CHAPTER 18 – ZOOS, WILDLIFE PARKS
AND TOURISM
Zoos and Wildlife Parks
18.1 The exhibition of wildlife in Australia is a multi-million dollar industry, employing thousands of
people. However, excluding the large public zoos in the capital cities and in Dubbo, the majority of
wildlife parks are privately owned. More than twice the number of animals (and species) exist in private
zoos, as exist in public institutions. [1] Private wildlife parks and zoos function without any grants or
subsidies and make a valuable contribution to regional economies. In addition, many wildlife parks
contribute both to scientific research and a broader understanding of the species they keep.
18.2 Zoos and wildlife parks play a critical role in public education and for children in particular they are
the only opportunity to see live wildlife and learn about species which are rare or endangered. [2] Zoos
and wildlife parks have evolved over the last two decades from having an almost purely 'display' role to
being in the forefront of developing empathy for Australia's fauna. However, they appear to be
'undervalued by the community at this time and they tend to be beset by an alliance of groups that
believe that wildlife should not be interfered with in any way even if this means that it will perish'. [3]
Public Zoos and Wildlife Parks
18.3 Public Zoological Institutions do not generally deal commercially in wildlife, but arrange gifts of
wildlife to other institutions, particularly in reciprocal arrangements with other countries. The Zoological
Parks Board of New South Wales, for example, does not undertake any commercial activities in relation
to wildlife exchanges. However, while all trade is strictly non-commercial, it will accept financial 'gifts' to
its trust for exchange of wildlife to be used for research purposes. [4] However, public zoos and wildlife
parks are generally taking on a much more commercial role in the exhibition of flora and fauna (see Box:
Alice Springs Desert Park).
Private Wildlife Parks
18.4 Private wildlife parks have grown in number and size over the last decade and now provide a
significant attraction to tourists in many parts of Australia. In Darwin, for example, over 100,000 people
annually visit each of two crocodile breeding establishments, Darwin Crocodile Farm and Crocodylus
Park. [5] As well as providing entertainment, private wildlife parks play a important role in education.
For example, the Australian Reptile Park near Gosford (north of Sydney) operates the most popular
education program for environmental sciences in Australia and more than twice the number of school
children are seen by its mobile education teams than visit Taronga Park Zoo each year. [6] Private
wildlife parks also play an important role in biodiversity conservation (see Box: Earth Sanctuaries
Limited).
Role of Zoos and Wildlife Parks in Conservation
18.5 Public and private zoos and wildlife parks can play an important role in species conservation. This
occurs in two main areas: (1) public education about the status of species; and (2) breeding of rare and
endangered species to increase their numbers for return to the wild. With government funding of public
zoos in decline, the importance of these activities has been highlighted. The Melbourne Zoo, for
example, has as its mission statement: 'to contribute to the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats'.
[7] Internationally, there is a World Zoo Conservation Strategy produced jointly by the Conservation
Breeding Specialists Group of the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN and the World Zoo
Organisation in 1993.
18.6 However, not everyone supports the involvement of public zoos in conservation work and in
evidence to the Committee there were a number of critics of this role. In particular, Dr John Wamsley
claimed that: 'We have publicly funded zoos all over the country pretending they have something to do
with the conservation of wildlife. The fact of the matter is that there has not been one successful
reintroduction of an endangered species back into the wild by any zoo anywhere in the world ever'. [8]
The Australian Koala Foundation also believes that zoos and wildlife parks play a very limited role in the
conservation of species. [9]
Sale of Icon Animals Overseas
18.7 The issue of exporting Australian wildlife to overseas zoos, and in particular the export of koalas
and platypus, is complex and controversial. Because they are quintessentially 'Australian', there is a
strong demand for these animals in overseas zoos. [10] In the meanwhile, there is an over-abundance of
koalas on Kangaroo Island and many are being sterilised in an effort to control the population. The
South Australian Government has also proposed that some individuals could be translocated to the
mainland (see Paragraph 12.46). The lure of potentially high financial returns from overseas zoos,
however, has led to the suggestion that koalas should be exported instead, so that money can be
returned to conservation efforts in Australia. [11]
18.8 However, there is a great divergence of opinion as to whether Australia should allow the export of
'icon' animals to overseas zoos and, if so, under what conditions. On one hand, there is a strongly held
view that these animals should be kept in Australia. This view is based on two arguments. First, that for
reasons relating to animal welfare, wildlife should not be kept in cages. Keeping both koalas and
especially platypus in captivity overseas is very difficult. Koalas require fresh leaves taken from particular
eucalypt species. Platypus are highly sensitive to microhabitat changes and, being very susceptible to
stress, are particularly difficult to transport. They are almost impossible to breed in captivity. Second,
that for reasons relating to tourism, wildlife and in particular icon animals should be kept in Australia so
that tourists would be forced to come here if they wanted to see our wildlife. [12] The Australian Koala
Foundation (AKF) is opposed to the export of koalas from Australia to overseas zoos, unless there is
some significant benefit to habitat in Australia. [13] In addition, in noting that current legislation provides
that wild animals must be held in captivity for at least 12 months before they can be exported, AKF
argued that it would be a dangerous precedent to allow animals to be exported directly from the wild.
