Frankly, I'd argue the opposite: zoos won't survive IF the collections become too homogenized. If this does happen, people would only ever visit their local zoo- meaning zoos would recieve less visits from tourists, less people visiting two zoos near their house (because if both are the same, why bother visiting both?), and just less to distinguish between them. If by phasing out species you mean ones that are almost gone already, such as asiatic black bear, mhorr gazelle, etc., I can absolutely agree with that. But if you mean phasing out species that are merely struggling, but still have hope, like andean and sloth bears, masai giraffe, goral and urial, then I strongly disagree with you.
Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes
- Thread starter pachyderm pro
- Start date
Thanks for the support...
Collection homogenization may lead to less visits from zoochatters, but I disagree with the notion that collection homogenization would lead to less tourist visits overall. When a non-zoo-enthusiast visits New York City and goes to the Central Park zoo, I don’t think they are going there with the intention of seeing any rare species. In fact, I doubt they’d recognize any of the zoo’s rare species if they saw them. Instead, I think tourists go to the Central Park Zoo because it is a famous zoo in a great location and is a touristy thing to check off your NYC bucket list. Central Park’s rare species likely do not majorly factor into their high visitation numbers.
Now, while many non-zoo-enthusiasts seem to not care about visiting zoos with rare animals, I would also argue that many would go so far as to welcome collection homogenization. When I was a zoo volunteer, I noticed that many laymen expected all zoos to be the same. It is not uncommon for visitors to ask a question like “where are the elephants?” Only to be disappointed that the zoo does not have any. Whenever a zoo lacks a popular species that visitors expect to see, these visitors may become confused and disappointed. They may wish more zoos were homogenous, and wish more zoos featured the same popular species, because these abc animals are the ones they expect to see.
Now you might be asking, if laymen expect and want zoos to be homogenous, then why do they visit zoos (either the same zoo multiple times, or multiple zoos different times)? First are the answers I mentioned above- people will usually be interested in visiting a zoo if it is famous and/or a major tourist attraction and if they are already vacationing in the general vicinity (like Central Park or San Diego). Second, I would mention that many other businesses are successful in spite of their homogeneity. Basically every McDonald’s has the same menu, and yet people keep going back. Similarly, people keep visiting zoos, even though they (inaccurately) expect them to be homogenous as well. I’d also compare it to seeing the same movie twice. People often do repeat viewings of movies they like, even if they already know what happens. These repeat viewings are more common if you haven’t seen the movie in a few years. Similarly, many laymen will visit a zoo (or different zoos) multiple times, but these visits will often be at least a year apart. After all, if you went to a zoo, and expected all zoos to be the same, why would you want to visit another in rapid succession just to get a very similar experience?
Having written all this, I want to make a disclaimer that I personally do not support zoo homogenization. But I do think many average visitors want and expect to see homogenization at the zoological institutions they go to, so I wrote this to express that.
Now, while many non-zoo-enthusiasts seem to not care about visiting zoos with rare animals, I would also argue that many would go so far as to welcome collection homogenization. When I was a zoo volunteer, I noticed that many laymen expected all zoos to be the same. It is not uncommon for visitors to ask a question like “where are the elephants?” Only to be disappointed that the zoo does not have any. Whenever a zoo lacks a popular species that visitors expect to see, these visitors may become confused and disappointed. They may wish more zoos were homogenous, and wish more zoos featured the same popular species, because these abc animals are the ones they expect to see.
Now you might be asking, if laymen expect and want zoos to be homogenous, then why do they visit zoos (either the same zoo multiple times, or multiple zoos different times)? First are the answers I mentioned above- people will usually be interested in visiting a zoo if it is famous and/or a major tourist attraction and if they are already vacationing in the general vicinity (like Central Park or San Diego). Second, I would mention that many other businesses are successful in spite of their homogeneity. Basically every McDonald’s has the same menu, and yet people keep going back. Similarly, people keep visiting zoos, even though they (inaccurately) expect them to be homogenous as well. I’d also compare it to seeing the same movie twice. People often do repeat viewings of movies they like, even if they already know what happens. These repeat viewings are more common if you haven’t seen the movie in a few years. Similarly, many laymen will visit a zoo (or different zoos) multiple times, but these visits will often be at least a year apart. After all, if you went to a zoo, and expected all zoos to be the same, why would you want to visit another in rapid succession just to get a very similar experience?
Having written all this, I want to make a disclaimer that I personally do not support zoo homogenization. But I do think many average visitors want and expect to see homogenization at the zoological institutions they go to, so I wrote this to express that.
All reasonably argued, but: not all zoos can actually keep exactly the same collection due to various reasons, chief among them available space. The imho rather pointless "Where are the elephants?" question is indeed quite often asked in small old city zoos such as Frankfurt, but unless a relict living population of Silician dwarf elephants can be found, chances are pretty slim that the reply won't be anything other than "At the Opelzoo Kronberg".
