San Diego Zoo San Diego Zoo news 2022

[geomorph]

Did the Basecamp budget include the renovation of the adjoining and existing Otto Center building?

 

[Elena]

I stand by what I said. Just because they are ambassador animals, doesn't mean they should have enclosures without any privacy. The exhibit depicted is entirely unsuitable for Ocelots, one of the shyer felids, given it has essentially not a single hiding place from public view; while if a tamandua were to be displayed there, the exhibit has not a single climbing opportunity. Even the boxes presumably to give the animal respite from public view are both oriented in such a way that visitors can still see the animal! I don't care whether a habitat is pretty or not, but when an animal's basic needs aren't met it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about the rest of the basecamp.

For what it's worth, at least when I visited the new area briefly yesterday, Diego the ocelot had access to his indoor holding area away from public view.

 

[betsy]

For what it's worth, at least when I visited the new area briefly yesterday, Diego the ocelot had access to his indoor holding area away from public view.

@amur leopard, I hope you are not basing your opinion of the ambassador's exhibits based on the horrible photo I posted. That was a side shot of all three exhibits. It was so crowded that I was unable to get I better shot. I will try to do better next time. Something that photos can't invoke is the feeling and energy you get when you are there. It is something you just have to experience.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I see your point, but I never said the exhibits were similar. I was comparing them to try and ascertain exactly what is causing the massive gulf in cost, trying to eliminate factors from the conversation such as high construction costs, changes in infrastructure, population size and heavy theming, given that London is arguably the more extreme example in all four of these categories. I was in no way saying the exhibits were similar in terms of species.

As for the species list, there are admittedly a select few nice species, particularly in the hummingbird aviary (incidentally the part of the development that I referenced as interesting, at least to me).

In part my point was that comparing them to try and ascertain the massive difference in cost is a little futile when they were built with completely different results in mind. Land of the Lions has fewer animal habitats and, from memory of the area the old children's zoo occupied, is smaller both in square footage and in scale/scope. A press release on basecamp says it is 3.2 acres in size (this being the newly opened area only, this does not include the area occupied by the hummingbird aviary and Komodo Dragons), meanwhile London's webpage on LOTL says it only covers 0.62 acres, including walkways, keeper access areas, and animal spaces. I know in your post, you estimated a far larger size for LOTL, so perhaps London's page is only referencing the actual Lion portion of it. Even still, going by your max estimate, LOTL is still under 2 acres in size, significantly smaller than basecamp. The same press release for basecamp says the exhibit features "10 buildings and habitats dispersed throughout four different habitat zones". That's a lot of new buildings, at least some of which are multi-storied, regardless of their size. That's also four different zones that will need different theming and horticulture.

I also feel we are overlooking to cost of the playgrounds and water features (something @Westcoastperson pointed out). These aren't going to be include animals and haven't been shown in thread but still factor greatly into the budget of this exhibit. We also don't know how much off-exhibit holding space there is here.

What I cannot comment on is how much demolition prior to the construction of Land of Lions had to have taken place, but I can say that quite a lot (more than probably any of us know) had to be demolished to make way for the basecamp. But as @Great Argus has said, I think the biggest issue is inflation.

My point with the species list is that this exhibit wasn't designed with the intention of showing off extremely rare species, it was designed as a children's playscape as well as an introduction into different ecosystems and biodiversity. A lot of species are going to be more basic because they're species popular with children and a fair number of the animals here are ambassadors. Ambassador animals aren't likely to be particularly rare animals. That said, both the reptile house and invertebrate house have a pretty choice line-up.

I stand by what I said. Just because they are ambassador animals, doesn't mean they should have enclosures without any privacy. The exhibit depicted is entirely unsuitable for Ocelots, one of the shyer felids, given it has essentially not a single hiding place from public view; while if a tamandua were to be displayed there, the exhibit has not a single climbing opportunity. Even the boxes presumably to give the animal respite from public view are both oriented in such a way that visitors can still see the animal! I don't care whether a habitat is pretty or not, but when an animal's basic needs aren't met it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about the rest of the basecamp.

For one, the photo shown doesn't indicate whether it's for an Ocelot or a tamandua or for any particular species. There are multiple habitats. I agree that from the one self-proclaimed poor photo we have here that they are far from great and leave quite a bit to be desired but they aren't bad. The enclosure shown very clearly has climbing ropes, so it does have climbing opportunities. Again, I agree it's far from what I would expect a tamandua or other (semi)arboreal species to be given, but it's entirely incorrect to say "the exhibit has not a single climbing opportunity".

And thanks for pointing out the porcupine statue , not sure what they were thinking there but that thing result in far more nightmares than wildlife education.

I suppose this is what you get when you hire a Disney guy as the new head of your organization...

I might be being a bit tough on the zoo, but I think this is also in part a disservice to zoos across the US and worldwide. First off, it and Columbus's monstrosity create a precedent of spending outlandish sums of money on exhibits instead of working more with what they have and trying to tweak and renovate it in a way that won't set them back a tenth of a billion dollars. If Schoenbrunn can do it with 200+ year old buildings, I'm sure American zoos can.

