging behaviours and uses this to push the conservation message about keeping domestic cats indoors etc. You won't find them anywhere in the zoo except for in the show each morning.

RE Kids interactive play spaces: I understand that a lot of people don't like these but I do think that they are very, very important. When many of these were built at Werribee, it coincided with the birthrate in the area being the highest in the country. The idea was that when these babies being born got to "zoo age" (3-4) they would come to the zoo a lot and instead of playing on a generic playground they would play on a conservation based interactive playspace or an animal based interactive playspace - and hence become conservationists without even knowing it. A good example is the monkey rope playground near the vervet monkeys. Instead of kids pretending to be Fireman Sam, they pretend to be vervet monkeys etc. While I understand that these things can be a bit cringeworthy, as a parent I have witnessed first hand that this strategy does actually work. When my sons were younger they absolutely loved going to both MZ and WORZ - but when there (at both) they loved the play spaces far more than the animals. Of course they still enjoyed seeing the animals too - but they really loved pretending to be animals in the play spaces. I'd say it was a 70-30 ratio of play to animals. So as a parent I think that this has been a huge success. Now my sons are older they are still interested in the animals and not so much in the play areas. I'm happy to put up with kids play spaces if it means that the kids using them will grow up to be conservationists, animal lovers and zoo lovers.

And yes - your critiques are certainly valid!

 

Great post - and no I don't assume that everyone who is critical is critical for the same reasons or over the same things.

I've read your posts over a long period of time and I'm certainly not referring to your posts. I'm targeting the "MZ is getting boring" argument. I completely agree with you about the cyclical importation of various species (or lack thereof) and the inconsistencies of it. I also agree with you about elephants in most urban zoos.

I disagree with you about what the general public wants from a zoo, but that said there are 5 million members of the general public in Melbourne and they are not all going to want the same thing.

The one thing I think all of us agree on (including those who I'm arguing against) are that we'd all like to see some extra smaller animals at our zoos which make for a point of difference - such as the dusky leaf langurs in Adelaide, the hog deer at Mogo and the vervet monkeys at Werribee, especially if they are interesting animals!

As for the birds, well I'm not a bird person. I enjoy watching them and photographing them - especially in the wild in India and Sri Lanka, but I like mammals a lot more.

 

Yes, but based on the fact that virtually no urban zoos provide this, is it not okay to just generalise? I think so. There is also secondary benefit to moving these larger species to open-range safari parks and that is that the space that might be used for an inadequate urban elephant exhibit, actually provides for a very adequate space to create facilities to house multiple breeding pairs of a smaller endangered species.

To bring it back to topic, this is one of my biggest gripes with Zoos Victoria. With THREE parks located under 50mins of the Melbourne CBD (downtown), you'd think this would be an institution that wouldn't have felt the need to keep their elephants at Melbourne.

You'd have thought that they'd have seen the opportunity to not only better care for their animals, to play to the strengths of their respective parks and to add, a much-needed additional major attraction to the underdeveloped Werribee... but to actually define the 21st century zoo. And they totally passed on this opportunity.

Zoos Victoria had an amazing Master Plan envisaged by David Hancocks that saw Melbourne Zoo as a lesson in forest ecology, Werribee as a lesson on the worlds grasslands and Healesville the centre for the native animal conservation.

Melbourne would not have had elephants or giraffe, but Werribee wouldn't have had gorillas and orangutans. All the parks would have had a clear definition of what they where, and the animals would have been the big winners given the extra space afforded them. I think the public would have completely accepted this, it would have put pressure on other zoos to follow suit and both Melbourne and Werribee would have thrived.

Subsequent directors have all but destroyed this wonderful vision, keeping elephants in the cramped confines of Melbourne and moving gorillas to the grassy plains of Werribee. Under the current CEO the exhibits have been expensive, uninspired, mediocre and small. And this is under the stewardship of someone who wrote a book on Zoo ethics.

Perhaps this is why we are so hard on Zoos Victoria, whilst what they are doing is little different to Taronga, it's Zoos Vic that I think have squandered the most opportunity.

As far as I'm concerned, it's now over to you Zoos SA.

 

I agree with your whole post I also wonder if the state owned zoos are the way they are because they are government run where things in SA are somewhat different from the other major zoos I believe zoos SA will be the way of the future in this country. some times I wonder if the government run zoos are hiring the right people for the right jobs, Taronga use to have some outstanding great zoo people that really had the best interests of the zoo at heart but I just getting the feeling that these days its just a job to some in the management level?

