USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
This whole argument is unnecessary
Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden Perceptions of Cincinnati Zoo
- Thread starter JVM
- Start date
This is off-topic to Cincinnati Zoo, but are you referencing the upcoming Discovery Trails?
USZOOfan42
Well-Known Member
Yes. I like to see more small-scale play areas than 1 big section. Creates a heavily “populated area” and takes up too much space imo. I like the route Cincinnati is going with smaller play areas that’s also educational.
Night Hunters fascinated me a lot at one time and as someone who is a huge fan of nocturnal houses. It seemed like a unique take on the concept to me. Like many aspects of the zoo here, this excitement faded after reading criticism about the exhibit design. I'm glad to hear about the penguins, sea eagle and elephants.
This is a very balanced comment. I'm certainly glad to see someone else acknowledge criticism is out there. You and @Persephone seem to align a lot on what's great about the zoo. I appreciate that people are taking the time to explain what they actually like about the facility. I'm not sure I've heard a word about Jungle Trails up to these posts!
I have assumed that the decision to alter the hippopotamus exhibit has been repeatedly delayed due to a combination of the initial recency of the renovation (nobody wants to look like they are course-correcting themselves) and the constant presence of growing young hippos (waiting for them to be adults) but it's a reasonable question to ask with the amount of heavy criticism the hippopotamus exhibit receives on here. Hippopotamus and polar bear are both prohibitively difficult species to keep and very shaky investments.
I'm very sorry to hear this, as my intent was to inject some optimism, not to create upset. It was partially in response to a conversation that was subsequently moved out of the thread, making my comment look very "out of left field" compared to when it was when it was posted, which was following a discussion that involved some criticism of zoo management. That alone set some egg on my face.
Cincinnati has always seemed a frequent target of criticism to me (as have a couple other specific facilities) and my comment was largely intending to express some hope that wouldn't always be the case. It was more intended as commentary on the criticism than actually agreeing with it, especially as I've not made it out there yet. Expressing optimism about director changes at other facilities hasn't always been taken as a denigration of the previous director's work, and so I certainly didn't expect this level of response. The context was obviously changed and looking over my comment, my use of 'turn this facility around' obviously made my sentiments sound more negative than intended towards the current director, but even that part of the comment was still aimed towards the state of the facility, not the director. I know well from Strahl's tenure at Brookfield that being a decent or good director does not always correlate with a zoo being viewed by the public as in good shape. My intention was never to disparage or insult Maynard and insulting zoo staff is a line I try not to cross on Zoochat, and one of my pet peeves is when exhibit design criticism starts to involve implicit criticism of staff and employees (ie "It's careless of them to design it this way" etc.) which is something I have, unfortunately, often seen come up in discussions of Cincinnati particularly often, as well as Brookfield.
I really, really welcome the positive comments. If me saying something that may look dumb gets more people to talk about how much they love this or any zoo, I'm very willing to be the village idiot for that. Case and point...
This is an absolutely fantastic post and any mistakes on my part were worth it to see someone post something like this. This is the kind of thing I love to see - this is what makes me love Zoochat. We can all try to be analytical and intellectual about this hobby but there's nothing I enjoy more here than seeing someone just being passionate about a facility! I particularly agree that sometimes even if something isn't groundbreaking or "advancing" the field, it works as long as long as it is just "good". Even if it's not something that will light up us enthusiasts, for a lot of people their local facility is the only one they may ever visit, after all.