I would like to point out that this is what Bronx has been doing for almost a decade now, and they have received nothing but almost universal disapproval for it on this forum but American and European ZooChatters alike.

Secondly it just adds fuel to the anti-zoo sentiment's fire. From their perspective, they see a high profile zoo spending $88 million on an exhibit housing animals almost entirely of no conservation interest and that is something that they might, and probably will, pounce on.

It's not only this particular exhibit on its own that worries me but also the repercussions it could have or the narrative it could create. I understand why the spending of such a sum could well be a good investment but it does frustrate me on a number of levels.

My skeptical self immediately saw the hefty price tag as a way of bringing in visitors, and while obviously quite an ironic point of view, I'm inclined to believe that the main reason the project cost so much was in order to flaunt the price tag across the news rather than because it actually warranted such a fee. And that in turn makes me wonder how that superfluous money injected into the project could be otherwise spent on other areas of the zoo (Urban Jungle, the Bear Grottos etc.) or beyond the confines of the zoo for conservation. Having visited predominantly European zoos, it is now painfully obvious to me how far removed American zoos are (with SDZ as an extreme example) from the purpose of zoos over here (which have generally stuck to the underlying ethos of a modern zoo with a few exceptions). And if that is the direction in which zoos are headed, I'm not optimistic.

I'm going to respond to both the last portion of your response to me and end portion of one of your initial posts together, as I actually missed some of what you said when I first read through everything.

No disrespect meant, but I think you are being incredibly harsh and unfair to both San Diego individually and to American zoos as a whole.

Now anyone who knows me or is familiar with my posts knows that I am one of this forum's biggest San Diego critics. I have an entire (killed) thread dedicated to how overrated I found the zoo to be in 2018. I also prefer the styles of exhibitry I've seen in European zoos over what many of the major players in the US have to offer. I agree that US zoos tend to go a little over-the-top with theming and San Diego in particular loves their mock rock a little too much, something which will (arguably) unnecessarily drive price tags up. This is not limited to American zoos, however, as it exists plenty in European zoos as well (Beauval, Hannover, Burgers, Pairi Daiza, Colchester, London's Land of the Lions).

I agree with you that these excessive budgets often lead to underperforming exhibits and leave too much to be spend on aspects unrelated to the animals. What I take offense to is your blanket statements declaring Europeans zoos somehow superior to American zoos just because, on average, they are different. To be clear, there is no "European style", the UK or "deer fence" average style of zoo exhibitry is very different from the typical style one encounters in Germany (which I feel is often just made synonymous with the two Berlins), which itself is different from what can be expected from many Spanish zoos. What I believe you are referring to is excessive theming, or style over substance. Theming is something that's viewed as the American style, and I would agree with that by and large. There are zoos here that famously overdo, some San Diego is one of those zoo, but as I've already pointed out this is not an issue unique to American zoos nor is it something most zoos in the US suffer from to the degree you're stating.

San Diego did not purposefully overinflate their own budget to flaunt their ego/reputation/whatever. That would be an insane thing for a non-profit organization like a zoo to do and it doesn't make any sense. To the average American, $80million isn't going to imply anything more significant than, say, $40million. It's more money than most can fathom either way, and the higher price tag is undoubtedly something zoo officials there are not very thrilled about. San Diego did not overspend for the sake of publicity, but they did possibly overspend on publicity. The zoo has always marketed themselves far and wide so everyone will see them as THE zoo. I don't expect the opening of a new exhibit will be any different. This spending, superfluous or not, goes towards a purpose nonetheless and wouldn't be included in the exhibit's budget.

As others have mentioned, the old children's zoo needed replacing. It was old and parts of it were just bad. The other exhibits at the zoo you mentioned are also bad and need to be addressed, but the zoo choosing to handle this area first in no way means they care more about their image than their animals. I'm not sure what grand ethos you think European zoos are living by that American zoos aren't, but it certainly isn't conservation initiatives. San Diego gives more money to conservation projects than most, American, European, or otherwise. They also have renowned breeding success for many endangered species and help sustain a lot of programs AZA or otherwise. Now there is a lot to say about the new management at San Diego and a lot to be concerned over in terms of their new direction, but to place that on an exhibit well in the works before those people came to the organization and to extrapolate that to claim American zoos care any less than European zoos about animals is absurd. Simultaneously, to suggest that American zoo leadership is suffering from a lack of collection-oriented minds anymore than many of Europe's major zoos is also a mistake.

Columbus produced what looks like a crap ambassador's exhibit, yes, but they also produced a world-class sea lion habitat at the same time. Everyone wants to forget that.