 

Well, since I have felt compelled to write on the subject previously, please allow me to give my perspective.

I would concur with some of the other posters that the feedback - criticism seems inadvertently almost always to be deemed as a negative which it is not - we give is not that zoos are no longer attractive to us Zoochatters but rather that the diversity of species is declining at an ever expanding rate. This is also very much detrimental to the average zoo visitor experience and, I too, have heard many times over and over again how your average visitor complains about needing to walk larger distances and not see any animals at all while in a zoo. Now, that is asking for it, is it not ..., so people get bored where this really should not be as zoos are the closest thing we have to celebrating living animals and plants in close proximity (save for the mobility of people to travel to all far-off corners of the Earth in search of eclectic flora and fauna - goodness me forbid -)?

This is usually gets explained away by management by observing that zoos need to be more aesthetically pleasing to the general public - that very visitor experience argument - so bigger, more natural looking exhibits are called for and this alas at the expense of species. And the easy option always is to stick to the "popular" animals in a zoo - the infamous A-B-C (lion, tiger, hippo, rhino, gorilla, chimp) range. But that argument just does not hold any water as it is the job of zoos to educate, conserve species and habitats, provide public awareness on the growing crisis facing mankind and getting people (re-)connected to nature and I mean all nature to that. If and when this argument is used by zoo management and PR it is actually calling out our own defeat at the challenges like climate change, environmental destruction and Sixth Extinction crisis which are all so connected to how we as humankind (ab-)use our Planet's finite resources.

Further, it is imperative to zoos reflect that diversity of life we encounter and not just restrict themselves to the exotics and/or a few A-B-C species, but the whole spectrum of the longest, tallest, heaviest, to tiniest to the most improbable or minute species you may encounter in nature. It is our job to get people inspired at zoos in the living world around us, including the seemingly "insignificant" Little Brown Jobs (yes, Durrell Institute schooling, thank you).

What I and some of the other forumsters have been observing around Melbourne Zoo and Werribee Open Range Zoo is how the above policy may be backfiring on us and it is an unwelcome trend that might actually lead to a tacit acceptance of the overwhelming challenges we face before 2030 that need fixing now! I can only quote the famous words by former DG Baba Dioum, a forestry engineer from Senegal who served in various capacities as advisor in the Ministry of Agriculture in Senegal and West Africa and was on the Board of Directors of both the International Food Policy Research Institute and the International Fertilizer Development Center
QUOTE:
“In the end, we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand and we will understand only what we are taught.”
UNQUOTE:

Now, what is happening with MZ and WORZ is that they are actually in the pitfall described above and it is so unfortunate that this is happening right now and where the visiting public seem to be acutely aware of this phenomenon too and may become decidedly bored or unable to enjoy their zoo experience to the fullest - which will impact their attitude to zoos and the environment too in how they behave and act-. If we would like everyone to act responsibly and be accountable citizens than it is imperative we link people with their environment and their duties for keeping the environment and ultimately mankind healthy.

I am not saying how management should run a zoo or what species exactly need to be in their collection - goodness forbid that - allthough at times I have other visions of what can or could be and that is fine. But there is richness in diversity and zoos in any regional association should make the fullest use of that. In this respect, we only have to point to what every regional zoo association up to WAZA has adopted in its mission statement and vision and their development goals and individual member zoos to act upon those. Zoos will benefit from diversity in collections, it will attract more people and promote them to return and inspire them to visit others and start caring more for the environment and all the neat tiny, big and threatened creatures they might be able to encounter in their own backyard as this is where conservation awareness and environmental impact action is at its greatest.


POST SCRIPTUM: The above is not just restricted to MZ and WORZ, I must contend. There are many more - and should I say the bigger zoos - that are going more for the obvious choices where diversity and instilling wonder and inspiration in the natural wonders is the best gift zoos can give any visitor in a zoo.

 

"Good exhibits" are good because they fulfill both the needs of the inhabitants as well as the needs of visitors and employees alike, not just because they look good.

 

my main problem with the play spaces aren’t as bad in Weribee as it has a lot of space, the problem is in Melbourne Zoo where new play areas are popping up every year and has a much more limited space compared to weribee, areas such as the coroboree frog disco, Keeper kids and Growing Wild are two main problems as all three would have cost a lot of money, add no new animals to the zoos collection and with the exception of Growing wilds meerkat tunnels the design is quite poor.

