Zoo Essentials

Sphenisciologist

Sphenisciologist

Well-Known Member
I’m gonna stir up some heat possibly, but here it goes.

Are there any animals a zoo MUST have to be considered good?

For example, if a zoo didn’t have elephants, would it be considered bad?

If not bad, are there any species a zoo must have to be your favorite?
 
Many zoos in the UK seem to think you must have meerkats or short clawed otters in your collection (preferably both) and it seems we are sadly on track to realise this ambition by 2025. Zzzzz

Meerkats are popular with general public here due to an insurance company advert compare the market / compare the meerkat…

In a utopian world another company will cotton on to this success and do a similar advertising campaign that raises public interest in a less well represented animal and therefore increase zoo holdings. Perhaps;
“Captain Birdsaye-aye fish fingers”
“P p p p pick up an emporer penguin”
“Sainsbury’s live well for lesser mouse deer”
Etc

IMO there is no animal that should be in all zoos. Variety is the spice of life.
 
All four of New Zealand’s main zoos have the following:

At least two big cat species
At least two large ungulate species
At least one great ape species

Luxury items some (but not all) of New Zealand zoos have include:

A pinniped species (1/4)
A bear species (1/4)
A canid species (2/4)
Elephants (1/4)
Baboons (1/4)
Kiwi House (2/4)
Flamingos (1/4)
Giant Tortoises (1/4)
Architecture (2/4)

These are the zoo’s main attractions and from the general public’s view point, are what makes the zoo a zoo. Everything else (small mammals, low key birds, low key reptiles, farmyard animals) are generally perceived as filler species from the public’s viewpoint.

From a personal perspective, I’m content with the above, but I enjoy seeing unusual species I don’t usually get a chance to see or have never seen before. One of my favourite species is the Temminck’s golden cat - even though it’s of little interest to the public.
 
Galapagos Penguin said:
Are there any animals a zoo MUST have to be considered good?
Click to expand...
Yes - healthy, normally behaving animals whose needs are met as extensively as possible and who the zoo can efficiently take care of.
Galapagos Penguin said:
For example, if a zoo didn’t have elephants, would it be considered bad?
Click to expand...
No. Elephants are not a guarantee for quality.
Galapagos Penguin said:
If not bad, are there any species a zoo must have to be your favorite?
Click to expand...
Take another look at my first answer. And it's not just the animals. In many previous discussions, the complexity of evaluating a zoo has been debated over and over again. The quality of a (modern) zoo is not measured by the amount of popular species it keeps. Otherwise, many atrocious roadside zoos would be "good" zoos. The quality of care (and that alone includes hundreds of aspects), the quality of the staff (and the way they are treated, trained and paid), the efficiency of business management and finances, the quality of visitor services and amenities (nobody likes filthy restrooms), the participation in conservation, research, education, national & international networking, sustainability, animal welfare, community work, inclusion of minorities etc.,the general "embedment" of the zoo in its environmental and social neighborhood, its online visibility in the social media etc. etc. - there are many, many factors to account for. And there are of course the individual personal preferences of zoo nerds: some only like the typical ABC species of the charismatic megafauna and can recite their individual lineages and names in almost religious joy. Some prefer zoos with more "unusual" or rare species, while others are more interested in zoo history / architecture, behavioral enrichment, animal training, technologies, zoo landscape, dining options, entertainment features, ample cheap parking lots, connections to public transport (as quite a lot of zoo fans don't seem to have a driving license or a car), or just put emphasis on how easily they can take good pictures of animals.
All in all, the overall impression, how the zoo manages to fulfill all these requirements and your individual understanding and knowledge of all of this can contribute to you deciding whether it's a good zoo or not. I can go to a zoo that has none of the species I'm fond of and still enjoy my visit. Or I can go to one that has all my favourites and still disappoints.
While there are certain general things we can agree on, a lot is based on your individual criteria.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there needs to be any specific species in zoos, but I do believe it is important for zoos to have a diverse collection of animal species, including small and large mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. It's also essential that zoos have endangered species that they contribute to conservation for.
 
Skukuza said:
Many zoos in the UK seem to think you must have meerkats or short clawed otters in your collection (preferably both) and it seems we are sadly on track to realise this ambition by 2025. Zzzzz

Meerkats are popular with general public here due to an insurance company advert compare the market / compare the meerkat…

In a utopian world another company will cotton on to this success and do a similar advertising campaign that raises public interest in a less well represented animal and therefore increase zoo holdings. Perhaps;
“Captain Birdsaye-aye fish fingers”
“P p p p pick up an emporer penguin”
“Sainsbury’s live well for lesser mouse deer”
Etc

IMO there is no animal that should be in all zoos. Variety is the spice of life.
Click to expand...
I thought that the Meerkats have been popular because of Timon, the friend of Simba in the Lion King.
In France they were almost inexistent (and poorly known by the public) until the mid-90's.
 
