Most "disapointing" animals

GiratinaIsGod

GiratinaIsGod

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
I remembered when I as a teenager fonally convinced my parrents to drive me to the Weltvogelpark in Walsrode. I allways loved birds. And the number 1 species I finally wanted too see was the cassuary. And when I finally saw one. I could not stop myself from being quite didapointed. They were a bit smaller then expected. (Their small Barren enclosere did not help either). Are there any species you has which were more impressive in your mind before seeing them with your own eyes.

Something similar happened to me with the
Grey partridge. I allways knew about the endangered native fowl. But I expected them to be not the size of quails. More on the size of chickens.
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
And the number 1 species I finally wanted too see was the cassuary. And when I finally saw one. I could not stop myself from being quite didapointed. They were a bit smaller then expected. (Their small Barren enclosere did not help either).
Click to expand...

I mean, the fact that until recently the species they held were Dwarf Cassowary and Northern Cassowary - and therefore there is a good chance the animal you saw was the former - probably explains that :p:D

GiratinaIsGod said:
Something similar happened to me with the
Grey partridge. I allways knew about the endangered native fowl. But I expected them to be not the size of quails. More on the size of chickens.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you were looking at Grey Partridge? There's a definite size difference between those and European Quail!
 
Pandas. The first time I saw them as a child was when my home zoo received some. There was a huge line just to go up to the enclosure. I must have waited for at least an hour. When I finally got there they were...underwhelming, to say the least. They just slept the whole time. I'd like to see them again, though. Maybe I can better appreciate them now.
 
I've never really been disappointed by an animal. I think they're all fascinating in their own ways, and often reality is more amazing than what I could've imagined. I find it an unexpected, but pleasant surprise, if a species is a lot smaller or larger than I previously thought.

The only thing that could be disappointing is a lack of color or alternate plumages, often for juvenile or female birds, but even then there is enough to subtly appreciate.
 
AdmiralAlbatross said:
Pandas. The first time I saw them as a child was when my home zoo received some. There was a huge line just to go up to the enclosure. I must have waited for at least an hour. When I finally got there they were...underwhelming, to say the least. They just slept the whole time. I'd like to see them again, though. Maybe I can better appreciate them now.
Click to expand...
Weirdly I had the opposite experience at National Zoo recently - granted, they have younger bears, but Qing Bao was ZOOMING around her habitat while Bao Li was nonchalantly walking around, sitting in various spots and eating his bamboo.
 
Big cats in general for me. They sleep a great deal, are very good at not being seen when they don't want to be, and in my experience the enclosures are so big that there's a very good chance that if you CAN spot them, it's from so far away that they're barely visible at all.

That's how enclosures should be, mind you. I am not against that design. I just wish I could see them better lol.

Not disappointing but underwhelming for sure was the juvenile dwarf cuttlefish I saw the other day. The sign said it'd be 2.5 inches or so when fully grown- a respectable size, for sure, easy enough to spot.

My friend and I looked and looked but saw nothing. And then finally- a little white blob getting blown by the filter, flying upwards in the water in a nigh-undetectable whirl. Followed by a squirt of ink.

I neglected the fact that cuttlefish lay thousands of eggs in a clutch, and that fish babies are teensy-weensy.

Poor guy was maybe a centimeter and a half long. Less than an inch for sure. When they said dwarf, they weren't kidding lol.
 
I agree about big cats. The fact that they eat meat makes me question if they really need to be that common in zoos: I can't help but think of the amount of meat needed to feed an animal that will just sleep in a corner all day... it's kind of sickening when you think about it.

For koalas, I feel like zoos should always indicate their feeding time on their website. Because outside of when they're eating there really is no point in coming to their exhibit.
 
DaLilFishie said:
Koalas. I always skip them at zoos, cus they're super common and about as interesting to watch as watching paint dry.
Click to expand...

Summed up my thoughts exactly, I almost always skip past them and only look in their enclosures if there’s something else in there (like a Quokka).

Elephants also disinterest me a little bit because they’re smelly and look cramped but I think the new complex at Werribee will make for a better viewing experience.
 
Maybe African Pygmy Goats for me?

I've visited some zoos with "African Savanna" exhibits that have this species...
It's a little dissapointing when you visit there to expect Zebras and Elands, but find this species instead.

But this is rather getting dessapointed to the zoo, not the animal itself.
 
Brookrowcottage said:
Flamingos
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings on Flamingos. I think they're the most interesting around their breeding and hatching time. Lots of neat displays and parental interactions to watch. Most signage doesn't even cover the most interesting part about them: the fact they're extemophiles. Otherwise, I do think they're overrated. My personal gripe is that they're such a nuisance to care for. Truly the horses of the bird world...
 
Toki said:
Maybe African Pygmy Goats for me?

I've visited some zoos with "African Savanna" exhibits that have this species...
It's a little dissapointing when you visit there to expect Zebras and Elands, but find this species instead.

But this is rather getting dessapointed to the zoo, not the animal itself.
Click to expand...

I agree with the principle here. I wouldn't say any individual species is disappointing itself, it is more the context. An exhibit theme does teases some unusual animals and then just has common ones is disappointing. An unusual and rarely seen species being replaced by a more common one is disappointing, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top