Zootierliste Goes Worldwide

Animal said:
It is an institution that displays animals with a set place (not roaming like a circus). The animals are kept in human care and don't live wild. So it fits. Just because some holdings are considered lesser to others, that does not change that they display animals for the public.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, it is a poor criterion to define a "zoo" or even a zoological institution. It is the same as putting on the same basket a Michelin-star restaurant and a crappy hot dog van. Both serve you food. Having world-top institutions such as San Diego, ZSL, Bronx, Beavaul, Schönbrunn, Chester, Antwerp or Zurich in the same list as a stationary circus just undermines the quality of ZTL in my opinion. One must know to tell apart a shark from a lamprey or simply prefer to see all as just fish.
 
OkapiJohn said:
With all due respect, it is a poor criterion to define a "zoo" or even a zoological institution. It is the same as putting on the same basket a Michelin-star restaurant and a crappy hot dog van. Both serve you food. Having world-top institutions such as San Diego, ZSL, Bronx, Beavaul, Schönbrunn, Chester, Antwerp or Zurich in the same list as a stationary circus just undermines the quality of ZTL in my opinion. One must know to tell apart a shark from a lamprey or simply prefer to see all as just fish.
Click to expand...

Just because something does not compare for you, it is still an zoological institution. Hotdog stand and fancy restaurant are both eateries.
 
OkapiJohn said:
With all due respect, it is a poor criterion to define a "zoo" or even a zoological institution. It is the same as putting on the same basket a Michelin-star restaurant and a crappy hot dog van. Both serve you food. Having world-top institutions such as San Diego, ZSL, Bronx, Beavaul, Schönbrunn, Chester, Antwerp or Zurich in the same list as a stationary circus just undermines the quality of ZTL in my opinion. One must know to tell apart a shark from a lamprey or simply prefer to see all as just fish.
Click to expand...

A list of "All New York places to eat" would include both a Michilin star restaurant and Joe's Greasy Corndogs, no? A list of all fish includes both sharks and lampreys, no?
 
Animal said:
it’s important to follow these guidelines when considering whether to add an institution:
Click to expand...

What's the criteria for animals for sale? I fully understand not including all pet shops, but the Neotropical Butterfly Park in Suriname (which was added to ZTL before I went to visit) only has butterflies (not listed by ZTL) and turtles and tortoises, which are shipped to Europe and Asia for sale. I added the turtles and tortoises to ZTL, but they're simultaneously animals for sale and animals on display
 
It’s a grey area. Technically a zoo could sell also all their giraffes the next day. If these animals are just bought and then sold in a few days it would not count. If the breed them and sell them, they must keep somewhere also breeding groups permanently
 
Great Argus said:
Personally I find the concept of listing short term temporary holdings a bit unnecessary, yeah they held it, but it was never going to stay permanently and in some cases may never even be seen by the public. Like x facility held a confiscated alligator for 2-3 days before sending it to a facility properly equipped to care for it, why does that need to count? They took it by request and quickly sent it to somewhere that could properly care for it/had space for it in their collection.
Click to expand...

This is another tough area to define. I certainly understand your point with the example you provided, however it also feels like a disservice to ignore situations such as Mystic Aquarium having held both rehab Harp and Hooded Seals in 2024, both species for months and briefly on-display to the public in their rehab center before being released back to the wild. I expect most wouldn't argue that they should be noted and included as (now) historic holdings.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
I have literally never seen this :p I'm sure certain zoos may do this, but it's definitely far from common.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
Visit enough roadside zoos and you have a completely different perception of zoos in this country. I've never seen an accredited zoo do it, sure, but privately owned zoos do this all the time.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
This is another tough area to define. I certainly understand your point with the example you provided, however it also feels like a disservice to ignore situations such as Mystic Aquarium having held both rehab Harp and Hooded Seals in 2024, both species for months and briefly on-display to the public in their rehab center before being released back to the wild. I expect most wouldn't argue that they should be noted and included as (now) historic holdings.

~Thylo
Click to expand...

To be clear, I have no issues with cases like Mystic's seals where they are in rehab for up to several months and then often go on brief display before release. The animals are typically present for a significant period of time and it's part of the facility's purpose. Similarly no issues with the marine mammal rescues of the West Coast and what not.
However, when a zoo temporarily takes in an animal and merely holds it til arrangements for transfer to a better suited facility can be made, that's where I feel it's kind of unnecessary.
To put it simply, if the zoo is rehabbing the animal, it's fine. If they're holding it after confiscation or whatever with no intent of caring for it long term and intend to transfer it as soon as a better option is open, that's where I feel it's not really worth adding.

birdsandbats said:
Plus it's not uncommon for US zoos to have some live animals for sale in the gift shop.
Click to expand...
birdsandbats said:
Visit enough roadside zoos and you have a completely different perception of zoos in this country. I've never seen an accredited zoo do it, sure, but privately owned zoos do this all the time.
Click to expand...

It is definitely not common, it becomes a tricky line in terms of legality. I believe to date there's been three examples given of this in the US, one of which was either a one off or only on rare occasions based on multiple people never having seen it.
 
Great Argus said:
It is definitely not common, it becomes a tricky line in terms of legality. I believe to date there's been three examples given of this in the US, one of which was either a one off or only on rare occasions based on multiple people never having seen it.
Click to expand...
I think of Shalom Wildlife Zoo, Special Memories, Rainforest Adventures, Alligator Alley, Beaver Springs Aquarium. Then you have places that are essentially both zoos and pet stores like Snake Discovery. Plus there are for sure more examples.

