Zoos in Europe vs USA

[Crowthorne]

Not directly, no - but I would guess that major donations to museums in the UK are pretty thin of the ground too. Some solicit 'donations' from the visiting public, but from what is visible to the general visitor this produces only a tiny part of their operating requirements. The major difference is that most city and National museums in the UK are funded out of public budget and enjoy very different tax advantages; whereas most Zoos are subjected to pretty punitive levels of taxation.

Just because I happened to attend a talk at work yesterday about museum funding (disclosure: I have worked in UK museums for over a decade), central government funding of national museums, although significant, now amounts to no more than 40% annual income for any single national museum since the funding cuts after the recession (before the recession, central government funding could be as high as 80% annual income). At present, national museums will be generating 60% of their own annual income, including through donations, bequests, Friends/Membership schemes, charges for exhibitions (both on-site and touring), shop sales etc. As central government funding will undoubtedly keep falling, the percentage of self-generated funds will continue to increase.

Compared to the regional and city museums, nationals have it easy. Regional and city museums have suffered an even bigger drops in government or council funding, and don't attract the same level of attention as regards donations or benefactors. They used to receive a good boost from the Renaissance in the Regions funding programme for regional museums, but this was stopped around 8 years ago, and no new source of funding has materialised.

I am less certain of the tax status for museums, but as most are registered charities, they are probably taxed similarly along those lines.

 

[Maguari]

Well certainly the climate will be part of it, no? But they are very well furnished and naturalistic for the environments they're attempting to recreate. I couldn't find a photo of LA's enclosure but below are a few for SDZ's:
Elephant Odyssey - Reptile and Amphibian Exhibit - ZooChat
Elephant Odyssey - Reptile and Amphibian Exhibit - ZooChat
Elephant Odyssey - Reptile and Amphibian Exhibit - ZooChat
If that's not good for native lizards and turtles I'm not really what could be considered such.

Regarding the SDZ example: it looks to be professionaly made and it's great that this was built, but it's hard to judge it fairly and honestly based on a few photos. The list of species kept together, however, reminds me of the points and observations Mr. Zootycoon made above.

A side issue really but there is a major problem for me* with SDZ's exhibit and it is this: Side-Blotched Lizard Signage - ZooChat

If you have an actual interest in herps** it would be really useful to know what actual species 'side-blotched lizard' refers to without having to Google and hope there isn't more than one..!




*if more than one in a thousand visitors to the exhibit even noticed I'd be surprised, but there's a principle here!

**and people interested in animals certainly ought to be a group that zoos consider..!

 

[FunkyGibbon]

I've only been to half a dozen US zoos but they're seemed to be a greater degree of variation in quality within a zoo. Enclosures costing tens of millions next to corn crib cages. European zoos seem more uniform in quality with in a zoo.

Did you visit San Diego then? That's the only example of this I can think of off the top of my head. Which other US zoos did you visit? In my travels, the largest variation in exhibit quality I have seen is at Wroclaw. There is a very clear line between the old zoo and new zoo, which the latter being a fairly excellent institution and the former slowly improving, but still have many, many, many outdated areas and problems. They probably have one of the worst elephant houses I've ever seen, due to the fact that it was built in the 1800's and rarely touched since then.

When I saw Ned's post I immediately thought "He's been visiting British zoos and not Eastern European ones".

I surmise that the public pressure on British zoos to replace old and outdated exhibits, as well as the financial capability to do so, has been fairly constant for quite a long time, whereas in Eastern Europe both of those phenomena have materialised more recently. Perhaps.

On the other hand, maybe it's something more cultural, since I'd say you are also more likely to find a real clanger of an exhibit in what was formerly West Germany than you are in the UK as well (despite Germany being in general far more of a 'zoo' country).

 

[Valentinoamor]

Well, that's too bad, as they illustrate my argumention all too well. The current standards of reptile husbandry in European zoos differ considerably from country to country; you can find exhibits in Bulgaria, Italy, Spain or Slovakia that are comparable to the horrible ones in American roadside zoos. And some others that truly outshine those in the US. Unfortunately, the more you learn more about reptiles and their requirements, the more you become (rather painfully) aware that even major zoos that pride themselves with their great reptile collections tend to keep and showcase their reptiles inadequately - multi-million dollar houses or not. May it be obesity due to overfeeding (Boelen's pythons at SDZ, Aruba rattlesnakes in several collections), stressful display arrangements (bushmasters or river jacks are no fans of bright lights; tomistomas prefer to dwell in muddy water; aggressive males in several Chelonian species should not have constant access to females etc, etc....), inadequate humidity, bedding, enclosure sizes & structures, mixed species exhibits, feeding & water supply (a big controversial topic among Chameleon keepers!) - the more you know, the more issues you see (also in European zoos). When I was younger, I used to marvel at the variety of displayed species both before and behind the scenes. The more I learn, the more I realize how some of these animals suffer silently. Just think of Cincinnati's reptile house; that's not how a modern zoo should showcase crocodilians. There is a different cultural understanding of what good husbandry should be like at play; take the husbandry of snakes in relatively small and bare boxes, the so-called racks, as an example. While rack systems are often the norm in reptile husbandry in the US (and Australia), they're quite a controversial subject within the European reptile keeper community, just as morph breeding or the deliberate hybridisation of reptile species.
What I miss in American zoos are naturalistic outdoor exhibits for local reptile species in a similar vein like the ones in Innsbruck or Nockalm. The only comparable examples that come to my mind are the ADM, Audubon Zoo's swamp exhibit and a few crocodilian exhibits. Any really good & naturalistic outdoor exhibits in American zoos for rattlesnakes, chuckwallas, collared lizards, gopher tortoises, box turtles, softshell turtles etc. that I should be aware of?