Don't underestimate the eagerness of at least some Joe & Jane Zoovisitors to see attractive rare species they can't see anywhere else, as showcased by, say, Pairi Daiza, Omaha or SDZ.
Your point that zoo visitors prefer all zoos to be the same is countered by the success of often small specialist collections that carve out a niche for themselves. There are plenty of small zoos, wildparks, butterfly houses, bird parks, reptile zoos and other such things around. Some may struggle, but some do very well indeed. And those that do well succeed, at least in my experience, precisely because they are different to the closest major zoo. Granted, these differences are much wider in scope than just collection, but that aspect should not be ignored.
Furthermore, there is a huge diversity in the zoo world in terms of available space, local conditions, resources, education approach, history and other aspects that greatly impact the collection plan. Leveling out that variation is exactly what will rob a lot of zoos from their major assets. What would Burgers' be without its ecodisplays, Zoo Berlin without the famous multi-story aquarium, Tiergarten Schönbrunn without the Kaiserpavillon, Zurich without Masoala, Apenheul without the walk-through monkey exhibits, Pairi Diaza without the elephant temple, and Doué-la-Fontaine without the massive south-American aviary?
And that's even without tackling the discussion why many species are struggling. For large animals, space and resources may indeed be limited. Elephants, gorillas and hippos are expensive. But for pheasants? Geckos? Rodents? Cichlids? Maybe the problem there has more to do with a lack of interest, creativity and innovation, and not with actual space. Many of the aforementioned small specialist collections are outperforming large zoos when it comes to those species. If a tiny zoo with a fraction of the budget of an average city zoo manages to make insects, reptiles or small mammals appealing enough to make make people visit only for them, why can't a large zoo find a way to integrate them into their collection?*
* Spoiler: I am convinced they can. Many of them just don't do it.
OkapiFan
Well-Known Member
But AZA accredited zoos don't do this though.
The reason I did not mention small specialist collections in my original comment is because of the way these collections market themselves. For example, a specialist collection which specializes in crocodilians will probably market itself as a crocodile farm. When laymen visit the crocodile farm, they will know that they are visiting a crocodile farm, and they will tailor their expectations accordingly. They will naturally expect to see crocodilians, and that expectation will be met. Contrast this with a regular zoo, which will probably market itself as having a hodge podge of all kinds of animals. When laymen visit the regular zoo, they may unreasonably expect to see all their favorite ABC animals, and that expectation will likely not be met. Because my earlier post is all about what happens when laymen visitors’ expectations are dashed, and because their expectations are dashed less-often at specialist collections, these collections did not seem worth addressing in that comment.
Regarding all the other points, it seems like my earlier comment may have come across incorrectly because I did put a disclaimer at the end with the intention of indicating that I agree with the rest of what you two are saying overall (though I probably should have been more specific). I agree that zoo homogenization would be a very bad thing. I agree that zoo variation is really important. I personally can find a lot of charm in how every zoo I visit has their own personality based on how their exhibits, collections, events, architecture, and other features set them apart. Homogenization is also obviously completely unreasonable when considering things like different zoos having different climates, financial resources, available land, available animals, and topography—all of which play major roles in shaping the zoo and their collections. I simply wrote my earlier post to play devil’s advocate and to share the perspective of the many ill-informed zoo visitors who I have met as a former volunteer. I am fascinated by the perspectives of these people who expect zoos to be homogenous, and who expect to see their favorite ABC animals wherever they go. I personally like the fact that many zoos do not have my favorite animals. That way, when I do visit a place which displays my favorite species, it makes the visit even more special. But unlike us Zoochatters, these visitors do not realize how infeasible and how boring a world of homogenous zoos actually would be.
I would definitely not suggest phasing out masai giraffe as we will need a giraffe population that is not made up of hybrids someday. I am not ignorant enough to support hybridization that isn't supported by a conservation organization. Goral and urial are probably among the mammals I am least informed on so would not comment there.
You bring up Andean, sloth and Asiatic black bears, and bears are exactly what is on my mind right now for a major example -- as aging bear exhibits in the country have needed updating and renovation, the number of species any zoo can hold has decreased. Denver has gone from four species to one, Lincoln Park from four to one, Milwaukee from five to one, Brookfield from four to three... Asiatic black bears are declining rapidly as the population is geriatic, polar bear habitats are being built to double as grizzly habitats when the population crashes, and the former sun and asiatic black bear spaces are expected to be used for Sloth and Andean bears going forward. A decision was made that not all of these species can be supported and clearly most institutions will be able to hold fewer bear species.
It would actually make the most sense for the AZA to focus on Sloth and Andean bears given that North American bears are not threatened at the level where ex-situ conservation is needed, but I do think the polar bear situation is hopeless.
You seem very well-informed which I am not, forewarning -- but this is part of what has altered my perspective recently. When I was younger, it seemed like zoos were moving into a trend of making ecosystem-based exhibits which would include reptiles, amphibians, small mammals as well as larger species together based on a shared theme. Brookfield created many excellent exhibits based on this principle in the 90s/00s, with popular species such as alligators and otters anchoring the Swamp building which has reptiles, amphibians, even insects, or Habitat Africa including free-flight birds, mongoose, and kilpspringers indoors while giraffe and antelope roam outside. The popular species anchor creative display for other animals from their environment.
