Two other zoochatters are coming to my area of southern Arizona this spring - it would be great if you could be there too.
Last edited by a moderator:
America's Top 100 Zoos & Aquariums
- Thread starter snowleopard
- Start date
Two other zoochatters are coming to my area of southern Arizona this spring - it would be great if you could be there too.
Thank you; that's very kind. I've never been to Arizona so that's very tempting. However, I already have tentative plans to go to New York this spring and I doubt I'll be able to do both.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is understandable because domestic flights from New York to Arizona can cost as much as international flights from New York to Europe.
I also want to express my gratitude to the authors for the great edition! The European perspective approach and " Enthusiasts' Choice " section make it invaluable reference for person like me, who is yet to explore the USA's zoo world. Definitely one of the of 2019's instant classics , next to HMW9.
Thanks for your kind words! The book has an enormous appeal to many zoo nerds, because there is the 'enthusiasts' choice' section for all 100 reviews and there we placed a listing of rare species. I already have received messages from friends in Europe who are planning to tick off some 'lifers' in the USA on future zoo-themed vacations. Now those individuals know that Omaha has species such as Pink-bellied Side-necked Turtle or Cape Coral Cobra or even Lesser Vasa Parrot. Kansas City Zoo has Black-footed Cat and Yellow-backed Duiker and so anyone wishing to see those species can head to Kansas!
There are other individuals who love the 'estimated visitor time' category, as now someone planning a big zoo trip knows an approximate number of hours to set aside for a specific zoo visit.
The history section for each zoo review varies in length, but some of the history sections are very long. Cincinnati has two pages of history and six full pages in the book. Anyone who is a fan of that Ohio zoo will be salivating with delight.
For me the pleasant surprise was how phenomenal the book turned out in terms of aesthetics. It was a smart choice to go with a hardcover edition, plus there are more than 700 colour photos and the design team did a marvelous job putting everything together. It's a very heavy, substantial book that weighs exactly 1,165 grams....2.5 pounds! (That might explain the hefty shipping fees to North America, but that has not deterred a lot of zoo nerds and I thank you one and all)
AmbikaFan
Well-Known Member
Make that 4. The Phoenix Zoo is also privately owned!
Not to split hairs but "Pink-Bellied Side-Necked Turtle" or Emydura subglobosa is a fairly common species in both American and European zoos.
~Thylo
~Thylo
I just hope you didn't leave out meerkats!
I am not sure you are correct. It is not owned by a government entity, but it is run by a zoological society. I think by privately owned he means owned by an individual.
I just hope you didn't leave out meerkats!
Or river otters!
Regarding Phoenix, they at least consider themselves as the largest privately-owned zoo in the country. As for whether it meets our definition, I think it depends a bit on how the society (now called the Arizona Center for Nature Conservation) is run.
True. The unusual form that Omaha holds is Krefft's Side-necked Turtle = Emydura macquarii krefftii. Because the authors didn't want to clog the text with scientific names, I think a rare error crept in here with the choice of common name.
Yes, noted that animal in the same tank! Also held at the National Aquarium in Baltimore along with many other odd Australian turtles.
~Thylo
Phoenix Zoo/Arizona Center for Nature Conservation, to use the full and rather unwieldy name, is not a privately-owned zoo in comparison to the family-owned trio of privately-run zoos that made the book. The facility is not run by a government entity, but Phoenix is in a vastly different situation than the THREE privately-run establishments that made the book.
Dallas World Aquarium - owned by Daryl Richardson
Tanganyika Wildlife Park - owned by Jim Fouts and run by the Fouts family
Wildlife World Zoo, Aquarium & Safari Park - owned by Mickey Ollson
Tim and I even wrote in that last review: "Wildlife World is one of only three truly privately-owned zoos in the top 100 that comprise this book".
And now for something completely different:
It has been heart-warming for me to discover a written response (sent to Tim) from the legendary William G. Conway of Bronx Zoo fame. He is now 90 years old and after reading our publication he stated that "it is a wonderfully enjoyable book, a real zoological adventure". He included words in his correspondence such as "marvelous" and "a very special achievement".
Mr. Conway, if you are reading this, you are a hero to many zoo enthusiasts around the world and I would like to publicly thank you for your kind words in regards to America's Top 100 Zoos & Aquariums.
Last edited:
When I did my self-published book Zoos of the Southwest I also included "time required to see everything." Since most of the 17 zoos in my book are in this book, it will be interesting to see how close our two estimates are for the same institutions.
