It's worth noting that the animals rotate and the two pairs are not on-exhibit at the same time.
~Thylo
Top 5 Zoos in the USA
- Thread starter snowleopard
- Start date
- Status
It's worth noting that the animals rotate and the two pairs are not on-exhibit at the same time.
~Thylo
But recently San Diego has been doing both. Not only did they spend 69 million on the great Africa Rocks, but it replaced Cat and Dog Canyon, one of the worst areas of the zoo. The upcoming Children’s Zoo 70 million renovation is replacing an antiquated area of the zoo.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
This is quite the mischaracterization and exaggeration of my arguments, seemingly intentionally so. I clearly haven't been insisting anything of the like. I've also actually showed weather statistics and then remarkably got responses arguing that 77 with little humidity may not be better for animals that don't deal with heat well compared to 86 and quite humid.
And the second part is a ridiculous assertion of my posts.
I'd appreciate it if you could respond to my comments fairly and honestly, which has not been happening. Or just don't respond to me at all. Thanks.
mweb08
Well-Known Member
Here is the photo of Bronx's Fossa enclosure you posted on your visit:
Madagascar! | ZooChat
That is about half of the enclosure and it also drops lower the further back you go.
Here is the enclosure SDZ's were in on my visit:
Fossa Exhibit | ZooChat
I think that should prove the point just fine and I'd like to finally move on now.
The sifaka enclosure isn't the widest, but it's very tall and far from what I think most of us would considering "pretty small".
~Thylo
Yep, that exhibit is bad. Also, fossa have a new exhibit in Africa Rocks.
I stand by my comments on those exhibits in the Madagascar exhibit being pretty small and the croc exhibit being very small. If the primate exhibit I mentioned was in Monkey Trails and Forest Tails, it would be considered pretty small, as it would stand out compared to the other primate enclosures in that exhibit.
However, the lemur exhibit across from the fossa is tremendous.
Thought I'd add one more factoid to back myself up here: the two outdoor lemur habitats at SDZ are roughly 3,500sqft and 2,700sqft in size. In comparison, the all-indoor Spiny Forest enclosure at Bronx is around 3,200sqft in size with a glass ceiling to allow for natural lighting.
~Thylo
ANyhuis
Well-Known Member
NCzoofan's post (see above for the key numbers) pretty much explains why many Zoochat members are desperate to believe the Bronx Zoo is the USA's #1 zoo. There is no doubt that Bronx (through their WCS) is far and away the nation's (maybe the world's) top zoo in spending money on conservation efforts, and hey, that is great! Super great! But don't get me wrong in my next statement: Conservation efforts and spending mean almost nothing when it comes to evaluating which are the best zoos -- at least if we're talking about which are the best zoos for the visitor experience. Bronx (WCS) spent over 60 times as much as Omaha did last year. Great! But also, so what? Omaha is still the better zoo for visitors -- by far!
My good friend SnowLeopard described, a week or so ago, the method that we (along with my coauthor Jon Wassner) used to statistically compare the Top 5 zoos (see above). As a Master's Degree level statistician, with over 35 years experience as a statistician, I strongly stand by our analysis! It was done the way many things in society are compared and evaluated, and by combining our ratings from many different aspects of the zoos, our analysis method took a lot of the subjectivity out of the analysis and our conclusions could validly be considered mostly objective. I would challenge anyone reading this to show me a better way of comparing and rating zoos.
Since SnowLeopard brought it up, I will give you all the 28 categories in which we rated the Top 5 zoos: African Animals & Exhibits, Asian Animals & Exhibits, Australian A&E, South American A&E, North American A&E, Rain Forest A&E, Desert A&E, Polar A&E, Nocturnal A&E, Bonus Animal Superstars, Elephants, Other Large Mammals, Felines/Cats, Bears, Marine Mammals, Great Apes, Other Primates, Hoofed Animals, Penguins & Seabirds, Other Birds, Reptiles & Amphibians, Insects & Arthropods, Aquarium/Fish, Children's Zoo/Domestics, Rides, Entertainment/Shows, Petting/Feeding Opportunities, and Restaurants. The reason for including all of these different categories is to acknowledge that different zoo visitors have very different tastes when it comes to what they are looking for when visiting a zoo. As SnowLeopard said, we each rated the 5 zoos from 1 (best) to 5 for each category and then our 3 ratings were averaged. When the 28 averages were summed up, the following total scores were accumulated (lowest score is best): San Diego 65.0, Omaha 78.3, St. Louis 79.2, Columbus 88.0, Bronx 109.5. So, like SnowLeopard said, San Diego was easily our winner, and that surprised all 3 of us! In fact, we went into this analysis with one of us strongly believing San Diego is not #1, and in fact that person said it's no better than #4 in the USA. That person had to "eat some crow" when our analysis was done and now all 3 of us are in agreement that San Diego is, by far, the best zoo in America!
