Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

Toledo is a top 5 American zoo. I know a lot of ZooChatters don't like Toledo because quite a bit of the zoo feels boring. The outdoor exhibits such as Africa!, Primate Forest, Tembo Trail, and Tiger Terrace are some of the most generic zoo exhibits I've ever seen - just a run of the mill collection of species in run of the mill exhibits. However, the indoor sections of the zoo are among the greatest zoo exhibits I have ever seen and more than make up for the rest of the zoo being boring. The Reptile House, Aquarium and Aviary are all well-presented and packed to the brim with rarities. The massive ProMedica Museum of Natural History is the highlight of the zoo. This is a combination insectarium/reptile house/botanical garden/natural history museum, and it takes over 2 hours just to see the live animal exhibits. Other than the outdoor gorilla exhibit there's nothing bad at Toledo, and while parts of the zoo can a tad boring it's made up for by other parts being some of the best zoo exhibits I've ever seen. Combine that with Toledo's incredible list of rarities and you have one of the best zoos in America and the world.
 
birdsandbats said:
Toledo is a top 5 American zoo. I know a lot of ZooChatters don't like Toledo because quite a bit of the zoo feels boring. The outdoor exhibits such as Africa!, Primate Forest, Tembo Trail, and Tiger Terrace are some of the most generic zoo exhibits I've ever seen - just a run of the mill collection of species in run of the mill exhibits. However, the indoor sections of the zoo are among the greatest zoo exhibits I have ever seen and more than make up for the rest of the zoo being boring. The Reptile House, Aquarium and Aviary are all well-presented and packed to the brim with rarities. The massive ProMedica Museum of Natural History is the highlight of the zoo. This is a combination insectarium/reptile house/botanical garden/natural history museum, and it takes over 2 hours just to see the live animal exhibits. Other than the outdoor gorilla exhibit there's nothing bad at Toledo, and while parts of the zoo can a tad boring it's made up for by other parts being some of the best zoo exhibits I've ever seen. Combine that with Toledo's incredible list of rarities and you have one of the best zoos in America and the world.
Click to expand...
I've never been to Toledo, but it does seem like an incredible zoo! I wouldn't necessarily say it's a top five, but easily within the country's top twenty.
 
I forgot if I already said this but here goes.

I know that this is more of an art thing, but seeing how it is shared and like amongst zoo and zookeepers I feel like I have to say it.

I don’t like Peppermint Narwhal. Idk if it’s the pedantic feeling I get from some of their posts, or if it’s how some posts have the smiling animals, or the fact that I just see it frequently posted by zoo fans and animal lovers. I just don’t like peppermint narwhal.
 
I consider a lot of geographic exhibits to be kind of pointless. A zoo will lump South African penguins, West African crocodiles, and North African antelope in side by side enclosures and call it "Africa," even if the animals don't live within thousands of miles of each other in the wild. If a zoo is going to do a geographic area, they should do an actual, specific area - the Chihuahua Desert, the Ituri Forest, Sulawesi, the Himalayas.

Besides, geographic exhibits can be threat to sustainability of populations. I've seen plenty of cases of studbook keepers and SSP managers unable to grow their populations because zoos won't take them because they don't fit into common geographic exhibit areas.
 
Aardwolf said:
I consider a lot of geographic exhibits to be kind of pointless. A zoo will lump South African penguins, West African crocodiles, and North African antelope in side by side enclosures and call it "Africa," even if the animals don't live within thousands of miles of each other in the wild. If a zoo is going to do a geographic area, they should do an actual, specific area - the Chihuahua Desert, the Ituri Forest, Sulawesi, the Himalayas.

Besides, geographic exhibits can be threat to sustainability of populations. I've seen plenty of cases of studbook keepers and SSP managers unable to grow their populations because zoos won't take them because they don't fit into common geographic exhibit areas.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I prefer geographic exhibits (and I agree they are better when they represent a particular ecosystem rather than just "Africa" or something). I think it's more interesting to lump species together that occur together in the wild instead of just "oh, here's a bunch of random hoofstock".
 
birdsandbats said:
On the contrary, I prefer geographic exhibits (and I agree they are better when they represent a particular ecosystem rather than just "Africa" or something). I think it's more interesting to lump species together that occur together in the wild instead of just "oh, here's a bunch of random hoofstock".
Click to expand...
Now, I respect a very well-made geographic exhibit, and I certainly think that there is a place for them. I just feel like everyone does the same few generic "geographic" exhibits which, in some cases, ARE those random bunch of animals that you refer to.

Folks on this forum spend a lot of time commenting on all of the species that they used to see, or read about in old records and wish that they could still see, and I feel like the geographic exhibits are part of the reason for that decline in zoo diversity. Maybe is there was more diversity in geographic exhibits it would be different.
 
Aardwolf said:
Besides, geographic exhibits can be threat to sustainability of populations. I've seen plenty of cases of studbook keepers and SSP managers unable to grow their populations because zoos won't take them because they don't fit into common geographic exhibit areas.
Click to expand...
That sounds interesting. Do you have any specific examples, or is that just classified information?
 
