(I Wish I Was In) California

[sooty mangabey]

The title of this thread references a blasting track from Ian McNabb; I would include a Youtube link, but the strange computer in my motel won't let me.

Anyway. As @Snow Leopard makes his way down through California, I too have been here on the Pacific Coast for a few days.

I wasn't going to complete a thread about my trip - the zoos I am visiting are all pretty well-known - but @Brum suggested doing so, on @Snow Leopard's thread, and given that @Chlidonias clearly needs some new words to use, I thought I might do so. Reviews will not be thorough, however!

Despite its current presidential embarrassment, the USA continues ot exert a real lure: zoo-wise, obviously, but also culturally. However, with life and everything, I've not had the chance to visit the country for a number of years, and, even when I was more frequently on this side fo the Atlantic, have never been further west than Topeka, Kansas.

San Diego has been a lure for as long as I haveknown about zoos, and known what was regarded as the world's best - since the late 1970s, certainly. But the opportunty has never previously arisen to visit....

 

[Chlidonias]

I do expect at least one word I have never heard before, in each of your posts on this thread. I'll give you the first post as a freebie.

 

[sooty mangabey]

Each summer, when the school year ends, I like to vansih for a few days of zoo-ing - usually to somewhere fairly close-by (and somewhere East European, too).

However, last year my father died. This changed my plans in two ways. The reminder of mortality was a call to do things now, rather than to leave them for the future - whenever that might be. And my dad left me a bit of money, meaning that I could afford to look further afield than the Czech Republic this year. So - thoughts turned to California. With the opening of Africa Rocks, it seemed an apposite time to be making a trip, at last, to this zoological nirvana.

Planning has been on-going for several months. Excitement has been mounting. The brilliant threads from @geomorph, from a few years ago, in which every species at San Diego (x2) and Los Angeles was listed, were studied, printed out, and, in a burst of nerdiness that has seen me being patronised by my 9 year-old daughter, stuck into a notebook. And then, on Sunday, courtesy of a nice Norwegian pilot, I flew across to LA, from London, listening to Merle Haggard and watching the brilliant Manchester By The Sea. And I was in California!

 

[Brum]

Great news that you're doing a thread, looking forward to a new perspective of some world renowned zoos. Any chance of an itinerary?

As for being patronised by your daughter I think most of us have been there. I once visited Shaldon and Living Coasts and wrote a schedule so I could see all the feedings, kids thought I was an uber-geek!

 

[sooty mangabey]

Day 1 - Monday - Los Angeles Zoo

First of all it was a quick visit to the old LA Zoo (now, does that count as a zoo visited?). The palimpsest of a zoo is sad, but also exciting: the thought that an array of wild animals could once be admired there is slightly odd, as one contemplates the graffiti, and the excitement of the forthcoming Shakespeare festival on the site.

And on to the 'new' zoo - which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. I thoroughly enjoyed it - even though much of it is pretty poor. It reminded me of Madrid Zoo: scruffy, with an occasional moment of quality. Here - in L.A. - I quite liked the scruffy enclosures, the paddocks with chainlink fences, even some of the C blocks (how did anyone ever think it would be a good idea to fill a new zoo with so many near-identical buildings?). What I didn't like as the dirtiness, the windows that hadn't been cleared in far too long (the gorillas and the chimps were particualrly blighted by this). It just seemed unloved.

Positives: LAIR - the Amphibian, Invertebrate and Reptile House (with very few invertebrates) is superb. A great collection, very nicely displayed. The South American rain forest area is good as far as it goes (even though it seems so unambitious, and so expensive - I know costs can escalate, rapidly, on unseen things, drainage, power, but how this cost the reported sums is beyond belief)). The collection is still great (in parts). The Australian area is delightful. And there are gerenuk, mountain tapir and pronghorn....