Jonathan Petersson
Well-Known Member
I'm a little confused why we are saying Cincinnati is not doing anything groundbreaking or advancing the field as I would argue that they are one of the leading zoos in the country doing that. Animal breeding wise the zoo is a leader in the country when it comes to species like Guam Kingfisher, Guam Rail, Steller's Sea Eagle, Bonobo, Reginia Bird of Paradise, Little Blue Penguin, Kea, Armadillo Lizard, Aruba Island Rattlesnake, and many others which I do not have the time to all list out. I can not name a single other zoo out there as well that is as involved in their local community as Cincinnati. I don't think you can find a single person in the city who doesn't like zoos because of the work the zoo has done hard to say that about any other city in America. The zoo has added many green spaces and revamped parks not only in Avondale (The neighborhood the zoo is located in but around the whole city), added solar panels and other green energy system to schools, churches, and community centers, and done more for educating underprivileged youth then whole charities have done in their lifetimes. Speaking of education the zoo has one of the strongest education departments in the country which does some incredible work. I would guess that over 60% of kids in city have done an educational program at the zoo before and the amount and variety of work they do is truly incredible. The Hoffman Coexistence Impact Fellowship is one of kind here in the US. Cincinnati does not have the funding to have something like San Diego Wildlife Alliance or the Wildlife Conservation Society but rather then just send money to conservation groups (Which they already do) they pick researchers local to their countries and fund their work helping real conservation, the researchers grow and professionally develop, and their local communities. Sustainability wise I would find it hard to call the zoo known as the greenest zoo in America just good. Any drop of rain that falls on the zoo property the park uses in one of the animals habitats none of it goes to waste. Not only is the zoo covered by renewable energy but the facility has an entire 30MW solar farm offsite. There is much more if you are interested which you learn about with the following link from growing their own food to waste and etc. : Sustainability | Cincinnati Zoo The zoo's Center for Conservation and Research of Endangered Wildlife is the definition of something that is groundbreaking. Sumatran Rhinos would be extinct already if it wasn't for them and CREW developed the methodology for artificial insemination in Indian Rhinos, and is one of the founders of AIRS and leading the research into Iron Overload Disorder. Incredible work has been done by CREW when it comes to artificial insemination in cats species with jaguars being the main focus and the moment and they are working on an easier contraception to the feral cat problem not only in Cincinnati but around the world. The list goes on, leading research into polar reproduction, native plant conservation and more. I am confused why it has become a trend on this site to direct so much criticism at this zoo. I have my own beliefs which I have shared before but overall this is just overdoing it and provides no real value to this thread. Criticizing to criticize without knowing much about the zoo or having ever visited is just pointless that is like me seeing a photo of San Diego horrific iron cage primate enclosures (I understand these are no longer around) or Bronx's elephant barn and judging the whole zoo based off that. As someone who has lived in San Diego until quite recently I can tell you that without a doubt the exhibits at Cincinnati are of a higher quality. Cincinnati might not have a Congo Gorilla forest (though the do have the records for most gorillas born in a zoo in the country) but there are very few exhibits that I wouldn't describe as not high in quality. Even Night Hunters which I am not the biggest fan of due to all indoor cat exhibits the zoo is constantly modifying and evaluating the species welfare and if they aren't doing well their are multiple off-show outdoor enclosures they can live in. This argument just seems silly and pointless and has been repeated on this site countless time. One hippo exhibit does not determine the quality of an entire zoo nor is being just good and there have been way worse new develops by zoos over the past decade then the hippo cove. It needs to be acknowledged that Cincinnati is not only a leader in the Midwest when it comes to zoos but across the entire country and world. Hopefully this is the last of this unproductive debate and strange bias against the Cincinnati Zoo on this website.
Well said I agree with everything you mentioned
Africa at the Cincinnati Zoo is definitely not anything like one of the greatest of its kind in the nation. The hippo, giraffe, and lion enclosures are all problematic, but it seems like only the giraffe situation will be remedied anytime soon. The main savanna is also lacking compared to what it once was.
The implementation of Africa was no doubt disappointing. However, it was a good step forward for the zoo in terms of turing parking space into animal exhibitry. My opinion is that while it may not be great, all of those animals were once crammed into a much smaller zoo footprint, for better or worse. The Elephant House once houses elephants, giraffes, okapis, tapirs, both species of hippos and rhinos simultaneously. Not a great look.
I agree about the savannah yard. I feel like there are lees species occupying it all the time. It's almost more of a bird exhibit than a hoofed stock yard. IMO it's a prime candidate for repurposing. Instead of trying to cram a weak multi-species panorama in, maybe use it for a single one like okapis? Perhaps it could be used for rhinos. No idea.