Another conclusion from our analysis is that Bronx is not even close to not only San Diego, but also Omaha, St. Louis, and Columbus! In fact, I've proposed that if we were to add a few more zoos to our analysis (maybe Sedgwick County, San Diego Safari Park, or even Woodland Park), then Bronx might actually fall lower to the #6 or #7 slot in the USA. I feel almost bad for Thylo in saying this, as he seems almost desperate to convince of Bronx's superiority!
I think the key is in acknowledging there is a difference between one's "favorite" zoo and what zoo is the "best". My favorite zoo may be my own local Indianapolis Zoo, because it is the zoo I took my children to dozens of times while they were growing up, and now I frequently take my foster girl to the Indy Zoo at least once a month. It is my "favorite" zoo, but there is NO way I would rate the Indianapolis Zoo among the very best, top zoos in America! With all due respect, I think some of you Bronx Zoo fans are confusing this favorite/best distinction in your minds. It's fine to consider Bronx your "favorite" zoo, especially as you're appreciating their strong conservation efforts, but that doesn't make them the best.
By the way, note in the above list of 28 categories which we rated the Top 5 zoos that Conservation was NOT among them. As I said above, conservation is great (and vital), but it does nothing to enhance the visitor experience for people coming to the zoo. We also did not include history or weather. I will agree that weather can be a strong advantage or disadvantage for a zoo (such as San Diego), but it is a factor which is outside the control of the zoo.
I am sorry but I have to disagree.
I think that the ranking was significantly flawed for various reasons and the whole ranking reaks of pseudoscience on a level that would make Sheridan jealous. From a statistical point of view a sample size of three is extremely limited and even taxonomists will have problems accepting such an analysis. Additionally it would be very interesting to see how the 3 sampling points differed in their ranking of all categories and what would thus be the standard error of all scores. Additionally did each zoonerd rank independently or did you come up with an average by ways of discussion, the first would be much preferable, but given the sample size still very sub-optimal, as otherwise you would have a sample size of 1.... Without addressing these points the ranking is rather useless, but those are just the theoretical considerations.
The main problem is however on how you decide how to give a grade for each individual category (and how you minimize double counting the same thing in multiple categories, as there is some potential overlap). I assume that you had the assumption that more was better in most categories (except exhibits), which is a very debatable assumption (though maybe there is a cultural divide between the US and Europe). I see the reasoning for why these categories were chosen, but this inherently applies that a good zoo needs a big collection with animals from all continents (except Europe
). I see several ways to disagree with such an assessment, as it very much favors San Diego over smaller zoos like Woodland Park Zoo. I am also puzzled by Omaha's ranking, as it is always ranked extremely high, even though a lot of the enclosures are substandard for the inhabitants (and some are outright despicable).I think that if you really want to rank zoos (which I don't see a big point in, except doing it for fun) and do it somewhat realistically, you will have to rank based on conservation, education, entertainment and research. These are the 4 areas that modern zoos they stand for, so they should be evaluated based on them. I would say that entertainment is still the most important thing, as otherwise the zoo wouldn't exist, so you could give different weightings for each category.
For conservation you could look at how much money is spent on conservation (absolute or as percentage of total budget) and the number of breeding programs / ex situ conservation efforts
For education one could look at the number of educational visits, the number of guided tours, information stands, quality of signage, again partly corrected for zoo size where necessary.
Entertainment is the most tricky, but the best way would be to survey people who visited the zoo, shortly after the visit. You will need a large sample for each individual zoo and questions should be based on whether they enjoyed it, broken down in visitor amenities, enclosures, animals, visitor experiences etc.
For research one could relatively easily assess how much scientific research is hosted within the zoo and sponsored by the zoo (though there is possible overlap with conservation efforts there). This could include paper output, number of students doing research etc.
