Booroolong frogs, yellow-spotted bell frogs, Lister's gecko, Christmas Island blue-tailed skink.... And that is just the herps.....
Sorry, wrote this late at night and there may be some confusion in what I wrote. The falsehoods I was referring to were the statements both organisations do less conservation work than private zoos, which has been constantly proven incorrect here, as well as their conservation is contracting, which has also clearly been shown as false. Saying both organisations do more work doesn’t devalue what the others do, Adelaide is great too and we are really fortunate in this country to have so many groups working so hard for our wildlife. Love what the private zoos do, they are an asset to the entire conservation story of Australia. But as constantly proven here, with facts and not opinions, Zoos Victoria and Taronga Conservation Society, do a mountain of work in this country for conservation, and more often than not are the leaders and coordinators in many of the programs that private zoos are also a part of. Zoos SA is such a unique zoo organisation in our country. They aren’t government owned and run like Zoos Victoria and Taronga conversation society, but they aren’t private per se like Mogo, which run for profit for it share holders, or Australia Zoo. Similarities can be made to an organisation like the Red Cross and their work running blood banks. They are independent, but operate through donations, entrepreneurship and government support help run a great service. The structure of how it is run and organised is such a credit to the entire organisation, and the rewards of this are really going to been shown in a massive way soon. It is pretty exciting to watch.
You make a good point regarding the role of Zoos Victoria and Taronga versus the small zoos in the region, which don’t receive government funding. While most of the conservation around conservation has focussed on the breed (and release) of native species; it should also be noted the work zoos like Taronga and Melbourne do with rescued animals. Both zoos have produced TV series (Wildlife at the Zoo and Mega Zoo respectively) in recent years, with many of the episodes featuring wildlife rescue stories. The animal is brought in and treated by the zoo, with the goal of releasing it (if possible to do so). Aside from the minor positive PR that comes from rescuing/rehabilitating animals, it’s (to be put bluntly) a drain on the zoo’s resources that provides little to no tangible benefit to them in return. They don’t keep the animal in most cases; the animal doesn’t increase attendance during its treatment (usually off display). It’s great that Taronga, Melbourne etc do rescue/rehabilitate animals; but it’s a luxury the small zoos that need to make a profit can’t justify (at least not on the scale of the main zoos). This isn’t a criticism of either party, merely an observation of role of the government funded zoos.
Zoos Victoria can do these things because they are massively subsidized by the taxpayer. Last year, according to their annual report, they received $74 million from entry and sales etc., and $70 million in government grants. Also the child free policy is a government policy imposed on them and paid for by a government grant. Private zoos have to pay for everything, from the land they sit on, to all capital costs to every last carrot they buy to feed the animals. Further 10c in every $1 private zoos earn goes directly to GST, while Zoos Victoria is GST free. None of this is to disparage Zoos Victoria's conservation work, which is outstanding. But let's get real here.
Can we please get away from this idea that just holding or breeding a threatened species is conservation work? True conservation work is that which improves the position of the species in the wild.
Actually there are several zoos that do substantial rehab work, off the top of my head Australia Zoo, Bonorong Sanctuary, Seaworld. Most will to at least a small amount. When it comes to Victoria, only a small handful of older parks have a rehab permit. Since I think the 1990's the Victorian department have refused to issue rehab permits to any private zoo. It is actually illegal for them to accept injured wildlife from the public.
This is spot on, in terms of conservation work that impacts wild animals Zoos Vic are leading the world. All the government/'big" zoos do this kind of work constantly, many small facilities have some great programs as well, Moonlit is a great example but the fact is most privately owned zoos don't do any real conservation at all. I think a few zoochatters need to do some more research about the conservation 'work' of many Australian Zoos
Except breeding programs are a part of conservation efforts, in keeping insurance populations. It may not be frontline work, but it still is legitimate conservation work, especially when they are also being used to educate to population about the stresses on wild populations. Let's not try and gate-keep what "true conservation" work is - reflects poorly and can actively turn potential supporters away.
I think it's important to recognise what real conservation work is and also recognise that a lot zoos still exist only as entertainment for the public that hopefully provides a small educational benefit to some visitors. Nothing wrong with that either. For many species the insurance populations will never re-intergrate with wild populations, Sumatran Tigers are a prime example.
