Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

DaLilFishie said:
I don't really care for marine mammal/bird exhibits at aquariums. I don't mind one or two but when you have places like Osaka Aquarium that has five such exhibits (two for penguins, two for pinnipeds and one for dolphins), I can't help but feel it's a bit much and the space could be better used for fish/invertebrates/herps.
Click to expand...
I'm actually the opposite- I appreciate when aquariums have a lot of diversity and keep more aquatic life than just fish. The favorite aquarium I have been to is the National Aquarium in Baltimore, and this is why. They of course keep dolphins and have a puffin/guillemot exhibit, but also have a number of other excellent, non-fish exhibits, including two impressive aviaries, freshwater crocodiles, a number of unique turtle species, and a good amphibian collection. Not necessarily "ABC" species, but definitely a unique and impressive collection of non-fish species.
 
PossumRoach said:
What about Cincinatti?
Click to expand...
Well I don't know about Cincinnatti's but I can tell you that a majority people here have a problem with Cincinnati's Hippo exhibit being ridiculously small. They didn't have a lot of room to work with, and they still didn't even use up enough of the space that they had.
 
Last edited:
I was just wondering what bringing up Cincinnati had to do with underwater viewing not being a necessity for hippo exhibits.
 
Moebelle said:
Well I don't know about Cincinnatti's but I can tell you that a majority people here have a problem with Cincinnati's Hippo exhibit being ridiculously small. They didn't have a lot of room to work with, and they still didn't even use up enough of the space that they had.
Click to expand...
@ThylacineAlive made the good point, they had a decent plot of land to build it on...but then messed that up with a "playground" that you can't even play on and meerkats. The exhibit in my opinion could even be decent without just the playground. I personally feel they put aesthetics (e.g. big viewing window that is pretty much all the water space) over the quality of the exhibit.
 
ZooBinh said:
@ThylacineAlive made the good point, they had a decent plot of land to build it on...but then messed that up with a "playground" that you can't even play on and meerkats. The exhibit in my opinion could even be decent without just the playground. I personally feel they put aesthetics (e.g. big viewing window that is pretty much all the water space) over the quality of the exhibit.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly surprised that they were voted 1# Zoo in the nation.
 
ZooBinh said:
@ThylacineAlive made the good point, they had a decent plot of land to build it on...but then messed that up with a "playground" that you can't even play on and meerkats. The exhibit in my opinion could even be decent without just the playground. I personally feel they put aesthetics (e.g. big viewing window that is pretty much all the water space) over the quality of the exhibit.
Click to expand...

Eh, even if they built the exhibit to expand where the statue (I'm still surprised people refer to it as a playground) and meerkat exhibits are, I still don't see that working. If we're assuming the painted dog exhibit remains the same, it would still be critcized as too narrow as it is today. Especially since we still have to consider the service paths behind the Meerkats.
 
Moebelle said:
Eh, even if they built the exhibit to expand where the statue (I'm still surprised people refer to it as a playground) and meerkat exhibits are, I still don't see that working. If we're assuming the painted dog exhibit remains the same, it would still be critcized as too narrow as it is today. Especially since we still have to consider the service paths behind the Meerkats.
Click to expand...

Well the original plans they released for it are significantly better than what they have now. More space is better than so little space the zoo lucked out when the male died because once Fiona was born they were in direct violation of the AZA's spatial requirements for hippos. As it stands, the filtration building for the pool is larger than the exhibit itself which is totally unacceptable. Along with the space taken away from the hippos by adding the Meerkats, statue/playground, and all the visitor space around them, the addition of the underwater viewing is what forces the zoo to have such an oversized filtration system. If they gave the hippos a normal pool without underwater viewing, the filtration system would not have to be so large which would have allowed for more money to into the animals' habitat itself as well as offer even just a little more room for them. The exhibit has been outdated for modern AZA standards since before it opened.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
Well the original plans they released for it are significantly better than what they have now. More space is better than so little space the zoo lucked out when the male died because once Fiona was born they were in direct violation of the AZA's spatial requirements for hippos. As it stands, the filtration building for the pool is larger than the exhibit itself which is totally unacceptable. Along with the space taken away from the hippos by adding the Meerkats, statue/playground, and all the visitor space around them, the addition of the underwater viewing is what forces the zoo to have such an oversized filtration system. If they gave the hippos a normal pool without underwater viewing, the filtration system would not have to be so large which would have allowed for more money to into the animals' habitat itself as well as offer even just a little more room for them. The exhibit has been outdated for modern AZA standards since before it opened.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
I wouldn't exactly go by the original plans for a "this is how it could've been" thought, it rendered the painted dog exhibit to be as big as the Hippo habitat turned out. The second plan was even worse, it was nearly the same space but it was a Busch Gardens layout. But yes, I would have sacrificed a copy of Saint Louis's Hippo Harbor for an above viewing only space.
 