Even such a ranking would not be a definite answer to what is the best zoo, as depending on the assumptions, some zoos will be favored, though the overall ranking might be relatively reflective of reality if done well.
Another category I believe we forget is affordability. The vast majority of people will never see a wild elephant, rhino or lion. A zoo will be the only opportunity for this to happen. In the United States we have massive wealth disparity and a large difference in the wealth of individuals based on their race. If a zoo is supposed to be a resource for the public & education, they need to be accessible to the community they seek to serve.
Bronx on most days, way to expensive in my opinion. Yet every single Wednesday its free day, and people can tour most of the zoo for free. San Diego costs $54 dollars for a single day and has no free days. St. louis obviously would do great in this category with its free admission. But if one of your goals is education, then pricing admission so high, than you most defined are disadvantaging lower-income people from going to the zoo. Their is a right middle ground, where the zoo can be a resource for the public & still protecting its bottom line.
Bronx on most days, way to expensive in my opinion. Yet every single Wednesday its free day, and people can tour most of the zoo for free. San Diego costs $54 dollars for a single day and has no free days. St. louis obviously would do great in this category with its free admission. But if one of your goals is education, then pricing admission so high, than you most defined are disadvantaging lower-income people from going to the zoo. Their is a right middle ground, where the zoo can be a resource for the public & still protecting its bottom line.
So you’re dismissing a master’s degree level statistical analysis as pseudoscience without seeing it first (or just seeing a quick summary of it on an online forum)? Ok...
Straw man. You haven’t even seen the actual study or how each person voted. How can you make those assumptions and then apply it to your critique?
Subjective. The only exhibits that I thought were “substandard” in the entire zoo were the bear grottos and sea lion pool.
So one of your critiques was that the sample size was too small and you want to have people vote on 4 points, when the original analysis had 3 people voting on 28 points? Where’s the logic in that? And your opinion that conservation, education and research should be taken into consideration is just that. An opinion. I feel that ANyhuis did a fine job explaining why at least conservation wasn’t part of their analysis.
Given the summary there are too many flaws to take it seriously, as I outlined above. You don't need to see the exact analysis, but a basic scientific understanding of statistics is enough. This is nowhere near a master's degree level of statistical analysis and @ANyhuis should know that. Even a first year bachelor in any science degree should cringe when seeing that sample size and the huge conclusions drawn from there. Apart from the statistics, an expert-based approach, though often deployed in science, is not the best method for such assessments. It is still often done as it is cheap and relatively quick, but ground data collection is way more reliable....
This is not about Omaha, but the Tapir among others beg to disagree.
If you read anything that followed after that part, you should know that what you say is nothing close to what I suggested.
Wow, those are strong words. You have the right to believe San Diego is better than Bronx (or even Omaha or any zoo if you want) but calling those who believe Bronx is the top 1 zoo in the U.S desperate when it is clearly a matter of opinion and is quite subjective doesn't seem right to me.
And here I thought animals were the reason zoos existed, not people's' entertainment...
I'd invite you to reread this entire thread and note that I never once brought Bronx into this- I've only ever made my posts in regards to other people who, quite frankly, seem very determined to randomly tear down the zoo for no other reason I can see other than it being my favorite and I disagreed with their own opinion- but clearly it'll make no difference as I've done that several times already. I spent five days conducting research, calculations stats, and forming/reforming a 7.5-page argument on why climate has very little impact on a collection's quality, using Bronx and San Diego as the two main examples simply because they're zoos I know relatively well and the two everyone else had been comparing. It never once made any sort of declaration of superiority (something several of you "more qualified" posters here have been very quick to do despite claiming that it's all subjective) and included all of my info. simply to show how the North's mega-zoo can stand up to one of the world's most well-known collections regardless of geography. To be honest those 28 categories don't mean much to me. It's great that that's how you all chose to come to your own conclusions. It's great you all have Master's Degrees. It's great you all published a book. At the end of the day it doesn't make your opinion law, it just means more people will hear yours. It goes back to how a lot of people who have never been to the zoo believe San Diego is the best simply because the zoo told them they were. Your categories and your opinion are not objective to anyone other than yourself and those who agree with you.