As mentioned several times before in other threads: it depends on the species and locality. While the American market has access to some lovely animals that Europeans can only dream of (I always wanted to have a truly blackish male Crotalus cerberus - nearly impossible to get in Europe), there are other species (like the Eurasian Vipera clade) that Americans are envious of.

Aside from reptiles and birds of prey, I can think of two American (as in "New World") ungulates that are more common in European zoos than in (North) American ones: the Vicuña and the Rocky Mountain goat. Now please explain that with local proximity!

I couldn't agree more with your statement about the lack of proper herp care in zoos in Europe and the United States. I've some really good herp exhibits, but I've seen more really bad herp exhibits. Just using Henry Vilas Zoo as an example, the offer their leopard geckos overhead heat, without even giving them some sort of slate/rock area to absorb the heat to allow the leopard geckos to absorb the heat properly. (I don't think they regulate their heat sources either, I can never manage to find a thermostat. Plus, if there was one in the exhibit they have for them you'd probably see it. They're kept in a weird glass cylinder.) They MAY have an undertank heater somewhere, but I can't tell for sure.
They've also kept in Cane Toad in one of the smallest Exo-Terras you can find. It literally took up half of the floor space on its own. I've also seen this happen with a Box Turtle. Thankfully both of these species have sine been moved.
Their Gila Monsters don't look to good either. It's extremely obvious that one is superior to the other, with one being plump and large, with the other being smaller and extremely skinny.
The most surprising thing I've seen is Henry Vilas keeping a young, twiggy Brazilian Rainbow Boa with a massive adult BCI.

On the other hand, Henry Vilas has some high-quality reptile exhibits too. Their Dart Frog vivariums are great, with awesome Amazon Tree Boa and Eastern Mas. exhibits as well. Their new Rhinoceros Iguana exhibit isn't too bad either.

 

[Batto]

On the other hand, maybe it's something more cultural, since I'd say you are also more likely to find a real clanger of an exhibit in what was formerly West Germany than you are in the UK as well (despite Germany being in general far more of a 'zoo' country).

While I'm the last one to pretend that West German zoos are flawless, a quick look at the photos in the UK gallery reveal several "clanger exhibits" as well, and not just in smaller establishments such as Borth Animalarium or Exotic Zoo. So I wouldn't cast any first stones here.

 

[Andrew Swales]

I am less certain of the tax status for museums, but as most are registered charities, they are probably taxed similarly along those lines.

Zoos are separated from farm-parks, museums, galleries, sporting venues and all other leisure and retail outlets; and are uniquely subject to a crippling tax called the Community Infrastructure Levy, which although originating centrally, has yet to be imposed by many/most Local Authorities.

 

[Batto]

That always brings me to the idea that for some people anything non-mammal is considered less worthy. I was struck multiple times by the disinterest some zoo people show when it comes to inadequate husbandry of even die-offs of non-mammals.

We all know there is a certain hierarchy of sympathy (up to outright "Speciesism", to paraphrase this overused slogan of animal rights activists) within the different species displayed at zoos. Also among zoo people, who are mostly interested in large mammals (and to a lesser degree, birds). Even on this forum of zoo nerds, you'll find way, way more threads or photos involving elephants, tigers and giant pandas than coral cobras, sturgeons or sea pens.

That's just the way most humans are. However, this does not mean that the husbandry demands of the latter should be ignored or that they should be considered less worthy - on the contrary! You can do your part by learning more about them and distributing this knowledge to others to improve their situation.
As a keeper and exhibitor of such "neglected creatures", this gives me the great opportunity to teach people more about hitherto unknown creatures. Inspiring people for gorillas is easy. Inspiring people for coral cobras? Challenge accepted!

 

[Clem]

@Batto : you're right, most of the people can imagine mammals suffering (even birds) but not fishes and reptiles. For me, this a lack of knowledge, but I'm happy that someone like you can glow up the issues in the forum. One thing that shock me about the non-adequate exhibits for reptiles is the fact that there is several books and websites about them. Struggling to breed species that are well documented is just negligence.
The tiny boxes used for snakes in the Mersus Emergo at Pairi Daiza are obvious examples of bad husbandry, but a few parameters are trickier to spot for novices.