But a number of the enclosures just couldn't be seen into - the design appeared to take no account at all of the fact that southern California is quite sunny, such was the glare. And some were just rotten: birds of prey, like African fish eagles and Andean condors, just don't belong in those nasty little cages. And neither do some of the primates thus incarcerated. Gibbons? Really? Not good enough.

Opening times are a joke: by ten it's hot enough that most animals fancy a bit of a nap. And at 5.00, things might be coming to life again. Oh well. Time to head south, to San Diego....

 

[sooty mangabey]

Day 2 - Tuesday - San Diego Zoo

It's more than a quarter of a century since I visited Berlin Zoo for the first time, and that's the last time my sense of excitement at heading to a zoo has been so pronounced. And now, with San Diego 'done', I wonder whether any other 'new' zoo will have a similar effect? Of course, I'd love to go to Chicago, or Lisbon, or Tokyo, or those brillaint South American places that @devilfish hits on a regular basis. But I'm not sure any would make me feel almost sick with excitement, as San Diego did.

So, did it live up to the expectation? Yes, definitely. I loved it. Really, really, loved it. But until African Rocks opens up fully, it'll feel like an unfinished work. It's a huge area that is out of action, right now. And - again - there are areas that defy belief. Not many, but enough. The monkey cages, with aye aye, colobus and black mangebeys are horrible. Some of the things around the children's zoo are ill-served by their accommodation. The areas enjoyed by some key species - giraffes, grizzly bears, spectacled bears - are pretty tiny.

But, so much that is wonderful!

• The three big walk-through aviaries are fantastic. I think they're probably my new favoutie zoo exhibits. Lots of great species. Beautiful settings. Lots of interesting views. Comparisons are invidious, obviously, but I couldn't help thinking of the Snowden Aviary as I waked through the Scripps aviary today.
• The monkey exhibits on different levels, in the central area of the zoo, are great.
• The Australian area - again - is a delight. Koalas and Tasmanian devils are lovely, and wombats too of course, but the aviaries are alluring in the extreme.
• Americans are just nice, aren't they? On the whole. Friendly, enthusiastic. Ten minutes before opening, a keeper released some macaws to entertain the waiting crowd. When she greeted the expectant visitors, with a "is everyone having a good time?', she got the sort of posiitve response that Bruce Springsteen might expect two hours into a particularly successful show. I'm sure, had she asked a similar question of a waiting crowd in the UK, she'd have got a mumbled, embarrassed, mutter, at best. Here? Whoops, cheers, a roar of happiness. Which was great.
• Fantastic hippo pool.
• I even quite liked "Urban Jungle" or whatever it's called.

At least one more day there to come. And I think it might need more than that. Big chunks of the zoo I didn't see today. Just glanced at the reptiles. Didn't see the polr bear area, or the bonobos or gorillas. And I was there from 9.00 to 9.00, without pausing to eat or rest.

But goodness me, Elephant Odyssey is a dog's breakfast of a exhibit, isn't it?

 

[African Grey]

What did you think of the Elephants of Asia exhibit? as well as the Great ape exhibits at the LA Zoo?

 

[timmychompchomp]

I don't know? I don't think I would go on the Europe Zoo forums here and comment on the Head of State of any of those nations, just out of respect.

Tacky and off topic.

This response is not intended to be political, as it is about politeness in regards to your host and fellow Zoo Chatters.

 

[Shellheart]

I don't know? I don't think I would go on the Europe Zoo forums here and comment on the Head of State of any of those nations, just out of respect.

Tacky and off topic.

This response is not intended to be political, as it is about politeness in regards to your host and fellow Zoo Chatters.

It wasn't necessary to have been mentioned, but let's stay on-topic here before things get heated. The real heat should be over the idea that someone actually liked Urban Jungle! That would have to be a first on here, I think.

I agree heavily with your assessment of the "scruffy" enclosures at Los Angeles, and I like that description so much I might actually steal it from you. I'm particularly thinking of the Maned Wolf enclosure, which is a great example of scruffy functionality...but the round houses have got to go. I also am thinking particularly of the ROA terrariums when you mention being unable to see into certain exhibits. They're absolutely dreadful with their glare.