What is objective is that conservation plays a major role in the visitor experience, at least at Bronx. The zoo bases their collection off of their conservation programs, and as such conservation dictates what species visitors will see. Signage and information about their conservation initiatives are also plastered all over the zoo, they even play videos about it in the line for the monorail, in Madagascar!, and in CGF. The guide that runs the monorail talks about the zoo's programs and some of the work they've done in Asia as part of the ride. The $6 admission fee to CGF goes towards the WCS's programs in the Congo. The zoo even has a well-publicised wildlife area around the Bronx River on their grounds. One cannot visit the zoo without being exposed to conservation, it is the biggest aspect of the visitor experience other than the exhibits and the animals themselves. Bronx is my favorite zoo and, to me, the best zoo due to its overall excellent exhibits, overall very large and extremely natural enclosures, insanely large collection size, extremely diverse collection including many rarely seen species, its display of its own grand history, and most importantly superb conservation programs/captive breeding initiatives. Those are my criteria for evaluating a zoo and just because you have a fancy statistical analysis that excludes several of those doesn't mean you get to declare one zoo better than the other and call anyone who disagrees "desperate". But hey, if my opinion and ability to more than back it up (something the vast majority of those of the "right" opinion here have flat-out refused to do) makes me desperate to prove a point I've literally never set out to do, then disregard me and everything I've said all you want. I've made it perfectly clear what the purpose of this thread was and wasn't and others made it into something else.
~Thylo
I'd invite you to reread this entire thread and note that I never once brought Bronx into this- I've only ever made my posts in regards to other people who, quite frankly, seem very determined to randomly tear down the zoo for no other reason I can see other than it being my favorite and I disagreed with their own opinion- but clearly it'll make no difference as I've done that several times already. I spent five days conducting research, calculations stats, and forming/reforming a 7.5-page argument on why climate has very little impact on a collection's quality, using Bronx and San Diego as the two main examples simply because they're zoos I know relatively well and the two everyone else had been comparing. It never once made any sort of declaration of superiority (something several of you "more qualified" posters here have been very quick to do despite claiming that it's all subjective) and included all of my info. simply to show how the North's mega-zoo can stand up to one of the world's most well-known collections regardless of geography. To be honest those 28 categories don't mean much to me. It's great that that's how you all chose to come to your own conclusions. It's great you all have Master's Degrees. It's great you all published a book. At the end of the day it doesn't make your opinion law, it just means more people will hear yours. It goes back to how a lot of people who have never been to the zoo believe San Diego is the best simply because the zoo told them they were. Your categories and your opinion are not objective to anyone other than yourself and those who agree with you.
What is objective is that conservation plays a major role in the visitor experience, at least at Bronx. The zoo bases their collection off of their conservation programs, and as such conservation dictates what species visitors will see. Signage and information about their conservation initiatives are also plastered all over the zoo, they even play videos about it in the line for the monorail, in Madagascar!, and in CGF. The guide that runs the monorail talks about the zoo's programs and some of the work they've done in Asia as part of the ride. The $6 admission fee to CGF goes towards the WCS's programs in the Congo. The zoo even has a well-publicised wildlife area around the Bronx River on their grounds. One cannot visit the zoo without being exposed to conservation, it is the biggest aspect of the visitor experience other than the exhibits and the animals themselves. Bronx is my favorite zoo and, to me, the best zoo due to its overall excellent exhibits, overall very large and extremely natural enclosures, insanely large collection size, extremely diverse collection including many rarely seen species, its display of its own grand history, and most importantly superb conservation programs/captive breeding initiatives. Those are my criteria for evaluating a zoo and just because you have a fancy statistical analysis that excludes several of those doesn't mean you get to declare one zoo better than the other and call anyone who disagrees "desperate". But hey, if my opinion and ability to more than back it up (something the vast majority of those of the "right" opinion here have flat-out refused to do) makes me desperate to prove a point I've literally never set out to do, then disregard me and everything I've said all you want. I've made it perfectly clear what the purpose of this thread was and wasn't and others made it into something else.
~Thylo
Just an example. Many of y'all on Zoochat rank the North Carolina zoo as in the top 10 zoos in the US. It is my home zoo and I love it, but under your standards it would likely rank as one of the lowest in the US.It only has animals from 2 continents, yet most of its reptiles are from North America. Its bird collection is smaller than that of the Central Park Zoo, 1/100th of the size. Its got 13 species of hoofstock and less than 10 species of carnivore. It has only a handful of primates. Its visitor experiences are basic and nothing fancy. But what does it have? Some of the largest best exhibits in the US, an extremely low entry price for its size that allows it to be , an amazing site that is 2000 acres of pristene forest that is closely managed and innovative linked conservation + research of mammals (chimps, rhinos and especially elephants). So I fail to see this criteria as the fact you make it seem.
