A better way to measure a zoo?
LONG POST WARNING...
The majority of posts I've seen in this thread seem to focus on physical plant (enclosures and design). I believe measuring any zoo or oceanarium by those standards alone can be misleading.
It can also be misleading to judge any facility entirely on whether they're accredited by AZA, CAZA, or whoever. These agencies, for all the good they do, are not perfect in their own right and could do with taking some constructive criticism as well.
There are LOTS of other factors that come into play when looking at any zoo or oceanarium: How healthy the animals appear, how they interact with their environment, how the zoo staff do their jobs, the overall appearance of the park, how well they take care of visitors... well, you get the idea.
Let's start with The Alabama Gulf Coast Zoo as one example. You've probably seen or heard at least something about them. They've survived and rebuilt through no fewer than three hurricanes with practically no losses in terms of their animals. They were the leading feature in the series "The Little Zoo that Could." They are a registered non-profit and, as one might imagine of such, constantly strapped for cash.
They're also small. You can walk the entire park in an hour or two, and the enclosures (notably for the big cats) are not the biggest or fanciest. However, they are very well maintained, and the animals are among the healthiest I've ever had the pleasure of seeing. Visitors are not ignored either. There are ample shady spots, with benches, and drinking fountains are present at the restrooms.
If you visit, watch the big cats for a while. You'll notice a couple of things. Not only is there NO pacing behavior whatsoever, but the critters are actually WATCHING THE PUBLIC as much as the public is watching them (probably more so, in some cases). Just as one example, my wife and I have watched one of the tigers actually interacting, of their own free will, with groundskeepers who are working outside their enclosure.
The keepers will readily and honestly answer any question put to them, no matter how politically twitchy or uncomfortable it might be, and the degree of caring they all show for the animals is something I think any zoo could learn from.
Does the place have shortcomings? Of course they do, mainly related to available space. Most of that aspect will likely be addressed when they move to their new (and more hurricane-resistant) spot in 2012.
Now, for all this goodness, for all the enrichment they provide their animals, and for the fact they've been entrusted with (and eminently successful at) raising some of the rarest and most endangered tiger species in the world, one interesting fact stands out.
They are not accredited by AZA.
Why? Mainly because one of the requirements AZA imposes for accreditation is that you cannot, under any conditions, hand-raise any animal outside of domestics or orphan rehab. This zoo has been incredibly successful at hand-raising tigers for as long as they've been in existence, and I know they're doing so for other critters as well.
At the time we were there, they had a publicly-available tiger-cub encounter program that not only helps raise funds to keep the zoo going (they're a registered non-profit), but was second to none in program quality and allowed time with the cats. They're also in the process of developing similar programs for (to start with) lemurs and kangaroos.
Whatever you may think of such pay-to-play programs, they serve at least two extremely valuable purposes, outside of fund-raising, IF they are well done (and this zoo does do them right): They greatly increase a visitor's appreciation of the animal(s) involved and, perhaps more importantly, they make for an animal that will be much better socialized to strangers in any sort of public presentation environment.
This makes for a calmer animal overall, which makes for greater safety for handler and public alike in the long run. Tell me that's a Bad Thing, and I'll happily tell you you're out of your gourd.
Let's take another example: The "Zoo of Northwest Florida," formerly known as the Gulf Breeze Zoo. Although they are greatly loved by many of the locals, and have done a fair job of weathering the same hurricanes that battered the Alabama park, to visit the place is an exercise in learning how NOT to run a zoo.
First problem: Pacing behavior. You'll likely see it any time their leopard or lions are awake and roaming their enclosures. If the cats are asleep, just check the ground along the perimeter of the fence. You'll see a generous assortment of well-worn areas just about the right size for a cat walking endlessly around.
Second: No drinking fountains anywhere in the park, and only ONE (overpriced) soda machine at the far end. Very few benches or shady spots to sit.
Third: Massive problems with internal politics and power struggles, both to the overall detriment of the animal residents. Details on these and other issues can be found at this link:
http://www.pensapedia.com/wiki/The_Zoo_Northwest_Florida
Googling will locate other material, I'm sure.
Fourth: If you can find a keeper, they'll probably be reasonably honest in answering questions. Finding one (or ANYone who can answer questions), however, is the problem. If the zoo has volunteers or docents, I didn't see any. Answering some specific questions I had about their raptors took a radio call from the gift shop and a 20 minute wait. Even then, it turned out the info I got was wrong. It took a follow-up E-mail to the lead keeper to get my questions accurately answered.
Fifth: Descriptive signs for many exhibits are missing completely, or been so poorly maintained they're illegible. Empty exhibits are widespread.
And yet, for all these issues, this zoo presents a deceptively "cozy" appearance to the uninitiated visitor. Granted, many people don't stay that long, especially during the summer season when heat exhaustion is a real threat. However, the place does not look that bad on initial entry. It takes a reasonably skilled eye to see the real problems.
Here's the interesting part: They used to be AZA-accredited, years ago. They lost it, due to poor practices that flared when the original owner gave up the place, and never got it back.
The moral of the story: When you plan to decide if a zoo is "good" or "bad," don't fixate on one factor: Look at more than just the enclosures. Look at more than just the grounds. Look beyond accreditation, or lack thereof. Look at how healthy (or not) the animals are, both physically and mentally. Look at how the staff does their jobs. Look at everything you can think of, and then try to think of something more.
Then, and only then, will you really have enough info to make a judgment call.
Happy travels.
In regards to the West Edmonton Mall, I'm beginning to suspect that you work there as I've rarely ever heard anything positive about the animal facilities from zoo fans. The place has come a long way since the days of cougars, black bears and tigers in tanks during the 1980's, but out of almost 75 zoos, wildlife parks and aquariums that I have visited in my life I'd say that the West Edmonton Mall (of which I have visited many times) is probably in the bottom 5 facilities. A few years ago the tiny glass flamingo tank was surrounded by yelling, noisy shoppers and I definitely felt sorry for the tropical birds. If the flamingos have since disappeared then that is terrific news, and now it is time to get the penguins out of their crappy little exhibit!
On a personal plus for me, if these people can find work in zoos, I can.