I would like to see them figure out a way to improve things for the hippos. The easiest way would be moving out one of the bulls, which seems necessary. I don't think they ever intended to have that many animals in that setup.
I didn't want to quote the whole post but I really appreciated your insight (especially on the zoo's education programs and community support) and I agree strongly that one bad exhibit (be it for hippos or any other species) should not determine or overshadow the quality of an entire zoo, which is unfortunately an impression this site sometimes gives.
I'm going to play zoo nerd heel here for a minute: The downfall of this zoo from the perspective of just about any one that would post on this kind of site is absolutely tied to the jettisoning of rarities to make room for ABC megafauna.
People of a certain age (I'm 48) lived through a period of time when this zoo, albeit much smaller, maintained a collection of rarities on par with San Diego and Bronx. They had a director in the 80's in Maruska that was straight out of zoo nerd central casting. He wanted things that no one else had whether the public realized the rarity of what they had the priviledge to see or not.
The major disappointment with the remaking of the zoo for me individually is a perfect storm of negative outcomes. I'd understood for a long time that the zoo wanted to develop parking space for animal exhibits. It was known even back in the early 90's. They'd wanted to re acquire hippos
ever since the re-purposing of the Elephant House to Vanishing giants and they always planned on building something for them in the old main lot.
My rudimentary understanding of what was needed to get to that point was that the zoo's physical plant was ancient and needed a lot of investment to update. To be honest, I think this is their finest achievement in the last 30 years. The new lots, rainwater management, and solar panels in the lots are all very admirable improvements. However, those kinds of improvements aren't what the general public notices. Heck, not many zoo nerds notice it, either, but I think the zoo did a great job of not putting the cart before the horse here.
Now comes the issue for me. After a great deal of patience and time, the zoo was finally able to use park space for animals. We waited nearly 30 years for the payoff. Unfortunately, the payoff was underwhelming. Not only did the zoo hemorrhage rare species, they also rolled out new exhibits for common species that where still very problematic. Why are we moving giraffes again after building them a brand new barn and yard seemingly yesterday? Why is the newest part of Africa, ie the hippo yard considered a failure already? To me, this is inexcusable.
Then you have the object of my burning hatred, Roo Valley. My lord why? They gutted an area once loaded with rare hoofed stock for a kangaroo walk through and playground. It turns my stomach to even walk past the entrance. I get that the public likes them, but to me it was a cheap, lazy way to update an older area of the park. I just fail to understand how a zoo with so many limitations in terms of space can take itself seriously when it guts animal space to make room for non-animal space as is the outcome here. Just terrible.
In summary, it just feels like a lot of patience and excitement ended in serious disappointment. The rarities left and what they got in return in terms of exhibitry missed the mark. It missed so much that some of the new exhibits are already being repurposed or upgraded. Not a great look or allotment of funds IMO.
Also, as far as the future goes, I have to say I despise the idea of the Veldt becoming a complex for marine animals and polar bears. To me it's a terrible use of space and money. It's going to be more expensive filtration and water features, big fancy windows and likely underwater viewing, on top of yet more goofy theming and playground junk that will inevitably come with it. That's what we got rid of a flagship species like rhinos and soon okapis and zebras for? No thanks. My opinion of a zoo as pressed for space as Cincinnati suddenly allotting precious acreage for North American animals is overwhelmingly negative. I was fine with them being a zoo consisting of mainly African/Asian exotics that people in the area would likely never see outside of books and documentaries.
People of a certain age (I'm 48) lived through a period of time when this zoo, albeit much smaller, maintained a collection of rarities on par with San Diego and Bronx. They had a director in the 80's in Maruska that was straight out of zoo nerd central casting. He wanted things that no one else had whether the public realized the rarity of what they had the priviledge to see or not.