In hindsight "not uncommon" was definitely not the correct word usage, but I would certainly hesitate to call it unusual.
 
birdsandbats said:
I think of Shalom Wildlife Zoo, Special Memories, Rainforest Adventures, Alligator Alley, Beaver Springs Aquarium.
Click to expand...

Rainforest Adventures does not do it on the regular - it is erratically reported at best.

birdsandbats said:
Then you have places that are essentially both zoos and pet stores like Snake Discovery. Plus there are for sure more examples.
Click to expand...

Well-off pet stores with a sizable display section are not entirely equivalent to a zoo selling animals, in my opinion. The place exists because they sell animals.

birdsandbats said:
In hindsight "not uncommon" was definitely not the correct word usage, but I would certainly hesitate to call it unusual.
Click to expand...

Unusual still isn't correct - you listed 5 places, one of which is reported to be inconsistent with it at best. Multiple very widely traveled people have never seen instances of US zoos selling animals in their gift stores. It is far from the norm.
 
Great Argus said:
Rainforest Adventures does not do it on the regular - it is erratically reported at best.
Click to expand...
They *do* sell live animals on the regular, axolotls were sold in little cups on my visits nearly ten years apart. The place itself is visited erratically at best, not sure where this info is from.

I'd say this practice is unusual but not unheard of.
 
CMP said:
They *do* sell live animals on the regular, axolotls were sold in little cups on my visits nearly ten years apart.
Click to expand...

Saying something is regularly the case because you encountered it on two separate occasions a decade apart is a bit like saying King Eider are a regular bird at my usual winter sea-watching patch because I saw one in 2014 and again in 2024 :D
 
TeaLovingDave said:
Saying something is regularly the case because you encountered it on two separate occasions a decade apart is a bit like saying King Eider are a regular bird at my usual winter sea-watching patch because I saw one in 2014 and again in 2024 :D
Click to expand...
I'm still curious to know why @Great Argus thinks it is "erratically reported". Rainforest Adventures is not a well-visited zoo, and I would assume not every ZooChatter extensively checks the gift shop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CMP
CMP said:
They *do* sell live animals on the regular, axolotls were sold in little cups on my visits nearly ten years apart. The place itself is visited erratically at best, not sure where this info is from.

I'd say this practice is unusual but not unheard of.
Click to expand...

birdsandbats said:
I'm still curious to know why @Great Argus thinks it is "erratically reported". Rainforest Adventures is not a well-visited zoo, and I would assume not every ZooChatter extensively checks the gift shop.
Click to expand...

@CMP is the only member who has reported it is why, even though several other notable members have visited. I'm also curious why no mention of this was made in your review? It would seem like that would be unusual enough to be at least worth a passing mention?
To be clear, I'm not arguing that they don't - I've seen one instance of proof they do occasionally sell them from an off-site source. However I do find it hard to believe they consistently do when only one person has ever mentioned it on ZC and any mention elsewhere appears very rare.
Also I'm not sure why you're directly arguing on this point @birdsandbats given as far as you've ever claimed on ZC you've never visited Rainforest Adventures.

A couple of other points re this discussion - Special Memories Zoo has been closed for a few years now and was well known for being terrible.
Beaver Springs Aquarium (if the aquarium part even still exists, per reports of basically nothing in it) is widely reported online for being a horrible place and birdsandbats himself doesn't even list it on his list of facilities visited - and even created a thread about whether it actually counted as a zoo because it was terrible and "a scam".
So inherently that leaves only three known places that sell animals to the public. There also is very little information to confirm this I will note. Mentions online are few and far between, and probably for good reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Great Argus said:
@CMP is the only member who has reported it is why, even though several other notable members have visited. I'm also curious why no mention of this was made in your review? It would seem like that would be unusual enough to be at least worth a passing mention?
To be clear, I'm not arguing that they don't - I've seen one instance of proof they do occasionally sell them from an off-site source. However I do find it hard to believe they consistently do when only one person has ever mentioned it on ZC and any mention elsewhere appears very rare.
Also I'm not sure why you're directly arguing on this point @birdsandbats given as far as you've ever claimed on ZC you've never visited Rainforest Adventures.

A couple of other points re this discussion - Special Memories Zoo has been closed for a few years now and was well known for being terrible.
Beaver Springs Aquarium (if the aquarium part even still exists, per reports of basically nothing in it) is widely reported online
for being a horrible place and birdsandbats himself doesn't even list it on his list of facilities visited - and even created a thread about whether it actually counted as a zoo because it was terrible and "a scam".

So inherently that leaves only three known places that sell animals to the public. There also is very little information to confirm this I will note. Mentions online are few and far between, and probably for good reason.
Click to expand...
I would like to note they were on sold both of my visits in 2016 and 2022.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CMP
Animal said:
1️⃣ Animals Must Be Kept for Public Display
Click to expand...
Animal said:
2️⃣ Must Be Accessible to Visitors
Click to expand...

Does this include or exclude places that allow visitors by appointment only, and primarily function for reasons other than educating or entertaining the public? (example: sanctuaries, rehab centers, venom labs, research facilities, etc). Because if so there are several facilities listed for the US that shouldn't be... should these be flagged to the admins for deletion?
 
Great Argus said:
I'm also curious why no mention of this was made in your review? It would seem like that would be unusual enough to be at least worth a passing mention?
Click to expand...
I only made a species list, but you're completely right about this being a worthwhile omission, likely I didn't think to mention it because they were being sold so I viewed it differently.

I'm quite sure I'm not the only person to mention it on this site, in fact, I think this thread is the first and only time I've mentioned axolotls sold at RFAZ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top