Article of intrest

[instar]

Sorry , i wanted to post this in articles but the link sent me too "404 not found error" etc. anyway hope you can read this i may have to resize.

Mad about zoo in the city

By MARK SKELSEY

May 20, 2004

FUR is flying in the battle of the cuddly creatures between Taronga Zoo and a private company which wants to establish a new animal display at Darling Harbour.

Planning Minister Craig Knowles is currently examining plans for the new mini-zoo, to be known as Australia's Animal World, next to the Sydney Aquarium.

But The Daily Telegraph believes that Taronga Zoo has raised concerns about animal welfare issues at the city zoo, along with the potential impact on its own finances.

The zoo has refused to confirm it could be forced to cut 44 jobs if the city zoo is approved.

The publicly-listed aquarium company first lodged an application for the $30 million facility back in 2002.

The application proposed to have 44 exhibits of native animals, including snakes, spiders, birds, koalas and kangaroos.

Bradley Trevor Greive, a best-selling author and conservationist who's a member of the fund-raising arm of Taronga Zoo, is leading the charge against the Australia's Animal World project.

Mr Greive said he believed the Darling Harbour proposal, supported by the Government's Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, could reduce Taronga Zoo's revenue by $3 million a year.

"And the idea of wildlife there is preposterous, with traffic and shipping noise and aircraft flight paths nearby," he said.


Mr Knowles is not yet declaring whether he will back or reject the city zoo plan. His spokeswoman said he was considering the issues raised.


The Zoological Parks Board, which controls the government-owned Taronga Zoo, said there were concerns about "wildlife welfare in that inner city location."


However, it's not willing to publicly criticise the plan because it could undermine its revenue.

 

[Bryony]

can't read the text matey, just the title

 

[instar]

Sorry, that better

 

[Bryony]

thats crapppy the shouldn't have a zoo in the city human welfare is not considered in the city let alone animal welfare.
where was this artical?

 

[Slateman]

I am surprice why they don't let Taroonga to own and run that minizoo. That way all the profit would be not lost to them.
They can charge large entre fee to grab some turists dolars. Australians would anyway go to Taronga. Only turists with limited time and interest would be great extra financial gain for taroonga.

 

[instar]

It was in the Daily Telegraph today courtesy of Mark Skelsey :wink:

my concern would be how small the new one is, be a good place for volunteer herpers.

 

[Pinkie]

After just having written a mini-thesis about the current state of zoos, in my opinion this idea is a load of crap.
Taronga zoo, being in the inner city-ish anyway already fills this tourism market segment, and has anyone seen the state of Taronga lately?? I was there in February and the place was a complete mess. They need to concentrate their efforts on the already established 'world-class' facility at Taronga and just clean the friggin place up before they begin building more zoos elsewhere.
And like Bryony stated, the inner-city is not exactly prime destination for a new zoo with all the traffic, pollution, crowds, etc etc. To me, this is not a well-planned idea at all.

 

[Bryony]

i agree with pinkie!!!!!!!
its a stupid idea i don't even like having the aquarium there right nest to clubs and people spewing into the enclosures (i have seen it) and let alone the pollution there is a perminent smog cloud over the city

yucky yucky yucky poo what are we gona do

 

[dobermanmick]

Taronga zoo, being in the inner city-ish anyway already fills this tourism market segment, and has anyone seen the state of Taronga lately??

Pinkie were they still working on it ? i was there last july and they were doing a lot of improvements to it
it was not to bad then

 

[Bryony]

i don't like the idea of another zoo one is ok and one reptile park

in the city is a bad idea imagine all the drunk clubbers going in and not to mention all the stress of the city

 

[Hickson]

The proposal has been put forward by the Sydney Aquarium consortium, not Taronga. The idea is, there are lots of tourists who are passing through and don't have the time to go over to the zoo, but don't want to leave Australia without having seen a "Koala bear" and a kangaroo. As many tourists visit Darling Harbour anyway (and many stay in hotels a short walk away), this location is thought to be ideal from that perspective.

