The Potential of the Modern Zoo

[pendraig_milnerae]

One thing I have noticed recently is that zoos both in the real world and in the fantasy section of zoochat there seems to be a limit on the size/no. of exhibits/species lists/overall factors of zoos, which makes some degree of sense due to budgetary or realism reasons, however I have also noticed a handful of zoos recently, such as Zoopark de Beauval, expanding their collection exponentially, particularly in regards to smaller animals. The point I am making is to do with the potential of modern zoos, as there seems to be this idea (I myself am also guilty of this) that a limit is required because it is unreasonable to be overly ambitious, yet with the vastly expanding budgets of new developments and the sheer diversity of animal life in addition to the example I gave above they have proven themselves to be able to reach it. In essence this thread is a discussion of the potential of modern zoos and the incredible exhibits and species lists they could harbour. Writing this I am not entirely sure what my overall main point is, but feel free to discuss!

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I don't know if I can really add very much to this discussion but my own view is that I am less impressed with the amount of species a zoo keeps (or flashy enclosures) and far more impressed by what is being done with those species in terms of ex-situ and in-situ conservation.

I wouldn't really care if only 10 or 20 species (and the smaller, the more endangered and obscure the better IMO) were kept by a zoo as long as the welfare was good, that these were there for sound conservation purposes and the general conservation output of the zoo either ex-situ or in-situ was decent.

 

[CheeseChameleon1945]

I am also not sure what I can add, but I personally just want to see a larger expansion of different species in zoos. What I mean is, I want to see more biodiversity in zoos. I have implied this on other discussions on this site, but I would much rather have a new Galapagos penguin exhibit other than an African penguin exhibit. I totally understand that most of these decisions are related to budget, animal import, and in general are so unrealistic it could be laughed at. But Im just saying that I would like to see a more widespread biodiversity in zoological institutions. (So batto, I understand that most of these Ideas are related to the Fantasy zoo thread).

 

[Jurek7]

I have also noticed a handful of zoos recently, such as Zoopark de Beauval, expanding their collection exponentially

How good a zoo is is usually capped with finances: how many people live within a day distance from a zoo, and how good is the zoo in securing funding. Several zoos broke this glass ceiling because they are pet projects of very wealthy individuals (Pairi Daiza and Dallas World Aquarium, for example). Others broke through because they established themselves as travel destinations, with tourists who travel to a city especially to visit a zoo (San Diego and Leipzig, for example, this is the point of Disney parks, too).

In this second group you are most likely to see incredible exhibits, because they are the showcase pulling tourists. And also economic stagnation in the West Europe and the U.S. means that most big projects will likely be in the eastern half of Europe, East and South Asia and in other economically growing regions.

Talking about animals, I think zoos should break the trend of showing people little but ABC animals. Zoos 30 years ago managed to fascinate visitors by showing them an animal they never seen before, rather than an animal they know well from the last big movie. A question of novelty.

I also think that zoos can break another trend of the last 30 years - dumbing down the education and information. There are modern education methods, including digital ones, which let a zoo show some basic information to a typical visitor, and more complex information to an interested one.

 

[Westcoastperson]

To add onto what Jurek said it's about expenses and how you pay those off. The more species you get the more food you need and the more money you need and so local zoos that aren't tourist destinations just can't do that. Also, most people have been talking about getting more small mammals or obscure animals but that doesn't bring people in. The only recent I can think about to focus on more obscure species is Africa Rocks at the San Diego Zoo, but they still needed popular species so that people bothered to visit the area. Lots of people have said this so many times but normal zoo-goers won't go to a zoo if they find out they have red ukari because they don't know what a Red Ukari is. If you or I heard about that we would go immediately bit zoos aren't made for us. That would be once though, a zoo focused on obscure animals

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Also, most people have been talking about getting more small mammals or obscure animals but that doesn't bring people in. The only recent I can think about to focus on more obscure species is Africa Rocks at the San Diego Zoo, but they still needed popular species so that people bothered to visit the area. Lots of people have said this so many times but normal zoo-goers won't go to a zoo if they find out they have red ukari because they don't know what a Red Ukari is. If you or I heard about that we would go immediately bit zoos aren't made for us. That would be once though, a zoo focused on obscure animals

Yes, I freely admit that this is the inherent problem and dilemma of zoos and that is why I would make an absolutely terrible zoo-curator or director (but then again I don't think I would want to be anyway).

