Zoo/Aquarium Hot Takes

[NNM.]

I think Disney's gorilla exhibit is better than the exhibit at Bronx Zoo.

Bronx's is definitely more immersive and lifelike:

but Disney's is just grander and more varied in habitiats, at least from the naked eye:

I will say Congo Gorilla Forest is the better overall complex than Gorilla Falls, because it's more cohesive and immersive, but Gorilla Falls has the better individual exhibit for gorillas, in my opinion.

 

[RandomZooVisitorYT]

I think Disney's gorilla exhibit is better than the exhibit at Bronx Zoo.

Bronx's is definitely more immersive and lifelike:

but Disney's is just grander and more varied in habitiats, at least from the naked eye:

I will say Congo Gorilla Forest is the better overall complex than Gorilla Falls, because it's more cohesive and immersive, but Gorilla Falls has the better individual exhibit for gorillas, in my opinion.

I have seen the Bronx Zoo's Gorilla Exhibit irl, but not Disney so I can't give an opinion

 

[NNM.]

I have seen the Bronx Zoo's Gorilla Exhibit irl, but not Disney so I can't give an opinion

Then there’s a chance I’m hyping it up, but you’d probably still appreciate it, if nothing else.

It may actually be the best enclosure(s) at Animal Kingdom, which is saying a great deal seeing as the park has many of the best enclosures for several animals I’ve seen both IRL and on ZooChat, namely for elephants, hippos, and oddly enough, bats.

 

[tigris115]

I think there comes a point where it's so "neck and neck" that it's entirely subjective as to who's the champ

 

[NNM.]

I think there comes a point where it's so "neck and neck" that it's entirely subjective as to who's the champ

That's fair.

 

[RandomZooVisitorYT]

That's fair.

At one point I made a video called exhibit rumble, but it was clear that nobody wanted to watch it. It was Sea Life KC vs The Sobela Ocean Aquarium.

 

[NNM.]

At one point I made a video called exhibit rumble, but it was clear that nobody wanted to watch it. It was Sea Life KC vs The Sobela Ocean Aquarium.

I could watch it, if you want.

 

[RandomZooVisitorYT]

I could watch it, if you want.

No thanks, I deleted it years ago and found it to be lackluster to me. I just thought I would mention that

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

Children's Zoos, while fun, should be phased out in cramped city zoos. The key purpose of zoos is conservation and education about wildlife, and in zoos with limited space/collections there's really no reason to waste room on domestic species with no conservation benefit. Even in large zoos I think that they should prioritize rare wildlife in need of conservation over common domestic species

 

[NNM.]

Hmmm…how would you define “cramped” in regards to large zoos?

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

Hmmm…how would you define “cramped” in regards to large zoos?

Zoos like Lincoln Park, Smithsonian, etc. Both are lacking in major species due to space constraints. Those should be the first priority

 

[Aardwolf]

It also depends on if you accept as absolute that the primary mission of a zoo IS conservation, and you’re defining that it terms of ex situ breeding programs, as opposed to a primary mission of education, or fostering empathy and interest animals, in which case farmyards could arguably be more valuable than you give them credit for

 

[RandomZooVisitorYT]

Hot Take: Ambassador Animals (Animals in children's zoos or behind the scenes displayed for keeper talks or shows) should not be a thing. Animals such as small cats, tamunduas, and others deserve actual spaces. Zoos like Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and Columbus Zoo do give their ambassador animals displays but they are atrocious. CMZ literally keeps a lone prairie dog in a large glass terrarium. CZ has really small, unnaturalistic exhibits in their Adventure Cove section.

 

[JVM]

Hot Take: Ambassador Animals (Animals in children's zoos or behind the scenes displayed for keeper talks or shows) should not be a thing. Animals such as small cats, tamunduas, and others deserve actual spaces. Zoos like Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and Columbus Zoo do give their ambassador animals displays but they are atrocious. CMZ literally keeps a lone prairie dog in a large glass terrarium. CZ has really small, unnaturalistic exhibits in their Adventure Cove section.