 

MZ is like a meal at a well known fast food restaurant, it's not challenging but you know what you are going to get. Its good for a couple of hours and keeps you from starving but it's not what you want to eat every day of the week.
Ultimately the main zoos in Australia and NZ have decided that their main target demographic is young children 3 to 10 years and their parents / caregivers /school teachers. This is proven with the large number of playgrounds, simplistic signage and love of meerkats.
If zoochatters were a target demographic we would have the PR and marketing people on here defending their institutions, ( and hopefully a more interesting and biologically viable collection on display )
Thankfully the smaller institutions are importing and maintaining a more diverse collection. (Maned wolves, grants zebra, tamarins...)

 

Lets say you are right this could lead to zoos losing visitors over time because they have little to offer something they really need to have a think about what they could be doing themselves a lot of harm with out thinking to far ahead of the game! Its kind of funny that the small zoos could end up showing the big guys how to run a real zoo for the public instead of one section of the public! I remember a comment by one of the members here who use to work at Taronga zoo on a visit they had there about one year ago when leaving was walking behind some of the other visitors on the way out and over heard them say, "well theres not much here to see here", I wonder how long it would be before they might return or if they ever would do so again!

 

I don't know anything on how the Melbourne facilities look, but I can weigh in on an important point. Research strongly suggests it is not only ABC-animals that the normal visitor cares about, but also absolute species numbers. Zoos with higher species numbers tend to have higher attendances and this effect is somewhat stronger than the effect that the amount of ABC-animals a zoo has. So they may be shooting themselves in the feet by reducing diversity, as it may cost them revenue in the future. The Melbourne zoos might have an advantage here as competition is somewhat limited in such a region compared to densely populated Europe, where there is much more choice of which zoo to go to.

Apart from that I also concur with the vision put forward here by @Kifaru Bwana , that zoos have a plight not to only show ABC-animals, but showcase (to an extent) the diversity of the animal kingdom. Data backs this up as a way to improve attendance, but it is also what I find in zoos, if an unusual animal is displayed well it will attract disproportionately more attention than would be expected.

 

Taronga are going to have to lift their game in order to compete with the new Sydney Zoo as it currently has the novelty factor, so hopefully the collection at Taronga will improve. I previously used to visit Taronga Zoo everytime i visited family in Sydney, and have visited since 1987. After my last visit with family costed over $400.00 for 4 adults and a toddler, parking and a terrible meal, we all vowed to never visit Taronga again. The entry price is now $49 at Taronga.
Melbourne Zoo has a large catchment and no real competition nearby, so not the pressure to up their game.
I do like visiting Melbourne Zoo to get my zoo fix. I really enjoy visiting Healsville and am a Zoos Victoria member. The zoos i am most keen to visit are Mogo, Altina, Hunter Valley, Darling Downs, Rockhampton. Next week i hope to have my second visit to Halls Gap Zoo. They have more parrots and tamarins / marmosets than Melbourne and Taronga combined.

 

And doesn't it show the delusion of zoo management... By the time a 3-10 year old has the ability to make and meaningful contribution to conservation in any way, much of what we speak of will be already lost.

 

Without wanting to go too far off topic, I completely disagree with this: Conservation starts from the bottom up. My own children are 10 (twins) and they and their friends actively contribute to conservation every single day in their everyday practices. They and their generation are much, much better than their parents generation when it comes to looking after the environment. Some of what I am talking about includes:

Not littering
Recycling
Using the same plastic drink bottle rather than disposable bottles
Using Tupperware for school lunches rather than clingwrap (schools call it "nude food")
Not killing insects
Not disturbing wildlife when they do encounter it
Regularly discussing concepts such as keeping ones cat inside or tying a bell to its collar so it won't hunt native birds
Not using plastic bags
Being outspoken in their hatred of ivory and keratin (on anything other than elephants and rhinos)

I could probably list another 10 everyday things they do that I haven't thought about - but I think you get the picture.

The point is, that while they are not out on the African savannah protecting rhinos from poachers, they are doing small things every single day - and so are their entire generation (at least in inner Melbourne anyway).

The small things that they are doing were partly (if not mostly) taught to them through their visits to Melbourne and Werribee zoos.

Don't underestimate how meaningful the contribution to conservation made by kids actually is! They understand and do a lot more than most adults give them credit for. They really do put my generation to shame when it comes to these things.

 

Completely agree with you.