AmbikaFan
Well-Known Member
I have been mulling this over ever since I posted this reply. With an MFA from Columbia in not-for-profit administration and a one-time development director for large NY theaters, I am part of a world which differentiates between public and private by whether an organization is a profit or not-for-profit venture. Ostensibly a profit-making venture can not receive tax-deductible charitable contributions from individuals, corporation or foundations, which renders it "private" in that it is self-supporting and does not have to justify or even show its balance sheet to anyone except the IRS. Conversely, a not-for-profit is deemed "public" because its appeals for government, foundation, corporate, and individual donations require a level of complete transparency--and indeed accountability--to virtually anyone who questions its decisions. And to even become a not-for-profit, an organization must have a charitable purpose that is of value but, by its very nature, can not support itself solely through earned income.
That said, these lines have become blurred over the years. There is a not-for-profit NYC theatre company that now owns five Broadway/Off-Broadway theatres. Having that kind of real estate wealth would seem incongruous with a not-for-profit status. Then there are these Sea Life and Sea Quest mall aquaria that would seem to be "seat of their pants" enough to look like a not-for-profit, but are surely money-making enterprises. The real distinction still remains, is the group's primary purpose to make money or to provide a special service that needs assistance to carry out its mission, literally a public charity?
The clearest example of private zoos with clear profit motive are the amusement parks. They may be "publicly-traded" on the stock markets, but as corporate profiteers, they are private, not public zoos. By their sheer scale and inclusion of non-animal amusements, the Sea Worlds, Disney, Busch Gardens, and Six Flags Great Adventure are able to provide the same service as not-for-profit enterprises. Many might not know it, but these companies must pay their interns, while virtually all other internships around the country at not-for-profits are non-paying, a restriction that clearly distinguishes private companies from public institutions. If an organization is making a profit, why should it be able to claim the need for free labor?
There are plenty of examples of failing profit-seeking companies who decide to "become" a not-for-profit in hopes of a better financial picture. Longtime CA business Have Trunk Will Travel supplied elephants for everything from movies to rides at fairs. Undoubtedly, business suffered after video footage of abusive treatment surfaced a decade ago. In the past year, they moved lock, stock, and barrel to TX with a new name, not-for-profit status, and image complete with soft-focus pictures. Because of this new status, they are technically a public venture, but in every other way, they're nothing more than a private business in new clothing. The founders, the Johnsons, are still running things, the elephants are still able to be rented out for fairs and Indian weddings, but now they can solicit tax-deductible contributions, have space to have paying visitors, and even pay themselves whatever salaries they want. The cost of keeping elephants is high, so high expenses will make this look like a true charity, when in fact, they will be doing virtually the exact same things but will now have charitable in addition to earned income. The Carson and Barnes Circus clearly saw what happened to Ringling and knows how many cities and towns have made animal exhibition illegal, so they developed a not-for profit arm called The Endangered Ark Foundation, essentially a retirement facility where they can charge admission to see now-unemployed elephants and solicit donations too. Run by the same circus family, this is certainly in the respects you describe a private enterprise, but legally, as with Have Trunk Will Travel, a public not-for-profit.
I suspect this is what has happened--but in a much more ethical sense--to Phoenix. When I was there four years ago, they stressed (self-identified, as TinoPup put it) that they were a private organization, proud of the fact that this fine zoo was created by one family, the Maytags. However, at some point, perhaps even before that, the zoo became a not-for-profit. We see how the glitzy private Georgia and Dallas World Aquaria keep people coming in and thrive as corporations. However, it's difficult to sustain that, especially as the facilities age and if you're not in a central location. The operating costs for zoos are staggering, and I bet Phoenix suffered losses for years, losses made up for by the Maytags, until they finally realized their zoo was too big to be adequately funded by admissions alone. Rather than raise admission to the levels necessary to avoid losses, they opted to become a not-for-profit. This was inevitable. This is an organization that should be a not-for-profit, for it truly offers something of worth that can not survive without additional funding streams. I never noticed the Arizona Center for Nature Conservation moniker until very recently. It could be this is the name used on its not-for-profit application, to distinguish it from its prior incarnation as a for-profit, but they keep Phoenix Zoo too for its name recognition.
So, Phoenix is legally a public organization but one that, for matters of well-deserved family pride, still identifies as a private zoo. Ironically, it is only the classification of the amusement-park zoos that I disagree with you on. Lol. As you know, I ordered your book weeks ago, so this clearly has not affected my regard for you or the book.
Last edited:
How long does it take for US shipping? Is it possible to get the book before new year if I place the order now?
Could be possible. I pre-ordered the book before they were printed from IZES. @Tim Brown posted in this thread saying all back orders were shipped by Nov. 28th. I am currently still patiently waiting. I live in MN. With the holidays and it coming from over sees you'll probably have to be patient.
Me too! At least I'm not the only one!
