But you haven’t backed your claim up all too well. You made the hot take so therefore I am asking what backs your opinion
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
Saying "it just is" isn't a reason in my book
Or if you're talking about you saying American exhibitry is odd, why don't you give us some examples and why you think so? This thread is for discussing opinions but people usually like to hear why someone disagrees with them. You can't just say something and not provide anything to back that up.
Kr0xxx
Member
Honestly, the display of aquatic fauna is needed in more zoos.
Kr0xxx
Member
But you haven’t backed your claim up all too well. You made the hot take so therefore I am asking what backs your opinion
Saying "it just is" isn't a reason in my book
Generally speaking Europe has a far better idea of exhibitory and animal welfare.
Last edited by a moderator:
Now I can agree to that, I would love to see more aquariums when possible at zoos
An actual hot take: rewilding should be a more common effort that zoos should take part in, which they certainly do for animals like California condor, western pond turtle, hellbender and even Przewalski's horses and Arabian oryx. Zoos should ramp up efforts to create contingency populations, with some animals for exhibitry and others for actually releasing into reputable game reserves like Thula Thula or the Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. THAT SAID, zoos should also amp up efforts to help said reserves protect said rewilded animals, and be as transparent as humanly possible as far as maximizing the animal's welfare. I do think there is a possibility in animals like gorillas, elephants and tigers being rewilded, BUT - there are issues like climate, diseases and other potential negative externalities (e.g. tsetse flies, poachers) that should be taken with great consideration. All this to sum up in a bonus ice-cold take, Damian Aspinall is a self-righteous spoiled brat who only sees animals as disposable toys that can just be dropped off at Goodwill.
Last edited:
While I'm here, native exhibits/smaller exhibits actually can be more engaging to visitors than big ticket animals alone. I like to think of it like a recipe in a cookbook, it can be a standard run-of-the mill ABC endeavor, but native exhibits or even small mammals/birds/reptiles can be the spices or MSG that amps up the dish to sheer greatness. Take something like a steak (let's say filet mignon), and let's allegorically connect it to some big ticket ABC animal like a gorilla. Standard and perfectly fine on its own. Now let's say some specific herbs, compound butter and spices (long-tailed hornbill for rosemary, African rock python for thyme, black-and-rufous sengi for fennel, talapoin for a compound butter, black duiker for black garlic >heh heh funey<, West African lungfish for chili powder, giant forest hog for lime zest, you can tell this is completely arbitrary but this is just to prove a point etc.), and you get the picture. Or even a native exhibit, just take something charismatic and big like American black bear and spice it up with a pollinator garden, American marten, red fox, ringtail, the world's a creative exhibit designer's oyster. Quite literally as far as out-of-the-blue exhibit concepts. Ramble over!
I disagree. African habitats are ogre-reated. Inevitable even.
I believe so much resources of zoo resources are funneled into big African habitats creating monogenous looks across the board. I believe more efforts should be made for creating a worldwide effort and push for importing Australian wildlife and creating big grandiose Australia sections - it is a crime that there are no Bilbies and Brush-Tailed Possums in the Unite States.
IIRC, isn't Australia itself the main limiting factor of animal exports from the country? Many countries may have incredible native fauna that is worthy of large buildings or habitats, but the countries they reside in have no interest in exporting them, or only doing so in an exploitive manner.
I will say, some newer African exhibits are at least trying to break the mold. San Diego's Africa Rocks is a pretty good example, along with Nashville's plans for a 40 ACRE African Safari. In the latter's case, even with the standard big hitters of giraffe, lion and hippo, there's still unique enough elements being proposed to distinguish it from other, more run-of-the-mill African savannas, like a leopard forest with monkeys, *klipspringer*, a wetlands with presumably sitatunga, A BOAT RIDE WHERE YOU CAN VIEW SAID HIPPOS AND OTHER AFRICAN WILDLIFE, etc. (Inb4 "Hannover did it first") Even with seemingly run-of-the-mill savannas, there's unique elements that distinguish them from one another, like Omaha's MASSIVE lion kopje, Dallas' elephant/giraffe/ostrich/hoofstock mix, Fresno's swinging giraffe bridge and Hagenbeckian vistas, etc. The reality about exhibit design is that a lot of elements have to make the zoo money in order to support their different programs, and they need space to rent out for events and fundraisers, along with elements to attract potential investors and philanthropists. Hence the standard "African lodges", the standard mixed-species savanna, the standard big pachyderm, the standard big carnivore, etc. I do appreciate the zoos that are actually taking unique concepts and are making them work, or adding a new twist to standard, marketable concepts. The general public and philanthropists/investors will accept the typical ruined Asian temple or the big African lodge, but the beauty of studying exhibit design as a hobby is appreciating the elements that make each seemingly standard exhibit different and unique. Not every zoo can get away with a River's Edge, a Galapagos Islands or a buffalo aviary, but the zoos that do are all the more appreciated by a lot of zoo nerds like myself. (This is fun, playing devil's advocate.)