This style seems to have fallen slightly out of favor now - reptiles and so forth jump around terrariums in designated, taxonomic display again, small mammals feel increasingly absent or bottom priority, and multicomplexes become dedicated entirely to provide state of the art care for a single charismatic species while lacking secondary habitats. They act more as 'ambassadors' for absent animals than 'anchors' for smaller ones. There is also an understanding that sometimes spaces may need to be repurposed by animals not native to the exact range or habitat it was themed under. Both of these developments make the anchor species ecosystem concept feel dated at worst and trivialized at best.
I know it doesn't sound like it, but I am agreeing with you -- there is a lack of interest and (in terms of these smaller animals) creativity and innovation right now, in addition to the existing effort to whittle down larger species to improve husbandry, pointing to a continued decline in species held and total holders for species already competing.
That is why my perspective has shifted so much personally. The approach I might prefer no longer feels viable.
Unsupported is on the fact some species just didn't work out, not that there wasn't space. Sun Bear failed to breed well, Polar Bear is crashing because of government nonsense, and Asiatic Black just wasn't really different and never took off. All three are more valuable to hold than the increasing Grizzlies and American Blacks.
Two things can be true on this point. I cited several facilities that have fewer bear habitats than they previously did; unless someone can name a facility that has expanded their bear holdings, which would be welcome news, it seems factual that there are fewer spaces for bears than they used to be fifteen years ago.
I acknowledged in my post that there is no conservation value in the North American bears versus exotic bears. This is not a point I intend to debate. There are a lot of species with conservation value that don't receive the attention they deserve.
I hope the sun bears breed one more time just to mess with us all.
Two things can be true on this point. I cited several facilities that have fewer bear habitats than they previously did; unless someone can name a facility that has expanded their bear holdings, which would be welcome news, it seems factual that there are fewer spaces for bears than they used to be fifteen years ago.
I acknowledged in my post that there is no conservation value in the North American bears versus exotic bears. This is not a point I intend to debate. There are a lot of species with conservation value that don't receive the attention they deserve.
I hope the sun bears breed one more time just to mess with us all.
They have fewer habitats because there weren't bears to go in them.
I think first, the AZA seriously needs to petition the USFWS to make exceptions for the bureaucracy that's killing the polar bear SSP.
Tbh, I'm not very informed in many of these manners but I do wonder if problems with breeding programs could be remedied by having greater communication and deepest ties among the AZA. I know we're far past the stage where every zoo was out for itself but I can't help but wonder if there's some hesitation to fully cooperate.
Also, I feel like some of y'all are being a bit too argumentative.
Tbh, I'm not very informed in many of these manners but I do wonder if problems with breeding programs could be remedied by having greater communication and deepest ties among the AZA. I know we're far past the stage where every zoo was out for itself but I can't help but wonder if there's some hesitation to fully cooperate.
Also, I feel like some of y'all are being a bit too argumentative.
Last edited:
I am deeply, deeply confused by some of these responses.
The post I made yesterday said animals that do not breed well should be phased out. The AZA is phasing out sun bears and asiatic black bears for not breeding well. This is what I based my opinion on.
I am failing to see how discussing which bears died first is meant to contradict that there is a lack of space for new animals. The fact so many of them couldn't be bred or died does not create new space!
I apologize if this post sounds confrontational but this line of questioning is genuinely really confusing for me, I do not feel like I understand what users are trying to tell me by this.
Why were there not enough bears? It is almost as if the failure of breeding programs for multiple bear species resulted in some kind of decision was made that not all of these species could be supported and clearly most institutions would be able to hold fewer bear species.
The post I made yesterday said animals that do not breed well should be phased out. The AZA is phasing out sun bears and asiatic black bears for not breeding well. This is what I based my opinion on.
I am failing to see how discussing which bears died first is meant to contradict that there is a lack of space for new animals. The fact so many of them couldn't be bred or died does not create new space!
I apologize if this post sounds confrontational but this line of questioning is genuinely really confusing for me, I do not feel like I understand what users are trying to tell me by this.
The USFWS can't do anything about a law.
Then whoever; idk.
Nope; they usually advertise them as "zoos" - or at least zoological institutions, based on the local legal definition. A farm is an agricultural business - meaning that a crocodile farm usually produces crocodile products for human consumption. It might include a public zoo for visitors, but that’s not the main enterprise. Croc zoos like Ekilstrup, Protivin etc., however, clearly advertise themselves as zoos, not farms.
Or they can be weird like St. Augustine and call themselves both a zoo and a farm.
Their name at present is "St. Augustine Alligator Farm Zoological Park", and their website is alligatorfarm.com.
That's why I did not mention them in the first place...
They started as one and turned into the other.