As birds are my primary interest, I was curious in comparing what I saw at Melbourne in 2018 and my trip to say Darling Downs Zoo three months ago. I was quite surprised with what I found! Of course, this isn’t a complete picture as I am positive I missed some bird species at Melbourne. What it does show is a ‘snapshot’ of each collection as a comparison in terms of breadth and diversity. A further note; Darling Downs Zoo is by no means only a bird sanctuary but also maintains a broad collection of around 106 species on display on my last count. Also, before anyone mentions that Healesville does have a better native bird collection, I am aware of that. That doesn’t justify Melbourne’s poor collection of exotic bird species though.

Melbourne Zoo – December 2018 – Approx. 45 Species

Bird Exhibits: A main walkthrough aviary and a handful of additional aviaries in the Australian Bush area; an Amazon aviary; two aviaries in the Trail of the Elephants; a brush turkey aviary; emu/kangaroo enclosure; conure enclosure in Treetop Apes and Monkeys; a penguin and pelican enclosure

Personal Highlights: Razor-billed Currasow, Great Green Macaw, Red-fronted Macaw

Spoiler: Melbourne Zoo

1. Southern Cassowary Casuarius casuarius johnsonii
2. Emu Dromaius novaehollandiae
3. Freckled Duck Stictonetta naevosa
4. Black Swan Cynus atratus
5. Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis
6. Australian Brush Turkey Alectura lathami
7. Razor-billed Currasow Mitu tuberosum [euthanised June 2019]
8. Helmeted Guineafowl Numida meleagris
9. Pacific Emerald Dove Chalcophaps longiostris
10. Squatter Pigeon Geophaps scripta
11. Wonga Pigeon Leucosarcia melanoleuca
12. Diamond Dove Geopelia cuneata
13. Torresian Imperial-Pigeon Ducula spilorrhoa
14. Tawny Frogmouth Podargus strigodes
15. Buff-banded Rail Gallirallus philippensis
16. Bush Stone Curlew Burhinus grallarius
17. Pied Stilt Himantopus leucocephalus
18. Australian Little Penguin Eudyptula minor
19. Black-necked Stork Ephippioorhynchus asiaticus
20. Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanoleucos
21. Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus
22. White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae
23. Pied Heron Egretta picata
24. Eastern Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis
25. Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus
26. Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia
27. Blue-winged Kookaburra Dacelo leachii [signed but not seen]
28. Red-tailed Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii
29. Eclectus Parrot Eclectus roratus
30. Budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus
31. Red-collared Lorikeet Trichoglossus rubritorquis
32. Timneh Grey Parrot Psittacus timneh
33. Crimson-bellied Conure Pyrrhura perlata
34. Great Green Macaw Ara ambigua
35. Green-winged Macaw Ara chloropterus
36. Red-fronted Macaw Ara rubrogenys
37. Blue-fronted Amazon Amazona aestiva [signed but not seen]
38. Black-capped Caique Pionites melanocephalus [signed but not seen]
39. White-bellied Caique Pionites leucogaster [signed but not seen]
40. Noisy Pitta Pitta versicolor
41. Blue-faced Honeyeater Entomyzon cyanotis
42. White-browed Woodswallow Artamus superciliosus
43. Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata
44. Gouldian Finch Erythrura gouldiae
45. Java Sparrow Lonchura oryzivora

Darling Downs Zoo – February 2020 – Approx. 58 Bird Species

Exhibits: Approximately 17 individual aviaries ranging from a large waterbird/turtle aviary to smaller aviaries for exotic parrots with tamarin/agouti mixes; around five-six waterbird enclosures for pelicans and other waterfowl; large paddocks for Ostrich and Emu; a new aviary is also under construction near the future Sri Lankan leopard enclosure presumably for Asian species.