[14]
18.9 On the other hand, the view is strongly held by some people that, under certain conditions,
provision should be made to allow for export of those animals which are highly desired by overseas
zoos. The most significant of these conditions is whether the exporting agency must be a public
institution. Dr Frank Carrick, Senior Lecturer in Zoology at the University of Queensland, was strongly
of the view that any gift of live animals for display purposes to a foreign institution, where the recipient
shows their appreciation through a monetary response, 'must be received and distributed by a competent
government department, service or agency acting on the advice of a properly constituted expert panel'.
[15]
18.10 However, Dr John Wamsley of Warrawong Sanctuary is strongly of the opposite view. Dr
Wamsley believes that any institution, public or private, should be able to export platypus that they have
bred in captivity and are surplus to requirements. According to the submission put to the Committee by
Dr Wamsley, his company Earth Sanctuaries Ltd has been successfully breeding platypus in captivity
at Warrawong since January 1991.
18.11 Originally six were collected from the wild on Kangaroo Island in February of 1988 and 1989.
[16] These were young animals which had been living in non-permanent waterways and which would
have died in the summer if left in the wild. After capture, one died from pneumonia during a period of
bad weather. Since January 1991, there have been two births each year, with three platypus
subsequently being released to the wild. In February 1997, there were 16 platypus at the sanctuary, with
several young yet to emerge from the nesting burrows to add to the total population [17]
18.12 Dr Wamsley explained to the Committee that Earth Sanctuaries Ltd was now in a position to
export surplus animals. He argued that the Sanctuary had contributed to the 'conservation and
preservation' of the species, which was one of the main aims of the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of
Exports and Imports) Act. [18] His submission pointed to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser
newspaper which had asserted that Tokyo Zoo had offered $25m for the first pair of platypus exported
to Japan. 'If even half this amount were available' argued Dr Wamsley, 'it would allow Earth Sanctuaries
to develop further ecotourism infrastructure, creating employment and leading to further gains for wildlife
and the environment'. [19] Dr Wamsley concluded: 'We are in a strong position to be the first contender
for the initial sale of platypus overseas'. [20]
18.13 In arguing his position, Dr Wamsley explained:
Nobody could breed platypus in captivity. Nobody understood what their needs were. Nobody could
shift them from place to place and have them survive. There had only been one successful introduction
into the wild and that was on Kangaroo Island where we got our stock from. We had to spend an
enormous amount of money doing the research necessary to do that. We ended up getting half a million
dollars in funding from a Japanese aquarium to do the research work. The agreement we entered into
was that if we could ever export a platypus they would get the first one, and that is all. We were not
bound by anything.
Anyway they funded that. With that we built a research area at Warrawong … We learnt how to breed
platypus in captivity. We learnt how to move platypus from place to place. We learnt all there was to
know about platypus. But because of the restrictions on these things, we have now abandoned that
project. A project which could have brought in tens of millions of dollars in joint programs with overseas
institutions had to be scrapped because of this wonderful belief in Australia that the private sector is
crooked and the public sector is honest, and really that is all it is about. But as you know, to export
platypus you have to satisfy three conditions. Firstly, you have to be able to breed them in captivity;
secondly, you have to have an excess; and thirdly, you have to be owned by the government, and we
are not owned by the government. [21]
18.14 Dr Wamsley concluded that animals which were sought after by overseas zoos should be made
available on the following conditions:
- that all animals sold are bred in captivity (ie. on private land);
- that all animals sold are in excess of the original number of breeding stock;
- that all excess animals are part of an ongoing successful breeding program;
- that provision be made for release back to the wild of a small percentage of excess animals only
where there is a good chance of them surviving;
- that microchipping and DNA testing be carried out to prevent unscrupulous operators from
catching animals from the wild for export; and
- that standard quarantine procedures be observed. [22]
18.15 Others support Dr Wamsley's position; when asked whether he agreed with Dr Wamsley's view,
noted conservationist, Mr Vincent Serventy, stated that had no objection to Dr Wamsley's proposal to
sell platypus to overseas zoos. [23] However, at a recent symposium on platypus biology, [24] a
resolution was passed on the export of platypuses which stated:
This symposium resolves to call upon authorities to prohibit the export of live Platypuses until
appropriate conditions for exportation are developed. In particular, an important condition must be that
only animals bred in captivity be made available for export. Furthermore, any resources obtained as part
of a Platypus export program must be received and distributed only by a state or commonwealth
government agency or service acting on the advice of a properly constituted committee which has a
majority of members with expertise on Platypus conservation and management. [25]
18.16 A set of accompanying principles were agreed on by the symposium which, in summary, stated:
- export of live platypuses should only be approved if a net conservation benefit for the species can
be demonstrated;
- export of live platypuses should only be approved if it can be shown that there would be no net
detrimental effect on the inbound ecotourism industry in Australia, or on another element of the
national interest;
- only platypuses which have been bred in captivity, under defined circumstances, should be
considered for export;
- trafficking in live platypuses for profit or zoo to zoo bartering is strongly opposed, although it was
