What will be the best zoo in 2015?

What will be the best zoo in 2015?

  • Total voters
    77
BlackRhino said:
I never rated Detroit above San Diego, and the only reason I personally rate Cleveland so high is because it is my home zoo, and I have gotten to know the staff there really well. If I wasn't being biased Cleveland would be much lower, although once are new elephant habitat opens, which should be amazing, Cleveland should go up much more. One new set of exhibits can make a zoo much better, and Cleveland's elephant exhibit will change the whole front portion of the zoo, and be much more African Savanna themed then a badly outdated depressing pachyderm house.
Click to expand...

Well why wouldn't Detroit be higher than SD? It does have the knock your socks off exhibit that SD doesn't have in your view? So your rating system changes after the #1 spot? If a US zoo existed that had a CCF/Artic Ring of Life caliber exhibit or better, and the rest of the zoo was better than the Bronx, would SD then be ranked higher than the Bronx because your standards apparently change after the top spot?

What if Bronx didn't have CGF, who would be #1 then?
 
look in the buget dream zoo thread and snowleopard and i have described the perfect zoo
 
Hi there,
So far I have only seen two requirements to have the best zoo... exhibits and animals. Personally, management style, animal care,staff, conservation and research projects, and education of guests should be considered as well. Perhaps they have an older exhibit, which they do not have the money to change, but what they can change is how the animals are managed. Training styles, enrichment, vet services, keeper knowledge, all play a major role in quality of life for the animal. The best zoo to me has the best staff, who is diligently looking for better ways to care and manage their animals... not just what their exhibit looks like. You can have a flashy exhibit, but unless you have an innovative staff of keepers even the flashy exhibit becomes boring.
The top zoo also has to impact globaly, not just locally. For example, perhaps not on exhibit but behind the scenes they are breeding a rare species for reintroduction. Or are collaborating with researchers in Africa to try and find a solution of the elephant/human conflict.

As for DAK, yes they are a zoo. Ask anyone in the field and they will say yes. Not only is it a great zoo, but they spend a lot of money doing research as well funding various conservation projects.

As for SDWAP and SDZOO... they are the same company. So are you considering them seperate or together? The master plan is for both facilities... so some years money is spent at the zoo on exhibits... others it's at the WAP.

As for the theme park issue... it gets people coming back. The target market is different for all attractions to try and bring a wider variety of guests. The more money brought through the front door the more money for the animals. There is a direct correlation.
 
DAK is a zoo within a theme park, so ultimately it's a theme park imo.

SDZoo and WAP are considered separately.
 
mweb08 said:
DAK is a zoo within a theme park, so ultimately it's a theme park imo.
Click to expand...

I disagree, it is a theme park around animals in the same way that Regent's Park was originally a garden around animals, yet do you dispute the fact that london zoological gardens is a zoo? In fact, it is often considered the first true zoo, so, whether a theme park or not, if animals are the star attraction then DAK - or anywhere else similar - should, in my opinion, be considered a zoo.
 
I don't know anything about Regent's Park or London Zoo.

I'm not sure if the animals are the star attraction at DAK. At least to many of the people who visit, I don't think they are. The rides and shows and such are atleast as big as attrations if not more to many of their visitors.
 
mweb08 said:
I don't know anything about Regent's Park or London Zoo.

I'm not sure if the animals are the star attraction at DAK. At least to many of the people who visit, I don't think they are. The rides and shows and such are atleast as big as attrations if not more to many of their visitors.
Click to expand...

Note the name: Disney's Animal Kingdom. The whole park is dedicated to animals, over 1000 of which are live and living in - for the most part very well designed - exhibits. Yes, there are also rides which compliment/insult these, but even they relate back to animals in one form or another. So yes, DAK's star attraction are animals whether they are alive, extinct or imagined and there are exhibits for the live ones throughout the park. As such, I see just as strong an argument in that which says DAK is not a theme park but, in reality, it is a bit of both and therefore does, in my opinion, qualify as a zoo in the same way that salt water is still water - just a bit different to what you might expect.
 
redpanda said:
Note the name: Disney's Animal Kingdom. The whole park is dedicated to animals, over 1000 of which are live and living in - for the most part very well designed - exhibits. Yes, there are also rides which compliment/insult these, but even they relate back to animals in one form or another. So yes, DAK's star attraction are animals whether they are alive, extinct or imagined and there are exhibits for the live ones throughout the park. As such, I see just as strong an argument in that which says DAK is not a theme park but, in reality, it is a bit of both and therefore does, in my opinion, qualify as a zoo in the same way that salt water is still water - just a bit different to what you might expect.
Click to expand...

The whole park is not dedicated to animals, they have roller coasters, or at least one, various rides, and shows that don't include animals, and no people playing animals don't count. You can highlight the word animal, but why don't you ask them what they consider themselves. I'll save you the time, the answer is a theme park. They have 13 pics on their front page, only one has an animal in it.

Yes, the theme park has zoo exhibits, but as a whole, it's a theme park.
 
mweb08 said:
The whole park is not dedicated to animals, they have roller coasters, or at least one, various rides, and shows that don't include animals, and no people playing animals don't count. You can highlight the word animal, but why don't you ask them what they consider themselves. I'll save you the time, the answer is a theme park. They have 13 pics on their front page, only one has an animal in it.

Yes, the theme park has zoo exhibits, but as a whole, it's a theme park.
Click to expand...