Personal Highlights: Australian Bustard, Pheasants, Owls, Rufous Night-heron

Spoiler: Darling Downs Zoo

1. Ostrich Struthio camelus
2. Emu Dromaius novaehollandiae
3. Plumed Whistling Duck Dendrocygna eytoni
4. Wandering Whistling Duck Dendrocygna arcuata
5. Cape Barren Goose Cereopsis novaehollandiae
6. Black Swan Cynus atratus
7. Rajah Shelduck Radjah radjah
8. Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea
9. Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata
10. Hardhead Aythya australis
11. Golden Pheasant Chrysolophus pictus
12. Lady Amherst’s Pheasant Chrysolophus amherstiae
13. Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus
14. Kalij Pheasant Lophura leucomelanos
15. White-headed Pigeon Columba leucomela
16. Pacific Emerald Dove Chalcophaps longiostris
17. Spinifex Pigeon Geophaps plumifera
18. Wonga Pigeon Leucosarcia melanoleuca
19. Nicobar Pigeon Caloenas nicobarica
20. Luzon Bleeding-Heart Dove Gallicolumba luzonica
21. Rose-crowned Fruit-Dove Ptilinopus regina
22. Topknot Pigeon Lopholaimus antarcticus
23. Australian Bustard Ardeotis australis
24. Purple Swamphen Porphyrio melanotus
25. Bush Stone Curlew Burhinus grallarius
26. Pied Stilt Himantopus leucocephalus
27. Banded Lapwing Vanellus tricolor [signed but not seen]
28. Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles
29. Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus
30. Rufous Night Heron Nycticorax caledonicus
31. Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus
32. Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia
33. Barking Owl Ninox connivens
34. Eastern Grass Owl Tyto longimembris
35. Eastern Barn Owl Tyto delicatula
36. Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae
37. Nankeen Kestrel Falco cenchroides
38. Red-tailed Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii samuelli
39. Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus funereus
40. Gang-gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum
41. Galah Eolophus roseicapillus
42. Long-billed Corella Cacatua tenuirostris
43. Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita
44. Australian King Parrot Alisterus scapularis
45. Crimson-winged Parrot Aprosmictus erythropterus
46. Eclectus Parrot Eclectus roratus
47. Budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus
48. African Grey Parrot Psittacus erithacus
49. Yellow-crowned Amazon Amazona ochrocephala
50. Blue-fronted Amazon Amazona aestiva
51. Sun Conure Aratinga solstitialis
52. Blue and Gold Macaw Ara ararauna
53. Green-winged Macaw Ara chloropterus
54. Scarlet Macaw Ara macao
55. Noisy Pitta Pitta versicolor
56. Regent Bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus chrysocephalus
57. Eastern Whipbird Psophodes olivaceus
58. White-browed Woodswallow Artamus superciliosus

 

This post completely proves the point that I was trying to make when I created this thread:

For a bird enthusiast, Darling Downs Zoo has got Melbourne Zoo covered, but then for a high profile mammal (aka "ABC Animal", mega-fauna) enthusiast as I am, I prefer the following:

elephants
snow leopards
gorillas
tigers
African wild dogs
otters
red pandas
(all of which are at Melbourne Zoo and none of which are at Darling Downs)

I certainly don't want MZ to swap all of this for an extra 15 species of bird (or 10 species of deer, or 10 species of 'small brown things').

Don't get me wrong - I think it's great that the smaller private zoos are displaying some of the lesser known species. This gives them a great point of difference.

However, I believe that the larger zoos should focus on the high profile mammals primarily, as they are the zoos with the money to do so. If they can do both, then great - but if they must focus on one or the other then I would much rather see snow leopards and elephants than birds, ungulates or small brown things.

And as always, I'm more than happy for others to disagree with me.

 

In the interests of accuracy, Darling Downs Zoo does have a female Sumatran Tiger and have plans for a different sort of leopard that is more suitable to their climate - Sri Lankan leopards.

 

Fair enough - their website made no mention of tigers though. And when they get the leopards then that will make a really great point of difference! In the meantime though, we can replace tigers on my MZ list with orangutans if need be.

 

The issue is this a false choice. Large zoos can walk and chew gum at the same time. Their are countless examples in the United States of this. Woodland Park Zoo is one example. They hold rhino, giraffe, lion, snow leopard, tiger, sloth bear, gorilla, orangutan and more. They also have 125 species of bird on display. And you know what, they are about the same size as Melbourne. Cincinnati zoos smaller than Melbourne, yet a similar trend is seen. A zoo that holds plenty of larger animals in newer exhibits, yet also finds room for a significant collection of smaller mammals, birds, and reptiles.

The large species you list take a lot of care, elephants its often more than one keeper per elephant. Meanwhile birds and hoofstock require far less. Sylvan Heights Bird Park, one of the largest bird collections in the U.S. has only about a dozen keepers for the whole place. As well smaller mammals and birds need smaller spaces, as such one can maintain high species diversity in a smaller area.

No one on here is saying get rid of all the large mammals and replace them with birds or what you call small brown things. But we are saying that these zoos should focus on providing larger habitats for the select large species they hold, and also should house a wide variety of smaller animals. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Looking at Melbourne on google maps, they have plenty of underutilized land. Yes larger mammals will always bring more people through a door, yet I am firm believer that the purpose of these larger species is in some way to subsidize the more important programs with less popular species of animal.

If zoos simply seek to show what’s popular without concern for conservation and the rapidly changing world around them, then I fear they have lost much of their drive and purpose.