We all know that many zoos have a variety of exhibits and animals, but are there any exhibits and animals that all zoos should have?
Zoo Essentials
- Thread starter ZebraDude95
- Start date
I guess the basic ABC animals, but I wouldn't want a small zoo with very little funding having elephants, pandas, or dolphins. But a lot have zoos have specific themes or focuses. For example, San Diego safari park has a focus on rhinos, while the living desert has a focus on desert species from North America and Africa, so bears and tigers would be immediately disqualified.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
No, IMO.
A restaurant is a smart move. Parking too. A perimeter fence of course.
But not required list of animals.
For example there are some very fine regional zoos that focus on regional fauna. A lion would make no sense in such a zoo if it were in, say, Iowa.
And would we claim that a facility specializing in raptors or butterflies doesn't count?
A zoo needs to engage its audience in nature and the behavior of animals. It would be best if it also was actively doing conservation work.
But what animals it presents to accomplish that should be completely open.
A restaurant is a smart move. Parking too. A perimeter fence of course.
But not required list of animals.
For example there are some very fine regional zoos that focus on regional fauna. A lion would make no sense in such a zoo if it were in, say, Iowa.
And would we claim that a facility specializing in raptors or butterflies doesn't count?
A zoo needs to engage its audience in nature and the behavior of animals. It would be best if it also was actively doing conservation work.
But what animals it presents to accomplish that should be completely open.
I'm going to echo the previous sentiments and say, no, not all zoos should have the same thing.
In fact, I would go so far as to say it's detrimental to the stated purpose of creating a firewall against extinction. As stated elsewhere, given Sacramento's small footprint, they shouldn't be housing lions or tigers. They could, for example, do so much more with leopards. European zoos have an apparent bottle neck with the Northern Chinese Leopard, but none exist in normative collections in the states.
In fact, I would go so far as to say it's detrimental to the stated purpose of creating a firewall against extinction. As stated elsewhere, given Sacramento's small footprint, they shouldn't be housing lions or tigers. They could, for example, do so much more with leopards. European zoos have an apparent bottle neck with the Northern Chinese Leopard, but none exist in normative collections in the states.
Zoos can have some of the same basic species, but having too many similar can make them generic. Zoos, especially those in close proximity, need diversity. I think zoos should add species at times that are not represented in zoos in that region to bring visitors from a wider area. Example: Akron is adding musk deer and will likely be adding Speke’s gazelle. These are species not represented in this region.
Kakapo
Well-Known Member
I did not realize that. My apologies.
I agree with you. Some species are over-represented in zoos. I wonder how many visitors will want to see several similar species of the same genus. When I was listing the birds kept at Prague Zoo, I wondered how many visitors would want to see many species of laughing thrushes.
I agree again. I think that zoos should cooperate with their neighbours, so that the same species isn't kept in two or more zoos within the same area. Zoos could provide discount vouchers to zoos that keep certain popular species nearby. i don't really understand why many zoos don't promote the species that few other zoos have.
Well, I certainly would want to see a large range of Laughingthrushes. Used to enjoy the LT collection at Beale Park.
I think you may be in the minority, FBBird. 14 types of laughing thrush seems excessive to me.
Oh boy, Japan definitely does not represent a great variety of animals (in my opinion)...
I just like birds, and LTs just happen to be a very diverse, fascinating, and conservation sensitive group. I could get just as excited about that many species of cats, Callitrichids or live bearing tooth carps.
I am not a bid fan, but I am sure that different laughing thrushes might not hurt the collection and the average visitors' appeal, since all the average citizens see is a bird and another bird. LTs don't seem familiar the way gazelles and zebras are to a simple-minded chum such as I.
I'm not sure that I wholly agree with this statement; there are five major comprehensive zoos in Ohio (giving Akron the benefit of the doubt, as its collection, while quite limited, is still quite varied), and while I would appreciate a diversity of species, I don't think that most species (and certainly not musk deer or Speke's gazelles) would really bring in visitors from a wider area. Using the Akron Zoo as an example - the Zoo has a collection that was slightly less represented in other Ohio zoos when it specialized in American animals - the addition of tigers, lions, bears, and flamingos to the collection simply added many species that were already held in Ohio zoos; few would argue though that the addition of these popular species had a major impact on visitor attendance and interest. Although the other four large Ohio zoos all exhibit gorillas, giraffes, and one of the two elephant species, few could contest that the addition of any of these species to Akron's collection would increase visitor numbers, even though they are already present in the area. (Note- I am certainly not advocating that Akron add any of these species - merely contesting the point that diversity of species has much effect on visitor attendance). So while on a selfish level I'd love to see the Ohio collections bring in species underrepresented in the area, I'm not sure how much that would benefit any of the zoos.
As a minor point, Columbus zoo has had musk deer for the past several years, although the species has not always been on public exhibit.
Columbus’ website does not mention musk deer, so I was unaware they were in their collection.
A major species that all five zoos in Ohio do not have is African lion. Toledo does not have them and I do not see them getting African lions back until 2020s.
Rare and unusual species can boost attendance. You would be surprised what jellies can do.
Ask the public and most will say lions, tigers and elephants. But...a small zoo, with limited funds, can provide well planned, suitable and effective displays, of many smaller species of mammals. Years ago I remember a display of nocturnal species which was very successful by simply painting flouro tube lighting with green dyes. Not much to look at from the outside, but well presented inside. The lighting was not too dark, which is something I personally do not like about many nocturnal displays. Anyone who has spent time outside, in country areas, will know that only rarely is it very dark, except maybe in thick forest undergrowth, and even then, on moonlit nights, the light is quite good. Reptiles can also be displayed outside fairly easily, and of course so can birds. With all the information now available on animal displays etc., it would not be too difficult to design and put together a really nice smaller collection. Displays of domestic species should not be forgotten. There are many quite spectacular domestic species, and these are usually appreciated by younger visitors and their parents.
An interesting collection of animals need not contain rare species. Such displays could be used raise the awareness of the many problems facing wild animals, by decent signage.