considered appropriate for a gift to a foreign institute of a live platypus to be reciprocated with the
provision of resources to support conservation related research distributed through a government
agency;
- before approval is given for the export of live platypus, the Australian authorities involved must be
satisfied that the receiving institution has already constructed suitable facilities and has available an
appropriate management plan for the shipment and keeping of platypus;
- an Australian expert would be required to accompany the shipment and to supervise management
for at least one month after receipt of the shipment;
- receiving institutions would not be able to re-export animals, or their progeny, without the
approval of Australian authorities; and
- no living platypus, or its progeny would be allowed back into Australia except under exceptional
circumstances. [26]
18.17 In addition, Dr Tom Grant, a specialist platypus biologist who has had long-standing experience in
their care, stated in evidence to the Committee that he believed that before any live specimens were
exported, excess platypus from any breeding establishment in Australia should be used to fulfil Australian
requests, or be released into the wild in areas where numbers were low. [27] While not specifically
commenting on whether private companies should be allowed to export icon animals, the Zoological
Parks Board of New South Wales emphasised 'the need to ensure that the export of native Australian
native fauna is never a threat to the conservation of the species or population involved and that the
exported animals are provided with a high quality of housing and management'. [28]
Animal Welfare
18.18 The welfare of animals kept in zoos and wildlife parks is of considerable concern not only to
Animal Liberation groups but to government and to members of the public who visit them. The NSW
Government, for example, has an Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1996 which promotes the
protection and welfare of all animals kept in captivity by animal exhibitors through regulations and a
statutory advisory committee. The exhibition of koalas, for example, is strictly regulated and minimum
living conditions (such as enclosure design, leaf collection, spacing of tree forks, and handling
procedures) clearly stipulated. Recent additions to regulations relating to koalas include the banning of
handling of animals by tourists and a requirement for microchip identification. [29] In Queensland,
wildlife parks operate under the control of strict guidelines imposed by the Nature Conservation Act, in
conjunction with various Codes of practice developed by the Queensland Wildlife Parks Association.
The Codes gain legislative force after they have been endorsed by the minister responsible for
administration of the Act.
18.19 However, the presence of statutes and codes of practice does not necessarily ensure the welfare
of animals kept in captivity. Mr Pat O'Brien, President of the Wildlife Preservation Society of
Queensland (Capricorn Branch) reported that only after media attention was drawn to the condition of
animals in Rockhampton Zoo, did the City Council realise that there was a code of practice:
The Rockhampton City Council in Central Queensland … has a zoo. For 12 years that I am aware of
the community has made a lot of complaints about that zoo. Things became so bad that late last year we
took a camera crew up there and did a media report on it. We showed the community pictures of rats
running around the place, sick animals and a whole lot of things that were quite horrible.
We now have a consultative committee set up with the council and we are in the process of getting those
things addressed, but we had to go to the media to do that. It was interesting that not only did the
council not have a copy of the code of practice but it did not even know that it existed and they have
been running this operation for a long time with no knowledge of the code of practice and certainly no
adherence to it.
When we looked at the code of practice, we decided that it was pretty deficient. We are now in the
process of reviewing it and making submissions to government to improve it. [30]
Tourist Activities
18.20 Tourist activities in non-urban areas are increasing world-wide. These types of activities include
independent use of national parks and nature reserves, guided nature-based tourism or ecotourism (bird
watching, whale watching, penguin parades, etc), adventure tourism (river and coastal canoeing,
mountain climbing, etc), scientific studies (Earthwatch, for example) and agricultural tourism (farm stays
and agribusiness tours).
Ecotourism and Nature Based Tourism
18.21 The Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science and Tourism defines 'ecotourism' as
nature-based tourism that involves education and interpretation of the natural environment and which is
managed to be ecologically sustainable. [31] It is a form of wildlife use that is not consumptive nor
extractive, but can be deleterious if not managed properly. [32]
18.22 Tourism is one of Australia's fastest growing industries and it is a significant source of foreign
exchange, gross domestic product, income and employment; in 1991-92 tourism expenditure amounted
to 5.5 per cent of GDP. [33] In particular, nature-based activities in Australia are a major attraction for
foreign visitors. In a recent survey of departing tourists, 22 per cent nominated Australia's unique wildlife
as a factor that influenced their decision to visit Australia. Others nominated national parks and
wilderness areas (21%), outback adventures (15%) and bushwalking (8%). [34] In Kakadu National
Park, about 70 per cent of tourism is the 'eco-adventure' type where small groups, assisted by four
wheel drive support crew, drive or walk to camping sites. Wildlife viewing is a crucial part of the
venture. [35]
18.23 In addition to direct economic benefits, there are flow-on and associated benefits which arise
from ecotourism including returns from sales of books, media products, videos, artefacts, souvenirs, and
photography. [36] The major non-economic benefit of ecotourism is public education where awareness
of the value of native fauna and flora is heightened and the importance of inter-dependencies within an
ecosystem is learned. Overall, this leads to a greater appreciation of the need for conservation and
habitat protection, and a greater acceptance of Australia's biota as intrinsically important.