The lack of interest in non-mammal species is for me caused by the size. Big animals catch the attention, and are easier to spot.

 

[Batto]

Thanks Clem!

The tiny boxes used for snakes in the Mersus Emergo at Pairi Daiza are obvious examples of bad husbandry, but a few parameters are trickier to spot for novices.

Mersus Emergo might actually be a good example of how non-mammals are often inserted in the "multi million dollar exhibits" - as more or less easily replaceable accessory parts, with less focus on their actual husbandry needs.

 

[Valentinoamor]

Thanks Clem!
Mersus Emergo might actually be a good example of how non-mammals are often inserted in the "multi million dollar exhibits" - as more or less easily replaceable accessory parts, with less focus on their actual husbandry needs.

This is so true! I'm sure some facilities look at things like leopard geckos and ball pythons as cheap species that they can easily replace when they die due to bad husbandry. Valuing the looks of the enclosure more than the actual well-being of the animals inside.

 

[amur leopard]

@Batto, since you are probably the person on this forum best placed to answer this question, what is an adequate enclosure size, for, for example a King cobra?

It also strikes me when I go into terrariums how little space the snakes in particular get. I've seen 5 poison dart frogs get more space than 4 king cobras...

 

[Batto]

what is an adequate enclosure size, for, for example a King cobra?

A good question, and a controversial topic among venomous snake keepers. Depending on the individual size and character of the specimen, the king cobra exhibits at Hamburg and Kolmården are what I would go for in a public display in regard to size and structure. Bigger is always an option, of course.

 

[Andrew Swales]

A good question, and a controversial topic among venomous snake keepers. Depending on the individual size and character of the specimen, the king cobra exhibits at Hamburg and Kolmården are what I would go for in a public display in regard to size and structure. Bigger is always an option, of course.

A snippet - UK law requires an enclosure to be greater in either width and/or depth than the length of the snake outstretched, regardless of whether the animal ever does this. Does that contribute anything?

 

[Batto]

A snippet - UK law requires an enclosure to be greater in either width and/or depth than the length of the snake outstretched, regardless of whether the animal ever does this. Does that contribute anything?

It's a rather rough rule of thumb (also used in other countries) that I suspect was invented to make life easier for bureaucrats and animal right activists since both of them usually know very little about snakes. It does not take the actual behavior and thus activity of the snake species in question into account. An arboreal species (such as the eyelash viper) might benefit more from a taller enclosure while more geobiontic species such as blood pythons might do well in an enclosure with the aforementioned size.

 

[amur leopard]

A good question, and a controversial topic among venomous snake keepers. Depending on the individual size and character of the specimen, the king cobra exhibits at Hamburg and Kolmården are what I would go for in a public display in regard to size and structure. Bigger is always an option, of course.

Oh yeah we always like bigger... I'm thinking some kind of 40 acre rainforest exhibit with a large lake and live food... Nothing like that for enrichment

On a serious note, I really like both exhibits (although, as always, more space and more water...

So for a king cobra, ideally, without getting to immense proportions, 4x2x2 is great...

A snippet - UK law requires an enclosure to be greater in either width and/or depth than the length of the snake outstretched, regardless of whether the animal ever does this. Does that contribute anything?

Yes... but I have seen some pretty tiny British anaconda or python exhibits which wouldn't even fit half of the snake outstretched...
Sad that some rules are really not carried through into actions...

 

[Andrew Swales]

It's a rather rough rule of thumb (also used in other countries) that I suspect was invented to make life easier for bureaucrats and animal right activists since both of them usually know very little about snakes. It does not take the actual behavior and thus activity of the snake species in question into account. An arboreal species (such as the eyelash viper) might benefit more from a taller enclosure while a more geobiontic species as blood pythons might do well in an enclosure with the aforementioned size.

Yes, I am sure it is used for ease of interpretation - often to disguise lack of knowledge on the part of an inspector ? This does not of course apply to private breeders/owners who are largely un-regulated, and often seem to keep their animals in much smaller plastic boxes.

 

[amur leopard]

Ah, animal farm, such a wise book...

 

[Andrew Swales]

Yes... but I have seen some pretty tiny British anaconda or python exhibits which wouldn't even fit half of the snake outstretched...
Sad that some rules are really not carried through into actions...

It is not a 'rule' as such, more an interpretation as Batto said above - but an enclosure such as you describe would fail a UK Zoo Licence inspection (in our area at least) and lead to immediate closure of that part of the Zoo (or potentially the whole of it) under the newly tightened version of the ZLA introduced in 2019.

 

[Batto]

often seem to keep their animals in much smaller plastic boxes.

Or, at least in some cases of dedicated enthusiasts, keep them under conditions that put major zoos to shame. And, mirabile dictu, manage to breed them successfully.

 

[Andrew Swales]

Or, at least in some cases of dedicated enthusiasts, keep them under conditions that put major zoos to shame. And, mirabile dictu, manage to breed them successfully.

Absolutely! - and, in many specialist areas, not just reptiles...