Finally,
"high profile zoo spending $88 million on an exhibit housing animals almost entirely of no conservation interest"

Again, I cannot reiterate this enough, this is a children's zoo. If you are trying to find the same degree of "higher" biodiversity and conservation breeding here as is present at Berlin's new carnivore house/nocturnal house or in Houston's Pantanal, it is no wonder you have been left extremely disappointed. I challenge you to show me the European zoos with children's zoos dedicating space to the diversity of invertebrates, to giant salamanders, to Komodo Dragons, or to hummingbirds and tanagers.

~Thylo

 

[pachyderm pro]

In part my point was that comparing them to try and ascertain the massive difference in cost is a little futile when they were built with completely different results in mind. Land of the Lions has fewer animal habitats and, from memory of the area the old children's zoo occupied, is smaller both in square footage and in scale/scope. A press release on basecamp says it is 3.2 acres in size (this being the newly opened area only, this does not include the area occupied by the hummingbird aviary and Komodo Dragons), meanwhile London's webpage on LOTL says it only covers 0.62 acres, including both walkways, keeper access areas, and animal spaces. I know in your post, you estimated a far larger size for LOTL, so perhaps London's page is only referencing the actual Lion portion of it. Even still, going by your max estimate, LOTL is still under 2 acres in size, significantly smaller than basecamp. The same press release for basecamp says the exhibit features "10 buildings and habitats dispersed throughout four different habitat zones". That's a lot of new buildings, at least some of which are multi-storied, regardless of their size. That's also four different zones that will need different theming and horticulture.

I also feel we are overlooking to cost of the playgrounds and water features (something @Westcoastperson pointed out). These aren't going to be include animals and haven't been shown in thread but still factor greatly into the budget of this exhibit. We also don't know how much off-exhibit holding space there is here.

What I cannot comment on is how much demolition prior to the construction of Land of Lions had to have taken place, but I can say that quite a lot (more than probably any of us know) had to be demolished to make way for the basecamp. But as @Great Argus has said, I think the biggest issue is inflation.

My point with the species list is that this exhibit wasn't designed with the intention of showing off extremely rare species, it was designed as a children's playscape as well as an introduction into different ecosystems and biodiversity. A lot of species are going to be more basic because they're species popular with children and a fair number of the animals here are ambassadors. Ambassador animals aren't likely to be particularly rare animals. That said, both the reptile house and invertebrate house have a pretty choice line-up.



For one, the photo shown doesn't indicate whether it's for an Ocelot or a tamandua or for any particular species. There are multiple habitats. I agree that from the one self-proclaimed poor photo we have here that they are far from great and leave quite a bit to be desired but they aren't bad. The enclosure shown very clearly has climbing ropes, so it does have climbing opportunities. Again, I agree it's far from what I would expect a tamandua or other (semi)arboreal species to be given, but it's entirely incorrect to say "the exhibit has not a single climbing opportunity".



I suppose this is what you get when you hire a Disney guy as the new head of your organization...



I would like to point out that this is what Bronx has been doing for almost a decade now, and they have received nothing but almost universal disapproval for it on this forum but American and European ZooChatters alike.




I'm going to respond to both the last portion of your response to me and end portion of one of your initial posts together, as I actually missed some of what you said when I first read through everything.

No disrespect meant, but I think you are being incredibly harsh and unfair to both San Diego individually and to American zoos as a whole.

Now anyone who knows me or is familiar with my posts knows that I am one of this forum's biggest San Diego critics. I have an entire (killed) thread dedicated to how overrated I found the zoo to be in 2018. I also prefer the styles of exhibitry I've seen in European zoos over what many of the major players in the US have to offer. I agree that US zoos tend to go a little over-the-top with theming and San Diego in particular loves their mock rock a little too much, something which will (arguably) unnecessarily drive price tags up. This is not limited to American zoos, however, as it exists plenty in European zoos as well (Beauval, Hannover, Burgers, Pairi Daiza, Colchester, London's Land of the Lions).

I agree with you that these excessive budgets often lead to underperforming exhibits and leave too much to be spend on aspects unrelated to the animals. What I take offense to is your blanket statements declaring Europeans zoos somehow superior to American zoos just because, on average, they are different. To be clear, there is no "European style", the UK or "deer fence" average style of zoo exhibitry is very different from the typical style one encounters in Germany (which I feel is often just made synonymous with the two Berlins), which itself is different from what can be expected from many Spanish zoos. What I believe you are referring to is excessive theming, or style over substance. Theming is something that's viewed as the American style, and I would agree with that by and large. There are zoos here that famously overdo, some San Diego is one of those zoo, but as I've already pointed out this is not an issue unique to American zoos nor is it something most zoos in the US suffer from to the degree you're stating.

San Diego did not purposefully overinflate their own budget to flaunt their ego/reputation/whatever. That would be an insane thing for a non-profit organization like a zoo to do and it doesn't make any sense. To the average American, $80million isn't going to imply anything more significant than, say, $40million. It's more money than most can fathom either way, and the higher price tag is undoubtedly something zoo officials there are not very thrilled about. San Diego did not overspend for the sake of publicity, but they did possibly overspend on publicity. The zoo has always marketed themselves far and wide so everyone will see them as THE zoo. I don't expect the opening of a new exhibit will be any different. This spending, superfluous or not, goes towards a purpose nonetheless and wouldn't be included in the exhibit's budget.