18.24 The use of local populations of specific animals for nature-based tourism provides a strong
incentive for the retention or rehabilitation of the habitat in which that species lives. In the long-term,
interest aroused by one species, such as koalas or seals, can lead to a broad support for the
conservation of a whole ecosystem. This is particularly important for areas where there is little other
economic incentive to preserve habitat, such as wetlands. On Phillip Island in Victoria, for example, 10
years of carefully managed tourist activities have led to an increase in the number of penguins from about
400 to 800. This has been the result of expanded predator control and habitat restoration programs
made possible through income from tourism. [37]
18.25 Ecotourism has wide acceptance. Many conservation groups who are opposed to direct,
consumptive use of native wildlife are not opposed to commercialisation of wildlife through nature-based
tourism. While stating that wildlife should be appreciated and preserved simply for its intrinsic value,
ecotourism is seen as a way in which some economic benefit can be derived from those values. [38]
18.26 Eco-tourism is the sole commercial use of animals condoned by animal liberation groups,
provided that they are strictly regulated to ensure minimum impact on native species and their
environments. The position held by Animal Liberation (Victoria), for example, is that 'ventures that
provide education about the environment and needs and behaviours of native animals with an attempt to
imbue respect for the animals and their environment would be well regarded'. [39] As described by Miss
Karen Bevis, Wildlife Campaign Coordinator of Animal Liberation (Victoria), in evidence to the
Committee:
Engendering respect for creatures such as whales and a variety of African animals has seen a big
increase in tourism, with people spending large amounts of money to view these creatures in their natural
habitats. We would strongly support any well-regulated ecotourism ventures that seek to provide
education about animals' environmental and behavioural needs and that seek to imbue respect for that
animal. [40]
18.27 The RSPCA agreed that the use of wildlife in tourism, provided that animals are not removed or
interfered with in any way, provides an appropriate alternative to invasive methods of wildlife utilisation,
and noted that such ventures can provide good opportunities for education about Australian wildlife and
the environment, as well as animal welfare issues. [41]
18.28 In fact, many groups opposed to other commercial uses of wildlife tended to see ecotourism as a
panacea for funding conservation. Mr Richard Jones (MLA) argued that 'the kangaroo industry would
make as much if not more money if it turned from lethal exploitation of kangaroos to passive exploitation
linked with the tourism industry'. [42] The Kangaroo Protection Co-operative Ltd put forward the
proposal that landholders who cooperated with ecotourism by planting native vegetation to encourage
wildlife should be 'rewarded and reimbursed' from a 'Tourist Fund', and that tourist lodges should be
built such as in South Africa. [43] And in evidence to the Committee, Ms Maryland Wilson of the
AWPC described how the semi-arid rangelands could be de-stocked and, with the removal of
infrastructure (fences and artificial watering points) and weeds, at the same time provide employment
and 'create a tourism mecca'. [44] However, despite great vision, none of these proposals included
suggestions as to how such ventures would be funded, other than through government financial
assistance, an action they generally decried for other 'consumptive' wildlife industries. [45]
18.29 While supporting nature-based tourism, the Arid Lands Environment Centre had a more realistic
approach and stipulated that such activities should only occur where there was: adequate research
detailing base-line data of the proposed environments; the presence of sound and responsive
management; long-term monitoring and regulation of the industry with these cost built in to the pricing of
tourist activities; and the maximisation of educational opportunities and development of an environmental
ethic among tourists. [46]
18.30 If not managed correctly, however, ecotourism can have a range of detrimental impacts on
individual populations of animals, on environmental quality and ultimately on biodiversity. Potential
impacts on wildlife include habitat destruction or modification, behavioural modification, and
physiological or reproductive changes (cessation of breeding or changes to migration patterns in birds,
for example). Some animals can be so harassed by tourists attempting to see them, or to take photos,
that their ability to survive is greatly reduced. [47] In fact, in some instances the impact of ecotourism
can be greater than discrete sustainable harvesting in the same ecosystem. [48] Other impacts include
localised degradation through plant damage, soil erosion, rubbish and noise pollution, all concentrated
through the aggregation of amenities. Broader, and possibly more insidious impacts include the
introduction of weed species, degradation of water quality and the disruption or pollution of nutrient
cycles. [49]
18.31 As expressed by the Department of Environment in its submission:
The additional infrastructure needed to support increased non-consumptive activities may have a
detrimental effect on the sustainability of the resource. Infrastructure such as accommodation may lead to
clearing of native vegetation. Tours and walking trails may lead to compaction of the soil, limiting the
ability of species to recruit seedlings and in addition, leading to increased susceptibility to pathogens such
as Phytophthora cinnamomi or vegetation death through damage to the root zone. Increased access,
or ecologically-insensitive tourism development can result in increased edge effects, with resultant loss of
ecological integrity. [50]
18.32 Tourist activities are often centred at places and times when there are large aggregations of
animals (during breeding periods or during phases of migration) and by their very nature, these periods
often coincide with times of highest vulnerability of the population to disturbance. Without adequate
supervision and monitoring, the impact of large numbers of people can disrupt normal reproductive
behaviours and reduce breeding success. Also of concern to the Department is the practice of artificial
feeding of animals at designated sites. While this may provide a high value-added experience for tourists,
there are a number of long-term negative impacts including:
- health problems for target species arising from incorrect diets and increased spread of disease
throughout artificially high populations;
- reduced wariness of humans and increased human dependence;
- ecological impacts arising from artificial population increase of target species, such as
displacement of other species (eg through competition for nesting sites) and increased predation
on non-target species; and
- risks to human visitors either through transmission of [disease] or physical injury from wildlife.