Ebirah766 said:
I'm getting tired of monotony in zoo collections. I think that organizations like the AZA are becoming too big for their britches and are starting to put the same animals in every zoo. They preach "biodiversity!" and have the same animals. Ironic.
Click to expand...
This has been brought up I don’t know how many times on this forum. A trend towards less species is necessary for actual healthy breeding populations. I don’t think biodiversity is being preached in the way you are saying it is. Zoos can absolutely preach about protecting biodiversity while also reducing species count in their collections. I’m sorry healthy breeding programs and lack of available spaces is bad for species lists but that’s the reality and people need to get used to it.
 
Ebirah766 said:
I'm getting tired of monotony in zoo collections. I think that organizations like the AZA are becoming too big for their britches and are starting to put the same animals in every zoo. They preach "biodiversity!" and have the same animals. Ironic.
Click to expand...
If you want to see some different species then visit some roadside zoos.
 
Batto said:
I don't think that completely uniform collections with focus on a few charismatic mammalian megafauna representatives (and meerkats), continously copying one another, are a goal worth pursuing.
Click to expand...
The problem isn't Biodiversity, if you look at the ungulates of North America thread you will clearly see we actually have a lot of good ungulate representation. The problem is only a few zoos hold all of the diversity, which isn't entirely their fault. I mean look, Where do the Deer & Antelope Play?: A Look at America's Ungulate Populations when you start to head into the more exotic deer species you keep seeing repeating San Diego Zoo Safari Park, Bronx, and the Wilds. We have the species available but zoos continue to copy each other and so certain species become mainstreamed. I personally can't differentiate from all the different Asian Highland exhibits or the new "temple" exhibits being rolled out across the US with tacky rockwork and random hanging flags placed randomly to give it an "ancient" feel. Its sad that zoos have to copy other zoos when they fully have the resources to get original exhibits. I mean literally this was just brought up:
Moebelle said:
But yes, I would have sacrificed a copy of Saint Louis's Hippo Harbor for an above viewing only space.
Click to expand...
Originality, diversity, welfare, and education are all suffering. And I know there are people here who don't like San Diego getting rid of some of their rarer species but they're trying much harder than most other zoos to bring diversity, welfare, and education to their exhibits. Elephant Odessy was a bit of a mess but at least it was original, and Africa Rocks was truly creative and if something had to replace all the rarities of dog and cat canyon I'm glad they choose Africa Rocks. So zoos need to start being creative and building their own exhibits, not riping off other zoos, then we will solve the biodiversity problem.
 
Westcoastperson said:
The problem isn't Biodiversity, if you look at the ungulates of North America thread you will clearly see we actually have a lot of good ungulate representation. The problem is only a few zoos hold all of the diversity, which isn't entirely their fault. I mean look, Where do the Deer & Antelope Play?: A Look at America's Ungulate Populations when you start to head into the more exotic deer species you keep seeing repeating San Diego Zoo Safari Park, Bronx, and the Wilds. We have the species available but zoos continue to copy each other and so certain species become mainstreamed.
Click to expand...

We do - for now. A decade or so ago we had easily another 15-20 species of ungulate, now gone. And there are reasons for large holders: many of the big holders are safari parks, SDZSP, The Wilds, Northwest Trek, etc. They have the space to devote to them.
And deer are not a good example. Deer are very difficult to transport across state lines due to laws enacted because of diseases. Several species are basically doomed because transport laws have pinned important populations within a state. Barasingha is an example of this.

Zoos are copying each other because some species have enough population to maintain them longterm. Many species of hoofstock are barely viable anymore, holding on via a few dedicated facilities. This includes species like Gaur, African Buffalo, many deer, and more. We can either hold some species and maintain them, or try to hold everything and loose them.
 
Great Argus said:
We do - for now. A decade or so ago we had easily another 15-20 species of ungulate, now gone. And there are reasons for large holders: many of the big holders are safari parks, SDZSP, The Wilds, Northwest Trek, etc. They have the space to devote to them.
And deer are not a good example. Deer are very difficult to transport across state lines due to laws enacted because of diseases. Several species are basically doomed because transport laws have pinned important populations within a state. Barasingha is an example of this.

Zoos are copying each other because some species have enough population to maintain them longterm. Many species of hoofstock are barely viable anymore, holding on via a few dedicated facilities. This includes species like Gaur, African Buffalo, many deer, and more. We can either hold some species and maintain them, or try to hold everything and loose them.
Click to expand...
I know they have space for large amounts of species but that isn't stopping institutions in those states with less space from having a few of those species. California and Ohio are two of the best states for zoos so what is the excuse there? And we have no space in the AZA for any exotic deer species?
Also, it isn't impossible to have many small populations instead of a few large ones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top