Best US Tiger enclosure

Best US Tiger enclosure

  • Minnesota (Siberian)

    Votes: 25 43.1%

  • Oklahoma City (Sumatran)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Fort Worth (Malayan)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Henry Doorly (Siberian)

    Votes: 6 10.3%

  • Cleveland (Siberian)

    Votes: 3 5.2%

  • Other (State Below)

    Votes: 24 41.4%
  • Total voters
    58
P

PlaZooFan14

Well-Known Member
I'm back with another US Poll, this time, the focus is on Tigers. Feel Free to discuss what exhibit you think is best or list the best enclosures in order.

Photo Credit
@snowleopard took the Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth photos
@Moebelle took the Henry Doorly photo
@blospz took the Cleveland photo

Minnesota
full


Oklahoma City
full


Fort Worth
full


Henry Doorly
full


Cleveland
full
 
Last edited:
I don't know which is the best, but I know it's not Fort Worth.
The picture shown above; it looks nice, but that's it. That's almost the entire exhibit. It repeats as a similar peninsula on the other side. Exhibit is TINY. The big 4 in Texas is probably Dallas > San Antonio > Houston > Fort Worth.
 
Trowaman said:
I don't know which is the best, but I know it's not Fort Worth.
The picture shown above; it looks nice, but that's it. That's almost the entire exhibit. It repeats as a similar peninsula on the other side.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree with this, certainly not one of the best Tiger exhibits in the US. The fact that half of the already not large Tiger area holds white tigers is also pretty disappointing.

I haven't been to any of the other zoos mentioned in the poll, although imo Bronx and San Diego Safari Park's Tiger enclosures are really, really good and deserve to be put in the poll. I voted for Minnesota though as that exhibit looks outstanding
 
Last edited:
Trowaman said:
I don't know which is the best, but I know it's not Fort Worth.
The picture shown above; it looks nice, but that's it. That's almost the entire exhibit. It repeats as a similar peninsula on the other side. Exhibit is TINY. The big 4 in Texas is probably Dallas > San Antonio > Houston > Fort Worth.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind only part of the exhibit is shown, the enclosure is really about 2-4 times the size of what’s shown.
 
ChIkEn NuGrEt said:
Keep in mind only part of the exhibit is shown, the enclosure is really about 2-4 times the size of what’s shown.
Click to expand...

Maybe 2. Absolutely not 3 or 4. As I said "That's almost the entire exhibit. It repeats as a similar peninsula on the other side."

From a space perspective; the exhibit is awful.
 
Trowaman said:
I don't know which is the best, but I know it's not Fort Worth.
The picture shown above; it looks nice, but that's it. That's almost the entire exhibit. It repeats as a similar peninsula on the other side. Exhibit is TINY. The big 4 in Texas is probably Dallas > San Antonio > Houston > Fort Worth.
Click to expand...
Also if you are just talking about the tiger enclosures this is pretty reasonable however the Houston zoo doesn’t have tiger and so I’d be assuming you’re talking about the aquarium which is probably one of the worst tiger exhibits. If you are talking about the zoo in general I completely disagree because the Fort Worth Zoo has way more animals, and over a hundred more animal species.
 
Trowaman said:
Maybe 2. Absolutely not 3 or 4. As I said "That's almost the entire exhibit. It repeats as a similar peninsula on the other side."

From a space perspective; the exhibit is awful.
Click to expand...
They are also planning to create a larger enclosure for the tigers, lions and many other species at the zoo.
 
PlaZooFan14 said:
Sorry about Fort Worth guys. I didn't know what to add so i used the ZooChat Cup for Reference.
Click to expand...
No it’s fine it just didn’t show a lot of the exhibit, this image doesn’t really show a lot more but it’s cleaner and at a better angle be aware that this image is about three quarters of the enclosure.A1352DE6-6A06-4FCE-BFD1-38DA7335358F.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • A1352DE6-6A06-4FCE-BFD1-38DA7335358F.jpeg
    A1352DE6-6A06-4FCE-BFD1-38DA7335358F.jpeg
    244.5 KB · Views: 94
ChIkEn NuGrEt said:
No it’s fine it just didn’t show a lot of the exhibit, this image doesn’t really show a lot more but it’s cleaner and at a better angle be aware that this image is about three quarters of the enclosure.View attachment 469271
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the entire exhibit if my memory's correct, apart from maybe a bit to the left of the waterfall. Even so, it's not large in the slightest and much worse than some other US Tiger exhibits.

Not really sure what you mean by cleaner, this was pretty much exactly what the exhibit looked like when I visited.
 
TZDugong said:
That's pretty much the entire exhibit if my memory's correct, apart from maybe a bit to the left of the waterfall. Even so, it's not large in the slightest and much worse than some other US Tiger exhibits.

Not really sure what you mean by cleaner, this was pretty much exactly what the exhibit looked like when I visited.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean by the enclosure being cleaner I mean the shot, because it has less glare and is posed at a much better angle.
 
ChIkEn NuGrEt said:
I don’t mean by the enclosure being cleaner I mean the shot, because it has less glare and is posed at a much better angle.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say the photo is the problem, it shows pretty much all of the enclosure (or at the very least most of it) and isn't blurry or anything like that.
 
I agree with it not being ft worth, though my dislike for white tigers might have made me more judgemental when I was there.

I like Dallas's a lot, and Philly's. I'm undecided on Omaha, it's a bit of a strange exhibit overall.

Does anyone have more photos of Cleveland's? That looks interesting.
 
I haven’t been to most of these zoos but from the images I’ve seen I dislike Cleveland’s for the extensive use of chain link I think it’s one of the ugliest fences, especially for zoos.
 
Looking at further photos online, I really like Cleveland's. It's hurt a bit in this by how new it is, so the plant life hasn't been able to grow as much as some other places. Minnesota's is really nice, if a little boring. Oklahoma is nice as well, but I don't think better than Minnesota.

ChIkEn NuGrEt said:
I haven’t been to most of these zoos but from the images I’ve seen I dislike Cleveland’s for the extensive use of chain link I think it’s one of the ugliest fences, especially for zoos.
Click to expand...

It's not chain link. Also, Dallas has rocks and some climbing. Steep slopes aren't necessary, they're more used for better viewing by visitors.
 
TinoPup said:
Looking at further photos online, I really like Cleveland's. It's hurt a bit in this by how new it is, so the plant life hasn't been able to grow as much as some other places. Minnesota's is really nice, if a little boring. Oklahoma is nice as well, but I don't think better than Minnesota.



It's not chain link. Also, Dallas has rocks and some climbing. Steep slopes aren't necessary, they're more used for better viewing by visitors.
Click to expand...
It is a certain type of chain link, also I agree with Minnesota’s being nice but overall boring. Also I haven’t been to the Dallas or Fort Worth zoos for about a month or two due to getting COVID.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top