[51]
18.33 Noting that nature-based tourism has the potential to have detrimental impacts on animals and
plants and their environments, the Department of Environment recommended that: 'Studies of wildlife
viewing, ecotourism and other non-consumptive commercial uses of wildlife are important to determine
whether or not such activities are actually benign, or do have an impact'. [52]
18.34 There are many aspects to ecotourism and operations can be based on species (such as koalas,
whales, penguins and bats), habitat (such as rainforests and wetland tours) or fields of interest (such as
bird-watching or wildlife photography). Ecotourism and nature-based tourism is expanding rapidly at the
moment, and several examples are considered below.
Whales and Dolphins
18.35 Whale-watching has increase dramatically in popularity over the last decade - a consequence of
increased whale numbers following the cessation of commercial whaling in Australian and neighbouring
waters. Good whale watching sites have been found in South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria,
NSW and Queensland. Environment Australia has issued national guidelines on whale watching which
prescribe, among other things, minimum distances between whales and vessels or swimmers. In South
Australia, whale watching is primarily a shore based activity at Victor Harbour and Head of the Bight,
and there is a small dolphin watching operation based at Port Adelaide. While all cetaceans are
protected species in South Australian waters, there are no regulations yet controlling whale or dolphin
watching as a tourist activity. [53]
Seals and Sea Lions
18.36 Three species of seals occur off the south eastern coastline and, like whales, their populations are
recovering. In South Australia, visits to seal colonies have become an important part of nature-based
tourism, especially at Seal Bay on the southern side of Kangaroo Island. Effective management of this
activity has been based on accommodating, firstly, the needs of the seals, and secondly the needs of the
visitors. Finding solutions to the wide range of visitor induced problems (such as sand dune erosion, litter
and human waste disposal and stress on animals), has consumed considerable public resources.
Privately run tours to observe sea lions are run at Point Labatt Conservation park near Streaky Bay.
[54]
Crocodiles
18.37 Viewing crocodiles in the wild is a very profitable enterprise. [55] Bush tours out of Darwin, for
example, almost always include crocodile viewing as a part of the program and some operators
specialise in crocodile tours. Such enterprises have created a significant source of local employment and
because they depend on finding crocodiles in their native habitat, tour operators have a vested interest in
seeing that wild populations and their habitats are maintained. [56]
Ecotourism in the Future
18.38 Ecotourism can result in significant economic benefits, [57] but it is dependent on a healthy natural
environment. In turn, significant conservation benefits can be derived from appropriate ecotourism.
However, a recent study found that too much emphasis had been placed in the concept of 'ecotourism'
and there was a need for a broader perspective which encompassed all aspects of nature-based tourism
and which provided 'many different levels of experience of nature and traditional culture'. [58] The
report also found that there was a need for detailed information on tourist activity and fulfilment across
the tourist spectrum, as well as a detailed assessment of the ecological characteristics and natural
features that attracted tourists to special areas. A need was also found for industry and government to
improve marketing and for the industry to be better informed about its environmental responsibilities.