Finally regarding your assessment that ROA shouldn't have been as expensive as it was, you're absolutely right. Many projects run over budget, and way over what they would cost elsewhere. It causes quite a bit of scaling down of ambitious projects, sadly. This isn't exclusive to SoCal's zoos either, unfortunately.

 

[sooty mangabey]

Any chance of an itinerary?

Nothing off the beaten track - that's @snowleopard's territory. No prizes for guessing where it'll be tomorrow. ..

What did you think of the Elephants of Asia exhibit? as well as the Great ape exhibits at the LA Zoo?

I thought the elephant thing was fine. Not spectacular but fine (and a great deal more appealing than the exhibit 100 miles south). But from a visitor perspective, I think it suffers from being too diffuse: it's never the absolute focus, because it sort of spreads through the heart of the zoo, and as such it doesn't quite feel like the headline exhibit it might have been.

Apes? Gorillas might have been good but the visitor area looked as if it hadn't been cleaned since 1997, which deteacted from its appeal. Orangs: a bit ugly to be honest. Chimps: yes, good, but that "penthouse"! Very strange. And the main outdoor bit, as with so many chimp exhibits, does seem to take "troglodytes" a bit literally.

I don't know? I don't think I would go on the Europe Zoo forums here and comment on the Head of State of any of those nations, just out of respect.

Tacky and off topic.

This response is not intended to be political, as it is about politeness in regards to your host and fellow Zoo Chatters.

Sorry, @timmychompchomp, but I wholly disagree. And I find your comment rather troubling: it sounds like something coming from the Malawi of Hastings Kamuzu Banda, rather than from a country built on a belief in the sanctity of freedom of speech. I started this thread as a travelogue of my trip to America - a country which, as I hope is obvious, I love - but which does have a president who looms over things, somewhat, and sours the way the USA is viewed across the world. Over the course of the thread I may comment on American food, on American roads, on American crowds - and I may also comment, again, on the man who is currently president. It won't be much - I don't think anyone cares what I think, really, and 95% of Europeans and other non Americans probably feel the same way anyway. But then it was only one word before, at which you took umrage. Please don't tell me what I can or can't say- and please don't call me "tacky" for stating a very mild opinion about a man whose list of, erm, quirks is as long as that man's...

 

[sooty mangabey]

As I lay in my motel bed this morning (my one criteria for choosing a motel was, does it look like the sort of place at which Thelma and Louise might have stayed? This place passes the test!) I was thinking back to L.A. Zoo, and I realised I forgot to mention another outstanding exhibit. The cage for Francois langurs is really nicely done: great viewing at tree-high level. Restrained theming. Fantastic animals. Liked it a lot.

Now, off to visit another zoo of which I've been dreaming for nearly four decades (eek!).

 

[ANyhuis]

Day 2 - Tuesday - San Diego Zoo
It's more than a quarter of a century since I visited Berlin Zoo for the first time, and that's the last time my sense of excitement at heading to a zoo has been so pronounced. And now, with San Diego 'done', I wonder whether any other 'new' zoo will have a similar effect?

First of all, WELCOME to my Birth State, California. When you were at the LA Zoo, you were about 10 miles south of where I was born, over a half-Century ago. For this reason, the old 1966 song, "California Dreamin'" always makes me emotional.

To answer your question (above) about what 'new' zoo could have the same effect or exciting you, go to Singapore! That city's combo of 3 zoos in one spot makes them a competitor with San Diego for world's best.

That Francois langur exhibit you liked at the LA Zoo -- I believe that exhibit was originally intended for giant pandas, and then golden monkeys. Sadly, the Zoo's dealings with China fell apart.

 

[pachyderm pro]

I'll assume that the next highly anticipated facility is the SD Safari Park. Correct?