It will also be relatively expensive, and not a wide selection of our fauna. It is not a conservation venture, more a tourist/entertainment one.

Taronga will suffer greatly because there are lots of tourists (usually Asian ones) that arrive by the busload at the Zoo, stay for 45 minutes to an hour, and then leave. These groups would find a small zoo in Darling harbour a more appropriate alternative.

Hix

 

[Pinkie]

Pinkie were they still working on it ? i was there last july and they were doing a lot of improvements to it
it was not to bad then

When I went in February they were building an extension, a rainforest experience. Half the park was being bulldozed, parts were closed off but nothing much seems to be getting done.
This is all fine, but the rest of the zoo was pretty atrocious.
There were so many cages with nothing in them but overgrown weeds and rusting bars, falling apart cages with animals in them, the cafe was revolting and falling apart, some of the enclosures were not clean enough...
Although I can say the reptile section was nice and spotless

I have a lot of gripes with Taronga because of what I have studied, it has really opened my eyes a lot to all of their mistakes. Also it doesn't help that they have a lot of conflict in their management committee...

What annoyed me is why can't they fix up all their old enclosures before building more new stuff.

 

[dobermanmick]

Money and wanting more !

 

[Pinkie]

The idea is, there are lots of tourists who are passing through and don't have the time to go over to the zoo, but don't want to leave Australia without having seen a "Koala bear" and a kangaroo. As many tourists visit Darling Harbour anyway (and many stay in hotels a short walk away), this location is thought to be ideal from that perspective.

Its a shame if tourists spend however long to sit on a plane to visit our country that they cant take a 20 train/ferry/bus ride to visit our world famous zoo.
Although the situation is thought to be "ideal" from a tourist's perspective, I dont think they are accounting for tourists who come here wanting to see "Taronga", a zoo which is already world-famous for its facilities.
Its like going to LA to go to Disneyland and Universal Studios and then ending up going to that crappy Six Flags place.
Also building animal-based tourist facilities aren't all about the tourists particularly with regard to zoological facilities (I know many will scoff at this but its true). There are animal welfare issues and strict guidelines and I can see plenty arising from this if it goes ahead.

 

[Pinkie]

Money and wanting more !

Yes Dober-Mick, but for a famous zoo, Taronga is not as wealthy as people assume.

 

[ether]

It must be said that it is probably one of the better zoo's if you compare it to others around the world. I basically lived their for four days and spent basically all my lunch times wandering around the zoo. At to be honest i didnt see any cages that were empty (only ones that had builders in them) and the condition of all the animals, at least in the serpenteria, were was very good.

And another thing i might add is that the Zoo's staff are all very good. They are dedicated people and it seems there is no lack of enthusiacstic volunteers.

Regards Ether

 

[basketcase]

ether's right.
government zoos are very well run and thoroughly deserve their good reps

 

[Hickson]

Although the situation is thought to be "ideal" from a tourist's perspective, I dont think they are accounting for tourists who come here wanting to see "Taronga", a zoo which is already world-famous for its facilities.

Pinkie, the people who want to go to Taronga will still go there. This new place is just designed for people who only want to see a couple of Australian animal icons before going home. There's also a lot of people who come over to Oz on business and don't really have the time to go to Taronga. They would certainly avail themselves of a facility in Darling Harbour.

And judging by your comments on the way Taronga is being run, you sound like you know someone on the inside.

Hix

 

[Hickson]

government zoos are very well run and thoroughly deserve their good reps

Have to disagree with you there, Basket. Some of the best zoos in the world are privately owned, and many of the worst zoos are government run.

Hix

 

[Slateman]

I understand Hix point. Not all people are like us animal crazy. They would like to see just coala and kangaroo. Well charge them heaps and rol the profit to Taroonga. That is why I think that minizoo should be own and run by Taroonga zoo.
They can doo with extra cash.