The major disappointment with the remaking of the zoo for me individually is a perfect storm of negative outcomes. I'd understood for a long time that the zoo wanted to develop parking space for animal exhibits. It was known even back in the early 90's. They'd wanted to re acquire hippos
ever since the re-purposing of the Elephant House to Vanishing giants and they always planned on building something for them in the old main lot.
My rudimentary understanding of what was needed to get to that point was that the zoo's physical plant was ancient and needed a lot of investment to update. To be honest, I think this is their finest achievement in the last 30 years. The new lots, rainwater management, and solar panels in the lots are all very admirable improvements. However, those kinds of improvements aren't what the general public notices. Heck, not many zoo nerds notice it, either, but I think the zoo did a great job of not putting the cart before the horse here.
Now comes the issue for me. After a great deal of patience and time, the zoo was finally able to use park space for animals. We waited nearly 30 years for the payoff. Unfortunately, the payoff was underwhelming. Not only did the zoo hemorrhage rare species, they also rolled out new exhibits for common species that where still very problematic. Why are we moving giraffes again after building them a brand new barn and yard seemingly yesterday? Why is the newest part of Africa, ie the hippo yard considered a failure already? To me, this is inexcusable.
Then you have the object of my burning hatred, Roo Valley. My lord why? They gutted an area once loaded with rare hoofed stock for a kangaroo walk through and playground. It turns my stomach to even walk past the entrance. I get that the public likes them, but to me it was a cheap, lazy way to update an older area of the park. I just fail to understand how a zoo with so many limitations in terms of space can take itself seriously when it guts animal space to make room for non-animal space as is the outcome here. Just terrible.
In summary, it just feels like a lot of patience and excitement ended in serious disappointment. The rarities left and what they got in return in terms of exhibitry missed the mark. It missed so much that some of the new exhibits are already being repurposed or upgraded. Not a great look or allotment of funds IMO.
Also, as far as the future goes, I have to say I despise the idea of the Veldt becoming a complex for marine animals and polar bears. To me it's a terrible use of space and money. It's going to be more expensive filtration and water features, big fancy windows and likely underwater viewing, on top of yet more goofy theming and playground junk that will inevitably come with it. That's what we got rid of a flagship species like rhinos and soon okapis and zebras for? No thanks. My opinion of a zoo as pressed for space as Cincinnati suddenly allotting precious acreage for North American animals is overwhelmingly negative. I was fine with them being a zoo consisting of mainly African/Asian exotics that people in the area would likely never see outside of books and documentaries.
Where did you hear they are getting rid of rhinos, okpais, and zebras? I'm asking rhetorically because that isn't true at all.
I say it based on recent trends and the fact that future exhibit plans are almost always overly ambitious. I very well understand that they want to put rhinos into the current giraffe yard. It's also a project that's pretty far into the future. As it stands, they have no rhinos.
Also, in Thane's recent video with the keepers, he mentioned an area for rhinos and zebras, maybe bongos in Africa. Okapis were never brought up.
Almost every exhibit they build changes as timelines draw closer to completion. Africa was intended to have baboons and leopards and even nile crocs. What was intended for baboons became additional cheetah holding and the other species never materialized. Elephant Trek started out with a hoofed stock species in the drawings. Now there are none. It's always an overreach.
I've become conditioned to expect less. I could absolutely envision a scenario where they start retrofitting the giraffe area for the Veldt species and one or two go by the wayside. it's not just possible but likely.
It's better to dream big and fall short rather than dream small.
Yes, most of these initial visions may be rather unrealistic in a way, but you never know what's going to happen. It's always best to plan for the ideal, despite the fact that most things are never that.
I visited the Cincy Zoo in 2016 and had no real expectations, other than I wanted to see their insect zoo and the passenger pigeon memorial. This zoo invented the modern insect zoo, and it is excellent. The passenger pigeon memorial is moving.
Overall I really liked the zoo. I don't see what people would hate about it? The main gripes seem to be that they had a better collection back in the good old days. That is probably true of most zoos in North America, if by better collection we mean "they had a lot more species, many of them really rare, crammed into small exhibits that would look completely barbaric in 2025".