 

[sooty mangabey]

Right, back to zoos....

Day 3 - Wednesday - San Diego Wild Animal Park (or, rather, San Diego Zoo Safari Park)

That name change from a while back is a bad one, isn't it? It conjures up images of traffic jams crawling past herds of Ankole cattle, of "rangers" trying to wake up the lions, of baboons having fun at the expense of a Ford Fiesta. So, I'll stick to its original moniker.

All that stuff I wrote yesterday, about SD Zoo, about having longed to visit for decades, applies here too. I got a guidebook to the zoo in the late 70s (one of the koala cover ones), and in a short overview of the WAP it had a picture of Nairobi Village. My younger self wasn't troubled by the slightly patronising name (would an African zoo house its coyotes and mule deer in something called "Washington DC Village"?), and, instead, I just thought it looked wonderful. A little later I read Sheldon Campbell's Lifeboats to Ararat. And I've been dreaming of visiting the place ever since. And today I did. As was the case with the two previous visits, I was the first in and the last out. And I thought it was wonderful. Unequivocally, completely, utterly, wonderful. Not perfect, of course. But up there with those zoos that nudge towards perfection.

I'm not a fan of "theming". At all. Or "immersion". And yet, here, I have to say that the theming works beautifully. Nairobi Village is great. The Congo Fishing Village structure is a thing of beauty. Everything is quite restrained, done with a delicacy that I wasn't expecting. And things are designed so well. I found myself thinking of Colchester Zoo's African area. Yes, I know, an unfair comparison. But looking at what might have been my favourite enclosure at the WAP - for sitatunga, and steenbok, with white-faced whistling ducks too, the quality of the design, and the execution of the design, was stunning: these artificial rocks are as far removed from the careless concrete of Colchester (and elsewhere!) as it is possible to be.

At the "Bamburi Boat Bar" (!), on the end of Mombassa Lagoon (!!), the whole experience reached its apotheosis. I don't usually eat in zoos. The offerings are expensive, and horrible, and eating them is to waste time that could be spent looking at animals in cages. But I couldn't resist a light snackerel, and a margerita, here, because no location for such victuals could ever be better. The furniture was solid, and nice. There were misters, so the atmosphere was pleasant. And, as one eats, one looks out towards an island with shoebills on it. An African darter swam by. A (wild) night heron came to join me at my table. And a surprisingly good guitarist played Jimmy Buffet songs (this may have inspired my choice of a margerita). It doesn't really get any better.

Of course, the absence of the monorail detracts from the overall experience (and possibly, even if it were still running, it would be disappointing - the whole 'not stopping for interesting things' problem). But I rode on the African tram (?) twice, and it was as good as such a thing is ever going to be (given that it, too, suffers from the 'not stopping for interesting things' problem). Both trams were driven by young women. One was tremendous. In her delivery, and in the content she offered, she was reminiscent of Sarah Koenig, of the Serial podcast, and This American Life (another brilliant thing to come out of this country). Praise doesn't get any higher. The other guide was shockingly bad. It was like taking a ride with Colin Groves, although her creation of new species was a product of her confusion and ignorance, rather than genetic analysis. We had Somali wild horses. Patterson's gazelles (eland-related confusion, I think). Kudu and roan antelope got muddled. And so on...

I also took a cart safari to see the Asian area of the place. This cost quite a bit (I booked it ages ago, so can't remember the precise figure, but about $50). I loved it. A cheerful, engaging guide (although no zoologist). Stopping whenever it was asked for. Great views. And while the stocklist is not so thrilling, it is still filled with things good to see. It was about an hour, and I'd certainly recommend.