18.39 While tourism is often viewed as a social, economic and political justification for retaining areas of
natural habitat, the report observed that this was usually done on an ad hoc basis. The challenge for the
future, according to the report, was to link the growth of tourism to the needs of wildlife and be an
effective force in biodiversity conservation. To do this, three mechanisms were recommended:
bioregional planning, funding mechanisms and industry involvement in strategy policy development. [59]
Agricultural Tourism
18.40 The Office of National Tourism has identified two forms of 'agricultural' tourism - farmstays and
agribusiness tours. Farmstays involve tourists with daily farm activities, and may include specific activities
such as trips to sites of environmental or cultural significance. More a business trip than a holiday,
agri-tours involve technical visits to specialist farms and range from a few days to several weeks visiting
many agricultural businesses. These may also include aspects of nature-based tourism. Both farmstays
and agri-tours are currently increasing in Australia. Farmstays, in particular, provide an important
alternative source of income for some rural enterprises which in turn provides an incentive to reduce
pressure on natural habitat. [60] However, while agri-tourism may provide an incentive to look after
rural lands, it can also place considerable pressures on the environment if not managed properly. [61]
18.41 However, the Bureau of Resource Sciences noted that ecotourism was probably not a realistic
option over much of the rangelands of Australia because remote areas usually required a unique
environmental feature to attract and sustain tourist interest (such as Uluru National Park). Unless
rangeland areas contained such features, rural properties would find it difficult to attract significant
tourism on natural features alone. Other, consumptive uses were more likely to offer income
diversification potential. [62]
Summary and Conclusions
18.42 The exhibition of wildlife in Australia is a multi-million dollar industry, employing thousands of
people. Zoos and wildlife parks make a valuable contribution to regional economies and contribute both
to scientific research and public education. They have evolved over the last two decades from having an
almost purely 'display' role to being involved directly and indirectly in biodiversity conservation.
18.43 Private wildlife parks have increased in importance over the last two decades and the majority of
wildlife parks in Australia are now privately owned. More than twice the number of animals (and
species) exist in private zoos, as exist in public institutions. There is a strong demand from overseas zoos
for quintessentially 'Australian' animal species (koalas and platypus) and the lure of potentially high
financial returns from overseas zoos has led to the suggestion that they should be exported so that money
can be returned to conservation efforts in Australia. However, there is considerable opposition to this on
tourism and animal welfare grounds.
18.44 Tourist activities in non-urban areas are increasing world-wide and nature-based tourism has wide
acceptance. The types of activities involved include independent use of national parks and nature
reserves, guided nature-based tourism or ecotourism, adventure tourism, scientific research tours and
agricultural tourism. Considerable conservation benefits can be derived from nature-based tourism as it
provides an incentive for the retention or rehabilitation of the habitat. This is particularly important for
areas where there is little other economic incentive to preserve habitat, such as wetlands. In addition, a
number of direct and indirect economic benefits can be derived. The major non-economic benefit of
nature-based-tourism is public education.
18.45 Many groups opposed to other commercial uses of wildlife tended to see tourism as a panacea
for funding conservation. However, the Committee notes that although it is widely claimed to be
'non-consumptive' and thus preferable to 'consumptive' forms of wildlife use, nature-based tourism can
have significant environmental impacts. If not managed correctly, ecotourism can have a range of
detrimental impacts on individual populations of animals and on environmental quality. In addition, broad
conservation objectives may ultimately suffer if small areas are preserved solely because of tourist
interest in one charismatic animal (such as penguins or seals).
18.46 There are two forms of 'agricultural' tourism: farmstays and agribusiness tours, both of which are
increasing in activity and viability. However, as with any form of nature-based tourism, while they may
provide an incentive to look after rural lands, they may also place considerable pressures on the
environment if not managed appropriately.
18.47 The Committee concludes that the challenge for the future is to link the growth of
tourism to the needs of wildlife and for nature-based tourism to be an effective force in
biodiversity conservation.
Box: Alice Springs Desert Park
Set in the foothills of the rugged McDonald Ranges, Alice Springs Desert Park is seen as an important
development in the promotion of Australia's desert environment. It is believed to be the world's first
purpose built facility aimed of presenting an integrated exhibit containing a complete biological diversity
of six representative desert habitats. A project of the Northern Territory Government and managed by
the NT Parks and Wildlife Commission, the Park is not a zoo, botanic gardens, cultural centre or
museum but 'a carefully planned combination of the interdependent plants, animals, landscapes and
culture which make up the desert habitats'. The park occupies 1300 hectares, of which 30 hectares is an
intensively managed core area.
Included in the facilities are the world's largest nocturnal house, and a nature theatre for presenting
birds-of-prey. Displays of traditional Aboriginal uses of plants and animals are also featured. In addition
to providing educational facilities, the Park is a breeding establishment for endangered desert mammals
and a research centre for arid region botanists. In creating the Desert Park, which opened to the public
on 23 March 1997 at a projected final cost of $24 million:
- More than 80,000 tonnes of red sand was trucked in to create a sand dune habitat, an exercise
which took a 120-tonne triple road train more than six weeks of multiple daily deliveries to
transfer the load from a cattle station 30km from Alice Springs to the Park. Similarly, over 30
tonnes of salt were hauled to create a salt pan for the Park.
- Botanists planted more than 20,000 plants into a variety of different habitat types. When
completed in the year 2000, more than 50,000 plants will have been planted.