For visitors, perhaps- but isn’t what’s best for the animals what’s more important here? After all, they are the reason we have zoos, so we should make sure at least they live well under our care. But more than living well, they should be each zoo’s number one priority. Not visitors, not making money. Though those two things are essential of course, animals must come first.
For someone who works in an AZA facility and isn’t afraid to hide it, you sure are pretty dismissive of some of their core values.
question
Fully half of your analysis is fully species based. Are they rated solely by the number of species exhibited OR is there also a subjective basis on how they are displayed? For instance if a zoo has gorilla chimp bonobo 2 (or more!)
orangutan and 3 gibbons are they rated really really high even if kept in barren cages with a couple of tires? Or does a zoo that displays gorillas and chimps only but with spectacular exhibits do better?
I mentioned early on that rating zoos is mostly subjective with some objective measures and thats why opinions will vary.
Also while I am here again- weather is a big factor for a "perfect zoo"
but in no way shape or form did I imply that good weather automatically equals better zoo. I think zoos more limited by weather can have great exhibits , but it is harder and more expensive to do so. And it seems obvious that an animal viewable 365 days a year is superior to one that might only be viewable 260ish.
Fully half of your analysis is fully species based. Are they rated solely by the number of species exhibited OR is there also a subjective basis on how they are displayed? For instance if a zoo has gorilla chimp bonobo 2 (or more!)
orangutan and 3 gibbons are they rated really really high even if kept in barren cages with a couple of tires? Or does a zoo that displays gorillas and chimps only but with spectacular exhibits do better?
I mentioned early on that rating zoos is mostly subjective with some objective measures and thats why opinions will vary.
Also while I am here again- weather is a big factor for a "perfect zoo"
but in no way shape or form did I imply that good weather automatically equals better zoo. I think zoos more limited by weather can have great exhibits , but it is harder and more expensive to do so. And it seems obvious that an animal viewable 365 days a year is superior to one that might only be viewable 260ish.
Also question, how come Bronx gets so badly torn apart for their gorilla situation when three of the four "better" zoos all have gorillas in outdoor enclosures we all seem to agree aren't as good as Bronx's and also have to keep their gorillas indoors for just as long, maybe sometimes even longer, than Bronx does??
~Thylo
~Thylo
@ANyhuis thank you for sharing some background on the approach you took.
I'm curious about the omission of such items as parking, accessibility of pathways, and as @nczoofan suggests, affordability. These are all factors that impact the visitor experience (the first two particularly for visitors with mobility issues). It is not that including these factors would radically alter your results, but I think they would provide a more comprehensive overview.
With the majority of your categories on animals and exhibits, I am curious which is given priority when assigning a score, the size of the collection or the quality of the habitat? To use an off the board example, the amur tiger exhibit at the Minnesota zoo is massive. The one yard which is viewed from an elevated platform offers the animals plenty of space to roam and hide, as such I would speculate that it is often very difficult for guests to find and view the animals in this exhibit. At the same time, I would think this is a much more enjoyable exhibit for a tiger to live in than a small exhibit with no hiding opportunities where guests can always see the animal. Which wins out in your rankings? I'm not suggesting that your or any of your panel would disregard animal welfare, but how do you balance between the visitor experience of seeing the animal versus the quality of the habitat for the animal?
On a similar note, you include an option for rides, which I know can be a divisive issue for some members of here. Personally, while I'm not opposed to them at zoos when done properly, I think of the pirate/dinosaur (I cannot recall which it is at the moment) themed ride at Columbus that goes through the Australia and the Islands section. I'm going to guess it is an enjoyable ride for guests on it, but the noise level from it has been a frequent concern of guests, expressed in a variety of forums. Setting aside the potential impact of the loud noises on the animals, from a visitor perspective I've found it irritating as hell while trying to view the animals in that section. How does your analysis account for the tension between guests who want to view animals and guests who want to go on rides?
Thinking of the impact of this noise on the animals brings me to the most notable/objectionable part of your analysis; the assumption that visitor experience is the determining factor (the only factor in your analysis) for what makes the best zoo. To your credit you are very explicit about prioritizing this, but ultimately I think that it needs to be underscore that your analysis finds the best zoo for visitor experience, not the best zoo.
