Most overrated zoo

Sorry for the confusion - I got the figures wrong - it was 17 million in 2017
The point still remains, though, so many people visit London zoo every year compared to other major cities.
 
amur leopard said:
Sorry for the confusion - I got the figures wrong - it was 17 million in 2017
The point still remains, though, so many people visit London zoo every year compared to other major cities.
Click to expand...

To be fair a googling indicated figures between 19 million and 30 million (so some are lying).

I'd also suggest your claim that 1 in 16 people who visit London visit the zoo feels slightly bogus too -what was your source? I'd also reiterate that if these figures were correct there'd be no locals at the zoo. Given these inconsistencies I think it's hard to conclude that "so many people visit London zoo every year compared to other major cities" (whatever that means).

Wasn't this thread about overrated zoos?:)
 
TZDugong said:
Regarding the actual discussion regarding overrated zoos I'd say the Columbus Zoo would qualify as overrated in my opinion, but I visited out of season when a decent amount of the zoo was closed so I'll have to re-visit before I can get my final verdict on Columbus. The Bronx Zoo didn't quite live up to my lofty expectations, but it is still an amazing zoo, so I wouldn't consider it overrated. Luckily I've been to far more underrated zoos than overrated ones, and I hope it stays that way!:D
Click to expand...
I wish columbus zoo had more of a variety of big cats. But they do have a cheetah run thats real cool to see. They also have a lot of enrichment days and programs going on in summer. Their polar bear exhibit is also the best ive seen.
 
I think San Diego's pretty overrated but many of you know that already. The San Diegos and the Berlins have been my dream zoos to visit since I first heard of them. While the latter met me expectations and then surpassed them, the former left me with a lot to be desired. I've discussed the majority of my criticisms at length on other threads, but to summarize: a good chunk of the zoo's exhibits are far below the bar modern zoos are held at (corn crib cages, bear grottos, barren hoofstock yards, etc.), certain husbandry choices are questionable to say the least (ie mixing of the two elephant species, refusing to allow other zoos to put Koalas into mixed exhibits while having Koalas in mixed exhibits), and the standout exhibits often aren't as unique as most people on here like to claim they are (ie bird aviaries and primate enclosures being equal in size or even smaller than those in other US zoos). It's still a great zoo and definitely one of the best in the country, but it's definitely not deserving of the title of 'best zoo' due to the outdated sections alone.

But "it's the best because it's world famous, and it's world famous because it's the best" and "if you ignore the bad parts and focus on the good parts you'll see that it really is the best" as it were...

~Thylo
 
FunkyGibbon said:
It was inevitable that London would cease to be the zoo that it once was. The pity is that it isn't the zoo it could be today.
Click to expand...

London zoo smells of bad leadership over the years its been falling behind for many a year. Even when they were told no more government funding the last handout they had was wasted on big cars for the elite and bosses with little going to new exhibits or other projects. The struggle to build a real Gorilla breeding group over the years is an example zoo culture when there are small regional zoos like Chessington zoo which can do so much better than the National zoo of the nation!
 
FunkyGibbon said:
It was inevitable that London would cease to be the zoo that it once was. The pity is that it isn't the zoo it could be today.
Click to expand...

I think this is the best statement I've seen made about the zoo's current state. Of course most of the megafauna and the 90+ species crammed into the Clore were going to have to go eventually, that sort of collection just isn't sustainable or acceptable in the modern zoo world, but the zoo still shouldn't have vast spaces with little to nothing kept in them, a rapidly diminishing species list that can no longer adequately fill the exhibit space already available, and continuously underwhelming new exhibits (when one does come). When I first visited in 2016, I thought London was one of the best zoos of my trip and one of the best I'd ever been to. When I returned in 2018, however, I was extremely disappointed to see how many enclosures were simply covered over, how many species were repeated in the reptile house, and to find the aquarium, bird house, and reptile house home to significantly fewer animals than they had been just two years prior.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I think this is the best statement I've seen made about the zoo's current state. Of course most of the megafauna and the 90+ species crammed into the Clore were going to have to go eventually, that sort of collection just isn't sustainable or acceptable in the modern zoo world, but the zoo still shouldn't have vast spaces with little to nothing kept in them, a rapidly diminishing species list that can no longer adequately fill the exhibit space already available, and continuously underwhelming new exhibits (when one does come). When I first visited in 2016, I thought London was one of the best zoos of my trip and one of the best I'd ever been to. When I returned in 2018, however, I was extremely disappointed to see how many enclosures were simply covered over, how many species were repeated in the reptile house, and to find the aquarium, bird house, and reptile house home to significantly fewer animals than they had been just two years prior.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with your post, Just wondering if a lot less species means less keepers and therefore less operating costs?. Yes less mega fauna but they could focus on a lot more smaller highly endangered species for a small zoo area almost like another Jersey zoo type collection!
 