Here's an old example for you - over 15 years old, so even if it was confidential, no one probably cares anymore. The Cuban Crocodile SSP was looking for holders so that they could grow their population. I love Cuban crocs - critically endangered species, great exhibit animal, cool conservation story. Well, Dallas Zoo at that time had just opened a big, beautiful new croc exhibit that they needed to fill - but it was in the Wilds of Africa, and so they were limited, and neither dwarf croc nor slender-snout was considered flashy enough for it. So, they imported Nile crocs from a crocodile farm in South Africa.
 
Aardwolf said:
I consider a lot of geographic exhibits to be kind of pointless. A zoo will lump South African penguins, West African crocodiles, and North African antelope in side by side enclosures and call it "Africa," even if the animals don't live within thousands of miles of each other in the wild. If a zoo is going to do a geographic area, they should do an actual, specific area - the Chihuahua Desert, the Ituri Forest, Sulawesi, the Himalayas.

Besides, geographic exhibits can be threat to sustainability of populations. I've seen plenty of cases of studbook keepers and SSP managers unable to grow their populations because zoos won't take them because they don't fit into common geographic exhibit areas.
Click to expand...

You said it much better than I could. Geographic exhibits are becoming so overused in recent zoo developments, and as you said, some of them aren't even all that great. Some are amazing, and if executed well, you can get fantastic results! But, sadly this isn't always the case.
 
Hot take, I dont really get Predator and Prey exhibits, like I know its authentic to the wild but wouldn't it just scare the prey and tease the predators on food they can't have. Just put them in two separate exhibits and it can still be authentic.
 
RedRiverHogman said:
Hot take, I dont really get Predator and Prey exhibits, like I know its authentic to the wild but wouldn't it just scare the prey and tease the predators on food they can't have. Just put them in two separate exhibits and it can still be authentic.
Click to expand...
This is going to shock you but that’s the point. It’s an enriching experience for the animals. First of all if predators are fed properly they really don’t care and most prey animals are smart enough to know they can’t be hurt. But both animals seeing eachother which is an enriching experience to have other species around.
 
RedRiverHogman said:
Hot take, I dont really get Predator and Prey exhibits, like I know its authentic to the wild but wouldn't it just scare the prey and tease the predators on food they can't have. Just put them in two separate exhibits and it can still be authentic.
Click to expand...
I had wondered this as well but the animals don't seem distressed by it.
 
Westcoastperson said:
This is going to shock you but that’s the point. It’s an enriching experience for the animals. First of all if predators are fed properly they really don’t care and most prey animals are smart enough to know they can’t be hurt. But both animals seeing eachother which is an enriching experience to have other species around.
Click to expand...
Is it really enriching if both predator and prey (not counting new arrivals) just see the same animal on the same spot every day?
 
elefante said:
I had wondered this as well but the animals don't seem distressed by it.
Click to expand...
In fact, it might be good for breeding. San Diego Safari Park doesn't necessarily have a "predator and prey" set up but a keeper told me that one of the main reasons the zoo has such great breeding numbers for ungulates is because the smell of the tigers and lions on the opposite side of the park gives the animals the impression they need to breed since predators are a foot.
 
MonkeyBat said:
In fact, it might be good for breeding. San Diego Safari Park doesn't necessarily have a "predator and prey" set up but a keeper told me that one of the main reasons the zoo has such great breeding numbers for ungulates is because the smell of the tigers and lions on the opposite side of the park gives the animals the impression they need to breed since predators are a foot.
Click to expand...
Back when I did a tour through the Asian Savannah habitats at the Safari Park, my guide said the exact same thing. It's a very underrated benefit of having predator and prey style habitats.
 
PossumRoach said:
Is it really enriching if both predator and prey (not counting new arrivals) just see the same animal on the same spot every day?
Click to expand...
First of all routines and constants are very mentally stimulating for animals, anyone who has ever dealt with dementia patients knows that so if it was as mundane as you described it wouldn’t be all that bad. Second of all yes it is still interesting. As the others said it’s not just about seeing, smelling and even heating can be enriching.
MonkeyBat said:
In fact, it might be good for breeding. San Diego Safari Park doesn't necessarily have a "predator and prey" set up but a keeper told me that one of the main reasons the zoo has such great breeding numbers for ungulates is because the smell of the tigers and lions on the opposite side of the park gives the animals the impression they need to breed since predators are a foot.
Click to expand...
pachyderm pro said:
Back when I did a tour through the Asian Savannah habitats at the Safari Park, my guide said the exact same thing. It's a very underrated benefit of having predator and prey style habitats.
Click to expand...
Precisely, San Diego Zoo Safari Park keeps its Predators nearby (although both used to be closer) to their savanna exhibits. Both have distinct smells for the animals and the Lions roars can be heard from all across the park. Not only that but they are viewable from some exhibits. They create an extremely stimulating environment for animals in a safe way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top