- A total of 180 selected animal species were introduced into specially created habitats. Of the 22
mammal species held, 11 are threatened or endangered. [63]
However, while Park management claims that 'Central Australian Aboriginal custodians have worked
closely with developers from the earliest planning days, to help present a facility that nurtures cross
cultural awareness and appreciation', [64] the Central Land Council claims that the project has been a
'lost opportunity' for Aboriginal people in the area because it presents no opportunity for traditional
owners of the land to benefit from the Park. The Council maintains that despite the fact that the Park
was build on land that is the subject of a native title claim, the Government failed to have meaningful
consultations with traditional owners. In addition, presentation of Aboriginal culture is integral to the
Park's operation, but traditional owners have not been given control of how that information will be
displayed. The Land Council sees this as 'obvious disregard of the intellectual property rights of
Aboriginal people'. [65]
Committee Members visited the Alice Springs Desert Park on 5 August 1997.
Box: Earth Sanctuaries Limited
John Wamsley has a vision - to develop 100 Earth Sanctuaries, averaging 1,000 square kilometres each,
in all the major habitats of Australia over the next 25 years. This would comprise over 1% of the area of
Australia. All sanctuaries would be free of feral animals and all of the animals which once lived in each
habitat type would be re-introduced.
Earth Sanctuaries Ltd is Australia's first conservation company dedicated to saving Australian wildlife.
Based on the premise that the most significant threat to wildlife is feral species, Dr Wamsley purchased
14 hectares of degraded farmland in 1968 at Warrawong in the Adelaide Hills. After construction of a
vermin proof fence, more than a kilometre of creeks and pools, and planting 100,000 native trees and
shrubs, wildlife was reintroduced.
Warrawong has been cat and fox free for almost 15 years and during that time the wildlife has flourished.
According to Earth Sanctuaries' Annual Report: 'Australia's smallest and rarest living kangaroo, the
brush-tailed bettong increased 200 fold! The country's most primitive "real" kangaroo, the long-nosed
potoroo increased from four individuals to more than 100. The Sydney sub-species of the red-necked
pademelon (believed to be the last colony of this sub-species left in the world) increased from just two
individuals to more than 50!'. [66]
Warrawong's facilities now include a native plant retail nursery, the Bird Garden licensed restaurant and
coffee shop, a gift shop, offices, four houses, 15 'tent' style luxury units for overnight accommodation for
up to 50 people, and the 'natural beauty' improvements of a platypusery, rainforest, dry forest, scrub,
wetlands, open grasslands, and native flowers.
The business at Warrawong employs six full-time staff as well as a number of part-time contractors who
take guided tours of the sanctuary at dawn, day, and dusk. Warrawong caters to thousands of national
and international tourists annually and has won numerous awards for its contributions to tourism, small
business, landscape and the environment.
Expansion of business interests at Warrawong based on the commercial use of wildlife has allowed Earth
Sanctuaries Ltd to expand and the company now has a total 80,000 hectares under management over
five separate areas of land: Warrawong (Mylor, Adelaide Hills, SA) Yookamurra (Murray Mallee
region, South Australia), Buckaringa (Flinders Ranges, SA), Scotia (South Western NSW), and Tiparra
(a coastal area at Cape Elizabeth, Yorke Peninsula, SA).
At Earth Sanctuaries' most recent acquisition (Scotia) the first stage of constructing the vermin-proof
fence has commenced. When complete, it will enclose an area of 1,000 sq km, and the ten most
endangered mammals that once lived in New South Wales will be reintroduced: boobies, bilbies,
numbats, sticknest rats, malas, bridled nailtail wallabies, chuditch, red-tailed phascogales, western
barred and golden bandicoots. While there are less than 30,000 of these animals left in the world, Scotia
aims to carry 300,000.
Earth Sanctuaries Ltd is entirely self funded through income from ecotourism and the public issue of
shares. The parent company currently employs a total of 30 staff. [67]
Footnotes
[1] Evidence, p. RRA&T 826.
[2] Evidence, p. RRA&T 490.
[3] Supplementary Submission No. 175, p. 15; see also Evidence, p. RRA&T 744.
[4] Evidence, p. RRA&T 792.
[5] Submission No. 112, p. 3.
[6] Evidence, p. RRA&T 827.
[7] Submission No. 128, p. 1; Evidence, p. RRA&T 101.
[8] Submission No. 77, p. 3; but see Evidence, p. RRA&T 685.
[9] Letter dated 3 February 1997 from Ms Deborah Tabart, Executive Director, Australian Koala
Foundation, to the Premier of South Australia, The Hon Mr John Olsen, p. 3.
[10] In a letter dated 3 February 1997 from Ms Deborah Tabart, Executive Director, Australian Koala
Foundation, to the Premier of South Australia, The Hon Mr John Olsen (p. 3) it was stated that there
were only two male koalas left in the United States of America (originally from Victoria and now aged
16 and 12), both waiting for new young females (as reported in the North American Regional Studbook
for Koalas). However, this is contradicted by a recent media article which reports that the San Diego
Zoo has a colony of 65 koalas, many of which are on loan to other zoos. The Zoo donates half of the
proceeds from the loan program to koala habitat preservation efforts in Australia. The purpose of the
article was to report that a female at the Zoo had recently given birth to an albino baby, a very rare
occurrence.