As others have mentioned, the old children's zoo needed replacing. It was old and parts of it were just bad. The other exhibits at the zoo you mentioned are also bad and need to be addressed, but the zoo choosing to handle this area first in no way means they care more about their image than their animals. I'm not sure what grand ethos you think European zoos are living by that American zoos aren't, but it certainly isn't conservation initiatives. San Diego gives more money to conservation projects than most, American, European, or otherwise. They also have renowned breeding success for many endangered species and help sustain a lot of programs AZA or otherwise. Now there is a lot to say about the new management at San Diego and a lot to be concerned over in terms of their new direction, but to place that on an exhibit well in the works before those people came to the organization and to extrapolate that to claim American zoos care any less than European zoos about animals is absurd. Simultaneously, to suggest that American zoo leadership is suffering from a lack of collection-oriented minds anymore than many of Europe's major zoos is also a mistake.

Columbus produced what looks like a crap ambassador's exhibit, yes, but they also produced a world-class sea lion habitat at the same time. Everyone wants to forget that.

Finally,
"high profile zoo spending $88 million on an exhibit housing animals almost entirely of no conservation interest"

Again, I cannot reiterate this enough, this is a children's zoo. If you are trying to find the same degree of "higher" biodiversity and conservation breeding here as is present at Berlin's new carnivore house/nocturnal house or in Houston's Pantanal, it is no wonder you have been left extremely disappointed. I challenge you to show me the European zoos with children's zoos dedicating space to the diversity of invertebrates, to giant salamanders, to Komodo Dragons, or to hummingbirds and tanagers.

~Thylo

Fantastic reply! I wanted to say something similar, but struggled to put it into words. Agree with everything said here completely.

 

[amur leopard]

In part my point was that comparing them to try and ascertain the massive difference in cost is a little futile when they were built with completely different results in mind. Land of the Lions has fewer animal habitats and, from memory of the area the old children's zoo occupied, is smaller both in square footage and in scale/scope. A press release on basecamp says it is 3.2 acres in size (this being the newly opened area only, this does not include the area occupied by the hummingbird aviary and Komodo Dragons), meanwhile London's webpage on LOTL says it only covers 0.62 acres, including walkways, keeper access areas, and animal spaces. I know in your post, you estimated a far larger size for LOTL, so perhaps London's page is only referencing the actual Lion portion of it. Even still, going by your max estimate, LOTL is still under 2 acres in size, significantly smaller than basecamp. The same press release for basecamp says the exhibit features "10 buildings and habitats dispersed throughout four different habitat zones". That's a lot of new buildings, at least some of which are multi-storied, regardless of their size. That's also four different zones that will need different theming and horticulture.

I also feel we are overlooking to cost of the playgrounds and water features (something @Westcoastperson pointed out). These aren't going to be include animals and haven't been shown in thread but still factor greatly into the budget of this exhibit. We also don't know how much off-exhibit holding space there is here.

What I cannot comment on is how much demolition prior to the construction of Land of Lions had to have taken place, but I can say that quite a lot (more than probably any of us know) had to be demolished to make way for the basecamp. But as @Great Argus has said, I think the biggest issue is inflation.

My point with the species list is that this exhibit wasn't designed with the intention of showing off extremely rare species, it was designed as a children's playscape as well as an introduction into different ecosystems and biodiversity. A lot of species are going to be more basic because they're species popular with children and a fair number of the animals here are ambassadors. Ambassador animals aren't likely to be particularly rare animals. That said, both the reptile house and invertebrate house have a pretty choice line-up.



For one, the photo shown doesn't indicate whether it's for an Ocelot or a tamandua or for any particular species. There are multiple habitats. I agree that from the one self-proclaimed poor photo we have here that they are far from great and leave quite a bit to be desired but they aren't bad. The enclosure shown very clearly has climbing ropes, so it does have climbing opportunities. Again, I agree it's far from what I would expect a tamandua or other (semi)arboreal species to be given, but it's entirely incorrect to say "the exhibit has not a single climbing opportunity".



I suppose this is what you get when you hire a Disney guy as the new head of your organization...



I would like to point out that this is what Bronx has been doing for almost a decade now, and they have received nothing but almost universal disapproval for it on this forum but American and European ZooChatters alike.




I'm going to respond to both the last portion of your response to me and end portion of one of your initial posts together, as I actually missed some of what you said when I first read through everything.

No disrespect meant, but I think you are being incredibly harsh and unfair to both San Diego individually and to American zoos as a whole.