Not perfect, of course. The Hidden Jungle walk-through aviaries are as mediocre as their counterparts at the zoo (and even the aviary at the WAP's entrance) are wonderful. Not sure why: they just seem a little forgotten-about. The Nairobi Station exhibits - a series or small boxes of, I think, "ambassador" animals - are awful. Parrots should not be kept in glass boxes. And there's not quite enough there to make this a world's best: after ten hours - and with a 30 minute margerita-shoebill-Jimmy Buffet break - I feel as if I've 'done' it. I'd love to go back, next week, and the week after, and the week after, if I lived in California. But I'm not sure I'll go back this week - while I'm wondering whether I'll need a third day at the zoo.

There's a coherence to the zoo that I loved. It feels like a fully-realised whole. It wholly lived up to expectations, and I feel very luck to have seen it....

 

[Chlidonias]

The other guide was shockingly bad. It was like taking a ride with Colin Groves, although her creation of new species was a product of her confusion and ignorance, rather than genetic analysis.

I was following that sentence nicely until I got to "genetic analysis"...

 

[sooty mangabey]

I meant to say - one of the many reasons why I really loved both SD zoo and the WAP was the way in which other visitors behaved and responded. Pretty much without exception, on both visits the people in the zoos were respectful, engaged, and clearly having a great time. They were reading signs, talking to each other about the animals, and asking questions of the various docents (of whom more, below). They may have over-used the words "awesome" and "cute", but they were a pleasure to share the two zoos with. It makes a difference.

And a note on "docents". Both places had large numbers, of mostly retirement-age men and women, peppered through the zoo. What I find extraordinary is how unbelieveably ignorant these people are. Asking one kindly old duffer at the zoo where I could find the best route to the Parker Aviary, I realised, pretty quickly, that he didn't have a clue what I was talking about. At the WAP, I asked one whether Indian muntjacs were still present (as per @geomorph's thread) (sadly, they're not - replaced by pudu). I may as well have been asking him to explain Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Best / worst of all, while admiring the elephant at the WAP, I heard a visitor ask the "docent" what the difference was between African and Asian elephants. "I'm sorry," came the response, "I've not made a study of Asian elephants". Lordy!

But then - having a small, grey-haired army of volunteers, keeping an eye on things, making somewhat inane interjections ("aren't these guys great!"), possibly just adds to the sense of order, to the places being so calm and visitors being so happy. So, who am I to criticise?

 

[sooty mangabey]

Day 4 - Part 1 - the Birch Aquarium

Is La Jolla a suburb of San Diego, or a separate town? Either way, as you drive to the aquarium you pass some pretty stunning houses - beautiful pieces of contemporary architecture, over-looking the ocean. Very nice. The aquarium's not bad either: professional, stylish, very well done. Possibly a little dull, a little worthy. But I'd rather have that than the alternative (which I got, in spades, later today). Visiting aquariums, I feel how muggles must sometimes feel visiting zoos. I don't really know much about fish. I don't really know what I'm looking at. I want things to be big and flashy - leafy sea dragons, here, are perfect! I'm probably overlooking things that a true icthyologist would find exciting. Anyway: some very nice tanks here. A, frankly, baffling "art installation" exploring luminesence. Lots of sea horses (and their kin), satisfying the desire for "flashy". A good 90 minute visit to start the day.

 

[sooty mangabey]

Day 4 - Part 2 - Seaworld

I sort of knew what I was letting myself in for, here. So, I can't really complain, too much. But my good friend @snowleopard had told me it was a "must-visit", so I visited. And I hated it. Really, truly, hated it. I'm glad I went. Glad I've seen it. But unless they bring in a breeding group of narwhals, I won't be coming back to this over-priced, garish, tacky (yes - tacky, justified here, if not earlier in the thread) fairground-with-animals.