Shorts said:
To be fair a googling indicated figures between 19 million and 30 million (so some are lying).

I'd also suggest your claim that 1 in 16 people who visit London visit the zoo feels slightly bogus too -what was your source? I'd also reiterate that if these figures were correct there'd be no locals at the zoo. Given these inconsistencies I think it's hard to conclude that "so many people visit London zoo every year compared to other major cities" (whatever that means).

Wasn't this thread about overrated zoos?:)
Click to expand...

It was wasn't it?
We got slightly off the topic
Sorry for that.
You still have to admit people know the London zoo more than, for example, Zoo de Vincennes or Barcelona zoo though.
 
I agree with you soooo much. Pretty much all the exhibits are done to the very best of their ability and they don't overstretch their species count so that they can spend more money and make that slightly better enclosure. I think that the quality of enclosures matter more than the fauna at the zoo (to a certain extent) and Vincennes has both.
 
FunkyGibbon said:
It was inevitable that London would cease to be the zoo that it once was. The pity is that it isn't the zoo it could be today.
Click to expand...
In some respects it could be the same zoo in as much as it was a world renowned zoo, often considered THE zoo in the UK and an authority in all things to do with zoos and animals, a zoo that set the bar for other zoos to aim for. It could still be those things.
 
Ned said:
In some respects it could be the same zoo in as much as it was a world renowned zoo, often considered THE zoo in the UK and an authority in all things to do with zoos and animals, a zoo that set the bar for other zoos to aim for. It could still be those things.
Click to expand...
That may of been the case in the past but they are far behind many zoos today perhaps a little to late now
 
Snowleopardqueen said:
I wish columbus zoo had more of a variety of big cats. But they do have a cheetah run thats real cool to see. They also have a lot of enrichment days and programs going on in summer. Their polar bear exhibit is also the best ive seen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure the zoo is amazing in the summer but I visited in the middle of winter, so that's probably left the zoo slightly underwhelmed. And their Polar Bear habitat is really, really good, second only behind Detroit in the exhibits I've seen.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I think San Diego's pretty overrated but many of you know that already. The San Diegos and the Berlins have been my dream zoos to visit since I first heard of them. While the latter met me expectations and then surpassed them, the former left me with a lot to be desired. I've discussed the majority of my criticisms at length on other threads, but to summarize: a good chunk of the zoo's exhibits are far below the bar modern zoos are held at (corn crib cages, bear grottos, barren hoofstock yards, etc.), certain husbandry choices are questionable to say the least (ie mixing of the two elephant species, refusing to allow other zoos to put Koalas into mixed exhibits while having Koalas in mixed exhibits), and the standout exhibits often aren't as unique as most people on here like to claim they are (ie bird aviaries and primate enclosures being equal in size or even smaller than those in other US zoos). It's still a great zoo and definitely one of the best in the country, but it's definitely not deserving of the title of 'best zoo' due to the outdated sections alone.

But "it's the best because it's world famous, and it's world famous because it's the best" and "if you ignore the bad parts and focus on the good parts you'll see that it really is the best" as it were...

~Thylo
Click to expand...

I agree fully with this. I prefer to see a zoo have consistently good exhibit quality over having a great collection with a range of exhibit quality.

I will say that their future Children's Zoo complex, which eschews the traditional petting zoo for walk-through aviaries, Komodo dragons, a reptile/amphibian/fish house, and a range of mammals, does look fantastic conceptually, perhaps the best I have ever seen conceptually for a Children's Zoo, but with its price tag, I really hope it delivers in execution. Either way, it will be an improvement.

Like you said, most people who find the San Diego Zoo overrated still consider it to be a great zoo, myself included. We just don't think it's the very best. I have said in the past during my brief time here that I consider the Safari Park to be better than the Zoo.
 
Does anyone rate the Smithsonian Zoo highly, though, other than it being well known because of it's location/name? It's definitely not a great zoo, other than the elephants and pinniped areas, but I didn't think anyone thought it was amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top