Now anyone who knows me or is familiar with my posts knows that I am one of this forum's biggest San Diego critics. I have an entire (killed) thread dedicated to how overrated I found the zoo to be in 2018. I also prefer the styles of exhibitry I've seen in European zoos over what many of the major players in the US have to offer. I agree that US zoos tend to go a little over-the-top with theming and San Diego in particular loves their mock rock a little too much, something which will (arguably) unnecessarily drive price tags up. This is not limited to American zoos, however, as it exists plenty in European zoos as well (Beauval, Hannover, Burgers, Pairi Daiza, Colchester, London's Land of the Lions).

I agree with you that these excessive budgets often lead to underperforming exhibits and leave too much to be spend on aspects unrelated to the animals. What I take offense to is your blanket statements declaring Europeans zoos somehow superior to American zoos just because, on average, they are different. To be clear, there is no "European style", the UK or "deer fence" average style of zoo exhibitry is very different from the typical style one encounters in Germany (which I feel is often just made synonymous with the two Berlins), which itself is different from what can be expected from many Spanish zoos. What I believe you are referring to is excessive theming, or style over substance. Theming is something that's viewed as the American style, and I would agree with that by and large. There are zoos here that famously overdo, some San Diego is one of those zoo, but as I've already pointed out this is not an issue unique to American zoos nor is it something most zoos in the US suffer from to the degree you're stating.

San Diego did not purposefully overinflate their own budget to flaunt their ego/reputation/whatever. That would be an insane thing for a non-profit organization like a zoo to do and it doesn't make any sense. To the average American, $80million isn't going to imply anything more significant than, say, $40million. It's more money than most can fathom either way, and the higher price tag is undoubtedly something zoo officials there are not very thrilled about. San Diego did not overspend for the sake of publicity, but they did possibly overspend on publicity. The zoo has always marketed themselves far and wide so everyone will see them as THE zoo. I don't expect the opening of a new exhibit will be any different. This spending, superfluous or not, goes towards a purpose nonetheless and wouldn't be included in the exhibit's budget.

As others have mentioned, the old children's zoo needed replacing. It was old and parts of it were just bad. The other exhibits at the zoo you mentioned are also bad and need to be addressed, but the zoo choosing to handle this area first in no way means they care more about their image than their animals. I'm not sure what grand ethos you think European zoos are living by that American zoos aren't, but it certainly isn't conservation initiatives. San Diego gives more money to conservation projects than most, American, European, or otherwise. They also have renowned breeding success for many endangered species and help sustain a lot of programs AZA or otherwise. Now there is a lot to say about the new management at San Diego and a lot to be concerned over in terms of their new direction, but to place that on an exhibit well in the works before those people came to the organization and to extrapolate that to claim American zoos care any less than European zoos about animals is absurd. Simultaneously, to suggest that American zoo leadership is suffering from a lack of collection-oriented minds anymore than many of Europe's major zoos is also a mistake.

Columbus produced what looks like a crap ambassador's exhibit, yes, but they also produced a world-class sea lion habitat at the same time. Everyone wants to forget that.

Finally,
"high profile zoo spending $88 million on an exhibit housing animals almost entirely of no conservation interest"

Again, I cannot reiterate this enough, this is a children's zoo. If you are trying to find the same degree of "higher" biodiversity and conservation breeding here as is present at Berlin's new carnivore house/nocturnal house or in Houston's Pantanal, it is no wonder you have been left extremely disappointed. I challenge you to show me the European zoos with children's zoos dedicating space to the diversity of invertebrates, to giant salamanders, to Komodo Dragons, or to hummingbirds and tanagers.

~Thylo

Just to start off, I meant absolutely no offense towards American zoos or SDZ, and I'm sorry if my post implied I was. Rereading it, parts of what I said were definitely exaggerated and, in retrospect, not the right way to convey my thoughts. Secondly, I say everything I do in full knowledge that you are in a far better position to evaluate the relative values of American and European zoos, and so I will try and factor that into my replies in the future, I realise that my posts may have come off as disrespectful both in this thread and lintworm's thread and am truly sorry; I suspect it was the result of stress due to factors out of my control but apologise either way.

I understand that a number of factors that I haven't fully taken into account contributed to such a high cost, and that what I said was rash. The comparison to Land of the Lions was clumsy and misshapen in retrospect, and what I said about it was, at its core, self-contradictory. To answer your question, there wasn't too much demolition required prior to Land of the Lions as the existing water features remained intact and only really a single building needing to be knocked down if I remember correctly. Saying the ambassador animal exhibits were poor was an exaggeration and I shouldn't have said what I did about climbing opportunities.

Finally I can only apologize about the blanket statements I made about US zoos, particularly given I've never visited one in person and as such I have very little experience to go off of. Some of what I said was misleading and offensive and for that I am sorry. I actually appreciate the variability in templates between continents and certainly don't think one is superior over the other. As for the comments on possible issues with anti-zoo people, I still think that this could be an issue as these people don't tend to try and delve into what is actually happening, instead preferring to bloat what they see on the surface to fit their narrative. Hopefully that is clearer and encapsulates my thoughts better than my previous posts, which I am sorry for - it will never happen again.