Again, I think it reflects poorly on people who try to gatekeep what conservation is. It is a broad spectrum of things, and I would argue that all aspects are a part of real conservation. If others wish to assert that only some niche areas count, all to them, but I think that says more about them than what conservation actually is.
Wow. I think it reflects badly on people who try to greenwash the situation in zoos by representing breeding programs as conservation programs. All but a handful of breeding programs are there simply to try and maintain populations of the animal in zoos (and I don't have a problem with that). In any case almost all of them would fail as conservation programs because they have insufficient spaces to be genetically viable, plus there is usually no need for an insurance population at this time. I've been following @snowleopard thread on mammals he has seen in zoos. He has just finished lemurs. There is no country which is more in need of insurance populations for it's wildlife than Madagascar. Lemurs make ideal zoo animals. They are super popular with visitors. They don't take up much room. Most are easy to keep. And often, multiple species can be kept in one enclosure. Yet Snowleopard documents species after species that has either disappeared from zoos over the last two decades or are reduced to such low numbers in too few zoos, that they soon will. It seems zoos might save ring-tailed and red-ruffed lemurs, but that is it. Take cheetahs. There is always a flurry of excitement when a pair of cheetahs breeds, and as to what it means for their conservation. But where did all these cheetah parents come from? One of any number of cheetah breeding establishments in South Africa. De Wildt alone has bred 785 cubs over 30 years. Who cares if they breed in Australia. I have no problem with conservation education. But let's be clear what it is. Conservation education is about trying to convince somebody else to take actions in the future that may benefit, or at least not harm, wildlife. It is not a direct action in itself. I support zoos raising money for conservation programs in range territories. If that is what they can do best, they should definitely do it. It is essential and often so much can be done in range countries for very small amounts of money. Worldwide zoos are the third largest source of funds for in-situ conservation. I was so impressed with the work Sheldon Zoo, a tiny zoo in the UK, does in several countries. Representing the simple keeping and breeding of animals as a conservation action (lets be clear, neither ZAA, AZA, EAZA or WAZA do) is so easily proven not to be the case that it actually gives free kicks to anti-zoo activists. Real conservation is actively working to save species and habitats. Let's celebrate those who take action, and put aside those who seek to greenwash themselves.
On a generally similar note . . . Some people before myself have noticed an architectural trend that seems to have taken over much of North America - doing what has been done before. In that a restaurant in New Jersey looks much like one found in Wyoming, which doesn't look much different from one on a Hawai'ian island. And so the logic goes... that if this is so profitable then perhaps zoos are being treated the same manner. And I think the monotonisation of many zoos reflects this model. Most zoos opting for the same sort of exhibit with the same recommended species for better or for worse... that then the most defining factor between two zoos could well be the location. It's all too easy a model for zoo directors to fall into. But there are those who resist methinks.
So who exactly is "greenwashing"? Educating is real action, as it creates more conservationists. And Melbourne Zoo's education programs reach quite a long way: Zoos Victoria does do great education programs - they are busy year through bringing school groups in primarily focused on conservation. They run regular amazing PD for teachers from Primary through to VCE, again primarily with a focus on conservation. They have conservation messaging throughout each of their loops - being seen and absorbed by their ~1 million visitors every year. You might seek to diminish this - your previous post certainly did, but I would say that if even only 5% took heed, that equals 50,000 people taking some form of action. But that is just a conservative estimate of those influenced that visit and doesn't take in the thousands more that are gaining these messages from their teachers that have gained valuable PD from Melbourne Zoo. **************************** Then on breeding and releaseof native animals from Melbourne Zoo the current list includes: - Lord Howe Stick Insects (their breeding in captivity was pioneered at Melbourne Zoo) - Regent Honey Eaters - Southern Corroboree Frogs - Spotted tree frog - Watson’s tree frog - southern giant burrowing frog (these last three in Australia's premier Amphibian recovery centre - Victorian grassland earless dragons (world first captive breeding - not being released yet (to my understanding) due to how low the numbers are but with the intention to do so) - Pookila (I'm sure I didn't need to remind you of this one) They had been breeding Eastern Barred Bandicoots continuously for 30 years from 1991 until 2021 when the program coordinated by Zoos Victoria, conducted at Melbourne Zoo and Werribee Zoo among others. The program was ceased because it was deemed a success and that the population was big enough in