Last edited:
Zoos don't do enough to exhibit grand botanical collections. Sure, many are "XYZ Zoo and Botanical Gardens", but what is their botanical collection really? How are they promoting conservation and propagating of endangered and threatened plant life?
For example, ZooTampa is a "Botanical Garden" as well, but they only have some signs here and there as to what the plants are. At one time they did (and maybe still do) a fair amount of on site plant propagation for the zoo, but it was fairly standard plants, nothing endangered. In the past they were participants to propagating some rare native Floridian plants, but I am pretty sure they are not doing that any longer.
For example, ZooTampa is a "Botanical Garden" as well, but they only have some signs here and there as to what the plants are. At one time they did (and maybe still do) a fair amount of on site plant propagation for the zoo, but it was fairly standard plants, nothing endangered. In the past they were participants to propagating some rare native Floridian plants, but I am pretty sure they are not doing that any longer.
Last edited:
I think this thread would be a lot more constructive if people would actually be willing to back up their own points/opinions if they are questioned on them instead of saying absolutely useless statements and deflecting the question. Having opinions is one thing, but you should actually be able to give sensical reasoning instead of holding some weird bias for no actually valid reason. 
Would also be nice to not be so rude to say people aren't worth speaking too if they haven't had the privilege of seeing a certain rare species! That's not an actual worthwhile opinion, that is just being pretentious.
Would also be nice to not be so rude to say people aren't worth speaking too if they haven't had the privilege of seeing a certain rare species! That's not an actual worthwhile opinion, that is just being pretentious.
You are more than welcome to inquire about someone's point kindly, asking them why they think the way they do in an approachable and kind way. As a ZooChat veteran, I would love to see this happen again instead of outright inflammatory remarks whenever someone posts something that they themselves do not agree with.I think this thread would be a lot more constructive if people would actually be willing to back up their own points/opinions if they are questioned on them instead of saying absolutely useless statements and deflecting the question. Having opinions is one thing, but you should actually be able to give sensical reasoning instead of holding some weird bias for no actually valid reason.
Would also be nice to not be so rude to say people aren't worth speaking too if they haven't had the privilege of seeing a certain rare species! That's not an actual worthwhile opinion, that is just being pretentious.
Forge
Well-Known Member
Yes and no... This is a Hot Take thread. Usually what that means across the internet is that you drop a take and then you leave it be. This type of thread invites useless arguments, and that's part of the fun of it. On the other hand, some of these takes are meant as jokes, and should be treated as such, not giving more attention to it than it's worth.I think this thread would be a lot more constructive if people would actually be willing to back up their own points/opinions if they are questioned on them instead of saying absolutely useless statements and deflecting the question. Having opinions is one thing, but you should actually be able to give sensical reasoning instead of holding some weird bias for no actually valid reason.
Would also be nice to not be so rude to say people aren't worth speaking too if they haven't had the privilege of seeing a certain rare species! That's not an actual worthwhile opinion, that is just being pretentious.
When someone makes a statement in the thread that is naturally pretentious and inflammatory like the douc comment and then continues to provide nothing of substance in their further arguments I think it's quite rich to suggest that I am being "outright inflammatory" or that you should sympathise and be kind when someone has already been causing trouble upthread
I think you will find most users here would much prefer this thread be used for discussion based on controversial opinions rather than opinions to cause "useless arguments" and jokes. There is places for jokes, including this thread... if your post is clearly a joke relating to something previously stated instead of dropping a random "hot take" as a joke. To do otherwise would quite frankly be childish. If you don't want attention, why bother posting an opinion on a public forum? It would be much more beneficial to use this thread for constructive discussion than using it as a place to drop some random jokes.
I also find it quite interesting how a few people who haven't really posted on this thread before decided to drop some rather strange takes around the same time but maybe that's just me seeing things.
Right, but this is a discussion forum, not Reddit or Twitter. You're expected to back up your arguments here, not just post a statement and leave it be. Posting joke hot takes is a particularly good way to not be taken seriously by most of us.
equidae
Well-Known Member
What makes you say this?
Presuming your interest is in the stereotypical African area with the usual ABC species, a zoo without an African area may still have similar megafauna from a different continent to satisfy the visitor. E.g., onagers to replace zebra; Asian elephants to replace African counterparts; tigers to replace lions; gaur to replace buffalo, etc.
The Highland Wildlife Park doesn’t have an African area, but is still well worth a visit.
Last edited:
Indeed you do, I'm glad you finally realised that American exhibits for species like elephants are far larger on average than those in Europe!
What if a zoo has an extensive African collection, but designs their zoo in a different format? For instance, elephants, giraffes, zebras, and antelopes exhibited in a Grasslands Area alongside bison, pronghorn, anteaters, rhea, kangaroos, etc. And Gorillas amd Okapis in a Rainforest Area alongside Jaguars, spider monkeys, malayan tapirs, orangutans, etc.? There are multiple good ways to set up a zoo- and frankly I find zoogeographic theming overrated and overdone.