 

[Coelacanth18]

Hopefully that is clearer and encapsulates my thoughts better than my previous posts, which I am sorry for - it will never happen again.

Never? Don't let us hold you to that

We've all made posts that seemed sensible at the time but in retrospect were more exaggerated or critical than we meant. I'm glad you've been open to reevaluating your initial thoughts and comments, but I wouldn't beat yourself up over it. Good discussions come out of disagreements... even when one or more people get a bit too zealous

Surely not construction costs, as I've just shown that London Zoo (not exactly the most financially astute zoo in the world) can do it for a tiny fraction of the price despite construction costs being higher on average.

If Schoenbrunn can do it with 200+ year old buildings, I'm sure American zoos can.

For the most part I think a significant amount of the final price tag is nothing more than inflated prices.

I also wonder how much the current inflation affected the price tag; construction is usually hit hard when prices rise, as fuel and building materials can increase in cost rapidly. It's also worth noting that, for reasons that are numerous and complicated, the US has unusually high construction costs compared to other countries - and that higher cost is exacerbated in both urban areas generally and California specifically. It's a lot of why infrastructure projects regularly run well over budget here.

Secondly it just adds fuel to the anti-zoo sentiment's fire. From their perspective, they see a high profile zoo spending $88 million on an exhibit housing animals almost entirely of no conservation interest and that is something that they might, and probably will, pounce on.

As for the comments on possible issues with anti-zoo people, I still think that this could be an issue as these people don't tend to try and delve into what is actually happening, instead preferring to bloat what they see on the surface to fit their narrative.

I don't buy that, as I usually don't with people's ideas about how zoos should adapt their behavior to avoid criticism from anti-zoo activists. The price tag could have been $1 million instead of $88 million and the same argument would be made, and believed or not believed by the same groups of people. If zoos are going to cut down on their new exhibit costs, I'd rather they do it because they're overdesigned and can be done cheaper rather than doing it to shield themselves from inevitable criticism.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Just to start off, I meant absolutely no offense towards American zoos or SDZ, and I'm sorry if my post implied I was. Rereading it, parts of what I said were definitely exaggerated and, in retrospect, not the right way to convey my thoughts. Secondly, I say everything I do in full knowledge that you are in a far better position to evaluate the relative values of American and European zoos, and so I will try and factor that into my replies in the future, I realise that my posts may have come off as disrespectful both in this thread and lintworm's thread and am truly sorry; I suspect it was the result of stress due to factors out of my control but apologise either way.

I understand that a number of factors that I haven't fully taken into account contributed to such a high cost, and that what I said was rash. The comparison to Land of the Lions was clumsy and misshapen in retrospect, and what I said about it was, at its core, self-contradictory. To answer your question, there wasn't too much demolition required prior to Land of the Lions as the existing water features remained intact and only really a single building needing to be knocked down if I remember correctly. Saying the ambassador animal exhibits were poor was an exaggeration and I shouldn't have said what I did about climbing opportunities.

Finally I can only apologize about the blanket statements I made about US zoos, particularly given I've never visited one in person and as such I have very little experience to go off of. Some of what I said was misleading and offensive and for that I am sorry. I actually appreciate the variability in templates between continents and certainly don't think one is superior over the other. As for the comments on possible issues with anti-zoo people, I still think that this could be an issue as these people don't tend to try and delve into what is actually happening, instead preferring to bloat what they see on the surface to fit their narrative. Hopefully that is clearer and encapsulates my thoughts better than my previous posts, which I am sorry for - it will never happen again.

There is no need to apologize. You expressed your thoughts, I and others expressed our own in response. While I do not agree with much of what you said, you are well within your right to post it if that's what you think. You are allowed to not like the ambassador habitats, from the one photo shown I don't think they're very good either. I just don't think they're bad, but if you do then you do and we can have a discussion about that.

While I do have a unique perspective of having been to many of America's and Europe's great zoos, I don't think that means my perspective is inherently better than anyone else's. You are allowed to comment on places you've never been to, it just means that maybe a bit more research into the topic of discussion and open-mindedness is required. I have never seen basecamp beyond the hummingbird aviary and Komodo Dragon habitats (and I quite possibly never will). I can comment on what I know and can see over the internet at least, however. It's a dangerous game to play at times, but I don't think zoos should only be discussed, critiqued, or praised by those fortunate enough to have visited them already.

~Thylo

 

[Julio C Castro]

Just to let everyone know, I was able to last minute make a change in my work schedule and visited the zoo today! I’m not as tired at the beginning but sure am now got here a bit later than usual but nonetheless got some shots of the new complex! Want to thank @betsy for offering to meet up but I didn’t want to potentially flake out due to work so my apologies

My first impressions of the Wildlife Explorers Habitat: Overall a great job well done! The highlights for me are the Spineless Marvels, Western Burrowing Owl/Black Tailed Prairie Dog habitat, and the high interactivity throughout the complex! I did enjoy most of it with a couple nitpicks/head scratchers for me but will report back this week with my final thoughts!