the wild to be self sustaining. Melbourne Zoo is still conducting valuable research on how to better protect the species. Beyond that there is more: They run the states Marine Rescue Unit. Zoos Victoria frequently partners with Parks Victoria and are involved in research in our national parks. Melbourne Zoo as a part of Zoos Victoria is also involved in planting native habitat areas to support critically endangered animals in the wild. ************************* I didn't check all the organisations you listed due to time, but the one I did look at, WAZA, does not say what you claim it does. Quote from page 65 of COMMITTING TO CONSERVATION THE WORLD ZOO AND AQUARIUM CONSERVATION STRATEGY. Published in 2015 so may be out of date - they may have altered their definitions since and if so I'll concede that. Conservation Breeding Programmes - WAZA With the ultimate goal being to secure populations in their natural habitat in the longterm, for many of these animals expediency requires insurance populations. This doesn't mean that any of the current individual animals will one day be released, but potentially down the track it could be that their off-spring generations down the track are. The subsequent definitions relating to conservation, and relevant to these programs explicitly state that conservation breeding and outcomes can take place under human care, not just in the wild. But it also looks like WAZA is saying that conservation breeding can be for the purpose of education through use of ambassador animals. ********************** Further for exotic endangered animals Melbourne Zoo/Zoos Victoria have partnerships with 6 overseas conservation organisations, supporting wildlife on the frontlines But beyond that, for many of these species Zoos Victoria, primarily Melbourne Zoo, have provided many grants to fund action all across Africa, Asia and South America since 1992, all towards protecting animals, rehabilitating habitat, and to fund research to improve action on the ground. Currently on hold due to impacts of Covid-19 on finances. Primarily everything listed here, along with the great contributions of many others in this thread, is conducted by Melbourne Zoo. These actions and initiatives have only been growing continuously, especially since August 2009, and stem from a longer tradition dating back to at least the early 1990s. This is why I stated that I do feel immense pride, gratitude and satisfaction to this amazing institution that as a part of Zoos Victoria is conducting the most conservation work of any zoo based organisation in Australia. I feel this each and everytime I go to its beautifully planted and highly engaging premise: a mean, green, extinction fighting machine; the green light on the hill! So let's celebrate those who take action - those like Melbourne Zoo and Zoos Victoria! (and again - acknowledging these facts doesn't in anyway diminish the great works of our smaller zoos and wildlife parks)
I can't speak for MRJ but I think you've made the point that we are both talking about. It's the our 'tiger/koala/giraffe/lion' are part of a 'conservation' breeding program claim made by many zoos that doesn't equate to improving the position of those species in the wild.
Zoos who have a collection of threatened species in enclosures that they breed occasionally and claim they are contributing to conservation are greenwashing. Zoos that breed white tigers and claim a conservation benefit are greenwashing. Zoos that claim to be working for conservation but do nothing to affect what is happening in the wild are greenwashing. And it can be very subtle. Not that I made this criticism of Zoos Vic, or indeed any criticism. The only comment I made regarding Zoos Vic was: "None of this is to disparage Zoos Victoria's conservation work, which is outstanding." I did discuss the financial situation, and looking at their annual reports , it would seem that if Zoos Vic did not receive the government grants referred to they would be struggling to keep the doors open, let alone doing the work referred to. For this you should be thanking the Victorian Government and by extension the Victorian taxpayers. As a Victorian taxpayer, I say you are welcome. But it must be said, this does work directly to Moonlit Sanctuary's disadvantage. Because of the "free children" policy it is pointless for us to market to families across Melbourne. I have just been looking at a new grant round for "Iconic Species". We are specifically excluded while they are specifically mentioned. My point is that it is totally unfair to compare government financed zoos (and in this category i include Adelaide, despite it's legal status) to private zoos. It is like comparing an AFL team to a local high-school team. In fact there are three types of zoos in Australia: Government-supported. Corporate owned Private, owned by an individual or family. One thing that has to be said, is that every cent spent on conservation by a private zoo is a sacrifice made by that zoo's owner. This cannot be said of Government zoos, no-one there is asked to make a similar sacrifice. Indeed Melbourne Zoo was a world leader in establishing an education section, I know because I was there, as a student. And I haven't criticized their education program and I am not about to. As I have said, I think conservation education is fine, we do it at Moonlit. My point applies to all zoos, and is: Conservation education is about creating conservationists for the future. The extinction crisis