If we accept that assumption as valid, then there is no doubting your results. However, I personally don't find that you have made a compelling case for excluding factors such as conservation. I would not object to the notion that many guests are not particularly interested in conservation matters. That in itself though does detract from their significance. If we are focused on determining the best zoo, I feel that the focus must expand beyond visitor experience to include factors such as conservation and education. Someone more eloquent than I, can likely make the case that without conservation and education efforts there is only limited justification for having zoos in the first place.
As @Echobeast stated, the belief that these considerations should be included in the analysis is simply an opinion. Agreed. Their exclusion is also an opinion, and one which introduces subjectivity into an attempt to arrive at an objective result.
I make these comments in the interest of discussion, and hope I've done so as I intended, which is respectfully. The conclusions the three panelists reached are not drastically different from my own opinions.
Finally, I'm treating this as a separate observation as I think it's more of a discussion point that I'm really not sure on the answer to; if we prioritize visitor experience, what type of visitor should zoos cater to? As I noted above, I'm confident that the three panelists would always factor (and have a decent understanding) of animal welfare and how an exhibit contributes or detracts from it. But do most guests? I would wager that the zoochat population makes up a very small percentage of zoo visitors, so would be the best zoo for visitor experience being one that gives us the greatest visitor experience or one that gives the majority of its guests the greatest visitor experience. If it's the latter, could that have less than ideal implications for animal care,and for the types of exhibits that members on here value?
I'm curious about the omission of such items as parking, accessibility of pathways, and as @nczoofan suggests, affordability. These are all factors that impact the visitor experience (the first two particularly for visitors with mobility issues). It is not that including these factors would radically alter your results, but I think they would provide a more comprehensive overview.
With the majority of your categories on animals and exhibits, I am curious which is given priority when assigning a score, the size of the collection or the quality of the habitat? To use an off the board example, the amur tiger exhibit at the Minnesota zoo is massive. The one yard which is viewed from an elevated platform offers the animals plenty of space to roam and hide, as such I would speculate that it is often very difficult for guests to find and view the animals in this exhibit. At the same time, I would think this is a much more enjoyable exhibit for a tiger to live in than a small exhibit with no hiding opportunities where guests can always see the animal. Which wins out in your rankings? I'm not suggesting that your or any of your panel would disregard animal welfare, but how do you balance between the visitor experience of seeing the animal versus the quality of the habitat for the animal?
On a similar note, you include an option for rides, which I know can be a divisive issue for some members of here. Personally, while I'm not opposed to them at zoos when done properly, I think of the pirate/dinosaur (I cannot recall which it is at the moment) themed ride at Columbus that goes through the Australia and the Islands section. I'm going to guess it is an enjoyable ride for guests on it, but the noise level from it has been a frequent concern of guests, expressed in a variety of forums. Setting aside the potential impact of the loud noises on the animals, from a visitor perspective I've found it irritating as hell while trying to view the animals in that section. How does your analysis account for the tension between guests who want to view animals and guests who want to go on rides?
Thinking of the impact of this noise on the animals brings me to the most notable/objectionable part of your analysis; the assumption that visitor experience is the determining factor (the only factor in your analysis) for what makes the best zoo. To your credit you are very explicit about prioritizing this, but ultimately I think that it needs to be underscore that your analysis finds the best zoo for visitor experience, not the best zoo.
If we accept that assumption as valid, then there is no doubting your results. However, I personally don't find that you have made a compelling case for excluding factors such as conservation. I would not object to the notion that many guests are not particularly interested in conservation matters. That in itself though does detract from their significance. If we are focused on determining the best zoo, I feel that the focus must expand beyond visitor experience to include factors such as conservation and education. Someone more eloquent than I, can likely make the case that without conservation and education efforts there is only limited justification for having zoos in the first place.
As @Echobeast stated, the belief that these considerations should be included in the analysis is simply an opinion. Agreed. Their exclusion is also an opinion, and one which introduces subjectivity into an attempt to arrive at an objective result.
I make these comments in the interest of discussion, and hope I've done so as I intended, which is respectfully. The conclusions the three panelists reached are not drastically different from my own opinions.