It is dedicated to animals, the park's theme revolves around them and therefore everything in it reflects this. Perhaps they call themselves a theme park, but Marwell call themselves a "wildlife", the definition of which is "Wild animals and vegetation, especially animals living in a natural, undomesticated state". This is called marketing, as is Disney promoting themselves to theme park fans - something there are far more of than us zoochatters. And you admit that it does have zoo exhibits so can, at the very least, be rated on these.
 
Yeah, I have no problem rating their exhibits, I just wouldn't call it a zoo. I wouldn't have a problem seeing someone rank in it their top 10 zoos or whatever if they only considered the zoo elements as well.
 
mweb08 said:
Yeah, I have no problem rating their exhibits, I just wouldn't call it a zoo. I wouldn't have a problem seeing someone rank in it their top 10 zoos or whatever if they only considered the zoo elements as well.
Click to expand...

We'll leave it at that then ;)
 
It truely is amazing to me that you wouldn't think of DAK as a zoo. If you look at the who's who of AZA, ABMA, EMA, IMATA, AZAK, ect Disney is very well represented. They are a highly respected zoo in the field. In fact, one of the best as far as the zoo community is concerned. San Diego Society (both campuses) and DAK are the top of the heap as far as I'm concerned. To be honest I am surprised at the zoos listed. A few good exhibits doesn't make a world class zoo, not anymore.
 
elliegirl said:
It truely is amazing to me that you wouldn't think of DAK as a zoo. If you look at the who's who of AZA, ABMA, EMA, IMATA, AZAK, ect Disney is very well represented. They are a highly respected zoo in the field. In fact, one of the best as far as the zoo community is concerned. San Diego Society (both campuses) and DAK are the top of the heap as far as I'm concerned. To be honest I am surprised at the zoos listed. A few good exhibits doesn't make a world class zoo, not anymore.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's truely amazing that I agree with what Disney calls DAK.

Anyway, what zoos are you shocked appear on the poll and what would you replace them with?
 
Sometimes I truly wonder why San Diego is so highly ranked. Okay, they have a huge PR department and budget, that might help, but some of their enclosures and keeping records are not exactly impressive. I remember how badly they kept the Sumatran rhinos, I think the gorilla enclosure is pretty bad compared to others (the size of the waterfall is ridicolous), the bear "grottos" (still exisisting ?) are horrible and now I hear that the new elephant habitat is a failure as well. Don't get me wrong, I like San Diego and have been there several times since the eighties, but I don't know, if they are really as good as they might think themselves they are...
 
You hit the nail on the head. PR and marketing department. If other zoos had as big of a department then we would regard them in the same light or even better than San Diego.
 
Saro said:
Sometimes I truly wonder why San Diego is so highly ranked. Okay, they have a huge PR department and budget, that might help, but some of their enclosures and keeping records are not exactly impressive. I remember how badly they kept the Sumatran rhinos, I think the gorilla enclosure is pretty bad compared to others (the size of the waterfall is ridicolous), the bear "grottos" (still exisisting ?) are horrible and now I hear that the new elephant habitat is a failure as well. Don't get me wrong, I like San Diego and have been there several times since the eighties, but I don't know, if they are really as good as they might think themselves they are...
Click to expand...

The gorilla exhibit is actually quite good. There's not many grottoes that are still used for bears, but yes, there are a decent amount in general. These aren't necessarily bad exhibits, but sure, they could be a lot better.

The elephant exhibit and overall complex is a failure in certain respects, but it's a huge upgrade to what they had and the common zoo visitors seem to really like it. It's just some of us more picky zoo fans would have liked to have seen things done differently.

They are also currently upgrading the panda area and in the process giving the red pandas a huge upgrade from their awful cage.

I agree that it is far from perfect, but there are a lot of really good to great aspects of it and they have a superb collection.
 
Last edited:
Saro said:
Sometimes I truly wonder why San Diego is so highly ranked.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll give you a few reasons. Start with the best animal collection in North America -- and one of the best in the world. Add in the unbelievably beautiful tropical grounds, and the long hours that the Zoo is open. A huge factor is that they are America's only Zoo with both giant pandas and koalas, the 2 biggest "key" animals. They've also got the biggest collection of both of these animals. With two enormous walk-through aviaries, they have the best set of bird exhibits (and collection) of any zoo. Their Reptile collection and exhibits are also the best in the USA. With the giant pandas, Sun Bear Forest, and Polar Bear Plunge, they are easily the best bear zoo too.

When it comes to extras, they have animal shows that are "Sea World quality". Their doubledecker bus tour is both fun and totally unique, and the high-flying Sky Ride is simply amazing! Their Children's Zoo is Top 10 level quality, and they also have very good restaurants.

The bottom line: The San Diego Zoo is so good because it doesn't just compete with other zoos for attention, it's competing with Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm, and Sea World for customers.
 
I have to disagree, but that is of course just my personal opinion. The gorilla enclosure has been criticized here before. I remember it so full of electric wire, that gorillas had problems to move without getting zapped every few steps. It was extremely expensive, in large part due to this stupid waterfall. Many other enclosures at other zoos are way better. The bear grottoes really are bad - no substrates, very small and so on. Yes, giant pandas and koalas are very high profile, but they are also among the most boring species possible and at least the way the koalas are presented is pretty dull as well.

Question is, do you have to have the biggest collection to be the best (top) zoo ? Even for the price of some very rare species in some pretty bad cages? The Berlin zoo and Tierpark are examples of zoos with similar problems. Others are not as big but overall way better. Personally, I would rank Woodland Park or Bronx higher than San Diego and I have not even been to Miami or Audubon which have a pretty good reputation as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top