[11] Submission No. 7 (see also footnote above).
[12] Evidence, p. RRA&T 720-1.
[13] Letter dated 3 February 1997 from Ms Deborah Tabart, Executive Director, Australian Koala
Foundation, to the Premier of South Australia, The Hon Mr John Olsen, p. 2.
[14] Letter dated 21 February 1997 from Ms Deborah Tabart, Executive Director, Australian Koala
Foundation, to Ms Necia Page, President, Animal Liberation, p. 2.
[15] Submission No. 323, p. 2.
[16] Where platypus, like koalas, had been artificially introduced.
[17] Submission No. 77, p. 2.
[18] Submission No. 77, p. 2.
[19] Submission No. 77, p. 2.
[20] Submission No. 77, p. 3.
[21] Evidence, p. RRA&T 612.
[22] Submission No. 77, p. 6.
[23] Evidence, p. RRA&T 823.
[24] 27-29 November 1996, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst.
[25] Submission 127, Attachment: Principles for Overseas Export of Platypuses, p.1. See also
Evidence, p. RRA&T 835 ff.
[26] Submission 127, Attachment: Principles for Overseas Export of Platypuses, pp.1-3; also
attached to submission 323.
[27] Evidence, p. RRA&T 838.
[28] Submission No. 313, p. 1.
[29] Submission No. 88, p. 5.
[30] Evidence, p. RRA&T 150.
[31] Commonwealth Department of Tourism (1994) National Ecotourism Strategy, AGPS Canberra,
p. 17.
[32] Evidence, p. RRA&T 23, Submission No.s 48 & 71 (p. 5).
[33] Two Way Track - Biodiversity Conservation and Ecotourism, a report by Preece, N and van
Oosterzee, P Ecoz-Ecology Australia, and James, D, Ecoservices Pty Ltd, Biodiversity Series Paper
No. 5, Biodiversity Unit, Department of Environment, Sport and Tourism, 1995 ISBN 0642226970, p.
5.
[34] Koalas and Tourism: An Economic Evaluation by Professor Tor Hundloe & Dr Clive Hamilton,
The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper No. 13, July 1997, ISSN 1322-5421, p. 1.
[35] Submission No. 198, p. 24.
[36] Evidence, p. RRA&T 638-9.
[37] Evidence, p. RRA&T 932.
[38] See for example, Submission No. 67, p. 2.
[39] Submission No. 87, p. 14.
[40] Evidence, p. RRA&T 964.
[41] Submission No. 169, pp. 5-6.
[42] Submission No. 197, Covering Letter, p. 3. This idea was also supported by the Wildlife
Preservation Society of Queensland (Capricorn Branch), Evidence, p. RRA&T 160 and by the group
Australians Against Commercialisation of Wildlife, Evidence, p. RRA&T 848.
[43] Supplementary Submission No. 129, p. 1; also Evidence, p. RRA&T 704, 712.
[44] Evidence, p. RRA&T 990.
[45] Evidence, p. RRA&T 848.
[46] Submission No. 111, p. 7.
[47] Evidence, p. RRA&T 573.
[48] For example, when birds are disturbed and desert their nests, the losses are greater than if a
sustainable proportion of eggs or chicks were discreetly collected (Submission No. 337, p. 2).
[49] Submission No. 111, p. 7.
[50] Submission No. 198, p. 27.
[51] Submission No. 198, p. 27.
[52] Submission No. 198, p. 28 (Recommendation 2).
[53] Submission No. 318, p. 30.
[54] Submission No. 318, p. 31.
[55] Evidence, p. RRA&T 333.
[56] Submission No. 157, p. 17.
[57] Submission No. 7.
[58] Two Way Track - Biodiversity Conservation and Ecotourism, op cit, p. 5.
[59] Ibid, p. 7.
[60] Shea, S R, Abbott, I, Armstrong, J A & McNamara, K J (undated) Sustainable Conservation –
A new integrated approach to nature conservation in Australia, Department of Conservation and
Land Management, Western Australia, p. 22.
[61] Source: Industry Commission A Full Repairing Lease – Inquiry into Ecologically Sustainable
Land Management, Draft Report September 1997, p. 151ff.
[62] Submission No. 71, p. 6.
[63] Evidence, p. RRA&T 338; Alice Springs Desert Park, Storylines, Northern Territory Government.
[64] ibid.
[65] Central Land Council Media Release, 21 March 1997, Desert Park a Lost Opportunity. See
also Evidence, p. RRA&T 301.
[66] Earth Sanctuaries Limited (ACN 008 164 903) Annual Report 1996, p. 7.
[67] Information taken from Earth Sanctuaries Limited (ACN 008 164 903) Annual Report 1996 and
Earth Sanctuaries Limited Prospectus.