Finally, I'm treating this as a separate observation as I think it's more of a discussion point that I'm really not sure on the answer to; if we prioritize visitor experience, what type of visitor should zoos cater to? As I noted above, I'm confident that the three panelists would always factor (and have a decent understanding) of animal welfare and how an exhibit contributes or detracts from it. But do most guests? I would wager that the zoochat population makes up a very small percentage of zoo visitors, so would be the best zoo for visitor experience being one that gives us the greatest visitor experience or one that gives the majority of its guests the greatest visitor experience. If it's the latter, could that have less than ideal implications for animal care,and for the types of exhibits that members on here value?
As a holder of a science degree I believe that any actual scientist or statistician would hold critique until the actual study is seen and analyzed. I suggest you do too. There are flaws with all studies but bashing a summary of one because it didn’t do everything right and it doesn’t come to the same conclusions individual members of this forum have come to, doesn't make it a bad study.
I’d doesn’t make their opinion law nor has anyone said it was. I personally don’t agree fully with their rankings but that’s because I’m an individual and have my own opinions.
I’ll chalk that up to good marketing and people actually visiting the zoo and having the opinion that it is the best zoo they have been to. It’s my opinion too. The zoo didn’t tell me that. I went there and saw it and now am of that opinion.
I absolutely LOVE the work Bronx does for conservation! I think if all zoos did a fraction of what they did, we wouldn’t be in such an environmental crisis right now. But I also think that marketing conservation work is really good for zoos because guests love to see that. Because of that, I haven’t been to a zoo that doesn’t toot their own horns in terms of conservation work they do. Because of that, and the fact that guests are rarely, if ever, directly involved with that conservation work, I am of the opinion that conservation work is not an integral part of a visitor’s experience to an AZA or other accredited zoo. The work is hard and messy to quantify. And as a part of AZA accreditation, all members need to participate in it. Some can do more than others and it mostly boils down to the size of the zoo and the amount of money it can receive. Does the fact that Bronx puts in many times more funds into conservation than other zoos make it better (all other categories being equal)? To me the answer is no but I can still admire the work that is done and am not afraid to spread the news of that work.
I feel that others have done a fine enough job of stating their reasons as to why they think SDZ is the best. Nobody has said that it is the “right” opinion and whoever does should be ashamed. I don’t believe that you are desperate and your posts are making me want to make a trip out east and visit Bronx and all the other zoos I hear so many great things about.
Thanks for the personal attack. For someone who doesn’t know me, they sure do know all of my opinions
. Nowhere did I say that conservation, education and research are not big parts of modern zoos. Don’t think that I believe conservation, education and research aren’t vitally important. I was making the argument that it is of someone’s opinion that those should be considered when ranking zoos. They can be for sure! But from a visitor’s perspective, I don’t believe they are important. Also, why would I want to hide the fact I work at an AZA institution? Conservation and education are critical components to my job. But I can separate what is important to my job, the AZA, and to a random guest at a small zoo as it won’t be the same for all three. Because of that, I can also rank zoos based on what is important to conservation, education, research and entertainment. I would probably rank the zoo’s I’ve been to very differently based on what category I believe is most important.
@ANyhuis' entire post is a declaration of San Diego's definitive superiority and of Bronx's definitive interiority, saying that these things are quantifiable (something I find odd considering the numbers I provided in my short-essay yesterday suggest very different results, implying the entire analysis was handled almost purely from a subjective point of view) and flatout insulting anyone (namely myself) who is of a different opinion.
That's the thing, the zoo has good marketing. Great marketing actually, but that doesn't mean that it's true and that's the point I was trying to make. I've said this before but every non-zoo nerd I know who has actually visited both zoos vastly prefers Bronx over San Diego. Most people will only ever visit one or the other, though, and San Diego is clearly the more visited of the zoo, so it stands to reason that if more people who might like Bronx more have only ever been to San Diego and enjoyed it, and the zoo markets itself as the best, then that's the word of mouth it'll receive. Vice versa applies as well for those who have never left the Northeast. It has absolutely no bearing on actual quality.
But even if you disregard the fact that the zoo's conservation work is constantly in front of visitor's faces, that $6 admission fee, 100% of which goes towards conservation and the those paying it are told this, are visitors being directly involved in the process. Donations in general work the same way. Whether or not you think it's integral to the VE in all zoos, the fact is it's still there.
~Thylo
- Status