Overall I really liked the zoo. I don't see what people would hate about it? The main gripes seem to be that they had a better collection back in the good old days. That is probably true of most zoos in North America, if by better collection we mean "they had a lot more species, many of them really rare, crammed into small exhibits that would look completely barbaric in 2025".
You see, this is actually a great post (I respect admitting you're playing heel upfront) that also includes some praise alongside the criticism, but this fragment of commentary is the sort of stuff that prompted my comment that started the thread.
To me, the complaints on ZooChat came off at times as "a lot less species, many of the remaining ones common, still crammed into small exhibits that look completely barbaric" at times. I have heard complaints ascribing several Cincinnati zoo exhibits as too small - Hippo Cove very notoriously, but also Night Hunters and sometimes the giraffes, previous elephant space, etc. -- and this was a factor in my perception of it as being in some potential trouble. Without actually visiting the zoo, I have little way of knowing how accurate space/size-related complaints are, and some exhibits at any zoo look worse in photography than in person.
That's a perfectly legitimate point, and I respect it. I just don't necessarily share it.
To me, when a species leaves, it's gone until it isn't. There's a lot of assumption involved with what's going to happen in Africa when the giraffes move up the hill. It's somewhat difficult for me to imagine all of those large hoofed stock species fitting into what is currently just the giraffe footprint. We're talking 3 large species in zebra, bongos, and okapis and one species of true megafauna with rhinos.
Also, since I'm playing heel here, what's the obsession with having as many giraffes as possible in the revamped elephant house? It's strange to me that they are expanding the yard from it's current totality with the goal being sheer volume of individual animals. Why? It only irks me because of what I mentioned in the last paragraph. They're either going to lose more species from the Veldt or they're going to cram them into inferior exhibits due to area constraints. It could be the hippos all over again. Could they not be just fine with a half dozen giraffes as opposed to 12? Maybe have zebras or another antelope species move in as well? It's just an odd choice to me.
I get why they won't, but it would have made more sense for the zoo to go all in with a giant hippo exhibit in that area. They've made hippos a major focal point and their exhibit quality is not great. I'm sure it has everything to do with filtration and underwater viewing and combined overall cost. Still, that's not going to prevent the decision makers in Cincinnati from embarking on what will be a massive expense in creating complex for animals with not dissimilar issues for polar bears and seals/sea lions. They could have all the hippos they want in the area they're using for giraffes.
Well, it's interesting, because many people have taken issue with the size of the enclosures in Night Hunters. Many people have also lamented the decline in the building's (and the zoo's overall) collection of small mammals. Then, all of a sudden, those exact same people have nothing but positive things to say about Night Hunters. Weird, isn't it?
Like many buildings and areas of the zoo, it's been repurposed many times since it's original incarnations. I'm old enough to have seen actual lions and tigers in that building when I was a little kid. When it re-opened as a (mostly) small Cat House, it was still holding pumas, jaguars, Persian leopards, and snow leopards.
Like many of Cincinnati's efforts, it's a "baby steps" scenario for me. It's a bad place to house cats of just about any size. I would like to see it used as a reptile building at some point. It could never house large crocodilians, but it might be ideal for big snakes and lizards. The zoo would do well do get a legitimate reptile building. Frankly I can't think of a lot else that the building would be suited for.
I could have sworn the plan was to move okapis to the new Giraffe Tower development and redevelop Giraffe Ridge for black rhinos, bongos and zebras, which honestly would be the best possible approach for maintaining all those species.
It certainly feels weird sometimes.
One of the most uncomfortable things about this hobby is that there is a difficult to avoid tension between keeping a high number of species and large, high-quality megafauna exhibits, and space-constrained zoos like Cincinnati are ultimately in a lose-lose situation, especially bearing in mind at a zoo with less space available, the general public is not going to care about spacious exhibits for lesser-known species, making it harder to prioritize them. Consequently if you hear about a species decline and inferior exhibits at once, the zoo is going to sound pretty awful since those are the two main criterion ZooChat is invested in.