 

[Great Argus]

Just because they are ambassador animals, doesn't mean they should have enclosures without any privacy. The exhibit depicted is entirely unsuitable for Ocelots, one of the shyer felids, given it has essentially not a single hiding place from public view; while if a tamandua were to be displayed there, the exhibit has not a single climbing opportunity. Even the boxes presumably to give the animal respite from public view are both oriented in such a way that visitors can still see the animal!

@amur leopard, I hope you are not basing your opinion of the ambassador's exhibits based on the horrible photo I posted. That was a side shot of all three exhibits. It was so crowded that I was unable to get I better shot. I will try to do better next time. Something that photos can't invoke is the feeling and energy you get when you are there. It is something you just have to experience.

With the new photos uploaded by @Julio C Castro , I think the ambassador exhibits are fine. There climbing opportunities and hideaways, and once the plants fill in more it may be hard to see the animals. All three spaces are fairly well planted, just as with any new development the plants are tiny. Given a year or two they should start looking pretty nice. In the meantime it appears the animals are being allowed to retreat to bts housing, as I noted open shift doors. Particularly with remembering these are ambassador animals that will not be on exhibit the entire time, I see no reason to judge an exhibit's image by brand new plants fresh out of the pot.

 

[pachyderm pro]

The zoo posted a video of an African giant pouched rat during a presentation in the base camp on their Instagram. Any idea if this animal will be one that rotates the ambassador exhibits?

 

[betsy]

The zoo posted a video of an African giant pouched rat during a presentation in the base camp on their Instagram. Any idea if this animal will be one that rotates the ambassador exhibits?

I can ask.

 

[betsy]

The zoo posted a video of an African giant pouched rat during a presentation in the base camp on their Instagram. Any idea if this animal will be one that rotates the ambassador exhibits?

There are 3 African pouched rats that are animal ambassadors at the zoo but they will never be on exhibit. They will be available for viewing only during presentations.

 

[IndianRhino]

Visited the zoo for only around 2 hours yesterday so I missed a lot but have some interesting updates, nevertheless.

• Saw the Basecamp for the first time! The Spineless Marvels section was closed unfortunately but everything else looked pretty nice. Most of the herps were already present in other sections of the zoo like the Reptile House but noticeable additions include Dwarf Caiman, Chinese Giant Salamander, West African Lungfish, Yellow-spotted River Turtle, and Axolotl. The squirrel monkey habitat was a highlight because you are able to see them from multiple different angles including from above. Plus there was a very young and active infant! I'm also happy to report that the coatis are signed South American Coati and aren't signed "Mountain Coatimundi" like they were at the Safari Park
• You are able to look into an incubation room on the upper level of the Cool Critters Reptile House and there is a sign that tells you what species have hatched recently and are currently in the process of hatching. It's a very nice addition to the house! 7 Black Tree Monitors hatched between February 19th to 23rd, while 1 Northern Spider Tortoise, 1 Flat-tailed Spider Tortoise, 2 Fiji Iguanas, and 3 Black Tree Monitor eggs are all in the process of hatching.
• Signage for Blue-crowned Pigeon has been removed in the aviary they shared with the Superb Bird-of-Paradise and Wompoo Fruit Doves and they were nowhere to be seen.
• A pair of Grey-winged Trumpeters have been added to the sectioned-off aviary within Parker Aviary. It seems both the zoo and safari park have added this species to their collection recently.
• The Andean Cock-of-the-Rock in Parker Aviary were all gathered in a big group and were very vocal, it looked like they were displaying breeding behaviors.
• A second Golden Takin calf was born about a week ago to mom Bona and dad Zhao, this is their second calf together and their first male. He's the first male Golden Takin calf to be born in the Western Hemisphere!
• There was still a single Fennec Fox in the Urban Jungle habitat, I was thinking they would replace them with another species in that habitat since they just opened a much better exhibit for the foxes at the Basecamp.
• The habitat in between the binturong cage and the flamingo yard has been empty for quite some time now but it looked like they had added some enrichment items that weren't there during my last visit so hopefully they're preparing it for a new species.
• The American Flamingo pool was drained and the habitat was empty but the signage was still up so I'm assuming they were just doing some maintenance work in there.

 

[Julio C Castro]

Visited the zoo for only around 2 hours yesterday so I missed a lot but have some interesting updates, nevertheless.