I'm a little confused by your core argument here - do you oppose the idea that certain animals are trained for keeper talks or shows, or simply dislike that these animals are often held behind the scenes or given awful exhibits? Some ambassador animals are trained because they come from problem situations where they can't habituate with other members of their species - but definitely I'd rather see them in a good exhibit.

Zoos like Lincoln Park, Smithsonian, etc. Both are lacking in major species due to space constraints. Those should be the first priority

I get where you're coming from, but just to address the zoo I'm most familiar with - Lincoln Park is doing fine. I think we actually hit almost every major species group besides elephants, tigers, antelope, and larger reptiles, and antelope could probably be reintroduced easily and if plans to convert the Zebra-Camel Area to an Asia exhibit go through, I'm sure we'd see tigers again. The only near-impossible ask is elephants, and with the farm-in-the-zoo area detached from the core campus, I don't think a good elephant complex would suit that particular area.

They could do a better job maintaining the farm though - it feels very past its prime.

 

[RandomZooVisitorYT]

I'm a little confused by your core argument here - do you oppose the idea that certain animals are trained for keeper talks or shows, or simply dislike that these animals are often held behind the scenes or given awful exhibits? Some ambassador animals are trained because they come from problem situations where they can't habituate with other members of their species - but definitely I'd rather see them in a good exhibit.

What I kinda meant to say was that Ambassador shows should not exist if it means the animals in them will have lackluster exhibits. I understand that some animals may not get along with the others, but having animals that are not in an actual exhibit in the shows is another thing altogether. If you cannot house them in a proper space, would it not make more sense to send them somewhere where they could have a space (also applies to animals that do not get along). Prairie Dogs are up there with wolves for animals that I think get the best exhibits and the fact that it has a glass tank is just depressing.

 

[Brayden Delashmutt]

I'm a little confused by your core argument here - do you oppose the idea that certain animals are trained for keeper talks or shows, or simply dislike that these animals are often held behind the scenes or given awful exhibits? Some ambassador animals are trained because they come from problem situations where they can't habituate with other members of their species - but definitely I'd rather see them in a good exhibit.


I get where you're coming from, but just to address the zoo I'm most familiar with - Lincoln Park is doing fine. I think we actually hit almost every major species group besides elephants, tigers, antelope, and larger reptiles, and antelope could probably be reintroduced easily and if plans to convert the Zebra-Camel Area to an Asia exhibit go through, I'm sure we'd see tigers again. The only near-impossible ask is elephants, and with the farm-in-the-zoo area detached from the core campus, I don't think a good elephant complex would suit that particular area.

They could do a better job maintaining the farm though - it feels very past its prime.

Yes, however the current farm area could be used for lots of things. South America, Australia, etc

 

[birdsandbats]

I strongly disagree that animal ambassadors need to be removed from zoos.

One of the biggest challenges facing conservation today is that people just don't care. An increasing amount of people live in urban centers with few opportunities to be out in nature or interact with animals, and thus no chance to even begin to care about something they view as distant and irrelevant to them.

Animal ambassadors exist as a way to show people animals, up close and personal, often at a very young age. If fact, I would argue they are some of the most important animals in the entire collection.

 

[RandomZooVisitorYT]

I strongly disagree that animal ambassadors need to be removed from zoos.

One of the biggest challenges facing conservation today is that people just don't care. An increasing amount of people live in urban centers with few opportunities to be out in nature or interact with animals, and thus no chance to even begin to care about something they view as distant and irrelevant to them.

Animal ambassadors exist as a way to show people animals, up close and personal, often at a very young age. If fact, I would argue they are some of the most important animals in the entire collection.

You're not wrong, but how can we appreciate these animals natural spaces when the animals in question do not have anything of the sort

 

[birdsandbats]

You're not wrong, but how can we appreciate these animals natural spaces when the animals in question do not have anything of the sort

It's better than nothing. And, especially for children, viewing animals up close is very important.

 

[StoppableSan]

San Diego absolutely does ambassador animals well in Wildlife Explorers Basecamp - but genuinely good exhibits for ambassadors are few and far in between.