 

[pendraig_milnerae]

To add onto what Jurek said it's about expenses and how you pay those off. The more species you get the more food you need and the more money you need and so local zoos that aren't tourist destinations just can't do that. Also, most people have been talking about getting more small mammals or obscure animals but that doesn't bring people in. The only recent I can think about to focus on more obscure species is Africa Rocks at the San Diego Zoo, but they still needed popular species so that people bothered to visit the area. Lots of people have said this so many times but normal zoo-goers won't go to a zoo if they find out they have red ukari because they don't know what a Red Ukari is. If you or I heard about that we would go immediately bit zoos aren't made for us. That would be once though, a zoo focused on obscure animals

It is unfortunate that ultimately it comes down to money and the pre-existing knowledge of the general public. I also think that this links in with the sign dilemma (but that’s a topic for a whole other thread) and the unwillingness to learn about the natural world in the same way that many of us would, simply because they have little to no interest.

 

[Dassie rat]

TLots of people have said this so many times but normal zoo-goers won't go to a zoo if they find out they have red ukari because they don't know what a Red Ukari is. If you or I heard about that we would go immediately bit zoos aren't made for us. That would be once though, a zoo focused on obscure animals

One of the best houses I've been to was the Saki and Uakari House in 1982 - so many species that I've never seen before (or since in some cases). The person I went with wasn't really interested.

 

[pendraig_milnerae]

One of the best houses I've been to was the Saki and Uakari House in 1982 - so many species that I've never seen before (or since in some cases). The person I went with wasn't really interested.

That is the exact kind of thing people would bring up on the ‘You might belong on zoochat if’ thread. But you also expand my previous point and that of Westcoastperson, that most people simply aren’t interested in anything other than the big charismatic ABC species

 

[Jurek7]

Also, most people have been talking about getting more small mammals or obscure animals but that doesn't bring people in.

There is a room for more innovative exhibits and for small specialized zoos in addition to the big 'all-purpose supermarket' zoos.

30 years ago, Emmen zoo made innovative exhibits for animals, some of which became standard zoo exhibits now. Naked mole rats, wader aviary and sewer with brown rats for example. There is a need of a new innovative zoo like this.

Lots of people have said this so many times but normal zoo-goers won't go to a zoo if they find out they have red ukari because they don't know what a Red Ukari is.

Red uakari with its bizarre ugly bald red head should be absolutely fascinating to a normal person. Only if zoos promoted its image (and there were any uakaris in zoos to begin with).

 

[Westcoastperson]

Red uakari with its bizarre ugly bald red head should be absolutely fascinating to a normal person. Only if zoos promoted its image (and there were any uakaris in zoos to begin with).

There are some in Los Angeles but they are deliberately hard to see so that they can minimize stress. An actual exhibit would be great but first I think they have to breed

 

[Dassie rat]

The Neblina uakari at Cologne zoo didn't seem to be stressed.

 

[Westcoastperson]

The Neblina uakari at Cologne zoo didn't seem to be stressed.

These are red ukari. Also just to be safe

 

[Batto]

But Im just saying that I would like to see a more widespread biodiversity in zoological institutions. (So batto, I understand that most of these Ideas are related to the Fantasy zoo thread).

The diversity of species kept (and bred) in captivity is actually partly increasing, at least in regard to some groups of animals. While there is a decrease of diversity among (in particular larger) species of mammals and birds, other, non-mammalian and non-avian species like reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates, including fascinating species like Bornean earless monitors, flying lizards or Tetraodon schoutedeni that used to be rare in or even absent from captivity are nowadays kept and even bred. Jellyfish used to be extremely difficult to stay alive; now zoos / aquaria like Berlin, Chicago, Vienna and Rostock are showcasing several jellyfish species at once. In regard to the herpetology, aquaculture and invertebrate section, we only see little if anything of this promising development in zoos because zoos still focus on certain charismatic megafauna species, which in itself is a result of the often discussed expectations of the average zoo visitor. Who, as we all know, wants to see "classic" zoo animal species as depicted in children books as well as the meerkats & ring-tailed lemurs made popular by commercials and the media, but who cares little whether the zoo also keeps zebra duikers, fig parrots or rare splitfins.
Thanks to dedicated private breeders and conservation programs, we can actually Marvel at species now that were virtually unknown to anyone but specialists or thought to be impossible to keep. We just don't realize that too often because most of them are not charismatic mammals like uakaris or odd birds like rockfowl, but "boring" rodents, small "herps", fish or invertebrates. And less and less of them are kept at zoos.
However, all in all, the general diversity in Western zoos is decreasing. Which might be good in regard to (individual) animal welfare, but not so good in regard to education and, to a certain point, conservation.

 

[red river hog]

The Philadelphia Zoo is the zoo that pioneered the trail systems going over visitor paths. They use them for primates, big cats, and small carnivores. They're also the only zoo that has trails going across the whole property. Lots of zoos have recreated it and I think it's a really great form enrichment. They even have plans to expand it further with even more trails including ones for Cheetahs, Maned Wolves, bears, kangaroos, Emus, hoofstock, and even pachyderms, including elephants! So I guess what I'm trying to say is that this could be an even more widespread form of enrichment used across zoos in the future that could be used for all sorts of animals.