• Saw the Basecamp for the first time! The Spineless Marvels section was closed unfortunately but everything else looked pretty nice. Most of the herps were already present in other sections of the zoo like the Reptile House but noticeable additions include Dwarf Caiman, Chinese Giant Salamander, West African Lungfish, Yellow-spotted River Turtle, and Axolotl. The squirrel monkey habitat was a highlight because you are able to see them from multiple different angles including from above. Plus there was a very young and active infant! I'm also happy to report that the coatis are signed South American Coati and aren't signed "Mountain Coatimundi" like they were at the Safari Park
• You are able to look into an incubation room on the upper level of the Cool Critters Reptile House and there is a sign that tells you what species have hatched recently and are currently in the process of hatching. It's a very nice addition to the house! 7 Black Tree Monitors hatched between February 19th to 23rd, while 1 Northern Spider Tortoise, 1 Flat-tailed Spider Tortoise, 2 Fiji Iguanas, and 3 Black Tree Monitor eggs are all in the process of hatching.
• Signage for Blue-crowned Pigeon has been removed in the aviary they shared with the Superb Bird-of-Paradise and Wompoo Fruit Doves and they were nowhere to be seen.
• A pair of Grey-winged Trumpeters have been added to the sectioned-off aviary within Parker Aviary. It seems both the zoo and safari park have added this species to their collection recently.
• The Andean Cock-of-the-Rock in Parker Aviary were all gathered in a big group and were very vocal, it looked like they were displaying breeding behaviors.
• A second Golden Takin calf was born about a week ago to mom Bona and dad Zhao, this is their second calf together and their first male. He's the first male Golden Takin calf to be born in the Western Hemisphere!
• There was still a single Fennec Fox in the Urban Jungle habitat, I was thinking they would replace them with another species in that habitat since they just opened a much better exhibit for the foxes at the Basecamp.
• The habitat in between the binturong cage and the flamingo yard has been empty for quite some time now but it looked like they had added some enrichment items that weren't there during my last visit so hopefully they're preparing it for a new species.
• The American Flamingo pool was drained and the habitat was empty but the signage was still up so I'm assuming they were just doing some maintenance work in there.

Did they make mention as to why Spineless Marvels was closed? That’s my favorite place at the Basecamp

 

[IndianRhino]

Did they make mention as to why Spineless Marvels was closed? That’s my favorite place at the Basecamp

There was a sign but I didn't take a picture and can't remember why, so sorry! I don't think it was anything permanent, it may have just had to do with me visiting so late in the day.

 

[Westcoastperson]

Visited the zoo for only around 2 hours yesterday so I missed a lot but have some interesting updates, nevertheless.

• Saw the Basecamp for the first time! The Spineless Marvels section was closed unfortunately but everything else looked pretty nice. Most of the herps were already present in other sections of the zoo like the Reptile House but noticeable additions include Dwarf Caiman, Chinese Giant Salamander, West African Lungfish, Yellow-spotted River Turtle, and Axolotl. The squirrel monkey habitat was a highlight because you are able to see them from multiple different angles including from above. Plus there was a very young and active infant! I'm also happy to report that the coatis are signed South American Coati and aren't signed "Mountain Coatimundi" like they were at the Safari Park
• You are able to look into an incubation room on the upper level of the Cool Critters Reptile House and there is a sign that tells you what species have hatched recently and are currently in the process of hatching. It's a very nice addition to the house! 7 Black Tree Monitors hatched between February 19th to 23rd, while 1 Northern Spider Tortoise, 1 Flat-tailed Spider Tortoise, 2 Fiji Iguanas, and 3 Black Tree Monitor eggs are all in the process of hatching.
• Signage for Blue-crowned Pigeon has been removed in the aviary they shared with the Superb Bird-of-Paradise and Wompoo Fruit Doves and they were nowhere to be seen.
• A pair of Grey-winged Trumpeters have been added to the sectioned-off aviary within Parker Aviary. It seems both the zoo and safari park have added this species to their collection recently.
• The Andean Cock-of-the-Rock in Parker Aviary were all gathered in a big group and were very vocal, it looked like they were displaying breeding behaviors.
• A second Golden Takin calf was born about a week ago to mom Bona and dad Zhao, this is their second calf together and their first male. He's the first male Golden Takin calf to be born in the Western Hemisphere!
• There was still a single Fennec Fox in the Urban Jungle habitat, I was thinking they would replace them with another species in that habitat since they just opened a much better exhibit for the foxes at the Basecamp.
• The habitat in between the binturong cage and the flamingo yard has been empty for quite some time now but it looked like they had added some enrichment items that weren't there during my last visit so hopefully they're preparing it for a new species.
• The American Flamingo pool was drained and the habitat was empty but the signage was still up so I'm assuming they were just doing some maintenance work in there.

What kind of enrichment was in the exhibit?

 

[Valentinoamor]

A second Golden Takin calf was born about a week ago to mom Bona and dad Zhao, this is their second calf together and their first male. He's the first male Golden Takin calf to be born in the Western Hemisphere!

Does anyone know why they did this? The AZA has so much success breeding Sichuan, I am not sure why they would breed Golden. Do they have any unrelated individuals they could breed the offspring to? Or would it have to be sent to Europe/Asia?

 

[Great Argus]

Do they have any unrelated individuals they could breed the offspring to?

Our entire Sichuan population is descended from three animals, iirc.

 

[Valentinoamor]

Our entire Sichuan population is descended from three animals, iirc.

In 2017 it said there were 4 founders, but as of 2022, they are up to 12 founders.