Zoofan15 said:
All four of New Zealand’s main zoos have the following:

At least two big cat species
At least two large ungulate species
At least one great ape species

Luxury items some (but not all) of New Zealand zoos have include:

A pinniped species (1/4)
A bear species (1/4)
A canid species (2/4)
Elephants (1/4)
Baboons (1/4)
Kiwi House (2/4)
Flamingos (1/4)
Giant Tortoises (1/4)
Architecture (2/4)

These are the zoo’s main attractions and from the general public’s view point, are what makes the zoo a zoo. Everything else (small mammals, low key birds, low key reptiles, farmyard animals) are generally perceived as filler species from the public’s viewpoint.

From a personal perspective, I’m content with the above, but I enjoy seeing unusual species I don’t usually get a chance to see or have never seen before. One of my favourite species is the Temminck’s golden cat - even though it’s of little interest to the public.
Click to expand...
It's strange to see Flamingos as a "luxury" or rare species. In France they can be seen in nearly all the zoos even the smallest (I add that in most cases they are only Caribbean or Chilean Flamingos, the other species are indeed rarely displayed, including the native Greater Flamingo).
 
Not really. But if you really need me to choose an animal that is necessary to keep a zoo.alive, i'll say
primates. They're active and are attractive by crowds, but the cost of having some isnt too high either.
 
Haliaeetus said:
It's strange to see Flamingos as a "luxury" or rare species. In France they can be seen in nearly all the zoos even the smallest (I add that in most cases they are only Caribbean or Chilean Flamingos, the other species are indeed rarely displayed, including the native Greater Flamingo).
Click to expand...

Yeah in North America and Europe at least they're extremely common, pretty much any zoo with enough funds to keep them pink will have them. Really wierd to think Australia and NZ have almost none when I've seen several flocks over 100 strong here.

Which also brings up another point to this discussion; species common on one continent are not necessarily common on another. Thus it is hard to say a certain species is required. Even some very common species across most continents such as lions, tigers, and chimpanzees aren't kept by many smaller zoos, including good ones.
 
Haliaeetus said:
I thought that the Meerkats have been popular because of Timon, the friend of Simba in the Lion King.
In France they were almost inexistent (and poorly known by the public) until the mid-90's.
Click to expand...
Talking to the owner of a small park in the UK in 1996, they were saved because they had meerkats the summer Lion King came out (1994). Prior to that they were thinking about giving it away.
 
A Zoo doesn't necessarily need any particular species to be considered "good" or worth going to, sure there are things like big cats, elephants or great apes that are always a joy to see, but you can still have a good zoo experience without those things.
Here in the UK, from what I've seen the four most widespread zoo animals are meerkats, ring-tailed lemurs, red pandas and Asian small-clawed otters, with every single British zoo I've been to or looked up having at least three of those four species, if not all four. I'm guessing that's because A) they're all cute so draw in massive crowds, or B) they're relatively easy to care for.
 
Jambi said:
Here in the UK, from what I've seen the four most widespread zoo animals are meerkats, ring-tailed lemurs, red pandas and Asian small-clawed otters, with every single British zoo I've been to or looked up having at least three of those four species, if not all four. I'm guessing that's because A) they're all cute so draw in massive crowds, or B) they're relatively easy to care for.
Click to expand...
These species are all very common in the US as well, although North American river otters are more common instead of ASCOs. As for why, it's probably a combination of the two. Cute, small animals that are hard to care for (ex. Koala) aren't extremely common in zoos, while easy to care for but non-charismatic animals (ex. Jumping Spider) aren't common either.
 
I think it's pretty sad when normal "mixed" zoos barely have any birds. That is sadly the case here in Sweden nowadays.

So I would say that I kind of expect some different kinds of birds in zoos, unless it is a more specific zoo that almost only houses big cats or similar. Having an aviary or enclosure with birds is manageable even for smaller zoos.

A mixed zoo without or barely any birds gets a lower score from me, but I am also a birdlover ;)
 
Daniel Sörensen said:
I think it's pretty sad when normal "mixed" zoos barely have any birds. That is sadly the case here in Sweden nowadays.

So I would say that I kind of expect some different kinds of birds in zoos, unless it is a more specific zoo that almost only houses big cats or similar. Having an aviary or enclosure with birds is manageable even for smaller zoos.

A mixed zoo without or barely any birds gets a lower score from me, but I am also a birdlover ;)
Click to expand...
It could be a matter of climate in Sweden (need for heated aviaries to house most birds in winter.
French (but also German, Belgian...) zoos have much richer collections of birds.

For me, I feel troubled when I go in zoos without any cat species (even "good" ones like Branféré in Brittany, that have very interesting species of birds, ungulates and small primates, but not a single felid ; this zoo could deserve at least a pair of Ocelot or Fishing Cats).
 
Daniel Sörensen said:
I think it's pretty sad when normal "mixed" zoos barely have any birds. That is sadly the case here in Sweden nowadays.

So I would say that I kind of expect some different kinds of birds in zoos, unless it is a more specific zoo that almost only houses big cats or similar. Having an aviary or enclosure with birds is manageable even for smaller zoos.

A mixed zoo without or barely any birds gets a lower score from me, but I am also a birdlover ;)
Click to expand...
If a zoo doesn’t have birds, I simply won’t go :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top