is NOW and wildlife require ACTION NOW. Why are you quoting me this list? Is it not obvious this is precisely the sort of action that I support? This is the list I was commenting on: It is just extremely unlikely that any of these animals or their descendants will have any part in recovery of the species in the wild. I understand that, Zoos Vic understands that, ZAA understands that. They are here for education and entertainment, and because it is obviously better to be working with a threatened species than a non-threatened species. It may not be on the website, but it certainly is policy, as per the latest ZAA accreditation requirements. Claims of animals as insurance populations are rejected unless linked to their conservation in the wild. Again if linked to the needs of the population in the wild. What is not acceptable is the line of thinking that goes like this: "We want to exhibit okapi. Oh, look they are threatened. Let's claim it as an insurance population." The other problem is so many programs are not fit for purpose. They don't have enough spaces, zoos enter then leave them because of management's personal preferences, and so on. And good on them for that. Of course they are not the only zoo to do this, they are not the first and they are far from having the largest impact. Then there is the issue that Durrell and Jersey Zoo are grappling with, and which was under debate even when I was there on a course 26 years ago. That is Durrell do a tremendous amount of in-situ conservation work around the world. Why operate a zoo on Jersey, when it contributes nothing to conservation and is becoming a financial drain? Celebrate away. But please temper your celebration with a greater understanding of the issues involved.
This is a really important point that has probably been missed a bit in this discussion: Private zoos are not all the same, and don't all have the same business model (for example Mogo is owned by a listed company whereas others are owned by individuals or families). Government supported zoos are not all the same (for example, Adelaide is technically private, but practically has far more in common with govt run zoos). It's far less black and white than it gets made out to be. And as you've said, the money spent on conservation by owners of private zoos is a VERY REAL SACRIFICE - and one that should be acknowledged. Spending someone else's money is remarkably easy if one gets the chance to do it - but spending your own money is another story! The owners of private zoos do not have to spend money on conservation or education - they choose to do it and that shouldn't be ignored. So hats off to you (and others) who do this - your contribution is noticed and appreciated by me.
There are two points that I would make that appear to have been overlooked so far. Apologies if they have been mentioned - I have just speed read the thread and missed them if they were. 1 Many of the true conservation projects that have been attributed to one zoo or another are not necessarily individual efforts. The individual zoo's effort will frequently be part of a collaborative zoo effort. 2 None of the true conservation projects are part of a race or a competition to see who does the most, spends the most etc. We all take part according to our means.
Different Zoo have different Priorities The private zoos that are owned by family's likely have limited to no funding from the government, money to feed animals cost a whole lot of money, for example Taronga zoo Sydney spent in 2014( not to mention 2024 inflation ) 1 million dollars on animal food. Example darling downs Zoo, they charge $40 per adult and $26 per child In order to buy animal food, lets just say it was 1 million dollars ( probably less than this ) they would need 25,000 adults to come through the gates to afford food, in 2023 an estimated 50,000 people visited the zoo, if you add in other expenses such as keeper salary, electricity and Maintenance, there isn't much room to spend on expensive on conservation work, or public education Programs. Of course most zoos in Australia exist to educate the public and show the public the animals, this doesn't take away from private zoo But when zoos such as Taronga and Zoos Vic are getting lots of funding it is a whole heck easier to build new precinct. Look at Weribbes new elephant exhibits it is estimated to cost 83 million dollars, private zoos simply don't have the funding. This shouldn't take away from the fact that that private zoos can have better facilities and animals collections, Mogo is a shining example of this, and private zoos can still do conservation work it is just harder to do
Im glad to see they are actively doing more, are any of them plan for reintroduction. Isn't that redundant tho, since herpes is the majority of what taronga goes for. There current collection doesn't lend itself well for conservation. Since that majority of there species are not that endangered or have been swapped out over the years for less endangered counter parts. Taronga was one of the pioneers in Australian conservation years ago about umbrella species. Yet they hold very few true umbrella conservation species at the zoo outside of koala and exotics. Protecting small animals is important, but larger species from the same habitats are far more primed to get public attention to actively want to conserve habitat. The corroboree frog as popular as it is, many people would rather see a tiny frog die out then the removal of brumbies.