A quarter of a century ago, I went to see the Mamas and Papas in concert. Except, most of the original band members were either deceased, or uninterested, or had argued and left the band. So, we had maybe one of the original Mamas (or possibly a Papa), along with Scott MacKenzie (of "If You're Going to San Francisco" fame), along with some embarrassed-looking session musicians. It was, by a distance, the worst live show I have ever seen. The audience numbered about 100 (in a venue that could take 10 times that number). The harmonies were execrable. When Scott launched into his second rendition of his one hit, his voice not what it once was, a few more made a break for the exit. I didn't think I would ever see anything so bad, so depressing, again. And until today, I was right. But then I saw the Sealion and Otter show at Seaworld. And I don't think I have ever seen anything so painful, so shoddy, so unutterably dreadful. Ever. (And I have watched an episode of the American version of The In-Betweeners, so this is saying something). A bloke began by dancing, poorly, to old film-tunes. He gyrated to "You're the One That I Want". Splashed water to "Singing in the Rain". It was awful. But people loved it. As he just sort of hopped about to Kenny Loggins's hit "Footloose", the man in front of me (clapping along with glee in his soul) turned to his partner and said, "Isn't this great?". I envy him his happiness, and I rather admire his ability to find pleasure in something so horrible. But he was wrong. It was not, by any reckoning, "great". It was awful, and it got awfuller.The animal bit was poor, really poor. Some, frankly, pathetic jokes, and a story I lost (I think I may have dozed off at one bit). This was the absolute nadir.

The dolphin show was baffling. Of course it's spectacular, in its own way. But educational? I don't think so. Dolphins leaping about to a techno-version of George Harrison's "Here Comes the Sun" does not lead to an increase in marine mammal knowledge. The oddest moment was, again, the warm up act. Some goon playing the banjo, encouraging a singalong (and boy, did people sing along!) then calling on all members of the military who were present to stand and take some appluse. Of course, one is grateful to the military. But this - after the singalong, the cheesy jokes, the naffness - was insincere, baffling, odd.

The killer whale show was better. A genuine attempt to avoid the circus tricks and folderol of the other shows. But the audience didn't respond with the same enthusiam they'd shown for the "amusing" otter and sealion balderdash.

The rest? The various aquariums range from the scruffy and horrible (the octopus thing) to the not-at-all-bad (the fresh water one, possibly the turtle one). If they were in a provincial zoo, they'd be something of which to be moderately proud, I'm sure. Walruses and belugas are great - but I could do without the gallimaufry* surrounding them. (* that's for you, @Chlidonias). And the place as a whole left me feeling cross, because it lacks serious intent, because it makes me feel liike a weirdo, visiting as a single chap, in a way that I shouldn't feel like a weirdo, at a good zoo. But this isn't a good zoo. It's a fairground. It's - to give a Sussex comparions (and why not?) Brighton Pier. Only less classy. And with pilot whales.

Four hours was more than enough. I left feeling slightly soiled, slightly dirty, for having been to the place. I needed one more good(ish) zoo visit for the day. to wipe away the pain....

 

[African Grey]

What did you think of the Indoor Penguin exhibit (Which has Emperor Penguins) and the outdoor Magellanic penguin exhibit? I was there two weeks ago and it was nice to see the old polar bear exhibit being replaced with Harbor Seals at the Wild Arctic exhibit. Did you see the Guadalupe fur seals?

 

[Chlidonias]

Walruses and belugas are great - but I could do without the gallimaufry* surrounding them. (* that's for you, @Chlidonias).

thanks. On the subject of language, because disappointingly there have been no previously-unknown words in this thread as yet, why do you disapprove of the word "awesome" which, frankly, is an awesome word - and yet, without any apparent gagging or constriction of your typing fingers, you use the word "muggles"?

I use the word "awesome" constantly. I try to fit it into a sentence at least seven times a day, which is not at all easy to do. I thought maybe it was a generational difference, but then remembered that I'm not a teenager or even a twenty-something any longer, and am in fact of a like age to yourself. New Zealand is a good twenty years behind the rest of the world though.

I had a passing fancy that your use of "muggles" was a reference to Louis Armstrong but that makes no sense at all. I think. Or maybe you were implying a certain state of mind . However I can only come to the conclusion that you are indeed referencing Harry Potter, and ... well, that just seems far too low-brow and popular.